Daily Times

In one of my earlier articles in this paper, I proposed dialogue between the Urdu speaking residents of Sindh and the majority Sindhi population to promote peaceful political existence, social harmony and unity to plug the current fissures in the province; address its chronic development problems and protect its genuine economic rights within the federation and federal departments. I floated this proposal with good intentions after thorough study of the post-independence history of the province. The proposal triggered an enlightening discussion in the social media.

What flowed from this discussion were three points of view. There is a clear majority of intellectuals and political activists supporting the process of dialogue. They say that Sindh acquired a unique position after the inception of the country accommodating the largest number of the Urdu speaking refugees from India and housing the Federal Government in its capital city. The central leadership of the Pakistan Muslim League took certain wrong steps that sowed the seeds of division in the provinces as elaborated in my earlier articles. The Evacuee Property Scheme, mired in corruption and abuse of authority, provided an impetus for further migration from India into Sindh. Later, all the provinces of West Pakistan were amalgamated into one-unit. However, from the inception of the country to the dissolution of one-unit, the Mohajirs enjoyed more perks and privileges of power and held more positions in the bureaucracy as compared to the indigenous Sindhi population. Whilst the Sindhi intellectuals and political activists were struggling against one-unit, the feudal class of Sindh was in league with the rulers and bureaucracy to share power disregarding the deprivation and sufferings of the common Sindhi population. This promoted the nationalist politics in the province like in East Pakistan. The Urdu speaking population was aloof of the genuine demand of the majority Sindhis for the restoration of their province. This widened the gulf between the two communities.

In the first direct elections in 1970, the Sindhis voted en mass for Pakistan People’s Party while the Mohajirs in Karachi and Hyderabad supported Jamaat Islami and Jamiat Ulma-e- Pakistan ignoring the calls of ethnic groups like that of Nawab Muzaffar Khan. However, the PPP polled millions of votes under the leadership of Mairaj Muhammad Khan, Kamal Azfar, Abdul Sattar Gabol and many other Urdu and Baloch speaking and indigenous Memon leaders. Karachi and Hyderabad were adequately represented in the provincial and federal governments formed by the PPP after the secession of East Pakistan. However, the Mohajirs lost the perks and power of earlier 25 years. The polarization between the two communities was not so pronounced until the passing of the Sindhi Language Bill in July 1972 which the Mohajir intellectuals unjustifiably termed as the death of Urdu triggering protests, and the formation of MQM at the behest of dictator Zia in 1984. The MQM was repetitively part of the provincial and federal governments for long years as elaborated earlier. However, it miserably failed to deliver as far as the common Urdu speaking people living in Karachi and Hyderabad were concerned. Only leaders and hardcore office bearers reaped rich dividends.

Behind the slogan of the division of Sindh by Mohajirs, there are many hidden minds which use the MQM as pawns to keep Sindh subdued so as not to lay claim for the ownership of its precious resources

This disillusioned its supporters and sympathizers. Today, the party stands divided into many groups. This has freed the majority of the Urdu speaking population, Memons, Kachhis, Gujratis and Kathiawaris being indigenous Sindhis in Karachi from its bloody claws. The process of dialogue could be initiated with these sections of the population of Karachi and Hyderabad to further isolate the groupsthat try to delude Mohajirs by raising the slogan of a separate province. The second view owes a great deal to a majoritarian sense of security or unassailability. This looks like the same majoritarian arrogance which the All India Congress, the English and Wells, the Indonesians, the Malayas, the Northern Sudanese, the Ethiopians, the Georgians, the Serbians were suffering from. Finally, all these nations had to cede parts of their territories or settled their disputes by agreeing to maximum autonomy to an estranged territory. In whatever way we may interpret the inception of Pakistan, East Timor, Singapore, South Sudan, Eretria, Bosnia, autonomous Abkhazia and Northern Ireland, we will come to the bitter truth that the majority communities having the majoritarian arrogance lost the final decisive battle.

What arguments this section proffered were that stalwarts like G.M. Syed, Rasool Bukhsh Palijo and others had repeatedly offered the option of dialogue to the Urdu speaking leaders but in vain. They failed to bring about any change in the UP and CP mindset that considers Sindh as a conquered land or an evacuee property. The separatism is in their blood and they would never accept any coexistence with the majority Sindhis. Behind the slogan of the division of Sindh by Mohajirs, there are many hidden minds which use the MQM as pawns to keep Sindh subdued so as not to lay claim for the ownership of its precious resources. This is highly a generalized view of the Urdu speaking and the indigenous populations living in Karachi. It makes it all the more imperative to start a process of dialogue with this community if certain hidden hands are out to create fissures in our common land or exploit its resources.

The third opinion is that the issue of the division of Sindh seems to be petering out. The majority community should wait and see. This, as John Milton said, is an act of God. The majority community should not show any hyper sensitivity to such slogans. The argument that the Sindh Vision has no mandate or capacity to initiate such dialogue carries weight. A solo flight by Sindh Vision was never suggested. The involvement of all the conscious sons and daughters and political leaders and activists of the land was recommended. As a matter of principle, the majority community and its leadershave more responsibility to avert antagonism by maintaining social harmony, economic justice and equity and peaceful political coexistence in a society. This is the lesson that human history has repeatedly borne out.

The author was a member of the Foreign Service of Pakistan and he has authored two books