A case for Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa

The Frontier Post
Abdul Hadi Mayar

Literally the second largest nationality of Pakistan, the Pakhtuns have every legal and political right to have an identity of their own. On the contrary, the resentment, shown in parts of Hazara division to the renaming of NWFP as Pakhtunkhwa is totally devoid of any legal justification. Neither the call for a separate Hazara province has any legal or constitutional validity. The demand for the integration of Pakhtun-dominated areas of Pakistan and renaming of their area according to the ethnic identity of Pakhtuns has a history of more than six decades. There is no denying the fact that prior to the partition of the Subcontinent, majority of the Pakhtuns in the fold of Khudayee Khidmatgar movement of Khan Abdul Ghaffar Khan (Bacha Khan) and Khan Shaheed Abdul Samad Khan Achakzai were against the division of India. However, they were not alone in favouring a united India. After all, Jamiat Ulema-e-Hind (the mother organisation of Jamiat Ulema-e Islam) and the Jamaat-e-Islami are also on record of opposing the creation of Pakistan. Right or wrong, these and other Indian politicians, like Maulana Abul Kalam Azad, argued that such a thing would divide the might of the Muslims of the Subcontinent. However, once the country was established, the Pakhtun nationalist movement had embraced the new reality with an open heart. Going by their overwhelming victory in the 1937 general election, the Khudayee Khidmatgar [Surkhposh] movement could have subverted the outcome of referendum for Pakistan, hadn’t they opted to stay away from it. Even after the creation of Pakistan, Bacha Khan had made patch up with Quaid-e-Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah and a programme was evolved under which the Father of the Nation was scheduled to visit Shahi Bagh - the residence of Bacha Khan in Charsadda, which was later changed into Wali Bagh. However, as the Quaid-e-Azam arrived at Peshawar Airport, the then Pakistan Muslim League leaders in the NWFP convinced him that Bacha Khan planned to kill him at his residence, thus forcing him not to meet the Pakhtun leader and return to Karachi. In fact, the NWFP-based PML leaders could foresee their fate if a populist party, like the Khudayee Khidmatgar movement, had joined forces with the Quaid-e-Azam. Otherwise, it is no less than a proverb that the Pakhtuns never harm, let along kill, their guest. That Bacha Khan had accepted the reality of Pakistan could be substantiated by many evidences. He would have never called Punjab as Big Brother if he was against the existence of Pakistan. In his autobiography, he even goes to the extent of saying - while citing the marriage of one his grand daughters with a Punjabi man - that his family does not believe in racial discrimination. That he was always painted as a traitor was only on the basis of the bias, which the then Pakistani power circles had against him on account of his liberal social democratic politics, which the power that be considered as a stumbling block in the way of its power game based on theocratic politicking. Realities in distant and recent past have clearly shown that even those among the Pakhtuns who, in the past, had been dubbed as traitors, have proved their patriotism when the time has come while those whom the power circles had empowered as ‘strategic assets’ for outpowering anti-theocratic nationalist forces have been turning against the state. In Pakistan, the Pakhtuns have a population of more than 35 million, which makes them the second biggest nationality of Pakistan after the Punjabis. However, right from the British era, they have been divided on the basis of NWFP, Balochistan, FATA, and PATA. There is no harm to Islam or Pakistan if such a big human community is granted the right to be united and bestowed with their own identity. Rather, it would create a sense of more responsibility in them. Pakhtuns and Afghans are the name of the same nation. If we go by history Khushhal Khan Khattak and other ancient Pakhtun writers have described them as Afghans. However, giving a name to their area - whether it is Pukhtunkhwa or Afghania - can, in no way, bracket them with Afghanistan. If, by retaining the name of Punjab, the people of the Punjab have not been linked with India, then how can the Pakhtuns get affiliated with Afghanistan by giving them a name of their choice? In the NWFP, the Pakhtuns comprise 73 per cent of the total population of the province while the remaining 27 per cent include the Hindko speaking people, the Siraikis and the Chitralis. Therefore, they have every right to rename their province according to their wishes. As for the opposition of the people of some parts of Hazara division to the name of Pakhtunkhwa or Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa, they would have definitely been justified in their opposition if the Pakhtuns had made the demand on the basis of any bias or hostility against them. Being a larger nationality of Pakistan, the Pakhtuns have never had any bias against the Hindko speaking people nor is demand for their identity based on hostility towards the people of Hazara. Whether in Hazara or other parts of NWFP, the Pakhtu and Hindko speaking people have always had excellent relations with each other. Secondly, being in majority in the NWFP, the Pakhtuns have every right to rename the province according to their wishes. The number of Pakhtuns in Punjab, Sindh and Balochistan is almost more than that of Hindko speaking people in the NWFP. Then, should the Pakhtuns in those provinces also demand to rename those provinces in line with their wishes? On the other hand, the demand for Hazara province has no legal or constitutional position. Hazara consists of five districts i.e. Haripur, Abbottabad, Mansehra, Kohistan, and Batagram, besides the semi-tribal area of Kala Dhaka. Batagram and Kala Dhaka are totally Pakhtun districts while in Kohistan they are in majority with no Hindko speaking population. In Mansehra too, the Pakhtuns are in slight majority. Only two districts i.e. Abbottabad and Haripur, are Hindko-dominated districts but there too the Pakhtun live in sufficient number. Therefore, on what basis can the people of just two-and-a-half districts demand a separate province? Even the 1973 Constitution says that any demand for a separate province can be entertained only if the concerned provincial assembly passes a resolution to this effect with two-thirds majority. Therefore, while the Pakhtuns have every right to rename their province according to their wishes, the people of Hazara have no legal and constitutional right to demand a separate province. To subvert general will is very easy in a polity like Pakistan; only a few violent protest demonstrations and offering the sacrifice of a few human beings can do that, but depriving the second largest majority of their genuine political right can never be in tandem with political and constitutional justice. hadimayar@yahoo.com
Saved from: http://www.thefrontierpost.com/News.aspx?ncat=ar&nid=242&ad=15-04-201
Dated: Thursday, April 15, 2010, Rabi Ul Sani 29, 1431 A.H.