‘Pakistan is a free state, but the people of Pakistan are not free. This situation has given rise to the nationalistic feelings among the smaller provinces,’ argues Prof Ghafoor Ahmed
PROFESSOR Ghafoor Ahmed, of the Muttahidda Majlis-e-Amal (MMA), believes that Punjab is as much a victim of lopsided development as are the other three provinces. This mass-scale lopsided development plus the suppression of are together behind the rise of nationalistic tendencies, he says. The following are the excerpts from the interview:
Q. How do you perceive the concept of nationalism in Pakistan? Is it a harmful tendency or a positive notion?
A. Pakistan has four provinces, and, according to the Constitution, they should be provided every facility to develop their cultures, languages and traditions. But I am sorry to say that since the very beginning, the provinces have been deprived of their due constitutional rights. The Concurrent List was included in the 1973 Constitution with the promise that these would be transferred to the provinces after ten years. That has not been done.
The complaint of the provinces that they are ruled by Islamabad is genuine. They lack the feeling of participation, and are denied their constitutional rights. The provincial languages are also not given due weight. The resultant suffocation has given an opportunity to the extremists to play with the sentiments of the people and openly propagate against the integrity and solidarity of Pakistan. If things are not set right, the extremists will gain ground and the country’s solidarity will be endangered.
Q. Do you believe that those who try to push down the throat of others their own cultural values as ‘aggressive’ nationalists and those who resist such attempts as ‘protective’ nationalists?
A. Pakistan is a free state, but the people of Pakistan are not free. They have passed half of the country’s independence under martial law directly, and the remaining half under an indirect pressure from the GHQ, giving the elected governments no chance to do justice to the provinces. That is why they (the provinces) have been crying foul all the time.
I think every province has its due rights, and the suppression of these lawful and constitutional rights is unjustified. It is neither in the favour of the country nor in the interest of its solidarity. There is no denying the fact that Islam is the only factor that can unite all the four provinces, but the name of Islam itself has always been exploited and has been used to perpetrate Islamabad’s rule.
Q. What kind of nationalism do you think Ponam is promoting?
A. Ponam, I think, is a group of extremists who do not have any public following worth mentioning. In all the smaller provinces, there are nationalist parties that have a following, but PONAM extremists are an exception. That is why they never succeed in elections. I think that they can do more harm than good to the country.
Q. But they also talk of the denial of provincial rights?
A. Yes. But they want independence, and don’t want to remain within Pakistan.
Q. Does your party have any problems with the kind of nationalism that is being seen in the three smaller provinces?
A. These extremist parties don’t have any following. The MMA has the majority in the two smaller provinces of the NWFP and Balochistan. People are happy with them, as they are trying to solve the problems of the people. The area of their working, however, is very limited because the provinces have very limited constitutional rights and can not work properly unless the Federation cooperates with them.
Q. Does nationalism, in your opinion, have anything to do with the controversy of Kalabagh Dam?
A. I can’t deny it. It is very much an issue, and it is so because of the prevailing sense of deprivation and lack of participation among the smaller provinces. Even the elected governments have not done justice to the provinces. There is, therefore, a lot of heart-burning. They are continuously denied their constitutional rights, and it is bound to have very serious consequences.
The Dam has been made a political issue by the government. Undoubtedly, it is necessary that water must be reserved for distribution when it is needed, but the views of the provinces must be paid heed to, and necessary design modifications must be incorporated. Otherwise, some other dam project may be considered. The solidarity of Pakistan is more important than the site of a dam.
Q. Do you think feudal vested interests are behind the controversy, as many believe they are?
A. As I said, the NWFP and Sindh have serious reservations against the project, and they have put up their case in a scientific manner. It is the duty of the government to try to understand their point of view, modify the design or look for some other site.
Q. Do you see some linkage between the rise of nationalistic tendencies in the provinces and the element of lopsided development in the country?
A. I think this is not confined to the smaller provinces alone. It is also applicable to Punjab. In the interior of Punjab, deprivation rules as much as it does anywhere else in the country. They don’t get sufficient development funds for health and education, for instance. This is a common across the country. Among other things, the lopsided development has given rise to dacoities and kidnappings. And it may have further consequences as well.
Q. Is nationalism, no matter of what kind, a threat to the interests of the state?
A. I think the federalist parties are still popular. The PPP, for instance, is still popular in interior Sindh, while the MMA is popular in the NWFP and Balochistan.
Q. Do you think the ‘nations’ constituting Pakistan have enough of commonalities to co-exist and cooperate?
A. The only factor that can keep the federation together is Islam, though not of the kind that indulges in the exploitation of the nomenclature.
‘Pakistan is a free state, but the people of Pakistan are not free. This situation has given rise to the nationalistic feelings among the smaller provinces,’ argues Prof Ghafoor Ahmed 
