December 24, 2005

HOW are countries or cities named? Is there some meaning or rationale behind the nomenclature given to a defined geographical entity or does it come about as a result of the whims of a person or some other innocuous reason. It is rather difficult to answer this question with precision. One thing is however certain: Every name given to a country has profound significance and meaning for its inhabitants as it gives them a personality and an identity.

The trans-Indus area up to the Durand line was named as the North-West Frontier Province in 1901 when with tireless efforts of Lord Curzon — the erudite Viceroy of India — the new province was carved out of the area controlled by the province of the Punjab. At that time Lord Curzon’s efforts were concentrated on the creation of this new province as his scheme was vehemently opposed by the Lt-Governor of the Punjab, Mackworth Young, who was not prepared to let this area go out of his domain.

Curzon also had to convince the home government at London of the efficacy of his scheme as at first it seemed indifferent to his idea but was drawn to it as a result of the relevance of his idea to the objective conditions that obtained at that time and by the force of argument advanced by him.

The viceroy was also obliged to pull some influential strings back at home, from behind the scene. Once the province came into being, Curzon did not care what his creation was named. In fact North-West Frontier Province made perfect sense at that time as it was the last post of the British Raj in the north-west of their Indian empire. The people of the area also did not mind the nomenclature as their only ambition and desire was to have a province of their own which would give them a distinct identity.

The important objective that a name serves is that it immediately establishes the identity of the person without much ado about other details. For instance, if a person says that he comes from Germany, it is presumed, and rightly so, that he will be a German. Similarly if the person you are talking to is from Spain he will be taken to be a Spaniard. In the context of our own country, if some one introduces himself to be coming from the Sindh province, he will be taken to be a Sindhi. And so a Punjabi from the province of Punjab and a Baloch from Balochistan province.

The difficulty arises when you meet a stranger who introduces himself to be from the North-West Frontier Province. If you are a foreigner and not well familiar with the geography of the country you will perforce have to consult an atlas to establish the place of origin of your interlocutor. And in this case, the name does not identify a racial or an ethnic amalgam.

However, this is understandable as Pakistan is not inhabited by a body of people belonging to one racial or ethnic entity. But why this dichotomy in the case of the NWFP which, but for a tiny linguistic minority, is inhabited by a people belonging to one single racial and linguistic entity. To understand this one has to go back to 1947 when India was partitioned and a new country appeared on the world map.

As said earlier, during the British Raj, the people of the Frontier were satisfied in having a province which gave them an identity of their own and satisfied their sense of pride. They were not bothered by whatever name their province was called. Also they were preoccupied with other important matters, the major one being a struggle against foreign domination and alien rule.

This being over with the establishment of Pakistan, the “name issue” came to the fore and was earnestly taken up by the nationalist elements in the province. This proved both a blessing and a handicap. Blessing in the sense that the movement received a tremendous response because of the popularity of these elements in the masses and a drawback because they were unjustifiably accused by interested elements of extra-territorial connection and sympathy. This caused a setback to the progress of the movement.

The matter was further complicated by the misplaced and misguided “Pushtunistan slogan” raised by the not-so-friendly Afghan government. Over a period of time the word Pushtunistan, which in fact meant the land of the Pushtuns, became taboo and any one uttering it was dubbed as an unpatriotic person — in fact a traitor.

After 58 years of independence and many turmoils in the political landscape of Pakistan including the most tragic separation of the eastern part of the country, where do we stand on this issue? To some, it may be a non-issue while to others particularly the people of the Frontier it is an emotional issue for it gives them and their province the due recognition.

For them it also involves a very important principle” — is the superior authority, in the case of Pakistan the Federal Government at Islamabad, sympathetically inclined to accept the genuine demand of the people of one of the federating units articulated in a most democratic manner? Here I am referring to the many resolutions passed by the NWFP assembly demanding changing name of the province.

I have deliberately made a reference to the separation of erstwhile East Pakistan since this tragic event occurred because the powers that be did not respect the wishes and aspirations of the people of the eastern wing of the country which forced them to consider other options. I hope that those at the helm of affairs at present would have learnt a lesson from our past blunders and follies and would avoid repeating them because this weakened country cannot afford to sustain another jolt of this magnitude.

Some time back there was a lively debate in the press about a new name for the Frontier province as the current name is just a geographical expression and has lost its relevance after the creation of Pakistan. It also does not portray the correct ethnic and linguistic composition of the province as is the case with the other provinces. Abaseen (the Indus), Khyber and some other names were suggested but there was almost a consensus on “Pukhtunkhawa” which means the land of the Pukhtuns and does not carry the stigma of Pushtunistan. This seems most appropriate and has the support of the majority of the people of the province.

It will not be out of place to mention here that at this juncture a great responsibility rests on the shoulders of the federal government for being the custodian of the federating units. While it has to safeguard the sovereignty and security of the country as a whole, it is required to respect and honour the sentiments of the people of the federating units.

This can be ensured by giving them autonomy in matters which directly concern them. Federations are successfully run if consensus is sought and practised as the basic principle to settle matters of the federating units. Unfortunately, Pakistan does not have an enviable record in this respect. However, one hopes that the leadership has learnt its lessons and would give due consideration to the wishes of the people whether it is the case of changing the name of the Frontier province, construction of big dames or other matters which directly concern the provinces and the future of its people.

The writer is a former ambassador.

Please Visit our Sponsor (Ads open in separate window)