WHAT kind of state did Pakistan’s founders envisage — a unitary Muslim nation state, or a multi-national federation of autonomous units? Advocates of a strong centre argue that as a successor state to British India, Pakistan was to retain its unitary administrative character. But British India was not a state; it was a colony. The colonialists did what suited their interests, not their subjects. It is thus strange that colonial models are invoked to this day to resolve basic issues of governance.

They also argue that, as Pakistan was founded on the basis of religion, it can only be kept united by the cementing force of Islam. Yet East Pakistan, with a majority of Pakistan’s Muslims, becoming Bangladesh in 1971 is an apt example of how this argument falls apart. Religion is at best one of many factors — more decisive are common language, culture, history, territory and strategic political interests — which combine to create a community of interest in people of a certain area (ie nation).

Thus, Pakistan can only remain viable and strong if its units enjoy autonomy, control over resources, and political, economic, social and cultural equality. There is no alternative. Yet efforts were made from the start to deny Pakistan’s participating nations their legitimate rights. In East Pakistan, there was the cruel attempt to impose Urdu in 1952, as well as the parity formula by which Bengalis’ numerical majority was nullified. In West Pakistan, the infamous One Unit was coercively imposed, contravening the spirit of the Lahore Resolution of March 23, 1940.

After 1971, Zulfikar Ali Bhutto promised a government based on democratic values and autonomy of the federating units, but the dismissal of the government in Balochistan, the subsequent resignation of the NWFP government, followed by a military operation in Balochistan and arrest of the NAP leadership, made a mockery of the 1973 Constitution. In the 1980s, demand for autonomy was a key feature of the democratic struggle against Zia’s dictatorship. On Aug 2, 1986, the MRD high command unanimously adopted a declaration based on the 1940 resolution. Sadly, it met the same fate as its predecessor, ignored by its very drafters once they came to power.

Pakistan can only remain viable if its units enjoy autonomy.

What did the areas that form Pakistan look like before the British conquest? Sindh was an independent state ruled by the Mirs of Talpur; Balochistan an independent state ruled by the Khanate of Kalat; Punjab an independent state ruled by the Sikhs; and NWFP (now Khyber Pakhtunkhwa) part of Ranjit Singh’s kingdom. Pakistan’s founders did not ignore these realities. The 1940 resolution recognised it, and signalled a restoration of autonomy and sovereignty after British rule ended.

It is also incorrect to say that the federating units were simply demarcated out of administrative convenience during colonial rule, otherwise NWFP would not have been separated from Punjab and Sindh’s demand for separation from Bombay would not have been acceded to. Even assuming British India was a unitary state (though the act of 1935 envisaged a federal structure), it doesn’t mean that Pakistan is too. India, not Pakistan, was the successive state; it retained its seat in the UN; Pakistan had to apply for membership afresh.

The 1940 resolution demanded the establishment of independent states in the north-western and eastern zones of India, the constituent units of which were to be “autonomous and sovereign”. This was amended only with regard to the number of states to be established by the Muslim League conference in Delhi on April 9, 1946. On April 11, it reaffirmed its 1940 position on the nature of constituent units. The idea had been concretised in various deliberations of the League, including a committee established to consider various working schemes for Pakistan — all of which proposed a loose federal structure consisting of a weak centre and highly autonomous units.

Pakistan derives its legitimacy from the popular support the Muslim masses gave it, and the consent of various units to form Pakistan: Bengal and Punjab through their respective parliaments, British Balochistan through Shah-i-Jirgah, and Kalat state through a controversial process of accession. If the units had no right to self-determination, there would have been no need for referendums in NWFP and Sylhet, or to submit the partition proposal to the assemblies.

The fact is that the states surrendered part of their sovereignty to the federation on the basis of the Lahore Resolution guaranteeing their autonomy. It was the subsequent violation of this that led to the disillusionment of many Pakistan Movement stalwarts in later years. Today, Sindh is dissatisfied, KP is agitating and Balochistan is up in arms demanding full autonomy. The same mindset that supports a unitary form of government is again active in undermining the 18th Amendment. This will only further aggravate a volatile situation.

The writer is a member of a political party.

Published in Dawn, August 27th, 2020