Dividing Punjab?

[Fracker]

To me it seems like, this issue is been raise just because they want to divide punjabis. We have presidents, pms, cms from saraiki belt punjab, but yet they haven't done anything, and we have seen like in baluchistan, when someone don't want then he don't do it. whether you have separate province or not. Ok what those Nazims are doing in their cities, why they are not been asked before even raising this issue? why none real facts, figures, budgets etc is putted in front of Pakistani people.


Interestingly those who get votes & become MPAs, or ministers don't even want to stay in their region, just stay in lahore, islamabad. What would you expect from them. 2day they are asking for new province tomorrow don't know what

well sorry, i will not back anything which speaks about dividing muslims, or pakistanis.

 

[Omar1984]

How about we get rid of all the provinces and just be PAKISTAN, that way there wont be Punjab, NWFP, Sindh, Balochistan and people wont say I'm Punjabi, I'm Pakhtoon, I'm Sindhi, I'm Baloch, I'm Saraiki...we'll just say we are PAKISTANIS, and we can refer to each region by city, district, town, and village. For example, Islamabad, Lahore, Karachi, Peshawar, Gwadar, Quetta, Bahawalpur, etc... Who needs provinces anyways, we only have 4 as it is..lets only be Pakistan, lets just be a single unit. FATA (Federally Administered Tribal Areas) and FANA (Federally Administered Northern Areas) need to be included as well. Azad Kashmir should be given a choice of keeping its political setup or be included with the rest of the country as a single unit.

 

[Zob]

one port in KARACHI who takes the royality for goods that come in through the port...assuming ofcourse Karachi will become a province....

second punjab produces the most agriculture and also take the roylaity for it....so then you have a country where one province has 2Rs kii roti and all the other smaller provinces have roti worth 10rs....

i don't see how such royalties are helpful...the only thing that is helpful is demolish the feudal system & encourage people to setup in other provinces if they so wish.....we are pakistanis first & not punjabi,serayki,urdu speaking,balochi pathan.discourage "PROVINCIAL" warfare make everyone work for the betterment of the country!!!

 

[Fracker]

How about we get rid of all the provinces and just be PAKISTAN, that way there wont be Punjab, NWFP, Sindh, Balochistan and people wont say I'm Punjabi, I'm Pakhtoon, I'm Sindhi, I'm Baloch, I'm Saraiki...we'll just say we are PAKISTANIS, and we can refer to each region by city, district, town, and village. For example, Islamabad, Lahore, Karachi, Peshawar, Gwadar, Quetta, Bahawalpur, etc... Who needs provinces anyways, we only have 4 as it is...lets only be Pakistan, lets just be a single unit. FATA (Federally Administred Tribal Areas) and FANA (Federally Adminstred Northern Areas) need to be included as well. Azad Kashmir should be given a choice of keeping its political setup or be included with the rest of the country as a single unit.

Good Suggestion

I don't like any Political leader, especially PPP. But i love a line from PM, when Pakistan won the T20 worldcup, "Main pakistan main jahan b jata, koi apnay aap ko saraiki kehta, punjabi, sindhi, baluchi koi apnay aap ko sunni kehta koi shia, par jiss din pakistan ne T20 jeet liya tu saab ne kehna shurru kar diya PROUD TO BE PAKISTAN", who ever wrote this line should be saluted for this...

 

[Kasrkin]

Indeed it is unfair. In Balochistan, the population is scattered over long distances, hence they claim the resources be distributed based on the area. It is also a very valid demand.

The population of Baluchistan is very small compared to the other provinces and is also the most scattered, which makes providing infrastructure not only much harder but also less fruitful. What happened to 'the needs of many surpass the needs of the few'? But if you still believe it is a valid 'demand' then what can I say?

And I don’t know how you say it helped inter-ethnic integration. What I know is innocent Punjabi folks were identified and killed by the Balochs in various parts of Balochistan.

Again, you are justifying and rationalizing serious crimes in the hopes of crediting your argument. This ethnic and racial violence by the Balochi extremists is the symptom of a greater ill that assails our country and is NOT a result of any righteous indignation felt by these extreme elements and neither is it because the Pakistani nation has done any ‘great wrong’ upon the Baloch people. Baluchistan is under-developed but that is NOT because of some malicious campaign planned by racist Pakistani leaders to rob Baluchistan of ‘their’ resources in order to keep them in poverty. Baluchistan’s situation can be explained as an unfortunate reality that needs to be worked on, but the crimes of these terrorists warlords cannot be explained way with any moral argument. Instead of condemning these acts of horrendous violence as unacceptable and unjustified, you're trying to use it to push your own political agendas.

If there is a morality debate here about the matter of resources to provinces, then you can’t win it by telling me that ‘Baluchi extremists do ethnic cleansing this must mean the system is unfair’. Because it means that the people who make these ‘demands’ are unfair and need to be held responsible for their crimes, not appeased and legitimized.

If distribution of resources results in this kind of ‘inter-ethnic integration’ than I guess I am done with it.

Well, maybe if people like you started working for genuine ethnic respect and harmony instead of pushing half baked demands like 'army should be kept out of Baluchistan' and 'federation should be scrapped' then we might have made more progress. No one said the solution for Pakistan would be an easy one, and certainly not as easy as you're pretending, but I suppose less informed people do fall for your 'give complete resource autonomy to the provinces and everyone would be happy and handy-dandy' theory.

No, democracy gives right to the people not takes it from them. If natural gas comes from the Sui Balochistan, than the royalty must go to Balochsitan so that the money earned could be used for the welfare of the people.

Noboddy 'takes' anything from the Balochi people. The resources mined there could not have been done by the Baluchis themselves, so the involvement of the federal establishment is no sin. In fact such investment is certain to bring development and job opportunities but unfortunately a lack of resources is not the only thing that is keeping the province back. Royalty to Baluchistan is a legitimate proposal but lack of it is not 'immoral' or 'justification for violence' and you do a disservice by trying to show the Pakistani federation as the 'bad guys' or 'oppressors' at every turn. I know for a fact that federal involvement there has helped the local people, more so than if the province had been left completely alone. Friction between power hungry elements and the primitive civil structure makes these problems inevitable since society is undergoing change. But we have to take a balanced, thought out view of these challenges with the best interests of the country at heart.

I can imagine those hurdles, but for how long should we keep giving the same excuse and not fixing the problems?

Your sweeping 'demands' will not fix the problems, only make them worse.

It is going to be even worse if these issues are not settled.

No doubt about that. In every civil society the terrorists elements need to be checked and things should be done through the legal and proper channels. Democracy means that this is something most Pakistani politicians don't care much about, unless they are in the opposition ofcourse when they look for every excuse to scream themselves raw at their 'oppressive' rivals in office.

You can never debate without attacking personally and putting the intelligence of the people to question. I live in USA, where you watch and experience capitalism every minute. And I belong to Balochistan, and my family is a feudal family. Feudalism I have learnt from my family background and capitalism from my own experience while living in the heart of the capitalism.

About that, you should seriously reconsider what you just accused me of. You are in a debate but acting like this won't help your argument. All I said was that you seem to have a distorted view of capitalism given the fact that you were equating it with feudalism. Where was the personal attack in that?

If an Indian comes to the forums and talks about Pakistan as if we were some savage enslaved totalitarian state with completely brain-washed people then I would inform him that his views in regards to Pakistan are distorted. Would you consider that 'personally attacking' as well? If the only thing you desire is for your views and perceptions to be respected and revered then don’t come to a debate. Secondly, you’re the one who persistently introduces the personal element in our debates by suggesting your views should be respected because you are from a feudal background or that you are Baluchi. Well then, how am I supposed to counter that? If I point out that given your background it is also possible that you’ve inherited a bias or constricted point of view then you’d scream I’m being personal. Last time you did that too, shoving details of your personal life and feelings at our faces in the hopes of belittling us, then what are we supposed to do? Stick to the argument, and I shall do the same. And I’m trying to be civil by telling you what our issues are so don’t accuse me of personal attacks.

A farmer can only become an employee of these franchises, but CEO, you are seriously mistaking

Just because he was born a farmer doesn’t mean that he has to become a CEO of a farming company. His parents are paid for farming the land which they might have sold willingly or they probably still own. The money can be used if their son goes to a different field unlike in most feudalistic societies where the peasants themselves, their lands and livelihoods are owned by landlords and hardly given to such opportunities or flexibilities.

You have rightly said that Feudalism actually suppresses the potential of the local communities to contribute effectively to a capitalist economy and so does the capitalism. In US cities, you’ll not find small time grocery stores because all that business has already been taken up by the franchises such as Publix, Kroger. Similarly, personally owned pharmacies don’t exist here because their business has been snatched away by the franchises like CVS, Walgreens. Small general stores don’t exist here because of giants like Walmart, Kmart, and Target. The Restaurant business is taken over by McDonald, KFC, Wandy’s etc. All the housing business is in the hands of the banks, it is the bank that owns your house, not you. It is the bank that owns your car, not you. These are all the example of capitalism, where you remain who you are, and others use your money to collect their fortune. Now sometimes good things also happen, and a hard working middle class person may become a big shot.

Very interesting. I’ve been to the US a dozen times as well and I’m hardly new to all this. But I don’t see it as feudalism and I’m not sure many people do.

So I do not restrict my vision of feudalism to the literal feudalism.

Indeed, you’ve taken such a large approach that you’ve used it to distort the meaning of feudalism in the hopes of relating feudalism to capitalism. I can argue a lot over all of this, but unfortunately your mentioning of McDonalds, KFC and Wendy’s has made me real hungry so I’m gonna go catch a snack (I hope you don’t try to say I’m under feudalistic oppression now).

But the bottom line is that there is a lot of difference between feudalism and capitalism. And:

But such events are rare, and should be considered exceptions rather than the norms of a capitalist society

Not as rare as you’re making them out to be, and sure as hell less rare than in a feudalistic society.

 

[All-Green]

First of all i would like to say that there is nothing wrong with more autonomy to the provinces and dividing all the provinces further from administrative and accountability perspective is not a bad idea...if there is enough sincerity and effort put in to achieve the required balance.
Many areas in Pakistan are ignored by their leaders and the blame is thrown on the government or on other provinces, in this case the smaller and more autonomous the unit...the lesser the excuses the leaders can have in front of the masses.

However many things need to be considered.

1) Economic sustainability and viability of each unit as an independent entity.

2) Sustainable revenue contribution of the unit to the capital versus the budgeted injection into the unit by the capital.

3) Ample control of capital over the security/law enforcement policy of each unit.

4) Ability of capital to timely decide on the lifeline projects like electricity plants, waterworks, roads etc. instead of opening a hornets nest where everyone likes to benefit but no one wants to sacrifice in order to benefit. The smaller the unit the more unilateral the political scene thus making it very difficult to commence any such project if a few people are hell bent on opposing it.
I guess that is what is happening even now but with 4 provinces only so not something new but with much more units...i do not know what to make of it.

Actually my fear is that we may see exponential increase in the blame game with so many new players...i may be wrong and it may come to pass that the smaller the unit the more their life will be on the line to do something instead of stalling...however what comes to pass, only Allah knows...

For many reasons Punjab has always been the symbol of unity of Pakistan and it has a mix of politicians which are not feudals but industrialists and due to this they at least also attempt certain economy boosting measures, also the competition amongst politicians in Punjab is not that one sided...if the purpose is just to split Punjab so that its influence on the policy making is reduced then that is not going to auger well...after all despite the so called vested interest of Punjab it has not been able to exert enough pressure to get Bhasha or Kala Bagh dam through, even though personally i feel not making dams is suicide and all the arguments against the dam are of trivial consequence when compared with what life in entire of Pakistan will be without water storage and diversity in power generation...


On the brighter side, if coupled with land reforms we may really ensure that the common man will find a voice in many new units once the feudal hold is weakened...without the land reforms, i am not really sure what we shall achieve in the rural areas especially!

At the end of the day...it is the people who need to ensure that whatever advantage they get out of such a division, they use their rights instead of sitting back and crying about their condition.
Even in our flawed democracy so far there are countless people who choose not to vote or will stand by their clan no matter what the interest of the nation is...such things need to end and i think we have to be very very patient for the next 2-3 decades and give the politicians and the masses enough time of continued democratic process in order to ensure that a mature and stable Democracy emerges in Pakistan.

Is it not strange that the most influential politicians and families in PPP and even PML-N are from lower Punjab but what have they ever done to address the very basic issues in their domains, which we all agree are the most backward in Punjab...maybe it is because many strong leaders are only strong by keeping the masses deprived of education and all other facilities which make the masses more empowered to do as they please with their lives instead of worrying how to keep their meager income and resources secure.

Mass awareness,will and power to hold your leaders accountable is what is needed and with smaller units if this can still not be achieved by our nation, then god help us!
However i do understand that somethings have other implications beyond the economics and material value...if this makes people feel empowered then it is a worthwhile step.

At this point in time the country has to be united and if creation of new units serves that purpose then so be it but unity through division is something i have never heard before!
Also we should beware that there is a big limit to what shall be achieved in this regards keeping the current economic scenario and security situation in mind.

This attempt may be a colossal failure if the major issues facing us are not resolved before entering into an entire new administrative setup.
Even if there was a sincere leader on top, he would have had many sleepless nights on whether to do this now or wait till the situation improves...either way it would have been a leap of faith.

BTW i know you may think i am baiting everyone here...but i was thinking that if we divide by population then Karachi and Lahore will also be divided and if that is done then Karachi may end up having a Pakhtoon unit and a Muhajir unit...
I guess it shall not be such a simple formula and we have to go by a complex economic and geographical calculation to divide...

Being from Punjab i have no issues with this if it is in the interest of Pakistan and makes the people more empowered...but then this has to extend to all other provinces in order to ensure there is balance and reasoning behind the move.
Purpose should not be just to split Punjab only, purpose should be driven by some solid economic and a suitable administrative model applicable across all provinces and should benefit Pakistan and Pakistanis.

BTW in order to make things more effective the national assembly seats should be reduced to match the number of units with one representative from each unit.
Senate should be dissolved altogether since its entire purpose was to balance the national assembly by having representatives from all provinces in equal numbers...if we are splitting the provinces to ensure equality of power then there is no more any use of the senate.

We cannot have such a huge parliament and also create ministries of so many units, it shall be a case of too many cooks, the entire system shall have to be revamped in order to implement this and with current situation i do not think it is easy.
I think it is a good idea but timing is to divert the attention from much more pressing matters at hand which need immediate resolution.

In light of all this i feel that after splitting Punjab the reform would stop then and there due to the vested interests, however i am still willing to risk it in order to put to shame those political big guns who always start the blame Punjab game to cover their own inabilities and deliberate mismanagement, once their game is exposed the masses may well take them to task and that is worth it if it happens, will be a tragedy if all we do is make more ministries and positions for the politicians to manipulate the nation.

 

[ajpirzada]

no one would have been callin for more autonomy if resource distribution would have been fair. balochistan doesnt have problem if ppl of lahore are using gas from sui. but balochistan does have a problem when its own villages are relyin on coal while every house in lahore owns two gas cookers. same goes for NWFP where many of its own villages do not have electricity despite the fact it provides it to the whole of pakistan. why should they allow dams to be built when they already know that they will not recieve fair compensation for their loses. ppl dislocated by mangla dam are still suffering.

another issue is ppl of that province are not being given any jobs in any of the projects. a simple answer could be that those ppl are not skilled. this is not the rit answer. rit answer is that gov never invested in human resource of that province. y is it that there is hardly any ronowned (at national level) university in balochistan. y is it that there are enough students but no teachers? y is it that there are both teachers and students but nothing to sit at, nothing to write at? simple question which comes to my mind rit now is that how hard it is to build and finance a school/college/university? gov says its gonna start XYZ project in saraki area(as an eg only). y not first educate the youth to benefit from that project? we have got the same problem in gwadar. locals are not educated enough to benefit from such a big project. lets take this phrase 'trickle down effect' out of our dictionary. nothing will reach poor unless we step fwd and take some wise steps.

i will only let someone else handle my resouces if im gettin any benefit. otherwise ill simply ask him to give me back my resources and ill do wateva i lik with them. same is the situation which we are seein today. GoP has failed to manage resources of each province. leadin to the rise in demand for provincial autonomy.

 

[qsaark]

Very well said Aj. That exactly is the whole point, if the resource are distributed fairly, why would one want more autonomy? Why brothers who have born to the same parents leave their parent's home?

Distribution of resources can easily be understood by this example. There are four brothers, and each one of them earns a similar amount. One brother has 8 children, and the other three have two each. However, parents have devised the rule that all the earnings be given to the parents who will pool those earnings and distribute among the brothers based on who has more kids. This way, the brothers who contribute 100% get only 20% in return because he had only two kids. And another brother who contributes the same gets 50% in return because he has more children. But this is not fair to the brothers who get less. A more fair formula would be to ask the brother who has 8 children to contribute more, find a better job and chip in more money.

I would never advocate that the smaller province secede from Pakistan, but if they are refused to give what rightfully belongs to them, than the brothers have to leave the parent's home. Important matters can still be managed by the parents or the elder brother, but smaller matters must be left on the individual brothers to deal with. Too bad that parents did not understand this and one brother had to leave the home never to come back. Do we want this to happen again? I believe all of us would unanimously say 'No', we don’t want brothers to leave their home never to come back.

 

[All-Green]

AJ and qsaark
I agree with the gist of your argument in favor of more autonomy but we need to ensure that this arrangement does not backfire in some units because the capital would be less able to handle such a scenario leading to even more problems and that too which shall be escalated as ethnic discrimination.
The more you require units to be self sufficient the less able you shall be to force them to help out each other via resource sharing etc.
Once again the key with regards to division is how economically viable each unit shall become...we have to make sure they can sustain themselves.

Also I have to say that sometimes when we are self critical we tend to be too critical.
Regardless wherever a damn is built there will always be delay in the provision of electricity to the nooks and corners of any unit depending on the terrain.
The terrain being easier in Punjab and Sindh gives them a head start in such projects but still the pace even in these provinces has been snail like at best!
Electricity and gas is still not available to many people in all the provinces so it is not all a plot to derive certain group of people, it is just that the slow pace of the development has left a lot to be desired.

Yes the delay in providing the Gas to Quetta is regrettable but i have to say if you guys are aware of the undulating and most tough terrain between Sui and Quetta ... you will know why it would have been impossible to provide gas to Quetta at the same time as Lahore, Karachi etc.

Please note that there was fair compensation as good as any for most of the Mangla dam displacements, i know many families who benefited via the compensation or from the UK work permits arranged by GOP.
This resulted in the largest community of Pakistanis in UK which has contributed a lot to the growth of their villages in Pakistan as well.

Regarding the jobs you have rightly pointed out that locals need to be equipped and able to take on the jobs offered as a result of development projects.
The sad fact remains and which i am trying to emphasize upon, the very people who are most influential in the locality are actually the ones who oppose any schooling or education center in their domain.
The province which suffers most from this is Baluchistan, Nawab Akbar Bugti who was thought to be a champion of Baluch rights actually did not let the one school to function within his domain, one teacher who attempted to go the school was thrashed so badly that both his legs were broken.
My Uncle was posted in Dera Bugti during the late 80s and was the one who found out about this first hand.
The school in dera bugti was a ghost school because of Nawab Akbar Bugti who is called the voice of Bugtis and Baluchis and now some have the audacity to demand that a university be named after the Nawab.
One of the levies from the tribes under the Bugti clan also confessed that due to a marriage in the Bugti Family all the earning hands in the tribes were asked to present a lamb each as the wedding gift...so heartless are the leaders and power wielders in the remote areas of Pakistan...
The further we divide, the more one sided the power game will get and will give such families even more monopoly than before.

You see this problem will still remain for the common folk whether you give autonomy or not in the current social and administrative setup...these issue have to be addressed by some means/laws or there may be no real good achieved out of further autonomy...also the smaller the unit the more ethnically charged its environment will become where a person from another unit will be completely discouraged from seeking a livelihood or settling permanently...this will further damage the spirit of nationhood...

The issue of failure of state to manage resources is also 50% due to the local families who did not want the masses to become developed,aware and more independent, without addressing this root cause giving absolute control to such families can have either one of the following results

A) The selfish leaders become even more powerful and independent and start blackmailing the capital with unreasonable demands to create mistrust between locals and the capital
All the projects etc will be awarded to friends and family and no real relief be given to common folk despite the full capacity to do so.
If they play their cards well the leaders will still call the ethnic card and claim some sort of foul play and threaten the capital with independence despite being unreasonable themselves.

B) The leaders do all above but the common folk see through their plans and there is mass uprising against the leaders who are robbed of their power via a struggle or are forced to submit to the will of the common man...will still cause disruption but things will change for the better.

C) The leaders really do invest the resources more judiciously once they are more answerable and the unit benefits from education, development and an economic boom which enables it to support itself and the capital.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

A couple of very nice op-eds on the division of Punjab issue

Rethinking Punjab’s boundaries​

By Murtaza Razvi
Monday, 29 Jun, 2009 | 08:28 AM PST |

Makhdoom Javed Hashmi of the PML-N has lent his voice to what he calls the longstanding demand in southern Punjab for the division of the majority-population province. Such desires have also been expressed in Sindh, the Frontier and Balochistan from time to time, and resisted by Lahore and Islamabad.

The former PML-Q–led Punjab government went as far as to say that if Punjab were to be divided into more federating units, it would only be fair that other provinces also underwent a redrawing of their boundaries. The reasons may be based on a narrow reading of the ethnic map of Pakistan, but that’s not the whole picture. More than redrawing provincial boundaries, Pakistan needs to rethink them first.

The division of Punjab into two or more provinces may be seen as an effort to tame the bull that the existing federating units perceive Punjab as. The smaller federating units wish to use the division of Punjab to their long overdue advantage. But the constitution, as it stands today, has lacunae that can outdo the perceived advantage with much more disadvantage coming the way of the smaller provinces under any such scheme, if not well-thought out.

Consider the representation of the four provinces in the Senate, where each federating unit enjoys parity regardless of its size or population, and which has been the saving grace of the political system put in place under the 1973 constitution for which there was unanimous consensus. Now also consider the two major factors that have been the cause of much heartburn among the provinces: the federating units’ share in the federal divisible pool and the water resources. Dividing Punjab into two or more provinces will not divide the upper riparian interests which the newly carved out province(s) would inherit from and continue to share with Punjab.

As for the National Finance Commission award, will the existing smaller provinces be ready to give the ‘to-be-defunct’ Punjab possibly more share than it can lay claim to at this point, and which has remained most controversial all these years? Couple this with a double or possibly treble representation of a divided, upper-riparian Punjab in the Senate, especially in the case of laying claim to the water resources of the Indus river water system, and we have a possible recipe for a bigger disaster in inter-provincial relations than the one we are presently grappling with.

If it is difficult to convince one Punjab, in a ratio of one to three among the federating units, would it be easier to convince two or three Punjabs to let go of their interests in favour of the ‘smaller’ provinces, which would not remain all too ‘small’ after the division of Punjab? Any planned or wished-for division of Punjab must take into account these critical factors and warrant a debate in parliament to the satisfaction of all concerned.

There was one good step that was taken by the Pervez Musharraf-led military regime soon after it took office in October, 1999. It was the formation (albeit swiftly trimmed and then virtually aborted) of the devolution-of-power plan. The aim was to transfer a degree of fiscal independence to the districts, and through the districts to the lower, grassroots level. But after the 2002 election, the provinces cried foul; they felt cheated and dispossessed of what they had been demanding for themselves as provincial autonomy.

What good was provincial autonomy, even if they were to get it, when the real moolah was to be given directly to the districts, they argued. The general had to relent and let each province become the arbiter of how much money went to which district through a respective provincial government, virtually maiming the devolution plan if not killing it altogether.

There is nothing wrong with the creation of more provinces; provinces are devolved administrative units within a federation which aim at streamlining efficient governance. But the process was reversed in Pakistan as early as 1955 with the creation of the One Unit province out of the then existing federating units in what was West Pakistan. The aim was patently mala fide: to neutralise the then majority-population province, East Pakistan, by thrusting an unequal parity on it. Even the reversion to federating units after the loss of East Pakistan in 1971 has carried forth the baggage of heightened sensitivities on the issue.

While Balochistan was formally declared the fourth federating unit, the pre-One Unit princely state of Bahawalpur was amalgamated into Punjab. The demand for the restoration of a Bahawalpur province, if not state, was quelled as it was seen to have the germs of inciting similar sentiments among the former princely states in Sindh and Balochistan.

Punjab has since become the bête noire of the other three provinces, when within its own boundaries demands have been raised to divide the giant province which lays the largest claim to national resources without proportionately contributing to the federal exchequer in revenue or produce. Considered from the standpoint of economically depressed areas, which happen to be the province’s largely Seraiki-speaking southern and western districts, these demands are legitimate.

The desire to have the Jhelum-Chakwal and upwards districts coming together to form a third province, with or without the amalgamation of the Hazara district of the Frontier, has also been expressed from time to time. These are largely non-industrialised hilly districts, relying solely on rain water for irrigation or military service as forming a joint backbone of the local economy, unlike central and southern Punjab which has a strong network of irrigation canals and a growing industrial base — the latter more particularly in central districts.

But desires and wishes are not horses on whose back a faltering state can ride. The need is to start a meaningful debate at national forums and examine in earnest the establishment of more provinces. If Punjab can lead the way by being the first to redraw its boundaries without further compromising the interests of the existing three provinces, then a process can be put in place which can lead to more equitable distribution of national resources and eventually to achieving that elusive goal: provincial autonomy.

DAWN.COM | Provinces | Rethinking Punjab?s boundaries

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

More provinces?​

By Ayesha Siddiqa
Friday, 03 Jul, 2009 | 01:53 AM PST

THAT Pakistan must be divided into smaller and more manageable administrative-cum-political divisions is an argument that one has heard for many years.

After all, if India can have new states based on linguistic divisions, why can’t Pakistan have more provinces? It makes a lot of sense if newer and more manageable administrative divisions are carved out of the existing four provinces with the objective of catering to the political sentiments of the people.

Smaller units will mean the decentralisation of power, which should appease those who are worried about the concentration of power. The application of the above formula should make at least two groups happy: Punjab’s Seraiki and urban Sindh’s Urdu-speaking Mohajir communities. They have been struggling for years for recognition of their political and social rights.

Unfortunately for the Mohajir community, it is demographically not in a position to make such a demand. Its political representatives might try to join forces with Sindhi nationalists to stop the inflow of the Pathans or Punjabis. But this will only work as long as they share political objectives, especially when one considers their history of animosity.

More importantly, there is less discussion of a division of Sindh or other provinces and more about the division of Punjab — especially in the context of a province for Seraiki speakers — not to mention divisions within the Seraiki-speaking area and the issue of making Bahawalpur a province.

None of the above means that Punjab today is more prepared for a division than other provinces. However, this indicates the weakening of the elite consensus in Punjab which may eventually move towards the breakdown of the agreement of the ruling elite in the largest province. Although smaller administrative divisions are absolutely logical, one must not be labouring under the misapprehension that the debate we are hearing has anything to do with the betterment of ordinary people.

The Seraiki-speaking elite dwelling mainly in southern Punjab is weary of the concentration of power in Lahore, especially in the hands of the PML-N and the Sharif brothers. A new Seraiki province with its capital in one of the larger cities of southern Punjab will dramatically change Punjab’s political scene. But the role played by central forces is critical. Sources suggest that the PPP government would support this formula so that the power of the Sharif brothers can be diluted.

Electoral results show that PPP support is concentrated in rural Punjab which is basically south Punjab versus PML-N’s following in the urban centres. A new political division will dilute the Punjabi urban versus rural division. Another province will also mean that Punjab would not be directly and totally controlled by the Sharifs and their party. Shahbaz Sharif can only be chief minister in one province, not two. Not to mention the fact that the success of the Seraiki movement will result in the possible creation of the Potohar province or some other division.

The Bahawalpur province debate is inextricably linked to the demand for a Seraiki province. One explanation for a smaller province is that it is bound to kill the movement for a larger province. From a particular perspective, the demand for a Seraiki province versus a Bahawalpur province is the battle between two political poles, one more centrist and pro-establishment than the other.

The entire debate is interesting because it indicates the weakening of elite consensus in Punjab, a province which is considered critical to Pakistan and its power politics. It must also be mentioned that the subcontinent has taken a newer shape every time elite consensus broke down. Starting from the independence of India and Pakistan to the breakup of Pakistan in 1971, this will probably be the third time in our history that the breakdown of consensus might give a new shape to the political division of territory. Of course, this time it will be done in a more decent manner, which is to be expected since there is no grass-roots demand for a new province.

There are many who believe that this is about the betterment of the people. Surely, people in Multan, D.G. Khan, Bahawalpur and other places are bothered by the long trek to Lahore whenever they need to get things done. It is also a fact that there is greater development work in north and central Punjab than in the south. There are three issues worth considering in this regard.

First, the south versus north and centre is also a story of uneven urban development.

Second, the lack of development is not just about the concentration of power in Lahore but the peculiar concentration of capital and industrial development in the province. North and central Punjab are better developed because most industries, including defence, are located there. While this is because the bulk of the military is from the north and centre, the majority of dynamic entrepreneurs are also located here rather than in the south.

Third, the comparative lack of industrialisation is also because the large landowners and politicians of southern Punjab have stuck to the more traditional industries and methods of capital formation. This varied pattern is not surprising since the relatively poorer agriculture of north Punjab led to other forms of money-making. In any case, the Seraiki-speaking elite attached itself to the larger Punjabi elite including the military to get their share of resources. I remember Makhdoom Khursheed Zaman Qureshi of Bahawalpur, interim minister for agriculture in Punjab during Musharraf’s tenure, talk about the benefits of giving free land to the generals in south Punjab. There are others like the Legharis with links to the ISI through the Mehran Bank scandal. The stories are endless.

The fact of the matter is that the Makhdooms, Legharis, Abbasis, Gilanis etc from south Punjab see the division of the larger province as an opportunity to build their own stronghold. In a nutshell we might see a new shape of Punjab but such a change must be planned properly to divert benefits to the people rather than to the predatory elite.

The writer is an independent strategic and political analyst.

DAWN.COM | Columnists | More provinces?

 

[Gin ka Pakistan]

Who will divide water among so many Provinces, I see a fight over the NFC award in future by increasing Provinces in Pakistan.

 

[All-Green]

Dear AM,

Like i said earlier, Senate will have to be dissolved otherwise this is not going to work even in theory. Because all the new units will add equal number of representatives to the senate and if the share of Baluchistan in senate is 22%, then it shall become 17.6% after one new unit is created...adding more units will further weaken Baluchistan in parliament because it has minimum seats in NA and it will share the numbers with more units in senate.
Even if some people would appreciate that Punjab is weakened, the accusations will simply shift elsewhere to other provinces or units with more population.

The entire concept of senate was to counter balance the national assembly which was weighted on population basis.
However the desired balance still has not been achieved due to petty politics in my opinion, the concept of senate was ok but if further units are created to balance the power then first senate has to be dissolved altogether.

Now if that happens then parliament representation would be based on population only...

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

AG,

Reading the pros and cons mentioned in your posts and the other pieces, it is increasingly apparent that a division of Punjab is not going to offer any silver bullet to fix Pakistan's issues, least of all the accusations of Punjab being a 'bully'.

If anything, like you mentioned, the power of the smaller provinces in the senate will be reduced or compromised in some way.

This is definitely not something to approach in haste, and would require significant restructuring and debate amongst all the stakeholders from all the provinces.

I think the PM is correct in that dividing Punjab in the current environment would 'open a Pandora's box' and is a distraction from a host of pressing issues faced by Pakistan.

Movement on the NFC, autonomy and convincing the provinces to work on devolution of power structures (or accept the one proposed under Musharraf) would be a better approach for the moment.

 

[muse]

Even though the headline claims the Bureaucracy won, reality is that politicians won - either way Democracy and the people of Pakistan lose - so, what's new


Bureaucracy wins, people lose; Local govts dissolved.




Thursday, July 09, 2009
Administrators to replace Nazims; magistracy system revived; Police Order 2002 to be amended

By Asim Yasin

ISLAMABAD: In a major policy decision taken with the consensus of the provinces on Wednesday, Prime Minister Syed Yousuf Raza Gilani announced dissolving the local governments throughout the country and postponed local bodies elections till improvement in the law and order situation.

The decision would mean an effective return to the old ways of bureaucratic bigwigs lording over the masses, who would once again have no influence or say in the management of matters at the grassroots level.

The prime minister said non-political administrators would replace elected Nazims from August. He also revived the executive magistracy system in the country.

“A decision to this effect has unanimously been taken by all the provinces and now I would consult the president on the subject and a decision is expected within four weeks,” he said while addressing a press conference here on Wednesday after chairing an Inter-Provincial Coordination meeting at the Prime Minister Secretariat.

Flanked by Sindh, Balochistan, NWFP chief ministers, governor of the NWFP, Punjab Provincial Minister for Local Government Dost Muhammad Khosa and Chief Executive of Northern Areas and Information Minister Qamar Zaman Kaira, the prime minister said it was also decided to postpone census till the end of the year. “We will take up this issue again by the end of the current year to review the situation in the country, as the NWFP government has requested to this effect as it is hard to hold census in the province due to insurgency in some areas of the province,” he said.

The premier said there was demand that census should be held by the Army to ensure its transparency but the Army is engaged against militants. The prime minister said the government had also decided to postpone the local government elections till a favourable environment and to amend the Police Order 2002.

“The local government elections could not be held due to prevailing law and order situation in the country as there is insurgency in the NWFP and whenever there is an environment conducive for an election exercise it would be held,” he said.

Gilani said the administrators would be non-political people and the provincial government would appoint them from the bureaucracy. “The appointment of the administrators is the prerogative of the provincial governments as we believe in the provincial autonomy,” he added.

He, however, said competent and neutral government officers would be appointed as administrators. He said there was consensus among the provinces that the magistracy system should be revived and for this necessary amendments would be made to the law.

He said it was also decided in the meeting to amend the Police Order 2002 in the light of demands of the provincial governments according to the Constitution. He said in this regard, the National Reconstruction Bureau (NRB) and ministries concerned would be taken on board for formulating recommendations.

The prime minister said according to the decision of the cabinet, the input on the new education policy was sought from the provinces because it is a provincial subject. He said all the provinces had submitted their proposals and the NWFP government would submit its recommendations by Monday and afterwards the recommendations would be taken up at the next cabinet meeting to formulate the education policy.

Asked whether the government would hold the local government elections on party basis or non-party basis, the prime minister replied the PPP in its election manifesto had clearly taken the line of party-based local government elections but the holding of the local government elections was a prerogative of the provincial governments and it was up to them to decide the mode of the elections.

When asked about the Muttahida Qaumi Movement’s opposition to dissolving the local governments, he said the Sindh chief minister would take them into confidence on the consensus decision of all the four chief ministers.

When asked whether the government decision to postpone by-elections of two National Assembly seats in Rawalpindi and Lahore was a bid to keep Mian Nawaz Sharif out of the parliamentary politics, the prime minister negated the impression, saying the Punjab government had requested for the postponement of the elections due to law and order situation in the country. “I was one of those who rejected the previous government efforts to keep Shaheed Benazir Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif out of parliament and how could my government take such a step,” he said.

Responding to a question, the prime minister said he had directed the attorney-general to seek time from the Supreme Court on carbon tax till the return of the finance team which was abroad for negotiations with the IMF so that the team would work out financial implications of the judgment relating to the suspension of the carbon tax and to present it to the Supreme Court. He said the National Assembly adopted the Finance Bill unanimously and nobody opposed it at that time.