He had no doubt of  his place in literary history and left behind the following epitaph for himself: “Here lies Saadat Hasan Manto. With him lie buried the arts of short-story telling. Here he lies underneath tons of mud still wondering if he was a better short-story writer than God.”

Saadat Hasan Manto died in Lahore in 1955. He was forty-three years old. The life of  one of our greatest short-story writers had been prematurely truncated. I was eleven years old at the time. I never met him. I wish I had. One can visualise him easily enough. In later photographs the melancholy is visible. He appears exhausted as if his heart were entrenched with sadness. In these his face displays all the consequences of a ravaged liver. But there are others. Here his eyes sparkle with intelligence, the impudence almost bursting through the thick glass of his 1940’s spectacles, mocking the custodians of morality, the practitioners of confessional politics or the commissariat of the Progressive Writers. ‘Do your worst’, he appears to be telling them. ‘I don’t care. I will write to please myself. Not you.’   Manto’s battles with the literary establishment of his time became a central feature of his biography. Charged with obscenity and brought to trial on a number of occasions he remained defiant and unapologetic.

It was the Partition of India in 1947 along religious lines formed his own attitudes and those of his numerous detractors. The episodes associated with the senseless carnage that accompanied the withdrawal of the British from India loom large in Manto’s short stories. A few words of  necessary explanation might help the reader to understand the corrosive impact of  Manto on the reading public.

The horrors of 1947 were well known, but few liked to talk about them. A collective trauma appeared to have silenced most people. Not Manto. In his stories of that period he recovered the dignity of all the victims without fear or favour. Even the perpetrators of crimes were victims of a political process that had gone out of control.

In these bad times when the fashion is to worship accomplished facts real history tends to be treated as an irritant, something to be swatted out of existence like mosquitoes in summer, it is worth recalling that something terrible happened fifty years ago today when India was divided.  It is time to recognise it and see if it can be understood and transcended. The survivors owe it to those who perished. At least a million men, women and children lost their lives during the carnage of ‘ethnic cleansing’ that overcame Northern and Eastern India as the Punjab and Bengal were divided along religious lines.

In the months that preceded Partition,  Hindus and Sikhs on one side and Muslims on the other glared into each other’s hate-filled eyes before embarking on  frenzied blood-baths. The character and scale of the butchery was unprecedented in Indian history. In fact even Jinnah, as late as June 1946, was prepared to consider a federal solution as proposed by the Cabinet Mission sent to India by the Labour Government. It was the Congress Party which made that particular solution impossible.

This failure meant that exactly one year before Partition, the Hindu-Muslim riots started in Eastern India. During four days in August 1946, nearly 5000 people were killed and three times that number wounded in Bengal. The mood in the Punjab became edgy. Fear overcame rationality.

My mother, an active member of the Communist Party, often recalls how in April 1947, heavily pregnant with my sister and alone at home, she was disturbed by a loud knock on the front door. As she opened the door  she was overcome by anxiety. In front of her stood the giant figure of a Sikh. He saw the fear on her face, understood and spoke in a soft, reassuring voice. All he wanted to know was the location of a particular house on a nearby road. My mother gave him the directions. He thanked her warmly and left. She was overpowered by shame. How could she, of all people, without a trace of prejudice, have reacted in that fashion. Nor was she the  only one. Manto’s stories help us to understand the madness that grippped [everyone].

Trains became moving graveyards as they arrived at stations on both sides of the new divide, packed with corpses of fleeing refugees. As always, it was  the poor of town and country who were the main victims and they were buried or burnt in  hastily dug pits. Neither the song of the nightingale nor lamps or flowers would ever grace their graves. They are the forgotten victims of that year. No memorial in India or Pakistan marks the killings. The Partition of India was a tragedy and a crime. It was neither inevitable nor necessary and  its traces are only too visible in the unending anguish of the great  sub-continent. Faiz Ahmed Faiz,  one of the greatest of 20th century Urdu poets,  born in what  became Pakistan, spoke for many  in his poem Freedom’s Dawn on August ‘47:

This leprous daybreak, dawn night’s fangs have mangled—
This is not that long -looked-for break of day,
Not that clear dawn in quest of which those comrades
Set out, believing that in heaven’s wide void
Somewhere must be the star’s last halting place,
Somewhere the verge of night’s slow-washing tide,
Somewhere an anchorage for the ship of heartache.

But now, word goes, the birth of day from darkness
Is finished, wandering feet stand at their goal;
Our leaders’ ways are altering, festive looks
Are all the fashion, discontent reproved;–
And yet this physic still on unslaked eye
Or heart fevered by severance works no cure.
Where did that fine breeze, that the wayside lamp
Has not once felt, blow from—where has it fled?
Night’s heaviness is unlessened still, the hour
Of mind and spirit’s ransom has not struck;
Let us go on, our goal is not reached yet.

A year later, another poet Sahir Ludhianvi, who crossed the border and came to Pakistan could not bear the atmosphere and returned to India. He sent an explanation in the form of a dirge addressed to fellow-writers in Pakistan:

Friends, for long years
I have spun dreams of the moon and stars and spring for you,
Today my tattered garments hold nothing
But the dust of the road that we have travelled.
The music in my harp has been strangled
Its tunes buried by wails and screams
Peace and civilization are the alms I crave
So that my lips can learn how to sing again.

Saadat Hasan Manto, was moved to write ‘Toba Tek Singh’. Manto wrote sparsely, each word carefully chosen. His diamond-hard prose was in polar contrast to the flowery language of many  contemporaries. He wrote about sexual frustration and its consequences, of jealousy and how it often led to murder. One of his stories, ‘Behind the Screen’, describes a wife’s revenge once she discovers her husband has a secret mistress. The wife takes the husband to his lover’s apartment and in his presence has her body chopped into tiny pieces. The story was based on an accrual event that took place in the North West Frontier Province, bordering Afghanistan. Manto spared his readers the real life ending: the wife had her rival’s flesh cooked and forced her husband to eat the cooked flesh, a striking demonstration of the saying that truth is stranger than fiction (1).

‘Toba Tek Singh’  is a masterpiece set in the lunatic asylum in Lahore at the time of Partition.  When whole cities are being ethnically cleansed, how can the asylums escape? The Hindu and Sikh lunatics are told by bureaucrats organising the transfer of power that they will be forcibly transferred to  institutions in India.  The inmates rebel. They embrace each other and weep. They will not be parted willingly. They have to be forced on to the trucks. One of them, a Sikh, is so overcome by rage that he dies on the demarcation line which divides Pakistan from India. Confronted by so much insanity in the real world, Manto discovered normality in the asylum. The ‘lunatics’ have a better understanding of the crime that is being perpetrated than the politicians who have agreed to Partition.

Few politicians on either side had foreseen the results. Jawaharlal Nehru’s romantic nationalism portrayed independence as a long-delayed “tryst with destiny”. He never imagined that the tryst would be bathed in countless gallons of Indian blood. This was partially the result of a failure by the Congress High Command to make the large Muslim minority an offer it could not refuse.

Mohammed Ali Jinnah, the founder of Pakistan, was a second-rate politician, but with a first-class lawyer’s brain. Initially he had used separatism as a bargaining ploy. Even later, he genuinely believed that the new state would simply be a smaller version of secular India, with one difference. Here Muslims would be the largest community. He really believed that he would still be able to spend some time every winter at his mansion in Bombay, the only city where he had found love and happiness.

Jinnah conceived of Pakistan as an amalgamation of an undivided Punjab, an undivided Bengal together with Sind, Baluchistan and the North-West Frontier Province. This would have meant that forty percent of the Punjab would have consisted of Hindus and Sikhs and forty-nine percent of Bengal would have consisted of Hindus. It was, alas, a utopian nonsense. Once confessional passions had been aroused and neighbours were massacring each other (as in the former Yugoslavia during the last decade of the 20th century) it was difficult to keep the two provinces united.
“I do not care how little you give me,” Jinnah is reported as saying in March 1947 to the last Viceroy, Lord Mountbatten, “as long as you give it to me completely.”

A dying old man in a hurry, who could have been a willing collaborator in establishing a single state with important safeguards for the minority, had the Congress been capable of strategic insights, but now he wanted his own statelet, however small and awkward it might appear on the map.
India had come a long way in 1947. All previous rulers had attempted to govern with the consent of the ruling elites of whatever religion. The Mughal Emperors, themselves Muslims, had learnt this lesson very quickly and Akbar had unsuccessfully attempted to create a new religion synthesising Hinduism and Islam. Even the last of the great Mughals, the religious-minded Aurungzeb did not attempt any Islamisation of his army:  his ablest Generals were Hindu chiefs!

The British, when confronted with the nightmare of actually governing India, realised that, despite their more advanced technology, they would not last too long without serious alliances. They could only govern India with the consent of its traditional rulers.  The raj was maintained by a very tiny British presence: in 1805 the pink-cheeked conquerors numbered 31,000; in 1911 they had grown to 164,000 and in 1931 there were 168,000. In other words the British in India never comprised more than 0.05 of the local population.

It was this fact that concentrated the finest minds of the raj on politics and strategy. The civil servants trained by Haileybury and other imperialist nurseries in Britain to govern a mighty sub-continent were political administrators, often of the highest order. They learned to speak Urdu and Bengali so that they could, when necessary, communicate directly with peasants and administer justice. They also learned how to divide local rulers from each other and how to fan religious prejudices. The birth of modern Sikhism and Hinduism owes a great deal to the British presence in India. In return, local potentates were permitted to learn English and taught the etiquette of nibbling cucumber sandwiches with His Excellency at Government House.

If the British had granted India self-government on the Canadian and Australian pattern after the First World War it is unlikely that the sub-continent would have been divided. Partition was not a planned conspiracy by either the British or Jinnah. It came about because of a combination of circumstance during the Forties, including the Second World War. Jinnah backed the war effort, the Congress demanded Independence. Some scores had to be settled. Pakistan was imperialism’s rap on the knuckle for Indian nationalism.

Nehru and Jinnah were both shaken by the orgy of barbarism. It offended all their instincts.  But it was Mahatama Gandhi who paid the ultimate price. For defending the right to live of innocent Muslims in post-Partition India he was assassinated by Nathuram Godse, a fundamentalist Hindu fanatic. Godse was hanged, but two decades later, Godse’s brother told Channel Four that he regretted nothing. What happened had to happen.
That past now rots in the present and threatens to further poison the future.  The political heirs of the hanged Godse are shoving aside the children of Nehru and Gandhi. The poisonous fog of the religious world has enveloped politics. History, unlike the poets and writers of the sub-continent, is not usually prone to sentiment.

Partition was a disaster, adjacent to which there lurked another. The two parts of Pakistan were divided by a thousand miles of India, culture, language and political tradition. The predominantly Punjabi military-bureaucratic elite belonged to West Pakistan, while the Bengali majority of the population (60%) lived in East Pakistan. The refusal of the military rulers to permit democracy led to a successful uprising in 1968. A dictator was toppled. In the elections that followed the Bengalis of East Pakistan won a big majority. They were not permitted to take office. The Army invaded the Eastern part of its own country.  There was a massacre of intellectuals and mass rape (Punjabi soldiers had been told to ‘change the genes’ of Bengalis forever) followed by a civil war. Bangladesh was born. One partition had led to another.

India, too, was severely damaged by Partition. The Nehru years (1947-64) disguised the processes underneath, but now the Furies are out into the open. Bombay, once the centre of cosmopolitanism is now Mumbai and under the sway of a neo-fascist Hindu organisation. In their absurd search for a new Indian identity, the scoundrel parties have re-discovered Hinduism and sections of the ‘secular’ Congress have fallen into line.  Communal riots have claimed tens of thousands of lives over the last fifty years.

Manto was amongst the few who observed the bloodbaths of Partition with a detached eye.  He had remained in Bombay in 1947, where he worked for the film industry, but was accused of  favouring Muslims and was subjected to endless communal taunts, even from those who had hitherto imagined to be like him, but the secular core in many people did not survive the fire.  Manto came to Lahore in 1948, but was never happy. He turned the tragedies he had witness or heard into great literature. He wrote of the common people, regardless of ethnic, religious or caste identities and he discovered contradictions and passions and irrationality in each of them. In his work we see how normally decent people can, in extreme conditions, commit the most appalling atrocities. ‘Cold Meat’ is one such story. In 1952 he wrote: “My heart is heavy with grief today. A strange listlessness has enveloped me. More than four years ago when I said farewell to my other home, Bombay, I experienced the same kind of sadness…”

Years later he was still trying to come to grips with what had happened:

“Still, what my mind could not resolve was the question: what country did we belong to now, India or Pakistan? And whose blood was it that was being so mercilessly shed every day? And the bones of the dead, stripped of the flesh of religion, were they being burned or buried? Now that we were free who was to be our subject? When we were not free, we used to dream about freedom. Now that freedom had come, how would we perceive our past state?

“The question was: were we really free? Both Hindus and Muslims were being massacred. Why were they being massacred? There were different answers to the question; the Indian answer, the Pakistani answer, the British answer. Every question had an answer, but when you tried to unravel the truth, you were left groping.

“Everyone seemed to be regressing. Only death and carnage seemed to be proceeding ahead. A terrible chapter of blood and tears was being added to history, a chapter without precedent.

“India was free. Pakistan was free from the moment of its birth, but in both states, man’s enslavement continued: by prejudice, by religious fanaticism, by savagery.”

In a series of Open Letters to Uncle Sam he marked his displeasure at the state of world politics and Pakistan’s Security Pact with the US. Hedisplayed a remarkable prescience as expressed in this extract from his ‘Third Letter to uncle Sam’, written shortly before his death:

“Another thing I would want from you would be a tiny, teeny weeny atom bomb because for long I have wished to perform a certain good deed. You will naturally want to know what.

You have done many good deeds yourself and continue to do them. You decimated Hiroshima, you turned Nagasaki into smoke and dust and you caused several thousand children to be born in Japan. Each to his own. All I want you to do is to dispatch me some dry cleaners. It is like this. Out there, many Mullah types after urinating pick up a stone and with one hand inside their untied shalwar, use the stone to absorb the after-drops of urine as they resume their walk. This they do in full public view. All I want is that the moment such a person appears, I should be able to pull out that atom bomb you will send me and lob it at the Mullah so that he turns into smoke along with the stone he was holding.

As for your military pact with us, it is remarkable and should be maintained. You should sign something similar with India. Sell all your old condemned arms to the two of us, the ones you used in the last war. This junk will thus be off your hands and your armament factories will no longer remain idle.

Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru is a Kashmiri, so you should send him a gun which should go off when it is placed in the sun. I am a Kashmiri too, but a Muslim which is why I have asked for a tiny atom bomb for myself.

One more thing. We can’t seem able to draft a constitution. Do kindly ship us some experts because while a nation can manage without a national anthem, it cannot do without a constitution, unless such is your wish.

One more thing. As soon as you get this letter, send me a shipload of American matchsticks. The matchsticks manufactured here have to be lit with the help of Iranian-made matchsticks. And after you have used half the box, the rest are unusable unless you take help from matches made in Russia which behave more like firecrackers than matches.”

Given the circumstances it is hardly surprising that he sought solace in alcohol and drank himself to death. He had written over 200 short stories and had no doubt of  his place in literary history and left behind the following epitaph for himself:

“Here lies Saadat Hasan Manto. With him lie buried the arts of short-story telling. Here he lies underneath tons of mud still wondering if he was a better short-story writer than God.”

Notes:

Khalid Hasan, ‘Sadat Hasan Manto: Not of Blessed Memory’, Annual of Urdu Studies, 4, 1984, P.85

(From Viewpoint Online)

© 2012, Tariq Ali. This article may not be reproduced in any form without providing an active attribution link/ reference to The Pakistan Forum. All attribution links within the article must also be retained.

Raza Habib Raja

Imran Khan has been generating a lot of buzz lately and consequently a lot has been written about him in the print media and covered in the electronic media. And add to it the social media, where Imran dominates more than anyone else.

Completely in line with our emotional character, the rise of Imran Khan has been accompanied with a strange type of polarization where at one end he is hailed as a Messiah and on the other end he is being called a Taliban Khan, an Establishment tout or someone who is completely naïve.

I have seen extraordinary reverence of Imran by some of his internet “jiyalas” who refuse to listen to any criticism on Imran. They get defensive, emotional and even abusive when someone points or even raises a question. Of course not every one of his supporters is like that.

The fact Mr Khan has no real plan somehow or the other does not matter to his hero worshipping supporters. The fact, that Mr Khan has dubious links with the military and intelligence apparatus also does not matter. The fact that Mr. Khan projects misplaced hyper patriotism  and the fact that Mr. Khan has filled his party with all turncoats also does not matter. Above all the fact that a party is much more than a single chrismatic individual also does not matter. The ardent supporters of PTI will give a justification no matter how unconvincing it is. And yes they know how to abuse and a huge majority of them are expert trolls!!!

Now while the overzealous reactions of the PTI “jiyalas” do provide amusing and at times even  laughable sights, with due apologies some (not all) of his critics also do not lag behind. Just calling someone as Taliban Khan, or totally dishonest or a complete establishment tout without giving credible evidence is hardly convincing. Likewise calling all the supporters of Imran Khan, many of which are highly educated and even moderate people also, as completely impressionable reactionaries and then expecting them to change their mind about Imran is plain stupidity.

Political realities exist in the shades of grey. These are not in black or white and this fact has to be remembered by both the ardent supporters of Imran as well as his fierce critics.

Now there are many diehard supporters of Imran who have made their decision and no matter what, will not waiver. However, a substantial number of people who view him favourably still can change their minds.

My advice for those who think that Imran’s rise needs to be checked because he is a reactionary is that they should try to be credible in their claims. Yes, their arguments will not be heeded by diehard emotional Imran’s fans but a substantial majority has only recently started to look at him in favourable light and will listen to their arguments provided they make credible criticism.

Right now critics are calling him Taliban Khan and expect his supporters to listen to this allegation. The huge problem with this is that while Imran has given apologetic defense to Taliban monsters but has never clearly endorsed their suicide bombings. Yes, the right way to argue is that this kind of appeasement is wrong as an approach to dealing with militancy but blatantly calling him Taliban khan is frankly stretching it too much. And by the way apparently Taliban even denounced him when he called himself a “liberal”. However, the statement given by the TTP denouncing Imran was simply ignored by his critics who want to stick to their black and white appraisal of Imran.

Second is the allegation of using Islam for political mileage. Well here the problem is multifaceted.  First the majority of Pakistanis like references to Islam and considers it a part of their identity. Now I may not like this fact but this is a reality. Second and more importantly almost all the parties (barring very small fringe parties like Pakistan Communist Party or
some regional parties), have whipped up religion.   Unfortunately the critics forget that in Pakistan the so called liberal parties were involved in framing of 1973 constitution which made Pakistan an Islamic republic. Worst they were also involved in passing of the second amendment which declared Ahmedis as Non-Muslims. And during all these years, they have done nothing to repeal it. If the critics are equally harsh on these parties only then they can have a credible case against Imran. However, so far I have not seen that and therefore their arguments are further weakened. I personally think that a better criticism would be to highlight the difference in extent to which Imran whips up religion compared to the mainstream parties rather than saying that PTI is nothing but a good looking Jamat-i-Islami!

The argument that PTI is the one man party is a valid criticism but not something which will find acceptance. The major problem with the argument that “If Imran were to die what would happen to PTI and hence it is proven that it is a cult” is that unfortunately all the parties in Pakistan have risen through the same personality driven trajectory and worst still have evolved into family dynasties. On this basis alone you cannot call any party a mere cult. If a Sharif or a Bhutto is bigger than his/her party then what is the point of complaining about Imran being bigger than PTI. Yes you can argue that this makes PTI no different but unfortunately in Pakistan, at least in this aspect, you cannot be different.

Raising questions about PTI manifesto is important and valid but once again why critics have so much urge to ask for PTI manifesto when they know that majority of the party workers of PPP and PML N also don’t know much about the manifestoes of their parties. When you seldom raise this issue with respect to voting pattern of mainstream parties then in some ways it actually appears strange that manifesto assumes so much importance on the pretext of determining the “difference” of PTI. And why now? Why this question was not asked before?

Most importantly the critics have to understand as to what is the real source of Imran’s surge in popularity. It is  not solely because of “establishment”,  or its manipulated electronic media or due to naivety of his supporters (yes some of them are naïve) but because many people are getting sick of the performance of the two mainstream parties. Yes Imran may not be right choice but in despair human beings have the tendency to clutch at any straw of hope. In their eyes since Imran is financially credible so therefore he wont “betray” them. This emotional expectation may be somewhat misplaced but has genuine basis.

Yes I do not support Imran due to his overall ideological orientation but at the same time his rise cannot be checked unless the mainstream parties do some honest soul searching rather than blaming establishment and ISI for everything under the sun. Yes Imran may be propped up by establishment but at the same time people are also getting behind him. Establishment alone cannot fill in huge venues like Minar-e-Pakistan and Mazar-e-Quaid nor can it produce favourable ratings in polls conducted by reputable international polling firms like PEW research.

And lastly be credible and acknowledge his positive statements when you are ready to pounce on his negative ones. If he is apologizing to people of Baluchistan then have a heart and acknowledge it even if it is “hollow”. If his rhetoric is softening (and it is softening) as more people with eclectic ideological orientation come into his party, then kindly acknowledge it.

Criticism looks appealing only when it is credible.

By Ghazala Akbar:

Sonia Gandhi once imperiously remarked that the Indians need not bother going to war with Pakistan anymore, the invasion of Indian TV was enough. She had a point. For a while, the murderous machinations and dynastic power- struggles of Indian soaps had people hooked.  Not anymore. Indian soaps are passé. The gripping political drama unfolding daily on our TV screens is a serious challenge not just to Bollywood but Hollywood too. Over the past year, every genre has been represented: tragedy, high comedy, farce, buffoonery, drama, action, war, murder, spy thrillers, musical extravaganzas and a bit of soft porn too.

Such is the quality of live political theatre that I cannot remember the last time I watched a film on television. Who needs expensive blockbusters from across the border to feed our fantasies? Why would anyone go channel surfacing — when our rulers, allies, security forces, politicians, cricketers and celebrities provide non – stop 24/7 entertainment? Who needs a burger when we can all have steak at home!

2011 began tragically with murder most foul — the death of the Punjab Governor, Salmaan Taseer, heroically championing the cause of a poor Christian woman, sentenced for blasphemy. If that wasn’t maudlin enough, what followed was a worse tear- jerker. Clerics — usually in surplus in Pakistan suddenly became scarce – too scared to lead the funeral prayers for the slain Governor.

The final dénouement in the sorry tale was the odious spectacle of the self- confessed smiling assassin showered with rose petals by Lawyers — the very same that had marched up and down Constitution Avenue in support of the Rule of Law. Thankfully, a judge had the courage of his convictions to sentence the killer. The long-awaited decision of the Appeal Court is another story.

February brought us an international spy thriller complete with a car chase, shootings and carnage in the streets of Lahore. Footage of the arrest and interrogation of Raymond Davis by the ‘Keystone Cops’ of the Punjab Police went viral. Intriguingly, a miniature camera located between the suspect’s feet activated the filming. A support car coming to his ‘rescue’ also ran over a couple of bystanders adding to the body count. And just who was this trigger – happy, gun – toting suspect? A ‘diplomat’ allegedly fleeing armed motor- cycled muggers at a busy intersection in Lahore who just had to shoot in self- defence. Naturally.

No less a personage than the US President vouched for his credentials. And since we are a hospitable, law- abiding people who honour diplomatic immunity, we bent over backwards to find ways to absolve him of guilt. Shariah law ironically came to the rescue. A clause was invoked and Davis ‘forgiven’ after the payment of blood money to the victims’ families– but– not before another sad twist : the young wife of one of the ‘alleged robbers’ overcome with grief, ended her own life. End of story.

The ides of March claimed yet another fatality. Poor Shahbaz Bhatti, the outspoken Minister for Minority Affairs was gunned down for having the temerity to remind the Majority about the rights of Minorities! The brave man should have read George Orwell and learnt not to speak out of turn. In the State of Pakistan, all men are created equal but some are more equal!

Riveting as these episodes were, they were a mere trailer for May Day’s mega blockbuster: the Death of Osama Bin Laden. Without our censor’s knowledge, this film played to packed houses globally. Audacious US Navy seals  swooping down in helicopters, shooting their way to bag and bin the world’s most wanted terrorist in his ‘luxury pad’, was an instant hit worldwide.

Our US allies in the War on Terror, didn’t think it worth their while to give us a role to play. Not even as an extra. While champagne corks popped at the White House in an orgy of self- congratulation, we had to eat humble pie and suffer the additional agony of our picturesque garrison town continually mispronounced as A – BBOT- A- BAD! Surely, the BBC ought to have known better!

As if things were not bad enough when another scary episode sent us cringing for cover. Masked terrorists disguised in ‘Star Wars’ attire sneaked into a naval airbase in the heart of Karachi. Only the bravery of our security forces foiled their evil intent after a tense gun – battle lasting several hours. Reassuringly all through the crisis, the Minister of the Interior provided a running commentary soothing shattered nerves.

Soon after, another jolt shook our equanimity: the mysterious murder of a journalist, Salim Shahzad. Nudged gently but firmly not to poke his nose in sensitive matters relating to state or non – state actors, he did not take the hint. Neither did the unfortunate Wali Babar in Karachi. After too many questions about ‘target killings’ the TV Reporter became a target himself –confirming our prime position as a dangerous place for journalists.

In July, the citizens of Karachi decided to steal the show with a gory episode of their own: the killing fields of Karachi. More mayhem, more body bags and even more confused incoherence from the Interior Ministry were the main themes of this sordid drama. Not to be outdone, trigger- happy Rangers started their own sideshow. A petty thief, pleading for mercy was shot at point blank range, in full view of the camera in a public park.

Meanwhile in the badlands of Baluchistan, some unlucky Chechen men and women were mistakenly ‘taken out’ as terrorists by the Constabulary. In other areas, members of the minority Hazaras and ‘dissidents’ were being systematically decimated. Exactly who was killing who and why is of little consequence in this perplexing plot. In Khyber- Pakhtoonwa, the Taliban regularly reminded us of their explosive presence. Drones continued to strike ‘terror’ in South Waziristan adding to a continuous supply of new recruits to their cause.

The festival of Eid released Pandora’s Box, a brilliant, virtuoso, unrestrained performance by the former Home Minister of Sindh. His remarkable presentation received extremely high TV ratings – the dramatic use of the Holy Book as prop was an unforgettable highlight of the two- hour soliloquy. Several weeks later, a London production house came out with a four – hour epic. A vintage rendition of a golden oldie rang the curtain down on this superlative show that ran to packed houses nationwide.

Not shy of being in the spotlight, the perpetual drama queens, our star cricketers entered the limelight with a courtroom drama of their own.  Sadly, their coached appearances at Southwark Crown Court, UK were as unconvincing as their play-acting during the Oval Test in England last year. The show flopped miserably with Messrs. Butt, Asif and Amir reduced from fallen heroes to zeroes.

Come September, Admirable Mike Mullen took us all by surprise with his own version of ‘Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy.’ Mullen’s muddled story – line brazenly accused our security services of sponsoring a network of non – state actors and re-writing a counter script for the end – game in Afghanistan. It backfired. In a remarkable show of unity, the civilian government, raucous TV Anchors, politicians, ghairat brigades and the public booed and hissed in unison. Flying in to soothe ruffled feathers, Mrs. Clinton was publicly but politely accused of acting like a nit-picking Mother-in-law.

Mullen’s story however would not go away. It sprung back with a vicious new twist at the end of October. A rejuvenated and revamped Khan tweaked the tail of the Lions in Lahore with a spectacular televised musical extravaganza. Not only did fans dance in the aisles, his revelations rocked the boat, setting the scene for yet another blockbuster: Memo gate. A 007 wannabe got star- billing in this US- Pakistan joint production. Our Ambassador to the US has a dubious supporting role.

As we grappled with at the turns and twists of this complex saga, a brief exposition of Ms Veena Malik provided us with a moment of light relief. Then all hell broke loose. NATO helicopter in an incident of ‘friendly fire’ picked off our soldiers at the Afghan border, martyring 28 and wounding countless others. With friends like these, who needs enemies!

All this flak was too much for the beleaguered President who suddenly took to his bed. His unidentified ailment and dash to Dubai fuelled yet another mystery: the curious case of the missing President. Was his illness genuine, a reaction to the strain of the on-going Memo gate saga or something entirely unrelated? Who knows! Anyhow, it was short and sweet with a happy ending when the President returned to Islamabad with his customary grin. Who will have the last laugh is a moot question.

Finally, as the holiday season approached we settled in front of the box in anticipation of yet another extravaganza. (The Information Minister’s impromptu crying act on the morning of the holiday was a dampener but did not deter us from making merry). Billed as the greatest show on earth, the Tehreek- i- Insaaf spectacle promised to be like no other. For weeks, we had watched in bemused incredulity as self- proclaimed rebels and all the King’s men of yesteryears, shaved, showered and applied fresh make-up in preparation for supporting roles to the Rising Star, the man of the moment, Imran Khan.

Could he walk where angels fear to tread? Would the cast of thousands rally to his call? On the founder’s birthday, in the city of lights, by the dramatic setting of the Quaid’s Mazar, the Hero finally took centre stage. Amidst a glow and a roar, He came. They saw. He conquered.  Move over Shahrukh, Saif, Salman and Amir. We have the real thing, our very own King Khan.

Come December 27, we remembered Shaheed Mohartama Benazir and other fallen comrades. The cameras panned towards the dusty plains of Ghari Khuda Bukhsh and the graveyard of the martyrs in the towering tomb of the Bhuttos. There was pathos, passion, poetry and the evolving script of a new work- in – progress: the son also rises.

And so we come to The End. As we usher in the New Year, book your seats early for the next episode of Pakistan: 2012. It is still a working title and your guess is as good as mine. Will it be Great Expectations, Gone with the Wind or the Night of the Generals? Whatever we choose to call it, you can be sure it will be a sensational international box- office hit!  As Larry King used to say on CNN, Don’t go away!

Constitution of Pakistan has been amended seventeen times since its promulgation in 1973; however the ninth and eleventh amendment bills were not passed. The importance of legislation is incontestable; it is the prerogative of parliament to set the rules of business but does it make any difference for a commoner either President has more power or Prime Minister. What matters for him is good governance, availability of basic needs with in affordable price. 

Below are all amendments in a summarized form 1974 onwards…

First Amendment May 04, 1974

• Article 1 – Amendment revised units, provinces and territories of the federation
  
• Article 17 – Amendment allowed citizens other than those in service of Pakistan to form political party and every political party to account for the source of its funds by law.
  

This amendment had become necessary as East Pakistan had emerged as a new independent state “Bangladesh” and Pakistan had officially recognized it.

Second Amendment September 17, 1974

• Article 106 – Quadiani group or the Lahori group (who call themselves ‘Ahmadis’)” was declared minorities.
  
• Article 260 – the definition of a Muslim was made part of constitution which is, ” A person who does not believe in the absolute and unqualified finality of The Prophet hood of MUHAMMAD (Peace be upon him), the last of the Prophets or claims to be a Prophet, in any sense of the word or of any description whatsoever, after MUHAMMAD (Peace be upon him), or recognizes such a claimant as a Prophet or religious reformer, is not a Muslim for the purposes of the Constitution or law.”
  

Third Amendment February 13, 1975

• Article 10, 232 – the amendment addressed the issues of preventative custody by curtailing the rights of detainee and by conferring more powers for detaining authority.
  

Fourth Amendment November 21, 1975

• Articles 8, 17, 19, 51, 54, 106, 199, 271, 272, 273, First schedule and Fourth Schedule. The amendment added 6 reserved seats in National Assembly, curtailed the powers of High Courts for cases related to preventative detainment, Land reforms, economic reforms and several regulations promulgated by President prior to Constitution were made part of constitution.
  

Fifth Amendment September 16, 1976

• Articles 101, 160, 175, 179, 180, 187, 192, 195, 196, 199, 200, 204, 206, 212, 260, 280 and First Schedule. The amendment established the rules for appointment of Governors, Chief Justices and the discretionary powers of the High Courts and Supreme Courts, abolished joint High Court of Sind and Baluchistan, constituted separate high court for each province.
  

Sixth Amendment December 13, 1976

• Articles 179, 195, 246, 260 – The Amendment extended the appointment of the Chief Justices of Supreme Courts and High Courts beyond their retirement age limit for when they have not completed the term of office.
  

Seventh Amendment May 16, 1977

• Articles 101, 245 – New Article 96 A inserted which was supposed to stay in force till September 30, 1977 Amendment suggested to hold a referendum to seek vote of confidence for the Prime Minister by General Public.
  

Eighth Amendment November 9, 1985

• Articles 48, 51, 56, 58, 59, 60, 75, 91, 101, 105, 106, 112, 116, 130, 144, 152 A, 270 A and addition of new Schedule, the Sixth Schedule, The constitution restored to the position of July 5, 1977 with amendment which conferred the powers upon the President to nominate Prime Minister, appointing the services chiefs, other key state positions and dissolve the National Assembly and Governors could dissolve provincial assemblies.
  

Ninth Amendment Bill 1985 (It was not passed and still remains a bill)

• In consonance with the provisions of Article 2 and 227 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, which respectively offer that Islam shall be the State religion of Pakistan and that all laws shall be brought in conformity with the Injunctions of Islam, as also the Objectives Resolution, this Bill seeks to amend Articles 2, 203B and 203D of the Constitution so as to provide that the Injunctions of Islam shall be the supreme law and source of guidance for legislation and policy making and to empower the Federal Shariat Court to make recommendations for bringing the fiscal laws and laws relating to the levy and collection of taxes in conformity with the said injunctions.
  

Tenth Amendment March 25, 1987

• Articles 54 and 61 Amendment curtailed the working days of National Assembly and the Senate from 160 to 130 per year.
  

Eleventh Amendment Bill 1989 (It was withdrawn by the movers.)

• Article 51 the amendment bill was moved in Senate suggesting the restoration of 20 Women Seats in the National Assembly. It was withdrawn by the movers after government assurance.
  

Twelfth Amendment July 28, 1991

• New Article inserted: 212 B Provisions amended: Fifth Schedule. Amendment allowed constitution of special courts for heinous crimes as well as increase the salaries of Judges.
  

Thirteenth Amendment April 3, 1997

• Article 58, 101, 112, 243 – Amendment was to withdraw Eighth Amendment powers of the President and Governors to dissolve National and Provincial assemblies, the Prime Minister was conferred the powers to appoint Services Chiefs and other key position.
  

Fourteenth Amendment July 3, 1997

• New Article inserted 63A Amendment to provide disqualification of a member of Parliamentary party on the ground of defection, floor crossing, abstaining or refraining from vote or voting against the party policy.
  

Fifteenth Amendment August 28, 1998

• Insertion of Article 2B in view of the fact that the Objectives Resolution is now substantive part of the Constitution, it is necessary that Quran and Sunnah are declared to be the supreme law of Pakistan, and the Government is empowered to take necessary steps to enforce Shariah.

Sixteenth Amendment August 5, 1999

• Insertion of Article 27 which safeguards against discrimination in services, Quota system was extended till 2013.
  

Seventeenth Amendment August 21, 2002

• New Article Inserted 41, 58, 112, 152A, 179, 195, 243, 268 and 270AA Amendments were made to the constitution for the approval of Gen. Musharraf to stay President in uniform, his coup on October 12, 1999 and inclusion of the Legal Framework Order (LFO) into the constitution which empowered President again.
  

Eighteenth Amendment April 19, 2010

• Articles amended or substituted 1, 6, 17, 25, 27, 29, 38, 41, 46, 48, 51, 58, 59, 61, 62, 63, 63A, 71, 73, 75, 89, 90, 91, 92, 99, 100, 101, 102, 104, 105, 106, 112, 116, 122, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 139, 140, 142, 143, 144, 147, 149, 154, 155, 156, 157, 160, 161, 167, 168, 170, 171, 172, 175, 177, 193, 194, 198, 199, 200, 203, 203D, 209, 213, 215, 216, 218, 219, 221, 224, 226,228, 232, 233, 234, 242, 243, 260, 268, 270A, 270AA, 270B
  
• Articles inserted 10A, 19A, 25A, 140A, 175A, 267A, 267B, 270BB
  
• Articles omitted 71 and Omission of sixth and seventh schedule
  
• Summary: Parliament declared the 17th Amendment to the Constitution and the Legal Framework Order (LFO) given by a dictator as without any legal authority. NWFP renamed as ‘Khyber Pakhtoonkhwa’. Good Governance by restricting the size of the Cabinet in to 11 per cent of the members of Parliament and respective Provinces. Four seats, one from each province, to be allocated in the Senate for the minorities to increase their strength. Education to each child up to the age of 16 years made compulsory. Formation of the council of common interests revised with prime minister as its chairman. The council should meet at least once in 90 days besides abolition of the Concurrent List. Prime Minister shall keep the president informed on all matters of internal and foreign policy and on all legislative proposals the federal government intends to bring before the Majlis-e-Shoora (parliament). President could use the power of dissolution of the National Assembly when a vote of no-confidence having been passed against the prime minister, no other member of the National Assembly commands the confidence of the majority of the members of the National Assembly, in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution, as ascertained in a session of the National Assembly for the purpose. For the determination of his civil rights and obligations or in any criminal charge against him, a person shall be entitled to a fair trial and due process. Under-representation of any class or area in the service of Pakistan may be redressed in such manner as may be determined by an act of Majlis-e-Shoora (parliament). Restriction imposed on the attorney general for doing private practice. Inexpensive and expeditious justice should be ensured to the people as also the right of access to information without any hurdle. The prime minister shall, in consultation with the leader of the opposition in the National Assembly, forward three names for appointment of the Chief Election Commissioner to a parliamentary committee for hearing and confirmation of any one person. The parliamentary committee, to be constituted by the speaker, shall comprise 50 per cent from the opposition parties, based on their strength in Parliament to be nominated by the respective parliamentary leaders. In case there is no consensus between the prime minister and the leader of the opposition, each shall forward separate lists to the parliamentary committee for consideration, which may confirm one name. The total strength of the parliamentary committee shall not exceed 12 members out of which one-third shall be from the Senate. Provided that when the National Assembly is dissolved and a vacancy occurs in the office of the chief election commissioner, the parliamentary committee shall comprise the members of the Senate only. There shall be no restriction on the number of terms for the offices of the prime minister and chief ministers. Prime minister would advise the president on appointment of the chairman of the chiefs of staff committee and chiefs of three armed forces. The Senate shall consist of 104 instead of 100 members with the addition of one minority member from each province. Working days of the Senate have been increased from 90 to 110. Restriction on a person who has been dismissed from the service of Pakistan, service of a corporation or office set up or controlled by the federal government or the provincial government on ground of misconduct has been lifted. According to this amendment, a person could be elected as MP, three or five years after dismissal from the service. A person shall be disqualified from being elected or chosen as, and from being, a member of parliament if he has been dismissed from the service of Pakistan or service of a corporation or office set up or, controlled, by the federal government, the provincial government or a local government on ground of misconduct, unless a period of five years since his removal or dismissal; or unless a period of three years has elapsed since his removal or compulsory retirement. The restriction on a person being elected as member of parliament, who has been convicted by a court of competent jurisdiction for propagating any opinion, or acting in any manner, prejudicial to the ideology of Pakistan, or the sovereignty, integrity or security of Pakistan, or integrity or independence of the judiciary of Pakistan, or which defames or bring into ridicule the judiciary or the armed forces of Pakistan, unless a period of five years has elapsed since his release. Chairman of the Federal Public Service Commission would be appointed by the president on the advice of the prime minister. Similarly, chairmen of the provincial public service commissions would be appointed by the governors on the advice of chief ministers. Proclamation of emergency in the province due to internal disturbances would require a resolution from the provincial assembly. If the president acts on his own, the proclamation of emergency shall be placed before both houses of parliament for approval by each house within 10 days. On dissolution of the assembly or completion of its term, or in case it is dissolved under Article 58 or Article 112, a caretaker shall be selected by the president in consultation with the prime minister and the leader of the opposition in the outgoing National Assembly. Similarly, a caretaker chief minister will be appointed in consultation with the chief minister and the leader of the opposition in the outgoing provincial assembly. Proclamation of emergency of the fourteenth day of October, 1999, the Provisional Constitution Order (PCO) No 1, the Oath of Office (Judges) Order, 2000, Chief Executive Order No 12 of 2002, Chief Executive Order No 19 of 2002, the amendments made in the Constitution through LFO, 2002, (Chief Executive Order No 24), the LFO (Amendment) Order, 2002, Chief Executive’s Order No 29 of 2002) and the LFO (Second Amendment) Order, 2002 (Chief Executive Order No 32 of 2002), notwithstanding any judgment of any court, including the Supreme Court or a High Court, are hereby declared as having been made without lawful authority and of no legal effect. Judges of the Supreme Court, High Courts and Federal Shariat Court who were continuing to hold the office of a judge or were appointed as such, and had taken oath under the Oath of Office (Judges) Order 2000, shall be deemed to continue to hold the office as judge or appointed as such as the case may be, under the Constitution and such continuance or appointment, shall have effect accordingly. Appointment of judges to the Supreme Court, there shall be a judicial commission. For appointment of judges of the Supreme Court, the commission, headed by the chief justice of Pakistan, shall also consist of two most senior judges of the apex court, a former chief justice or a former judge of the Supreme Court to be appointed by the chief justice in consultation with two member judges for a period of two years, federal minister for law and justice, Attorney General for Pakistan, and a senior advocate of the Supreme Court of Pakistan to be nominated by the Pakistan Bar Council for a period of two years. The judicial commission for the appointment of High Court judge, headed by the chief justice of the High Court, would also include two most senior judges of the High Court, provincial law minister, a senior advocate to be nominated by the provincial bar council. For appointment of judges of the Federal Shariat Court, the judicial commission shall also include the chief justice of the Shariat Court and the most senior judge of that court as its members. Article 58-2(b) should be repealed and substituted with “Dissolution of the National Assembly”. The substitution clause says that the president shall dissolve the National Assembly if so advised by the prime minister, and the National Assembly shall, unless sooner dissolved, stand dissolved at the expiration of forty-eight hours after the prime minister has so advised. Notwithstanding anything contained in Clause 2 of Article 48, the president may also dissolve the National Assembly in his discretion where, a vote of no-confidence having been passed against the prime minister, no other member of the National Assembly commands the confidence of the majority of the members of the National Assembly in accordance with the provision of the Constitution, as ascertained in a session of the National Assembly summoned for the purpose. Passing of the bills: Recommended substitution in Article 70 with “introduction of passing of bills”, adding that a bill with respect to any matter in the Federal Legislative List may originate in either house and shall, if it is passed by the house in which it originated, be transmitted to the other house and if the bill is passed without amendment by the other house also, it shall be presented to the president for assent. Bills presented in the house but not passed within 90 days of lying in the House shall be considered in a joint sitting of parliament. Islamabad High Court established and the judges of the Islamabad High Court should be taken from the federal capital and four provinces.
  

Nineteenth Amendment January 1, 2011

• Articles 81, 175, 175A, 182, 213, 246 – Amendment introduced a new system for appointments in the superior courts; the amendment also raised the number of senior judges as members of the Judicial Commission to four. Under the amendment, recommendations for the appointments of ad hoc judges in the superior courts will be made by the Chief Justice of Pakistan in consultation with the Judicial Commission. Moreover, in case of the National Assembly’s dissolution, members of the parliamentary committee will be from the Senate only.
  

Picture Courtesy The News

This Was First Published at The News Tribe Blogs:

This past Friday I was getting late to reach to reach the mosque for Friday prayer, this is quite usual for me to be late for that. However, ever since I am here in UK, getting late creates a lot of problem because prayer can be skipped and, because there are only a few mosques in the city they get over capacity and one cannot find a place to offer his prayer. Let me share you some facts about Newport (Gwent) there are total nine mosques in Gwent including the imam bargahs, two of them have Pakistani administrations and I normally visit these two places because they are nearer to my place.

As I was saying that, I got late that day and I was more than sure that it would be hard for me to find place in the mosque, so I made my way to the Shah Poran Bangladeshi Jame Mosque. This mosque has Bangladeshi management and it has capacity for 800 worshippers.

Because of the history, I have some emotional attachment to Bangladesh, just because it has been a part of Pakistan for years and another reason is the accounts that I have heard from my grandfather who was posted in East Pakistan (Bangladesh). Feeling of happiness was there as I made to the mosque in time and I was happy that I would not be missing or skipping prayer. There was enough space in the hall and picked a place to sit and offer the prayer. The sermon and the Dua (pray) after the collective prayer was in Bengali language. I found it easier to understand, as mostly the needs are the same that we want our God to help us with.

According to my observation, I was one of the very few Pakistanis in that hall as there were three or four Pakistanis in that hall. Offered the prayer and came out of the mosque, this life has become purposelessly busy and this busy life did not allowed me to start or have some conversation with Bengalis there.

I never had a friend from Bangladesh and I wanted to make one, I did not had chat with anyone there because I wanted to avoid the question that one student at my university from Bangladesh asked me after conforming if I am from Pakistan. The question was, “so do you think that separation of both wings of Pakistan was right?”

With all the regret and murk of sad feelings of East Pakistan fall my reply was a question itself, “are you happy today”. When the word “yes” hit my eardrum I said, “in that case it was right”. That day I replied that question and realised that I will be facing the same question again if I meet someone from that part of the world may be because there is still some kind of kinship between some Pakistanis and Bangladeshis. Even after the separation, the connection is there that made them to ask this question just to know if there has been some change in our opinion or attitude. The fact remains that to some extent, they share the same past the versions and editions of the past might be different.

The atmosphere of the mosque was just like a mosque should have; welcoming. I spent my time there and came out. I was a complete stranger for the people there and they were strangers for me no one asked me anything but still I came out of the mosque with the head down and neck heavy with the burden of history.

Why East Pakistan became Bangladesh is not a mystery anymore, there were some mistakes at every end and no one came forward to apologise for those.  Mistakes, misdeeds, and arrogance resulted in what I experienced there, psychologically, in that mosque I was a Pakistani there and others were Bangladeshi this division, which is the result of the hate born and brought up in the minds of people of that part of the country back then.

No matter it is nation or an individual, the progress meet them only when they learn from the historical mistakes and apologise the history for making those mistakes. In all those thirty years, neither we have said sorry nor we have learned anything the proof of that is the current state of Baluchistan.

Whatever we have done wrong to the Bengalis, I feel sorry for that all, and I want to say, “I am really sorry for what happened”. I think it might be late but still there is time for us that we should say sorry to the past and specially the past that brought the year of 1971 in our history.

P.S: This piece was written in July after many tries it could not be published earlier for some reason. today on 16th December I am publishing it. Now there are two Mosques in the city with Bangladeshi management. In fact I am the regular visitor to the New mosque as it is near to my place. And yeah still I am scared of that question tough no one asked it.

Related Articles

• Have We Learned Anything?
• Keh Dena… A Tribute to Albela Rahi
• PYLC – Day 1
• Fuss during Zulfiqar Mirza’s Talk at Oxford University (Exclusive Video)
• RARE OLD PICS QUETTA / BALOCHISTAN

QINGQI

There is some hue and cry over the sorry state of affairs at Railways and PIA, but WHY?

It was destined like this!

Let me remind you some services which died and we just watched.

1988 on

1. Punjab Urban Transport, Karachi Transport Company (KTC), Metro Bus Services, Sarhad Urban Transport and if any such service existed in Baluchistan were taken off the road deliberately. All these services had spacious, comfortable and durable Volvo buses. But we preferred the Toyota Hi lux Wagons (Death capsules) and last of all Qingqi. Graveyard of the Volvo buses in Lahore used to be somewhere near Thokar Niaz Beg.
   

   We had them once!

2. For intercity transport there used to be Government Transport Service (GTS) if any one remembers the Red Buses yes they were replaced by New Khan and M. Nazir Inayat Ullah Road Runners. The GTS buses were spacious, comfortable and followed a time schedule.

2008 on

1. Railways yes still alive but in ICU but being replaced by Daewoo, Niazi Coach Etc. and on the freight side so many goods transporters and movers today hold the market.
2. PIA also breathing its last so what is so wrong if AIR INDUS would replace it.

Who is to be blamed for all this, politicians, military regimes, governments, poor management of these government-run services or the private transport mafias who played crook to safeguard their businesses? All of them! Where were we; we suffered as every time a service was withdrawn but we stayed quiet. Don’t we deserve to suffer more and mourn the demise of railways and PIA?

Raza Habib Raja

Sixteenth December arouses radically different sentiments in two different and yet related countries of the world. In one, it is cherished and celebrated and in the other it is just “ignored” and of course deliberately.

But then the significance of this day differs so much for each of the aforementioned countries of the world. For one it is the day of victory (though their official Independence Day is March 26, 16^th December is celebrated as the Victory Day) and for other, it is the day of a humiliating defeat which they will like to forget. It is the day when the cherished army made up of so called martial race belonging to the latter was overwhelmed within one month.

It is a day which ideally should never be forgotten by latter country Pakistan but given its tendency to conveniently ignore the inconvenient truth, it is perhaps expected. While our history text books scream about 1965 war with India, they hardly say a word about 1971’s humiliating defeat and more importantly as to what had actually led to the fateful year.

All our history, the one which is taught, is silent about what was happening in East Pakistan during 1950s and 1960s. Our history just talks about West Pakistan and in doing so merely reflects what exactly was happening TO East Pakistan: It was being ignored completely. And when we finally turned attention, it was not to redress their grievances but to undertake an army operation which could be easily called a massacre as well. And of course the official history does not talk about it and even if you go through the popular “unofficial” version you will find that most of the blame would be placed on Mukti Bahni and Indian conspiracies to break Pakistan.

It is only if you start reading some books by the foreign authors or some of the more objective Pakistani writers that a different narrative starts to emerge. And needless to say that even if you read credible writers and objective accounts that narrative is radically different from the official Pakistani version.

Pakistanis had mistreated Bengalis and that mistreatment progressively became worse as the time went by. It started with the denial of freedom to Bengalis to choose a national language and then started to seep into economic domain. Bengalis particularly felt left out in the matters of governance and decision making. And it was this feeling of deprivation which ultimately manifested into secession based movement.

It should have been remembered that humans generally do not have a single identity but rather multiple identities. Which identity actually would actually be at the forefront at a particular time would depend on a host of complicated factors and perception of discrimination, whether real or nor, is one of the most potent ones. Ethnicity, defined on the lines of language and cultural homogeneity within a group has always been a very strong identity.  If an ethnicity feels that it is being discriminated due to its ethnicity, then that becomes the foremost identity and also the rallying point.

And then there is the concept of ethnic nationalism. Nationalism is not merely preservation of identity; it is very much intertwined with the concept of state. If state is perceived as unjust then nationalists will try to create their own state and thus would try to secede. Ernest Gellener actually defines nationalism in the context of injustice. The deprived and excluded if belonging to some common ethnicity will revolt and will form nationalist expression built around that ethnicity and may end up striving for a state of its own.

Let’s not forget that Bengalis were at the forefront of the Pakistan movement. To declare that they did not want Pakistan would be completely incorrect. However, while opting for Pakistan, their cultural as well ethnic identity though for the time being relegated did not simply vanish. And it came out dormancy when State began its exclusion based on that identity.

And we had more than two decades to redress the grievances by giving them a share in the governance and to ensure their greater participation in the national decisions which invariably affected them, but bent on centralization, we did not. We created one unit system, which according to many independent observers, was a twin pronged strategy to negate their population advantage and also to negate the ethnic diversity with in Western Pakistan.

And then when Awami League won the elections, we refused to give them their share of power and later on went on to conduct a military operation which resulted in wide scale loss of human lives.

It is our fear of plurality, particularly the perception that autonomy on ethnic lines would break up Pakistan that made us do all that back then and which continues to make us do similar things to provinces like Baluchistan.

So we have not learnt the critical lesson. We continue to believe that autonomy will break up Pakistan completely overlooking the key historical evidence: lack of autonomy will actually break Pakistan. And even if inhabitants of Baluchistan are not able to actually secede due to lack of military means, in their hearts they will hate Pakistan with increasing intensity.

As pointed out quite eloquently by Mr. Stephen Cohen in his book “The Idea of Pakistan” that Pakistani leaders have not fully grasped that in an ethnically diverse state most politics is of identity and closely linked to issues of pride, status, jobs and social equality. They seem convinced that ethno-linguistic demands are an economic problem, not a political, problem, and if other means fail, a military problem

Civil wars evoke a lot of emotions and subsequently the historical accounts reflect those emotional biases. Exactly how many died during the war of 1971 will always be a matter of dispute and both sides will claim radically different numbers. It is hardly surprising that estimates range from less than ten thousand to over a million.

How many were killed will remain a matter of dispute but even if no one was killed, the point is that we did an injustice by not giving Bengalis their due share and denied them their rights.

Nations move on only by embracing their past blunders and acknowledging their grave mistakes. Only through acknowledgement do we set our future direction right. A very important step towards this embracement and acknowledgement is to apologize to those who have faced the brunt of those mistakes. Yes, sorry is difficult but nevertheless an important step towards making peace with a very bitter part of our history.  Sorry requires a lowering of ego but our misplaced ego has always been our worst enemy.

Yes sorry wont compensate whatever has been done and there is a possibility that many Bengalis won’t even accept it for not being enough. But then to say sorry is our duty and to forgive is their choice. And when it is a matter of duty, it has to be done irrespective of whether the counter party exercises its choice or not.

The real sorry has to come from Pakistan’s government..but I will nevertheless say it..

We are Sorry Bangladesh…