Discrimination against Hazara: op-ed by Kashif Jahangiri in The News, May 17

The writer is an accountant living in Dublin

This refers the article by Mr Imran Khan published in The News (May 14) in response to my article previously published on these pages. It occurs to me that Mr Khan has totally misunderstood the issue by picking up the thread from the wrong end. The issue is not confined to ethnic labelling only. The primary issue is that of stripping the people of Hazara of their identity by calling them “Punjabiyan”. While I strongly believe that Punjabis are equally respectable as anyone else on this planet, I know for a fact that the reference “Punjabiyan” is made in the Pashto-speaking areas quite often in a contemptuous way. This attitude of people in the Pashto-speaking areas is particularly painful for those from Hazara who are of Pukhtun origin. For them, it is difficult to accept when the people of their own race try to outcast them for the wounds caused by your own people always leave dirty scars. It was particularly this issue that I had highlighted in my article which I feel is one of the main causes behind the reaction of the people of Hazara. I had mentioned that the common perception amongst the Hazarewals is that they are being singled out by the Pukhtun nationalists due to the key role they had played in the historic referendum of 1947. The objective of my article was also to highlight the fact that the renaming of the province was not the main issue. If the people of Hazara had accepted the renaming of Haripur, Abbottabad and Mansehra, why would they object to the new name of the province just for the sake of it, particularly those who are themselves Pukhtuns? Mr Khan has referred to some famous racial divides – the Irish and the English, the Pukhtuns and the Muhajirs, and, the Bengalis and the West Pakistanis. None of these serves as the right parallel to the problem of Hazara. In all these cases, there were two different races involved. Even otherwise, I am not sure if we should follow these examples as a lot of blood was lost in these divides. The reference to various chief ministers of the province hailing from Hazara is also not relevant. Just to close out on this, Hazara has been a strong base for the Muslim League and has been the reason for their government in the province. The Muslim League has chosen chief ministers from Hazara to keep its ground intact. However, I don’t think it has any relevance to the present issue. Mr Khan has also provided statistics to substantiate the claim that the region of Hazara has been adequately looked after in developmental terms. Without going into the details of those statistics, I am not sure if development alone can do the trick. The argument regarding the development of the Hazara region itself requires us to find out and address the real cause behind the demand for a separate province that now carries the cost of a few lives. If development were sufficient to keep the people together, then East Pakistan would not have become Bangladesh. I present to you some developmental statistics for East Pakistan that are from the book The Agony of Pakistan (page 115) written by Sir Zafarulla Khan, our first foreign minister who later became the president of the UN General Assembly and then the president of the International Court of Justice. * East Pakistan’s revenue receipts increased from Rs169m in 1947-48 to Rs1,789m in 1969-70. During the same period, the revenue receipts of Dacca Municipality increased from Rs1.6m to Rs16.3m and that of Chittagong Municipality from Rs0.75m to Rs15m. * In 1947, there were no jute mills in East Pakistan. By 1970, it had 55 jute mills processing 3 million bales of jute. * Between 1947 and 1970, the number of post offices in East Pakistan doubled from 3,000 to 6,000 and telephone connections increased from 3,000 to over 50,000. * Between 1947 and 1970, the length of high-type roads in East Pakistan increased from 240 miles to 2,400 miles and low-type roads from nil to 1,400 miles. * The handling capacity of Chittagong port was increased from 0.5m tons in 1947 to 4.7m tons in 1969. An additional port established in Chalna had a handling capacity of over 2m tons. * In 1947, there were only two small airports (Dacca and Chittagong). By 1970, there were a number of small airports and airstrips while the Dacca Airport was upgraded to handle jet planes. * Of the total developmental loans of Rs15,266m made available by the government of Pakistan between 1947 and 1970, more than 55 per cent went to East Pakistan. * Between 1960 and 1969, of the total revenues of Rs8,0451m contributed by East Pakistan, an amount of Rs3,884m (48 per cent) was refunded to it as provincial allocation. During the same period, of the total revenue of Rs22,371m contributed by West Pakistan, an amount of Rs4,000m (18 per cent) was refunded to it as provincial allocation. * The only steel mill was established at Chittagong and the only newsprint plant was set up at Khulna. The above-mentioned facts clearly failed to impress our Bengali brothers who parted ways with us. Their problems did not arise in1971. The seed of Bengali nationalism was planted in the early years of Pakistan when processions were taken out in East Pakistan against the adoption of Urdu as the national language. Our dismissive approach complicated the issue and provided opportunities to our enemies who exploited the emotions of our brothers. We should not repeat the same mistakes. As a result of strain between any two sections of a society, howsoever distinct, the people of each section start receding to their respective nuclei. In the next phase, they try to detach themselves from the part they consider as the source of pain. The region of Hazara is now moving towards phase two. This is a sensitive matter and needs careful attention, particularly considering our history and the present state of affairs. The objective of my article was to raise an issue and to jolt minds, hoping that better sense would start prevailing. We should accept our problems and try to address them, rather than going for a cover up approach. Some of the comments made by the participants in a TV show recently and some videos that can be found on Youtube of the speeches made in the processions that were brought out by people in favour of Hazara province clarify the point further that it is the rejection of the identity of Hazarewals that is being exploited to flare up emotions. I had mentioned in my post to The News published on May 13, 2010 that I support the view that all Divisions should be made provinces. However, it should be done for the purpose of administrative ease only. Dividing a province on the basis of ethnic differences may lead to further subdivisions and no one knows where it will stop. We need to consider the future implications of any such move. http://www.thenews.com.pk/daily_detail.asp?id=239856