MQM leader Altaf Hussain has
very recently come out with a proposal of establishing more than one
administrative units in Sindh. Most of the people have termed it as a separatist
demand or an attempt to divide Sindh. One must wonder how an act of creating
administrative units in a province can amount to its division. If we can recall
from the study of history, it is a process of evolution. No doubt, the name and
identification of Sindh exists on the pages of history since unknown ancient
times yet it is a reality that upto a little before partition, there was no
province of Sindh in British Empire and till 1937 it was “administratively”
attached with Bombay. As provinces are administrative units of a federation,
likewise divisions and districts are administrative units of a province. To
ensure itself of the process of evolution, one can count the number of divisions
and districts in Sindh from the year 1947 till date. Why 1947? Just go back to
1972, after fall of Dacca and you will find just three divisions and only 11
districts in Sindh. Today there are 5 divisions and almost 28 districts therein.
Did this increase in administrative units, divide Sindh? This evolutionary
process is an act of shaping or reshaping the province but not resizing it as
most people think will happen if MQM demand is accepted. If more administrative
units are created or some of the earlier are abolished or an altogether new
shape of administrative units in Sindh is introduced to overcome and eliminate
social, economical, racial, ethnic, linguistic or sectarian differences and
conflicts, that will be in accordance with the process of evolution and never
result in geographical distribution of Sindh as we have experienced in the
earlier years.
It is not that I am advocating the cause of MQM. In fact, as back as on 18th
November 2012, when I newly joined facebook, my first post was almost on the
same subject. I am reproducing the same below for the perusal of my friends.
18th November 2012
A LITTLE THOUGHT REQUIRED!
We have drawn following prepositions from our experience of going or passing
through constitutional history of Pakistan, observations, comparative study of
the constitutions and laws of alike countries etc:
1. Pakistan being a federation requires a strong centre coupled with maximum
autonomy of its federating units to remove the feeling and impression of a
rather OPPRESSIVE and not simply a STRONG centre.
2. Autonomy of federating units means TRULY, transition of power to the lowest
possible level of governance irrespective the idea introduced by whom for, being
Muslims we believe in “Listen what is being said without any favour or bias for
the person who says”.
3. Earlier, prior to 1973 we had uni-cameral legislature I(National Assembly
alone) with two-stage administration i,e. federal and provincial governments and
two-level assemblies i.e. National and Provincial Assemblies.. After 1973, we
opted for bi-cameral legislature I(National Assembly and Senate) with the same
two-stage administration i,e. federal and provincial governments and the same
two-level assemblies i.e. National and Provincial Assemblies. In the last
regime, a further change was introduced by maintaining the bi-cameral
legislature but enhancing the administrative stages from two to three i.e. in
the shape of federal, provincial and district governments and two-level
assemblies to three i.e. National, Provincial and District Assemblies.
4. Throughout the above exercise, maintaining and bringing about “Democracy” and
“Good Governance” were always acclaimed as the central idea behind.
5. Democracy denies all forms of dictatorship, be that even a democratic
dictatorship. A balanced assembly therefore with a strong opposition is an
integral and inseparable part of democracy.
6. Governance means an absolute, unambiguous, uninterrupted and unshared power
to rule.
Now arise certain questions. All are invited to go through the same as given
below, give a thought, ponder over and as a result, share your views by
answering these questions, adding more and suggesting strategic solutions to the
issues emerging through the same. Truth is always bitter. No matter how harsh
and unwanted your views may appear to others, please come up with the sole truth
you may find within yourself!
1. Does there appear any sense in keeping together and simultaneously,
provincial and district assemblies along with provincial and district
governments?
a. Doesn’t it amount to creating a parallel system of governance?
b. Doesn’t that provide room for interrupting into each others domain and
creating confusion in government functionaries?
c. Doesn’t such parallel system of governance lead us to a state of sheer bad
governance?
2. If the objective of transition of power to the lowest level can be achieved
only through formation of district assemblies and governments, what is the need
then to keep into existence the provincial assemblies and governments?
3. Do we have enough courage either to give up the idea of transition of power
to the lowest level through formation of district assemblies and governments or
to dissolve the provincial assemblies and governments having lost their
importance as such?
a. In such a case, what will happen to the theory of provincial autonomy when
there will be no provinces at all? Or
b. Can we treat the districts as the federating units of the federation in
substitution of the provinces and vest into them the autonomy enshrined in the
Constitution through recent amendments in the same?
4. Is the present size of districts throughout the country sufficient to give
them the status of federating units?
5. Do the present district assemblies really carry and depict a democratic
culture with a strong opposition in the House? Or the same are one-man/few-men
show?
6. Have we, through all we have done, successfully achieved the objectives of
transition of power to the lowest level, maintaining democracy and good
governance? Or we do still need some fundamental and structural changes for the
purpose? If yes, what?