Interview
By Idrees Bakhtiar

Q. Your recent statements have been described by a section of the Pakistani intelligentsia as well as the government as being against the ideology of Pakistan...

A. That depends entirely on the perception of the people regarding the issues that we are trying to raise. As far as we are concerned, whatever we are demanding is in accordance with the spirit and the ideology of Pakistan. But it is an ideology that has been abandoned by the country's establishment and its rulers. We have been demanding for long that the smaller provinces of the country be given their due rights. And that is exactly why we are now demanding a new constitution - a constitution that ensures equal rights for everyone. If smaller provinces and ethno-linguistic minorities feel threatened from majority rule, as was  the case before the partition of the subcontinent, one would find it extremely difficult to justify the two-nation theory.

Q. Do you think it is possible to frame a new constitution in the existing circumstances? Besides, what guarantees are you asking for that are not there already in the 1973 constitution?

A. Let there be an open debate on that. Let us present our point of view. We will explain why we want a new constitution. Those who are opposed to the idea should come forward with their point of view. The purpose of the exercise should be for the people, or their leaders, to ensure that the everyone's rights are safeguarded. As for the 1973 constitution, how can it protect the rights of the people when it could not even protect itself and its creator, Zulfikar Ali Bhutto. The constitution was twice abrogated despite Article 6, which provides death penalty to the abrogator.

Q. But it remains a consensus document, and given the controversy generated by your statements ...

A. I am aware of that. But let me reiterate that we have not spoken against Pakistan. All that we are asking for are equal rights. They [the military establishment] have started talking of a crackdown, of dealing strictly with those who have spoken against the ideology of Pakistan. Let there be a crackdown. We will stand by our demands.

Q. But many people believe that referring to the 1940 Resolution implies doing away with the existing state structure.

A. The 1940 Resolution speaks of states. We know it as the Pakistan Resolution. If the government thinks that the resolution passed on April 9, 1946, is the Pakistan Resolution, then it should say so. It should declare April 9, instead of March 23, as Pakistan Day.  The fact of the matter is that if you want to save Pakistan, you can only save it in the light of the formula we have given. But even this formula is not a verse from the Holy Quran. You talk to us and we will tell you how to frame a new constitution. The country can no more be governed by guns and gunpowder. Instead, the federation will gain in strength by declaring the provinces as states, as envisaged in the 1940 resolutions. America has a number of states and every state has its own flag. That does not weaken the United States of America.

Q. The government seems to be aware of the sense of deprivation in the smaller provinces. The chief executive has himself referred to it.

A. We waited for a year hoping that the chief executive's promise of removing provincial disharmony would be fulfilled. But it wasn't. Nothing has been done to create provincial harmony. Instead, people are being sacked and massive retrenchment is taking place in the name of downsizing. In their place, army officers are being posted in all government departments. Is that how you want to create provincial harmony?

Q. You want to join PONM, but some of its component parties from Sindh are opposing the move. They say that the MQM will first have to sign the PONM declaration, which only recognises five nationalities excluding Mohajirs. Are you prepared to do that?

A. Everyone has a right to think what he wants to. But there is an increasing awareness among the Sindhi leadership and the Sindhi people on the issue of provincial rights. We are optimistic that they would realise the ground reality. Some of the PONM leaders have also been in touch with the Sindhi nationalist leaders.

Q. You have grievances against what you call the Punjabi establishment. On the other hand, leaders like Ataullah Mengal blame even the common Punjabi.

A. Everyone has a right to his opinion. I think the common Punjabi is not responsible for the exploitation of the other provinces. It is the Punjabi establishment, which has been denying the smaller provinces their rights. The common people of the Punjab, however, do fall prey to the establishment's propaganda. When the establishment says the Baloch are traitors, the common people of the Punjab believe it. Similarly, when the Punjabi establishment brands the Pathans, the Sindhis and the Mohajirs as traitors, the Punjabis believe it.

Q. If the government does not accept your demand, what would be your strategy?

A. What happens when a younger brother is refused his due rights by the elder?

Q. But will that not entail serious consequences including widespread bloodshed?

A. Let them try it. They have been doing it all along. They refused to transfer power to the Awami League and chose to resort to bloodshed. Did it work? No. Still, they do not want to listen to the truth. They want to play a bloody holi yet again.

Q. What, then, should be done?

A. We have given a formula for that. Harmony can only be created on the basis of equality. If force is not used against the smaller provinces, if people are allowed to join the political party of their choice, if the establishment does not interfere, only then can we have harmony in the country.

Q. At present, many top slots in the government are occupied by Mohajirs. Yet you complain that Mohajirs do not get proper representation.

A. What we complain against is the establishment and its role. It is the establishment that matters. No one can bypass the numerical majority of Punjabis in the army. The establishment will not let any one follow any policy, which does not suit its interests.

Q. If you join PONM, you will no longer be a part of the mainstream. What do you think of that?

A. What does it mean? If anyone demands the rights that have been denied to him, you exclude him from the mainstream or start calling him an anti-federation element. As far as the APC, the GDA and PONM are concerned, they are all the branches of the same tree i.e. Pakistan.

Q. Will your demand not force the GDA components to expel you from the alliance, since none of them is demanding a new constitution?

A. We will raise our voice at every political forum, whether they like it or not. We are ready to negotiate but not ready to surrender our point of view because of any threat.

Q. Some circles believe that you have been manipulated into demanding a new constitution so that you can be isolated from the mainstream.

A. I do not know what conspiracy is being hatched by the establishment now. But whatever we say is in accordance with the policy of our party. I have already discussed in detail in my book "The Three-pronged Strategy of the Establishment", the tactics, procedures and the machinations adopted by the establishment to isolate one community or ethno-linguistic group from the others. How the isolated group is then criminalised and demoralised. As for the manipulation of our views, the charge has been levelled against all the movements struggling for their rights.

Q. But don't you think it is important for you to strike some sort of an understanding with the mainstream parties?

A. They [the PPP and the PML] have been telling the military government that if they are denied a share in power, anti-Pakistan forces will become stronger. As far as they are concerned, we are an anti-Pakistan force. How can we have any understanding in these circumstances?

Q. Your concept of autonomy also differs from that of other nationalist groups. Is your demand for autonomy the same for all of Sindh or do you also have plans to ask for additional safeguards for Mohajir-dominated areas?

A. What we mean by autonomy is the transfer of all powers and authority to the provinces with the exception of three subjects: foreign affairs, defence and currency. Baloch and Sindhi nationalists may have a concept of autonomy different from ours. But the demand for autonomy remains the common factor between all of us. Once Sindh attains full provincial autonomy, the people of urban and rural Sindh can sit together and amicably resolve the question of rights for the people of urban and rural areas. Sindhis and Mohajirs are sons of the land of Shah Latif and have to live and die together in the province of Sindh.

Q. Many fear that your current confrontationist posture can lead to a separatist movement not only in Sindh and Balochistan but also in Mohajir-dominated areas?

A. Only a continuous and meaningful dialogue can lead one away from confrontation. Accusing others of being traitors and stubbornly refusing to hold a sincere and meaningful dialogue invariably leads one towards confrontation. At the moment, I cannot speak further on the subject. As far as we are concerned, we have presented a formula in the form of 12 resolutions released on September 17, 2000 to prevent the possibility of a confrontation.

Q. Sometime back the MQM had carried out a survey of the views of its supporters regarding the party's future politics. What was the outcome of the survey?

A. I think that there is some misunderstanding about the questions that the MQM put before its electorate regarding the party's future politics. The question was not about 'separation' but about a 'separate province'. During the regime of Benazir Bhutto, when the anti-MQM operation was at its peak, dozens of Mohajirs were being slaughtered every day. Being the daughter of Sindh, she should not have allowed the security agencies to persecute Mohajirs. It was in response to the operation that the Mohajirs voted in favour of a separate province. But the MQM convinced them that a further division of Sindh would not be in anyone's interest under the existing system.

Q. Do you think the MQM's supporters would respond if you gave a call for extreme action?

A. I think the MQM still enjoys the support of Mohajirs and other oppressed people. Its vote bank has increased and they will say lab-baek to our calls. But the MQM does not want to divide Sindh. It only wants to attain the rights of the Mohajirs as well as the Sindhis with whom we must co-exist.