By Idrees Bakhtiar

There was excitement on the streets of Karachi on the eve of September 17, the 47th birthday of Altaf Hussain, the self-exiled politician and founding father of Muttahida Qaumi Movement (MQM). However dispirited and disorganised following eight years of state repression, MQM activists gathered in public parks and roadside tea-stalls to discuss the 'important announcement' that was to mark the birthday celebrations being held thousands of miles away in Acton Town, London. The more militant amongst the MQM supporters paced the streets in anticipation of a call for renewed activism. The politically inclined crossed their fingers in the hope of an action plan that would aim at rehabilitating their party in the country's political mainstream. Meanwhile, officials of various government agencies busied themselves dispelling the impression that the 'discredited and absconding politician' had anything worthwhile to say.

Come September 17, and everyone was left wondering what to make of the statement that was issued from Acton Town. Addressed primarily to the Pakistani military establishment, Altaf Hussain's call for a new constitution in accordance with the 1940 Lahore Resolution was certainly no call to arms. Neither did it sound like a plan that could help the MQM re-enter the political mainstream. Even intelligence sleuths predicting a storm in a tea cup were not too sure: while Altaf's statement carried no immediate cause for alarm, his explicit rejection of the state's existing federal structure and a detailed critique of Mohammed Ali Jinnah, Pakistan's founding father, were not inconsequential events.

It took a while for the truth to register itself as observers comprising government officials, politicians, the media and the activists started to understand the implications of Altaf's latest utterances: a party that had always prided itself for being the 'creator of Pakistan' was suddenly describing the creation of this country as the "greatest mistake in human history". And from being the most virulent defender of Jinnah's politics, it had suddenly turned into one of his sternest critics. Everything pointed to only one possibility. The MQM's romance with mainstream politics was over. It was now seeking a new role for itself. As the magnitude of this watershed change in the MQM's politics sinks in, the next question to surface is the obvious one: what is Altaf Hussain up to?

"I have not spoken against Pakistan," says Altaf Hussain. "All I have asked for are equal rights,"(see accompanying interview). That may well be the bottom-line in Altaf's change of tack, but couched in the rhetoric of the smaller nationalities' sense of deprivation, the demand assumes a significance that reaches far beyond the issue of equal rights. In essence, it hits upon the very basis of the existing state structure, whereby an all-powerful centre controlled by Pakistan's mighty civil and military establishment has kept the federating units on dole for the past 53 years. Indeed, Altaf wants the new constitution to be in accordance with the 1940 Lahore Resolution, where Pakistan is envisioned as an entity "constituting independent states." And since September 17, the MQM leader has been stoking the controversy unrelentingly by issuing one statement after another. The latest bit of fuel has come in the shape of a questionnaire addressed to the Pakistani intelligentsia, asking it to explain was is meant by the ideology of Pakistan.

Reaction within Pakistan to Altaf's demand for a new constitution has been predictable enough. The Punjab-based print media has been more or less unanimous in condemning Altaf for decrying Jinnah as well as a constitution that can legitimately be described as the only consensus document since Partition (see box). A number of newspapers have even urged the government to take strict action "against those speaking against the ideology of Pakistan." The Sindhi nationalist leader ship, too, has been critical, albeit for different reasons. Refusing to admit the MQM into the Pakistan Oppressed Nations Movement (PONM) unless it gives up its identity of being a Mohajir organisation, Sindhi nationalist leaders have been visibly reluctant to respond to Altaf's call in more concrete terms. Meanwhile, politicians in Balochistan, the second major hub of PONM's activities after Sindh, have endorsed Altaf's call for a new constitution without speculating on the possibility of the MQM's inclusion in PONM.

The most predictable, naturally, has been the reaction of the military government. For nearly a month after Altaf first called for a new constitution, the government kept silent, hoping that the budding controversy would burn itself out. When that failed to happen, the government went into its characteristic overdrive and reports started to filter in from Islamabad that a legal team had been asked to explore the possibility of instituting sedition cases against all those speaking against the ideology of Pakistan.

Not that the MQM would worry too much about the government's reaction. The party has come a long way since 1986, when it first came into being with active assistance from the Zia-led military establishment. After sweeping the 1988 elections in Karachi and Hyderabad, and reaffirming its stronghold with even more astonishing victory margins in 1990, the MQM fell out with the military establishment when the latter realised that it had allowed an essentially political outfit to acquire a fighting machine that was even capable of taking on the army itself. In keeping with its nature, the army unleashed a massive propaganda campaign against the MQM, describing it as an anti-Pakistan party with a host of Indian agents in its fold. The propaganda soon culminated in the first military action against the MQM in 1992. Having correctly read the military establishment's growing unease, Altaf Hussain had fled the country by the time the army operation was launched. At the height of the army operation, an army spokesman told journalists that they had unearthed evidence indicating that the MQM was conspiring to declare parts of urban Sindh as an independent state by the name of Jinnah Pur. In the following years, despite several attempts by the MQM leadership to make amends with the establishment, it was refused re-admission to the political mainstream. Since then, armed action against the MQM has continued in one shape or the other, assuming barbaric proportions during the second tenure of the PPP. Led by interior minister Naseerullah Babar, civilian and paramilitary law enforcement agencies killed scores of MQM activists and workers in blatantly false police encounters - a massacre that led to a general impression that the MQM had been effectively neutralised. Meanwhile, the MQM's attempts at forging political alliances with the mainstream political parties fared no better. Starting with its 1988 alliance with the PPP, the MQM's ire at being denied its due share in power ensured that all its alliances were short-lived. Tricked by the military establishment into boycotting the national assembly polls in 1993, the MQM returned with full force in the 1997 polls and once again attempted a coalition government with the PML in Sindh. But that too fell apart when the party was accused of engineering the murder of Hakim Said, a highly respected philanthropist in Karachi.

Given this history, it is clear that the MQM has had its share of political alliances and adjustments with mainstream political parties. Altaf himself admits the futility of pursuing the experiment further. "These parties [PPP and PML] are busy telling the army that if they are denied their share in power, anti-Pakistan forces will grow stronger," he told the Herald in a telephonic interview. "It is clear that as far as they are concerned, we are anti-Pakistan. How can we hope for a working relationship with such parties?" At the same time, there is little love lost between the MQM and other nationalist parties. Since its inception, the MQM has been blamed for fomenting violence and hatred against almost all nationalities constituting Pakistan. Over the last 15 years, Karachi and Hyderabad, Sindh's two major urban centres, have seen Mohajir-Pathan clashes, Mohajir-Punjabi clashes and finally, Mohajir-Sindhi clashes. The wounds from the last-mentioned conflict still run deep: despite launching himself as a follower of the prominent Sindhi nationalist leader G.M. Syed, Altaf turned full circle to become one of the most vociferous opponents of Sindhudesh, a slogan coined by Sindhi nationalists in the days of General Ziaul Haq. "Sindhudesh will not come into being for as long as a single Mohajir is alive," are his reported words - words that still rankle with Sindhi nationalists. It is perhaps this history, coupled with the decimation of the MQM cadres in successive armed operations since 1992, that has lulled the present military establishment into a false sense of security vis-à-vis the MQM. The government's decision to explore the possibility of initiating sedition cases against Altaf Hussain and other nationalists is indicative of its desire to continue its policy of isolating the MQM from the mainstream and of treating it as an anti-Pakistan party. If the situation comes to a head, the military establishment can be confident of getting complete support from the PPP and the PML, as well as all the religious parties, which were ousted from urban Sindh's political arena by the MQM's emergence. However, few observers are convinced of the wisdom (or even the workability) of the military government's MQM policy. For one, this policy ignores the fact the MQM's call for a more equitable constitutional arrangement reflects a fundamental ground reality that no government in Pakistan has cared to address since independence. Regardless of how the military establishment opts to view the situation, the sense of deprivation amongst smaller provinces is as real as political perception gets. Regardless of their current relations with the MQM, no nationalist leader in Pakistan can ignore the call for greater provincial autonomy even if it emanates from the MQM. Rasul Baksh Palijo may be Altaf Hussain's sworn enemy, but the moment the MQM turns itself into an essentially nationalist outfit, Palijo's instinct would be to preserve his own constituency than to carry out his personal vendetta against Altaf. The same goes for most Sindhi nationalist leaders. In the Frontier, regardless of the disarray in which the nationalists find themselves, their linkage with the MQM remains extant in the Mohajir-Pathan understanding in Karachi. And having fought for their rights in isolation for years, Baloch nationalist leaders will be more than happy to find an ally that can bring Pakistan's largest commercial centre to a halt.

In fact, the September 17 Acton Town resolution was issued only after Altaf Hussain had held detailed discussions with a number of nationalist politicians including Baloch Sardar Ataullah Mengal, Pakhtun leader Mehmood Khan Achakzai and Sindhi nationalist Imdad Mohammed Shah. They all support the demand for a new constitution. If Altaf was drunk on power in the initial years of the MQM, he is showing all signs of sobering up. Despite a radical change in tactics, he has left himself with enough room to manoeuvre himself back into the mainstream provided the military establishment is willing to allow that. "Our demands are not the words of the Holy Quran," he says. "What is important is that an open debate be held on this issue. We are willing to present our point of view and just as willing to listen to those who do not agree with us." The astute statement is directed essentially at the military establishment since his own constituency has shown no adverse reaction to his new agenda. If anything, MQM cadres in Karachi are even more vehement in their support for the party than they were before the anti-MQM operations began. It is crucial for the government to dispense with its current arrogance and start examining the possible implications of denying the MQM a voice in the country's politics. Over the last few years, the Pakistani establishment appears to have convinced itself that the MQM is no longer the force that it used to be. Nothing can be further from the truth. And if evidence to the effect is required, the coming local body elections should be a good indicator. Not only are these elections, if held in a free and fair environment, likely to demonstrate the party's strength in urban Sindh, they can also serve as a referendum on the MQM leader's new stance.

Most observers agree that at this stage, it is not important to categorically accept or reject the demands being made by Altaf Hussain. What is urgently needed, instead, is to allow him the space that is his right as the leader of the third largest political party in the country. At the moment, he is being aggressively denied this space. While far more volatile organisations such as Lashkar-e-Taiba are free to hold their conferences and public meetings in Karachi, the MQM is not even allowed to hold a women's conference. With the national and provincial elections still uncertain, continued indifference (or a thoughtless knee-jerk reaction) to Altaf's statements can serve to drive him further from the mainstream. Already, Altaf's call for a new constitution is being described by a section of the Punjab-based intelligentsia as an insidious attempt at weakening the federation. The argument presented by these circles revolves around the fact that given the country's existing state of affairs, no new document can acquire the kind of political consensus that ushered in the 1973 constitution. Not only is the country not suffering from a tragedy as all-enveloping as the 1971 break-up, it also does not have a political leadership which can boast of the same status and command the same respect as the one which lent its signatures to the 1973 constitution. Since then, the schism between the provinces and the centre has widened substantially and any attempt to do away with the 1973 constitution may ultimately result in a final farewell to the federation.

The argument is inherently a sensible one, but any criticism of Altaf's new politics on its basis is a non-sequitur. Given the problem of framing a new constitution, it is all the more important to allow an open and fair debate on the basic constitutional issues raised by Altaf Hussain. On taking over in October last year, General Musharraf's seven-point agenda mentioned the need to create inter-provincial harmony. The MQM leader has simply worded the same imperative differently. Reprimanding him for doing so will only catalyse the nexus between all the nationalist forces that appears to be in the offing at this stage.

True that the MQM will have to work extremely hard to ensure that the nexus does materialise. The track record of the political alliances that it has forged so far remains dubious at best and most political parties have every reason to doubt the MQM or its leader's sincerity. While allied to the PPP in 1988, the MQM was clandestinely in contact with Nawaz Sharif, who was heading the Islami Jamhoori Ittehad (IJI) – the establishment-backed anti-PPP alliance - at the time. And on getting the lion's share in the provincial government as an IJI ally in 1992, it failed to deliver all that it was expected to. Besides, at no point during the MQM's stints in power did Karachi manage to rid itself of the political violence that has characterised the MQM's politics so far. It will have to do some serious soul-searching and come up with credible explanations of its past politics before it can expect to lead any alliance of nationalist forces. The military intelligence agencies may have played a pivotal role in subverting the MQM's politics, as alleged by Altaf Hussain, but their involvement cannot explain away all the mayhem Karachi has experienced over the last 10 years. Pakistan's history is replete with instances of the Pakistani army responding to nationalist assertions with brute force. Even after the country's bloody break-up in 1971, Pakistan's civil and military establishment thought little of sending helicopter gunships to Balochistan to quell an uprising by Baloch nationalist elements. Even today, a large number of Balochistan's nationalist leaders are either incarcerated or have been driven out of the country. There is little reason to believe that the establishment will respond any differently to the MQM's nationalist assertions. And if it opts to use force yet again, it needs to keep in mind that the battlefield this time will not be the arid mountains of Balochistan, but the country's commercial nerve centre that holds the future of the entire country in its hands.

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.