The Two Nation Theory could not provide honour, dignity and freedom to the Muslims of subcontinent

The News
On Sunday

UNRAVELLING THE 'MOHAJIR' MINDSET: AN INTERVIEW WITH MQM SUPREMO -- ALTAF HUSSAIN

'The Two Nation Theory could not provide honour, dignity and freedom to the Muslims of subcontinent'

Why did the Bengalis separate from Pakistan? Who is happy in Pakistan? Are the Baloch happy? Are the Sindhis happy? Are the Pakhtoons happy? Are the Seraiki happy? Are the Mohajirs happy? Do the ethno-linguistic minorities feel happy or relieved? Are the religious minorities happy? Do Pakistani women feel secure or even respected? And are they equally treated? Was Pakistan made for the feudals, military generals or the Punjabi establishment?.....In a hard talk conducted via e-mail, Political Economy poses some of the thorniest questions and makes the controversial leader of 'Mohajirs' respond like he never did before

Shehzad Amjad and Shahzareah Husain

Question: What prompted you to rename your political organisation the Muttahida Qaumi Movement (MQM)? Hasn't this change in identity stripped the MQM of its psychological hold over the Urdu-speaking community? Has the concept of "Muttahida", as yet, become the defining theme of your movement, which was founded upon the struggle of the Mohajirs in urban Sindh?

Answer: There were no forces behind the change of identity of the MQM from the Mohajir Qaumi Movement to the Muttahida Qaumi Movement. ...[The] factors concerned have been in accordance with the political philosophy of the MQM that is realism and pragmatism. India attained its independence one day after Pakistan. But if you compare the economic conditions, education, social values, nationalism, industrial development and the development taking place in the fields of science, information and technology and, most importantly, the achievement of democracy and the existence of an independent judiciary with the resources currently found in Pakistan, then where do you--or the political analysts of Pakistan--place our country in comparison with our neighbour?

Not for a single day has martial law ever been imposed in India. Yet the military has directly or indirectly ruled Pakistan since its inception. The main reason is that India abolished the feudal system soon after gaining its independence, whereas, even after 53 years, the prevailing medieval feudal system exists in Pakistan. ...[The] feudal oligarchy is ruling the country in collusion with the military generals! So the purpose of changing the name of our party was very much in the larger interest of Pakistan and its people. However, the feudal oligarchy and the army did not permit the MQM to carry out its political activities all over Pakistan. Party offices in Punjab, Sindh, NWFP and Balochistan were raided and the leaders, workers, supporters, along with their relatives, were unlawfully arrested; some brutally tortured and others imprisoned for years.

Furthermore, if the MQM was allowed to carry out its political activities throughout Pakistan, then we would certainly could have changed the existing political culture, as we have changed the mentality and the thinking of common Mohajirs. Through this change, the MQM has produced an educated and liberal-minded leadership from grassroot level. In an atmosphere where the women also participated in political activities and felt secure. We provided respect to women which is why they and their families wilfully and voluntarily took part in political activities revolving around the MQM. The common women of our community were confined to their homes before the emergence of the MQM. We also aided in creating religious harmony and tolerance between the Muslims belonging to different sects and schools of thought.

Having played the key role in gaining respect for the religious minorities. In short, we changed the name of the party but did not abandon the identity of the Mohajirs. The identity of a nation cannot be denied or altered by changing the names of the political parties or through the use of brutal state force. Today, we are struggling for the rights of all the oppressed, downtrodden and middle class people, including the Mohajirs. We have never been against any nationality, neither do we want to snatch the rights of anyone, or abandon the struggle to attain the rights of the Mohajirs.

As far as the psychological reaction of Mohajirs and the MQM losing its support is concerned, you can observe from the results of the general elections of 1997 that the vote bank of the MQM remained intact. Psychologically, Mohajirs are well awakened and they did not show any resentment due to the change in the name of the MQM.

Q: Recently you dropped a political bombshell by calling the two-nation theory a fraud perpetuated upon the Muslims of the subcontinent. The establishment, however, chose to ignore the statement. What made you say that? And how did India react to the statement?

A: It is a historical fact that nations and their peoples learn from their experiences. ...[S]ometimes bitter realities should be accepted no matter how horrible they are. The two-nation theory did not accomplish its objectives in letter and in the spirit as assured by the leaders of the Muslim League before partition. The two-nation theory could not provide shelter, relief, honour and dignity to the 100 million Muslims of the undivided subcontinent. The Muslims of India are greater in number than the total population of Pakistan.

As far as the reaction of India is concerned, it would be better to ask them directly.

In short, what happened when India Today published the Hamoodur Rehman Commission Report? What action was taken against those who were responsible for the dismemberment of Pakistan in 1971? Did the establishment not choose to ignore the debacle of East Pakistan?

Q: From the days of "Operation Clean-up" to Farooq Sattar's conviction in 2000, the MQM has consistently been on the receiving end of state oppression. This has led a section of the Mohajir community to conclude that the MQM has given Karachi's residents nothing but bloodshed. This section feels the MQM is somehow responsible for ruining their economic prospects?

A: Did Nelson Mandela and his people achieve their goal within a few days, months or even a few years? Did Yasser Arafat and his nation attain all their rights? Have the people of Ireland achieved all their demands, so far? Now what about the bloodbath of Mohajirs in 1964, 1973 in Karachi and other parts of Sindh province and what about 1971 in the former East Pakistan. All this occurred before the emergence of the MQM. The birth of the MQM is the result of the persistent denial of the rights of Mohajirs. Since the inception of Pakistan, the Mohajirs have been on the receiving end of state oppression. Dr Farooq Sattar is innocent but he is not the only victim. There are thousands of Mohajirs who have become victims of state injustice. They are still being subjected to the tyranny of the state.

Q: What if the Mohajirs of urban Sindh fail to attain their rights in the next 7-10 years. Would the MQM then try to organize a secessionist force? Some people in Karachi think their city could, at some point, emerge as the Hong Kong of South Asia? Please comment.

A: We still believe in attaining our rights within the boundaries of Pakistan. But if the Punjabi establishment and the army continues its brutal operation, and if the genocide of Mohajirs continues, then history will not only repeat itself but also take its natural course.

Karachi is still providing seventy per cent [of revenue earnings] to the national exchequer and it still accounts for 31 per cent of the GDP. It is also the only gateway to the Central Asian states.

At this point, I would like to stress that Karachi is only the capital of Sindh province. Sindh, as a whole, is not only deprived of its rights, but it has also become a colony of the Punjabi establishment. We, the Mohajirs and Sindhis, and all the permanent settlers of the province will certainly get united and struggle to attain the rights of Sindh--the blessed land of the revered saint Shah Abdul Latif, whose message was peace and love for all.

Q: The very term Mohajir is some kind of misnomer. How can a whole community become a mass of refugees in one's own land? Or, does this word imply a distinct psychological longing among the Urdu-speaking community to return to their roots. This, in turn, suggests that Mohajirs have not yet been able to culturally assimilate with the other nationalities in Pakistan. Do you agree with the observations made above?

A: The word Mohajir is just an identity of those who migrated to Pakistan. Whenever and wherever this type of migration takes place, it takes time to assimilate. Take the example of the United States. Do you think that the Americans comprise of one race, nation or a nationality? In the United States, the assimilation was not defined whereas in Pakistan, Mohajir assimilation was defined.

Mohajirs have chosen to become Pakistanis and they feel pride in doing so.

Whereas other nationalities and their leaders like Benazir Bhutto, Nawaz Sharif, Qazi Hussain Ahmed, General Asif Nawaz, Hanif Ramay and others made statements about how they felt proud to be Sindhi, Punjabi, Pakhtoon and Baloch. But there was no mention of their pride in being a Pakistani. Why have they not abandoned their ethnic identities and merged into a Pakistani nationality? This is a matter of ethnic and cultural particularism.

The one-nation concept never emerged because of the disparity and that is why cultural pluralism could not arise. Why do you target Mohajirs only? Why is there no objection at those who talk and insist on being referred to as Punjabis, Sindhis, Baloch, Pakhtoons and Seraikis?

Q: The Biharis or stranded Pakistanis in today's Bangladesh have, by and large, settled there and have also developed their own social and economic dynamism. Dhaka has, by and large, accepted them. But the issue continues to remain in vogue with the MQM. The goverments of Pakistan have turned a blind eye to the Biharis because it is believed that they would defuse ethnic tensions in Sindh.

But Biharis do pose a challenge to the concept of Pakistan, for if Pakistan is unwilling to accept the very people for whom it was created, then its own raison d'etre vanishes. Have you prepared any alternative plans for the settlement of stranded Pakistanis? Why can't the MQM confront the state by raising this issue?

A: I am sorry to say that you are unaware of the plight of stranded Pakistanis and I am also sorry to say that, although many objections were raised to the term "Mohajir", there was no hesitation in using the word Biharis instead of stranded Pakistanis.

It is extremely unfortunate that the people are completely ignorant of the plight of stranded Pakistanis who are still stuck in the 66 Red Cross camps in Bangladesh for the past twenty-nine years. Longing to return to their homeland--Pakistan. If our viewpoint is not to be believed then you should visit them and witness for yourself the plight of those who supported the Pakistan Army to save Pakistan-- as Pakistanis and not as Biharis. But Pakistan and its army are not ready to have them repatriated and they allege that the stranded Pakistanis will infuse ethnic tensions in Sindh.

I assure you if they are allowed to repatriate to Pakistan now, this time, they will fight for the rights of the people belonging to wherever they would be allowed to live because they have already learnt the lesson from the horrific experience of their previous decisions. The denial of the right to repatriate to Pakistan is also a denial of the two-nation theory by the establishment and the champions of the two-nation theory. Therefore, the two-nation theory was never the raison d'etre for the creation of Pakistan otherwise; the stranded Pakistanis would not have be where they are today.

How come no Punjabi, Sindhi, Baloch, Pakhtoon or Seraiki families are among those stranded in Bangladesh?

Q: From a student leader at Karachi University who rode a Honda 70 in the late '70s to a firebrand leader of the MQM living in exile in London, you have come a long way. Would you like to shed some light on your personal journey? On your dreams and aspirations as a young man and your experiences of injustice and exploitation that led you to form APMSO and later the MQM. Your party policies and programmes are overtly secular, but still you have chosen to give yourself a religious aura by becoming a Pir sahib. Why? Moreover, does your seeking exile in London imply history turning a full circle? The leader of the younger generation of the creators of Pakistan going back to the capital of Great Britain. Does this not imply symbolically that the question of Pakistan has yet to be settled?

A: I am once again sorry to say that often people choose naivety to help shroud the facts. I have repeatedly issued many statements in which I requested my people, supporters and even the office bearers not to call me Pir sahib, but to call me Bhai (brother).

Now, after my repeated appeals, none of my party members addresses me as Pir sahib but only as "Altaf Bhai". As far as the symbolic question of Pakistan yet to be settled is concerned, you better put this question to Benazir Bhutto and all other leaders who are also living in exile in Britain.

As far as my dreams and aspirations for the future of Pakistan are concerned, I have already mentioned them in my answer to your first question. Furthermore, in short, I would like to say that I want to see Pakistan as a prosperous and a true democratic country, where the judiciary is independent and the rights of the people are guaranteed including those of women, ethno-linguistic minorities and the religious minorities.