Addressing a public meeting on Sunday, MQM chief Altaf Hussain raised the emotive issue of creating new provinces, saying if the Seraiki, Hazara or other people want provinces of their own, they should have them. More provinces, he said, will not weaken the country, but would rather strengthen it. Indeed, the issue deserves dispassionate discussion and debate.
There is need to correct the fault-lines that emerged when, in 1955, the ruling elite resorted to unsavoury political manoeuvrings to end the status of the then three governors' provinces and one chief commissioner's province (comprising Kalat state and some Pushtoon areas), princely states and the tribal areas to form a single province of West Pakistan, with Lahore as the provincial capital.
The move caused much resentment, particularly in Sindh and Kalat. Yet those determined to ride roughshod over public sentiments wanted to create parity with the larger province of East Pakistan. West Pakistan claimed major share in the national resources in the name of parity, rather than on the basis of population or backwardness.
The One Unit was dissolved in 1970, restoring the three old provinces, while the commissioner's province was declared the new province of Balochistan. The Bahawalpur state, comprising most of the Seraiki speaking areas was annexed to Punjab. After East Pakistan broke away to form Bangladesh, with over 60 percent of the country's entire population, Punjab became the federation's biggest unit, and a major claimant to the national resources.
The principle of parity did not apply anymore. The national resource distribution formula, until the present government created a consensus on a new one, was decided on the single criterion of population, causing much resentment in the smaller provinces. By the sheer dint of its size, Punjab has continued to dominate the three smaller provinces. Within Punjab itself, the southern region, including the areas, that once constituted the erstwhile Bahawalpur state, have remained least developed although, in an incongruity of sorts, the landed aristocracy of southern Punjab is a principal participant in power both in the province and at the Centre. Reasons related to history and economic grievances combine to lend strength to the demand for a separate province. These are powerful enough reasons and merit serious attention.
The 18th Constitutional Amendment and the new National Finance Commission Award formula have addressed the questions pertaining to provincial autonomy and resource distribution. But the dominant status of Punjab within the federation is still upsetting for the smaller provinces. The traditional model of our parliamentary form of government does not provide a satisfactory answer to the problem. One solution could be to strengthen the role of the Senate, along the lines of the US Senate.
That, though, may create more problems than resolve any. After all, there is a reason why a strong lower house has evolved as the fountainhead of power in parliamentary democracies. The existing level of provincial disharmony is too serious. It calls for purposeful efforts to mend the political fault-lines, whether in southern Punjab or the Hazara belt in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, which threaten the stability and solidarity of the federation.