Academy of Third World Studies

Jamia Millia Islamia

New Delhi

Lecture

Partition, Migration and Political Development in Pakistan

Prof. Mohammad Waseem

A Report

Prof. Mohammad Waseem delivered a talk on Partition, Migration and Political Development in Pakistan in the Jamia Millia Islamia on the 28^th November 2005. The session was chaired by Prof. S.D. Muni from the Jawaharlal Nehru University. In a comprehensive presentation, Prof. Waseem managed to bring out some new insights to the issue of migration in the context of Pakistan’s political development. According to him, unlike India, in the context of Pakistan, the issue of migration after the division of the subcontinent is central to the making and shaping of the political process in Pakistan. In India, partition is viewed more in terms of nostalgia. In India, migrants constituted only 1 per cent of the population after independence, whereas in (W) Pakistan was 20 per cent of the population. Therefore, migration is far more central to understanding of the politics of Pakistan.

At the time of partition, Pakistan did not have an indigenous bourgeoisie that was rooted to the Pakistani soil. The nascent bourgeoisie that emerged after partition comprised migrants from Bombay, Gujarat and Bengal. The leading members of the Muslim League and the founding fathers were also mostly Indian migrants. Similarly, the bureaucracy, industrial and commercial class were also mostly from the migrant community. In the 1950s, the migrants dominated the government policies. The ruling elite was led by the migrant elite. The army’s officer cadre consisting of mostly Punjabis was the local elite. But Muhajirs (the Urdu-speaking migrants) and the Punjabis constituted the bureaucracy. Therefore, Pakistan was known as a Muhajir-Punjabi state, which was criticised by Bengalis, Sindhis and others. For years after independence, this state of affairs continued.

The two partitions that took place in the west and east were very different in nature and had very different outcomes. The violence accompanying partition in Punjab was organised, whereas in Bengal it was sporadic. Migration to India from the Pakistani part of Punjab was total, in Bengal it was selective. 2.2 million Hindus stayed back in East Pakistan. There were about 5.5 million migrants from India to Punjab and 9 million to East Pakistan. No Sindhi speaking migrant came to Sindh from India. The migrants were mostly Hyderabadis, Gujaratis, and migrants from UP and Bihar. The local urban elite in Sindh, which was mostly Hindu, and which had migrated to India were replaced by Muhajirs. Thus, Muhajirs straightaway dominated Sindh. Therefore, in Karachi the refugees were welcome by the Government of Pakistan but not welcome by the Government of Sindh. They had to be managed, fed and looked after.

In sharp contrast to the migration to Sindh, the Punjabi migrant integrated in the Punjabi culture. The government played an important role in welcoming and rehabilitating migrants from India. 15 per cent of jobs were reserved for migrants from India. In Sindh, the scene was different and the Sindhis’ perception was that the migrants were grabbing their jobs. The thinking developed that Karachi should be made the federal capital and Hyderabad to be made the capital of Sindh. Sindhi nationalism was thus born. The state generally welcomed the migrants and there was an agreement between the two governments in India and Pakistan, whereby land and revenue records were exchanged. Migrants were treated as sufferers and were rehabilitated. By July 1948, 90 per cent of the migrants were settled on land grants. In the case of the Muhajirs, this was not the case. In Sindh, migration was sporadic, disorganised and there was no agreement on the rehabilitation process between India and Pakistan. There was a lot of misery and it continued for a long time. There was no support system.. Asrafia consciousness was brought to a place where it did not exist. Migrants from UP went to an area that was not developed. They were a relatively developed elite rehabilitated in an area where the elite was weak and underdeveloped. There was also a certain perspective on foreign policy such as a pan-Islamic worldview. The 1951 census had termed everyone as a Muhajir. The term took a rebirth after the rise of the MQM. Today, Muhajirs constitute about 8-9 per cent of the population of Pakistan.

The migration also created a different kind of political attitudes among the migrant community. Punjabi migrants were infused with extreme insecurity. India was perceived as an adversary which could inflict immense harm on the nascent state. This sense of insecurity underscored Pakistan’s nationalism. Another character was the deification of the state by the migrant community. Therefore, they were not beholden to democratic, pluralist, electoral and competitive models of politics. Democracy became dysfunctional in the case of Pakistan as the migrant elite was for centralisation of the state and for a presidential form of government.

The decline of the migrants in the public sector resulted in the growth of the movement of the Muhajirs. It is rooted in the low middle class sections of the Muhajir population. There is almost 95 per cent literacy amongst them. There is hardly a working class amongst them. The quota system hit them hard. With the shift of the capital from Karachi to Islamabad, thousands of jobs went to Punjabis and Pathans. The 1970 election was a major watershed in the fortunes of the Muhajirs. They lost elections in East Pakistan and Sindh. The moment majoritarian democracy came, they were sidelined. They dominated the system as long as there were no elections. But with the introduction of majoritarian democracy, they lost power. All of a sudden, the Indo-Gangetic civilisation was replaced by the Indus civilisation as a well-spring of symbols and identity. This developed inclusiveness and assertiveness and amongst the Muhajirs. A very violent period ensued in Pakistan’s history with the assertion of Muhajir nationalism by the MQM. However, increasingly, the MQM has lost its militant character. In the early 2000s, it has joined Islamabad to marginalize other political forces like the PPP in the context of the game of numbers in the legislative assemblies. These are some of the determinants of state formation in the case of Pakistan.