Author: Nafisa Hoodbhoy

December dusts searing past to remind a reality that was preposterously denied for a quarter century and was recognized only after leaving an indelible trail of blood. While creation of Bangladesh entails a petrifying human catastrophe and an everlasting reference to state-perpetrated fratricide, it also trivialised a waffle narrative of Islamic-nationhood.

The episode reiterated that a multi-nation federation can only exist with socio-political justice, absence of which derides all ideological conjectures. Creation of Bangladesh reinforced the fact that Pakistan was not a creation of any Islamic ideology but was in fact a derivative of an ominous political alienation of Muslims in India. For Bengalis, Pakistan turned out to be a mere perpetuation of the same alienation. Flippant negation of their culture, abominable economic exploitation and brazen denial of their right to rule culminated into the birth of Bangladesh on December 16, 1971.

Undeniably, the social fabric and political configuration of East and West Pakistan were diametrically opposite to each other. While West Pakistani politics and society was yanked by a myopic feudal oligarchy, East Pakistan inherited a much refined middle-class lead socio-political ambiance. After 1857 insurgency, Bengal became the first province under British democracy. It was the first regulation province of India under the jurisdiction of a high court. Society and politics in Bengal was erected on starkly different building blocks and it did not chime-in with the other provinces of Pakistan where British rule clamped typical colonial structures.Snobbish civil and military leadership grossly underestimated the powder keg of East Pakistan that left deep scars of embarrassment in the national history. While language and culture are central to most of the ethno-national movements, economic and political marginalisation are key triggers to stoke irreversible hatred.

Landed aristocracy that shaped today’s Pakistan was trounced in Bengal in 1950 with the introduction of “East Bengal Estate Acquisition and Tenancy Act”. It effectively routed the landlordism in Bengal by fixing individual holding at only 3.3 acres per head or 33.3 acres of land per family whichever was less. Agriculture census of 1963-64 shows that out of 6.2 million farms some 6 million were of less than 12.5 acres size and 50 per cent of them were only 2.5 acres or less.

On the contrary, West Pakistan was marked by large landholdings specially in Punjab and Sindh provinces. For example, 30 per cent of the land in Sindh in 1952 was owned by only one per cent of the owners and the average holding was above 500 acres. In Punjab, 50 per cent of the land was under the control of Zamindars. This sufficiently indicates the distinct social and political milieu of the two wings. Since West Pakistan held hegemony over the decision making, the vibrant middle class-led East Pakistan often loathed the policies manufactured and imposed by the landed aristocracy of West Pakistan.

Resource hemorrhage and discrimination in pecuniary matters against East Pakistan was the key cause of conflict. In 1948-50 when East Pakistan had a net balance of payment surplus of Rs622 million, West Pakistan had a net deficit of Rs912 million. Similarly, the foreign and inter-wing trade balance of the two wings from 1949-50 to 1957-58 shows East Pakistan having a surplus of Rs3,636 million as balance of trade with foreign countries against the net deficit of Rs3,047 million of West Pakistan on the same account. The trend remained consistent during the first and second five years plans when East Pakistan had net surplus and West Pakistan had net deficit in foreign trade and the surplus of East Pakistan was used to offset the deficit. This prompted Shaikh Mujib to demand for two separate currencies for the two wings under his popular six-point formula.

Conflict on resource sharing could have been assuaged had avaricious establishment of West Pakistan maintained a judicious balance in benefit sharing. What irked Bengalis was relentless discrimination in development opportunities. For example, GDP growth in East Pakistan during the period was 2.2 per cent against the heavily skewed 3.1 per cent of West Pakistan. During the same period per capita income in East Pakistan dwindled to -0.1 per cent against +0.8 per cent increase in the West Pakistan. Likewise during five years from 1954-55 to 1959-60, GDP growth in East Pakistan was only 1.6 per cent i.e. half of the West Pakistan’s 3.2 per cent. Per capita income in East Pakistan plummeted to -0.7 per cent against +1.2 per cent in the West Pakistan.

East Pakistan having almost 54 per cent population was also discriminated in public sector development. During the first five year plan, total revenue expenditure in East Pakistan was Rs2,540 million which was less than one third of the Rs8,980 of the West Pakistan. It was marginally jacked-up in the second five-year plan from 1960-61 to 1964-65 when East Pakistan received Rs6,254 million under public sector development programme against Rs7,696 million of the West Pakistan, yet it was still 19 per cent less.

Not only that East Pakistan was kept economically deprived and politically suppressed, it was also under represented in the state structure. Share of Bengalis in senior level civil services was also flagrantly violated. During the first five years of the country, senior cadres of several departments were completely bereft of Bengalis. There were no Bengalis on any senior positions in the Departments of Commerce, Intelligence& Statistics, Supply & Development, Petroleum, Paper & Stationery Wing, Inspection Wing, General Concession Wing, Central Engineering Authority, Coal Commissioner and Textiles.

Apart from economic exploitation, West Pakistani leadership always demeaned and demonised Bengalis. General Ayub rabidly detested Bengalis. He once vented his spleen by saying that “I am surprised by Bengali outlook. They have cut themselves off from Muslim culture through abhorrence of the Urdu language…..making themselves vulnerable to Hindu culture.” On 7th September 1967, he wrote “God has been very unkind to us in giving the sort of neighbours [India] and compatriots [Bengalis]. We could not think of a worst combination. Hindus and Bengalis…. If worst comes to the worst, we shall not hesitate to fight a relentless battle against the disruptionists in East Pakistan. Rivers of blood will flow if need be, unhappily. We will arise to save our crores of Muslims from Hindu slavery”.

Gen. Ayub was no exception in his fulmination against Bengalis. Major General Khadim Hussain Raja, the then GOC, who threatened to “raze Dhakah to the ground” if Shaikh Mujib proclaimed independence during his speech at Race Course ground on 7th March 1971, has made startling revelations about moral bankruptcy of military leadership. In his recently published book “a stranger in my own country”, he has quoted nauseating turpitude of General Niazi during a debriefing meeting. He writes “Niazi became abusive and started raving. Breaking into Urdu he said: ‘Main is haramzadi qaum ki nasal badal doon ga. Yeh mujhey kiya samjhtey hain’. He threatened that he would let his soldiers loose on their womenfolk. There was pin-drop silence at these remarks. Officers looked at each other in silence, taken aback by his vulgarity. The meeting dispersed on this unhappy note with sullen faces. The next morning, we were given sad news. A Bengali Office, Major Mushtaq, who had served under me in Jessore, went into a bathroom at the Command Headquarter and shot himself in head. He died instantaneously.”

What happened in 1971 was certainly worse, yet the worst is the unremitting obnoxious intransigence of the unfazed perpetrators. Fundamental rights are denied with same zeal, forced disappearance, dumping of corpses in the name of national interest continues with alarming madness and natural endowment of federating units are being exploited ruthlessly. Oppressed segments who demand their rights are inexorably construed as traitors. What prevails in Pakistan today can potentially repeat what happened yesterday.

LONDON, July 1: MQM leader Altaf Hussain opened a new front on Sunday by naming the British establishment and openly accusing Britons of hatching a plot to eliminate him and “frame” him in the murder case of Dr Imran Farooq, one of the founders of the MQM.

In an unprecedented broadcast watched by millions of Pakistanis on private TV channels on Sunday, the London-based MQM supremo, who has made Britain his permanent home after fleeing Pakistan in 1992, admitted that the Metropolitan Police had raided his home in North West London.

Dr Imran Farooq, who had been living in exile in London since 1999, was stabbed to death on his way home from work in Green Lane on September 16, 2010, outside his residence. The Met Police believe he was killed because he wanted to start his own independent political career.

The news of the search warrant being executed one of the MQM leader’s residential addresses was broken exclusively by Geo TV, stunning Pakistan. The police seemed to have taken direct aim at the MQM leader, by first raiding his home and then arresting Iftikhar Hussain, when he landed at Heathrow after attending Hussain’s niece’s wedding in Toronto,and kept him for nearly 34 hours at a police station to question about Dr Imran Farooq murder.

In his address, the MQM leader was clearly agitated and complained that the police had taken away belongings from his property and were refusing to communicate. It was in this context that he announced to relinquish charge of the party in the early hours of Sunday.

Hussain retracted his decision of leaving reins of the party in a live speech after hours of emotional appeals by the workers present at the 90 headquarters of MQM and warned that the consequences of his arrest or trial in relation to Dr Farooq’s murder may be too serious for Britain to bear.

Hussain spoke as a man who is convinced that he will be implicated in the investigation of Dr Farooq’s killing. He spoke as if it was a fait accompli. He spoke candidly and appealed to his workers to stay united if he is eliminated, charged, put on trial, or sent on a path yet unknown to him and others.

He suggested that there was a conspiracy against his leadership of the MQM and wanted a referendum from his workers if they wanted him to stay or go in obscurity. Unanimously, the workers asked Hussain on live TV to stay on or else no other leader will be accepted. It’s either you, Bhai, or no one else is worthy of leading us, they assured. Hussain took his resignation back but that was only a sideshow to the big development.

What Hussain said in his speech about Dr Farooq investigation, Britain’s role in hideous games and the alleged plot against him by his hosts, actually marks a turning point for the party that set its camp in London more than two decades ago.

The MQM has controlled Karachi from its International Secretariat in Edgware without any trouble at anytime, but those times have changed and the party leadership at the moment has three investigations going on about them, directly or indirectly: the murder investigation of Dr Imran Farooq, a money-laundering investigation and an investigation into Altaf Hussain’s ‘teen talwar’ speech.

In fact, for the first time Altaf Hussain admitted that some kind of a money laundering probe is also going on against the MQM after the raids on MQM Secretariat or the residences of MQM leaders.

The raid on his house and the arrest of Iftikhar Hussain shook the party leadership to the core and has puzzled its think tanks who have for long thought that they are always tolerable to the west because of their general liberal and secular outlook. That assessment is right and the MQM has been treated as such in Britain, but the killing in London and the rise in confrontation in Britain has set the party on a path which it didn’t choose.

“I may not be the chief in the eyes of Britain, but I am the chief in the eyes of party workers,” said Hussain.It is known that recently George Galloway, MP, instructed lawyers to seek legal action against Altaf Hussain and he has been proactively campaigning in British Parliament regarding Altaf Hussain’s activities. Lord Nazir Ahmed and Imran Khan, the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaaf (PTI) leader, were also mentioned, by the MQM chief as canvassing the British government.

Imran Khan had also looked at the possibility of bringing legal action against Altaf Hussain in 2007. However, it is unlikely that Galloway, Imran Khan and Lord Nazir will have had much influence on the government as the Metropolitan Police are independent of the government pressure.

It must be noted that the Met Police do have connections with the secret services of Britain, MI-5 and MI-6, and the police force works closely with both the external and internal arms of the secret service.

Hussain said he would not seek legal counsel, barrister or a solicitor if charged with the conspiracy to kill his colleague, Dr Imran Farooq. He gave the clearest indication that the police were headed in the direction and the net was closing in.

He also said that the Met Police had full cooperation from his party but also warned the Met against framing him. In Pakistan, the MQM leadership made their disgust at the Met investigation clear when they protested outside British Consulate in Karachi and warned the Met not to cross the red lines.

Altaf Hussain questioned why the house of a leader who represents millions has been raided in such a blatant manner. It is believed that the MQM is aware that the Met Police are close to taking further action which would be in the form of bringing criminal charges against certain individuals, and his speech may be seen as a pre-emptive attempt to soften the blow to his party faithful.

A foreign and commonwealth office spokesman in London says: We are aware of a planned demonstration outside our Karachi consulate. It’s a concern for us, but we will not go into details of what these concerns are. We have taken measures.”

Speaking about the comments of Altaf Hussain, the spokesman added: “Metropolitan Police are investigating the murder case of Dr Imran Farooq. The Met Police is completely independent of the government influence. It’s an independent organisation. Her Majesty’s Government doesn’t interfere with the police investigation. Whether to charge, release or raid an address—it’s nothing to do with the government. The Met Police deal with such matters.”It should be noted that conspiracy to commit murder, contrary to Section (1) 1 of the Criminal Law Act 1977, can attract a custodial sentence and imprisonment for life.