Should Pakistan be broken up? - Gul A. Agha
January 19 2003 at 2:56 PM

The 20th century was a time of the collapse of colonialism --
perhaps no event marked the collapse more than the end of British
rule in the Indian subcontinent in 1947. A large number of new
states were created in this period and the concept of international
law was conceived. International law represented a compromise
between powerful countries and their interests, and the fears of
newly decolonized countries. Unfortunately, the idea of protecting
existing boundaries between states -- viewed as the principal means
to maintain peace -- took primacy over individual human rights as
well as the cultural and historic rights of different nations. Since
the end of the cold war, fortunately the idea of using international
law to promote human rights has been gaining strength.

The borders of many new states were drawn arbitrarily -- ignoring
the history, language and culture of the peoples affected. Pakistan
is one such state -- created by a colonial power, it is a state
devoid of any historical or cultural basis. The current premise of
policy makers in many countries is predicated on the notion that the
continued existence of Pakistan can contribute to regional stability
and promote global security. It is a premise that needs to be
carefully examined.


History of Pakistan

In the 1930s, the Indian movement for independence had gained
considerable momentum. As a means of postponing their day of
departure, British colonialists promoted a Muslim leadership which
encouraged religious divisions in the subcontinent. Later the
British found it expedient -- and apparently beneficial to their
geostrategic interests -- to create an oddly shaped Muslim majority
state, separated into two "wings" more than a thousand miles apart.
Pakistan had problems since its inception. One small ethnic group of
migrants, Urdu speakers from Northern India who call
themselves 'Mohajirs', initially dominated its bureaucracy and
government. Another ethnic group, Punjabi speakers representing
about 20% of the population, dominated its Military, while a third,
Bengali speakers, constituted its majority. Power resided in the
first two ethnic groups and their control of the state led to a
rebellion among the majority Bengali speakers. After a quarter
century of strife and ruthless attempts to suppress the Bengali
majority, including a genocide, Bangladesh was created. Thus
Pakistan was partitioned into two separate states, one of which
retained the name.


Pakistan's Ethnic Groups

The truncated borders of Pakistan consist of four major ethnic
groups -- Punjabis, Sindhis, Pushtuns, and Baluchis -- and several
other ethnic groups, Mohajirs in southern cities of Karachi and
Hyderabad, Kashmiris in the North, and Seraiki speaking groups in
the middle.

Pakistan borders four countries, Afghanistan, Iran, China and India.
The border with each of these countries is problematic. The border
with Afghanistan is based on the so-called Durand Line --
arbitrarily demarcated by the British in the 19th century. Pushtuns,
who were historically united, live on both sides of this mountainous
border. The border with Iran is mostly populated by Baluch tribes
who live in a large sparsely populated desert on both sides of the
border. The Baluchis in Pakistan demanded autonomy in the 1970s and
thousands were massacred by the Pakistan military.

The border with India runs through three distinct regions. To the
north is the former kingdom of Jammu and Kashmir, a focus of much
contention and dispute. The division of Kashmiris between India and
Pakistan is against their will. The Pakistani-occupied part of
Kashmir borders not only India, but also the Chinese occupied region
of Uighurs. On the Pakistani side of the Kashmir border, there are
also several other ethnic groups besides the Kashmiris, such as the
Gilgitis and Baltistanis.

In the middle of Pakistan are Punjabis, who now represent about 40%
of the population, and constitute 90% of the military. Punjab was
partitioned on the basis of religion, and Punjabis seem quite
satisfied with this division. It is an area which saw many massacres
on the basis of creed -- and the bloodletting resulted in 'ethnic'
cleansing on both sides of the border. South of the Punjabis live
Seraiki speaking people, some of whom bear greater affinity to
Sindhis.

The southern border with India runs through Sindh. The majority of
Sindh's over 30 million people live in the valley carved by the once
mighty Indus river. Sindh's western region is part of the Great
Indian Desert of Thar, through which a border was drawn more or less
arbitrarily. Sindh's southern boundary is marked by the Indian Ocean
and Kutch, a region that has close linguistic and cultural affinity
to Sindh, but is now a part of India.


The Aspirations of the Sindhis

Sindhis are predominantly sufis who believe in harmony and tolerance
in the matter of religion. Before the partition of India, the
majority of Sindhis consistently voted against candidates supporting
Pakistan. Although the British colonialists used their considerable
power and influence to support the pro-Pakistan candidates in 1946,
such candidates succeeded in obtaining only about 40% of the popular
vote.

By gerrymandering the electorate, the colonialists managed the
election of a majority in the Sindh Assembly which favored joining
Pakistan. The Sindhi vote for Pakistan was also facilitated by the
now famous 'Lahore Resolution' passed by the Muslim League -- this
resolution promised "autonomy and sovereignty of constituent units"
and "protection of religious minorities". Sindhis have strongly
resented Pakistan, whose policies since inception have been the very
anti-thesis of both these principles.


The Current Situation

Pakistan today is held together by a powerful military which
directly consumes 70% of the its budget after debt payments. The
military has gained strength by opportunistically aligning itself
with the United States, China and Saudi Arabia. It has directly
ruled the country for most of its history and has cultivated
relations with the fundamentalist Islamist clergy to strengthen its
hold on power. In fact, the military is a bastion of Islamists who
are influenced by fundamentalist movements such as Wahabism and
Deobandism -- the same movements which hold sway among large numbers
of Pakistani Punjabis.

In fact, the Pakistan military is a key source of instability in the
region. Internally, it has repeatedly destabilized elected
governments. It was the primary supporter of the Taliban in
Afghanistan, responsible for bringing them into power. Recently, an
American official was quoted as saying that the U.S. did not realize
how critical the Pakistanis were in propping up the Taliban -- when
that support was finally withdrawn four weeks after the start of the
American bombing, the Taliban regime collapsed. ISI, Pakistan
military's intelligence service is believed to have been deeply
involved in heroin smuggling operations -- with such operations
providing the bulk of its operating budget. And the ISI continues to
sponsor terrorism against neighboring India.


The Future of Pakistan

Despite the diabolical role of the Pakistan military, it has been an
axiom of faith among policy makers in the U.S., and even in arch
rival India, that the continuation of Pakistan is desirable, even
necessary, for stability in the region. Several reasons are commonly
advanced for this position: the dissolution of Pakistan would
encourage divisions within India; it would result in an uncertain
future for nuclear weapons now in the hands of the stable Pakistan
military, and a view among the U.S. policymakers that the Pakistani
state can serve as a useful client or proxy in the war against
terrorism. None of these reasons stands up to closer scrutiny.
India has largely succeeded in its national integration through
democracy, federalism, and building of strong independent
institutions such as the judiciary and the media. Its future will
depend on the continuing strength of these internal institutions in
addressing its needs. No doubt these needs are many, some visible
ones such as increased economic growth and improved efficiency in
the distribution of goods, and some less visible ones such as
cultural and linguistic protection for smaller ethnic groups.

Nuclear weapons in the hands of Pakistan pose a danger to peace, not
only in South Asia but elsewhere. Policy makers are lulled into
complacency by the experience of the cold war where the doctrine
of 'Mutually Assured Destruction' kept the superpowers from directly
waging war. In fact, such analogizing fails to appreciate the
psychology of the forces at work in the Pakistan military. During
the cold war, the superpowers -- fearful of a nuclear holocaust --
avoided direct conflict with each other. On the other hand,
emboldened by its possession of nuclear weapons, the Pakistan
military not only increased its support for terrorism against India,
it directly attacked India in Kargil -- gambling that India will not
want to escalate the fight by employing its conventional superiority
in new theaters of war.

It may seem far fetched to the rational mind that some Islamist
faction within the military could seize and smuggle nuclear weapons
or materials for use in 'jihad' against India, Israel or a Western
power. In fact, given an understanding of the type of religious
fanaticism common in the Pakistan military at all levels, it is
likely not a question of 'if' but 'when', left unchecked, such a
scenario will unfold. The moral barometer of the military can be
appreciated by observing that it is the very same unreconstructed
and unrepentant military that massacred millions of people in
Bangladesh and provided logistic support to the Taliban and Al-Qaeda
terrorists in Afghanistan.

Those who believe that it is possible to bribe or browbeat Pakistan
into a compliant client state have been missing the elaborate game
of charade played for long by the Pakistani military. While it is a
state that chose to support the international coalition against
terrorism when and where it had no choice, in the long run the
prejudices of its dominant ethnic group will be reflected in its
covert policies. Sure, the Pakistan military provided visible
support to the coalition -- but in all likelihood, the military also
covertly organized pro-Taliban, anti-U.S. demonstration to
exaggerate its own role. And the Pakistani dictator General
Musharaf, justifying his decision to support the coalition, implied
that it was a tactical compromise on the way to securing an
eventual 'victory against the infidels and the Jews.' It should be
clear where the real goals of Pakistan lie, despite protestations to
get increased aid from the West and strengthen its own institution
while continuing to build Islamist proxy forces.


What Replaces Pakistan?

Dissolution of Pakistan will largely bring things back into their
natural national and ethnic boundaries. The Pushtun areas of
Pakistan belong with the newly liberated Afghanistan. Kashmiris in
India already enjoy numerous unique protections, e.g. against
encroachment by migration from other parts of India. A unified
Kashmir will be able to negotiate ways of maintaining its identity
in India. Distinct ethnic regions in the Pakistani occupied part of
the former kingdom of Kashmir, such as Baltistan and Gilgit, could
enjoy greater autonomy.

A successor Pakistani Punjabi state would be far easier to contain.
Bounded within plains that are easy to penetrate and police,
stripped of 80% of the resources now consumed by its military, it
would be far less menacing. Ironically, freed of its militaristic
pretensions, it could enjoy greater economic growth and prosperity
in the long run by embracing a more peaceful ideology.


The Future of Sindh

What about the future of Sindh and Pakistan-occupied Baluchistan?
Baluchistan is a desert area, though rich in some mineral deposits.
The bulk of Baluchi population lives on the border of Sindh and has
enjoyed free movement and interchange with the Sindhi people. It is
likely that the fate of these two regions is tied together, as it
was in older times.
Sindh is rich in agriculture, has deposits of oil, coal and gas, and
a well-developed port. It is the most industrialized region in the
neighborhood. Shorn of the huge subsidy claimed by Punjab and its
military, Sindh is likely to see rapid economic growth. This growth
will be aided and abetted by the large number of expatriate Sindhi
entrepreneurs and industrialists, including some billionaires.
Sindhis have an ancient mercantile tradition, and their emphasis on
pragmatism, tolerance and harmony are all useful attributes in a
modern economy.


Should Sindh be a Part of India?

There are a number of arguments in favor of Sindh joining the Indian
union. India is a secular, democratic country which is well-suited
to the psyche of the sufi-minded Sindhis. Four months after the
creation of Pakistan, 20% of the population of Sindhis was forced to
migrate to India when hordes of refugees were encouraged by the
Pakistani government to riot in hitherto peaceful Sindhi cities.
Many of these Sindhis have settled in India and, after a long
arduous struggle, they have prospered. While the diaspora Sindhis no
doubt enjoy the moral and legal right of return, it is unlikely that
a majority of them would now opt to migrate back to their ancestral
homes. Under the circumstances, the unification of Sindh with India
would allow the two groups of Sindhis to easily interact and support
each other.

Unfortunately, Sindh cannot afford to unify with India in the near
future. The greatest threat to Sindhis is demographic -- up to a
quarter of those living in Sindh are Mohajirs, Muslims who migrated
from Northern Indian provinces such as Uttar Pradesh and Bihar. The
population of areas where they immigrated from continues to increase
rapidly while the economic growth of those areas remains stunted.
The linguistic, cultural and religious affinity of Mohajirs with
their brethren in North India could make Sindh a magnet for further
immigration unless Sindh is able to exercise vigorous control of its
borders.

An independent Sindh will serve as a natural conduit for oil and gas
pipelines from energy rich Central Asia to energy starved South
Asia. Without an entrenched bureaucracy, Sindh will rapidly lead the
way to economic expansion in South Asia. Most significantly for the
rest of the world, given its long peaceful sufi tradition, an
independent Sindh will provide a bulwark against fanaticism and
promote peace and prosperity.

Policy makers would do well to focus their energy on the unenviable
but inevitable task of dismantling Pakistan as expeditiously as
possible.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
Gul Agha is Professor in the Department of Computer Science at the
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign and a faculty affiliate
of the UIUC Program in South Asian and Middle-Eastern Studies. He is
active in Sindhi-American organizations.