Why did Pakistan choose to adopt federalism, given that it was a failure of the federal vision for united India that led to the demand and creation of Pakistan? There is no simple answer to this question. However, various explanations can be put forward in this regard. Firstly, the post-colonial phenomenon compelled the disparate nationalities or the leadership of the time to establish a federation for the purpose of keeping the diverse nations as a single whole to avoid the establishment of small and weak international entities. Further, the British Government did not allow the local masses a free choice. They were bound to join either India or Pakistan as per the third June Plan of 1947. Secondly, if we look at the literature on the formation of the Pakistani federation (such as Ali, 1996: 8; Waseem, 2010: 4; Watts, 1966: 93-95; Shah, 1994: 5; and others), it argues that federalism is the name of diversity and hold that pluralism (a plural society) is one of the basic requirements for federalism. Shah (1994: 5) argues that plural society (composed of various ethnic, cultural, and linguistic groups) made up of various ethno-nationalities is better suited to having a federal polity. Pakistan, being a plural society, is comprised of various ethnic groups such as Punjabi, Bengali,
Sindhi, Pashtun, Saraiki, and Baloch, where each group has its own separate language, culture, history and a definite territorial geography; thus fulfilling the requirement of becoming a federation. Therefore, it can be said that the diverse characteristics of the Pakistani society plus the distinct identity vis-à-vis language and ethnicity, compelled the leadership of AIML to opt for federalism. Thirdly, it was also promised long before and during the freedom movement that Pakistan would be a federal state with autonomous units. Fourthly, scholars such as Burks (1954), G.W. Choudhury (1956), and Sayeed (1954) argue that the approval of federalism by Pakistan was aimed at tying the diverse society so that each ethnic group co-exist without having to lose its separate identity. They maintain that to keep unity between the two wings of Pakistan (i.e., west and east), separated by a thousand miles of Indian territory, there was no better option other than federalism.
However, Ali (1996: 15) asserts that “federalism in Pakistan was a product of the conflicting pressures of unity and diversity” because after the partition of United India, there was no choice for Pakistan but to adopt federalism, which remained the only possible compromise between the forces of integration and separation. Conventional writings on federalism in the west are often concerned with the importance of a covenant which is seen as being central to the establishment and endurance of a federation. If we look at the Asian federations like India, Pakistan, and Malaysia, there is no covenant.
Furthermore, geographical factors also played an important role in the adoption of federalism. The eastern wing, now Bangladesh, and western wing, now existing Pakistan, were separated from each other by about 1100 miles of Indian Territory in between. The geographical remoteness of the two and the societal diversity of the people of Pakistan, coupled with other factors such as the perceived military
threat from India, historical familiarities of Indian Muslims with federation in United India under British Raj and the common religion, persuaded the Muslims of Pakistan to live under one general and common government wherein they could order their lives according to the principles of Islam (Ali, 1996: 10-15 and Ahmed, 2013b). Choudhury (1956: 245) states that there was a critical disagreement between the leadership of the two wings over the details of the federal structure.21
Ahmed (2004: 10) and Choudhury (1956: 246) are of the opinion that, both before and after the creation of Pakistan, there was a general consensus amongst the leadership of the AIML regarding the adoption of federalism and the issue was non-controversial. But did the then Muslim League leadership enjoy a democratic mandate of the smaller ethno-national groups about forming a federation, especially when it came to groups from Balochistan and NWFP? As Adeel Khan (2009: 168) states, “the party that created Pakistan, the All India Muslim League, was an elitist group of the aristocratic Muslim families predominantly from Muslim minority provinces of India with a very few members from the future Pakistan areas.”22 We can contend that the smaller provinces and ethnic groups such as NWFP (Pashtun) and Balochistan (Baloch) remained either ignored or intimidated on the issue of the adoption of federalism. For instance, the Baloch nationalists, a majority of the interviewees and the Baloch writers like Dashti (2012), Kutty (2009), Breseeg (2004), Inayatullah Baluch (1987), and others, are of the opinion that the Baloch were not consulted about the adoption of federalism
21
The population of the Bengali-speaking eastern wing was 56% and therefore, as per parliamentary democracy under federal system, it was the right of majority to rule over Pakistan. However, the western wing, dominated by the Punjabis and the Mohajir, did not allow the Bengali-speaking population to rule over Pakistan, but rather undermined it by using various tactics such as the allocation of seats in national legislature and the introduction of the One Unit Scheme (OUS) under which the western wing was merged into one unit vis-à-vis the eastern wing.
22
During 1946-47, out of the 23 members of the Muslim League Working Committee, only 10 were from the future Pakistani areas. After Partition, in December 1947, at the Muslim League Council Meeting, out of the 300 members, 160 were immigrants (Khan, 2005: 64 & 80).
but were annexed through intimidation and force. Thus the idea of the Baloch being a part of the Pakistani federation reminds us the controversial nature of the federation. The system of federalism, (though not the actual form and practice) was non-controversial amongst the AIML circle and for those leaders who belonged to the eastern wing in terms of the principle, but was controversial in terms of form; it was definitely controversial for the Baloch in every way. The question of accession and annexation of the Baloch will be dealt with detail in the following chapters.
Although, one cannot ignore the fact that the plural character of Pakistani society was better suited for a federal constitution, but there are questions which need to be answered: Why did federalism not succeed in keeping the two wings intact? What caused the creation of Bangladesh in 1971? Can federalism keep the remainder of Pakistan united now that the Bengali question has been settled through secession?
Finding answers to such questions would require having a look at the hurdles and issues which kept the Pakistani society or some of its component parts from being fully integrated into the federation of Pakistan. There may have been some flaws in the structure, principles or practices of the federation under the constitution of 1956, 1962, and 1973 which evidently led to disunity between the two wings where Bangladesh emerged as an independent sovereign state in 1971. Not only this but in the remaining parts of Pakistan such as the Baloch are dissatisfied and are struggling for either more autonomy and control over its resources or a complete separation from Pakistan.