The people of Pakistan have made history. It is difficult to think of another third world country which has in recent years witnessed such a determined and sustained struggle for democracy on the part of unarmed people. Certainly nothing that has happened anywhere in south Asia since the army crackdown and the popular explosion in what is now Bangladesh in 1971 bears comparison with the current movement in Pakistan. But there is a big difference between that struggle in what was then East Pakistan and the present one in Pakistan. The people in East Bengal were fighting for independence and had, therefore, no hesitation in seeking sanctuary in India. The Bangla leadership functioned from India and so did the guerrillas belonging to the Mukti Bahini. In the present case, the people of Pakistan are fighting on their home soil with no assistance, not even a moral one, from anywhere else. The struggle is at its most intense in Sind. But the Sindhis are not demanding a separate and sovereign Sind State. They are fighting for democracy in the whole of Pakistan. In plain terms, they are in the vanguard of a movement that will determine the future of Pakistan as a whole. Seen from that perspective, it is perhaps best to avoid the use of the concept of “Sindhi nationalism”.
Such a development may come to pass if the present movement fails to secure even its minimum objective which is the removal of General Zia-ul-Haq, and if he or some other general, who may take over from him, engages in a ruthless suppression of the people in Sind. Apparently the leaders of the Movement for Restoration of Democracy (MKD) are apprehensive that events might take such a course. That is why, beginning with Begum Nusrat Bhutto, several of them have called upon the people in Punjab to rise in revolt against the military rule. But right now the Sindhis are functioning as it were as sappers and miners of the struggle for democracy in the whole of Pakistan. Implicit in it is the significant proposition that they cannot be and are not looking for assistance either from us in India or anywhere else in the world. They are waging their fight with their own moral and such material resources as they possess. Our “interference” or “non-interference” will not make much difference to their struggle. The issue for us has been and remains one of our perception of ourselves. Judging by the response so far, especially on the part of the so-called opinion makers, not just opposition leaders, we have a fairly low opinion of ourselves. It would have been understandable if we had wanted our government to keep silent lest it hand over to General Zia and his bloody-minded colleagues a propaganda weapon which they would use against the fighters for democracy. But the truth is more sordid. The principle of non-interference is only a cover for hiding our apathy. And some of us are even afraid that General Zia may survive and abandon his present policy of befriending us as if he adopted this policy in the first instance as a favour to us. This is not the kind of attitude which qualifies a country for the leadership role in the region.
One development deserves attention and one point deserves clarification. The development is that a large number of women in Pakistan – and not only from the elite educated class – are participating in the movement. This is the clearest possible evidence that the hogwash that General Zia and his cohorts have been trying to sell in the name of Islam has few buyers in Pakistan. The military set-up treats women as inferior and second class citizens on the specious plea that Islam assigns such a status to them. In General Zia’s scheme as outlined by him on August 12, no woman can be president of Pakistan. The women of Pakistan are making it clear beyond doubt that this is not their view of Islam. History is on their side. Women have played important roles in Muslim history, if the history of different lands can be so grouped. But the more pertinent point is that if the people of Pakistan were inclined to accept the orthodox view of Islam, Pakistani women would not have joined the present struggle in such large numbers.
The point that deserves clarification is the strength of the movement outside Sind. The movement has, of course, not acquired in Punjab and even in the NWFP and Baluchistan the sweep and intensity it has in Sind. But it is equally true that not a single political of religious organisation – not even the Jamaal-e-Islami which has been the principal beneficiary of the set-up and not a single prominent individual has sided with General Zia. The fact that the council of Islamic ideology nominated by him has expressed on the question of the future constitutional set-up for Pakistan views strikingly different from his on vital issues such as the relative powers of the legislature and the president as the chief executive speaks for itself. It is illustrative of the popular mood. In short, there is no respect and support for the regime among any section of the people in any part of Pakistan. That the coercive apparatus of the state comes largely from Punjab does not suggest that the people in Punjab favour the oppressive set-up.