Dangers of making more provinces
Letter to Editor
The Dawn; may 25, 2010
This is with reference to Aurangzeb Khan’s letter ‘Naming province on settlers’ (May 19). Twisting history to support one’s own argument seems to be almost like our second nature.
The writer asserts that “the British separated the southern part of the Indus Valley from the Bombay Presidency and named it Sindh”.
His statement gives the impression that Sindh did not exist before the British came here and the British were creators of Sindh. The fact is that Sindh existed as an independent political unit since pre-historic times.
The British conquered the independent state of Sindh from Talpur rulers in February 1843. For four years Sindh remained a separate state and in 1847 Sindh was made part of the British India’s Bombay Presidency for administrative purposes.
The Bombay Presidency was a loose administrative unit which also comprised the present-day Indian state of Gujarat, Maharashtra, Karnataka and even the British territory of Aden in Yemen.
But practically Sindh was an unregulated province with an identity of its own and a commissioner with the rank of governor to look after its affairs with little interference from the centre.
On April 1, 1936 Sindh was again separated and made autonomous, i.e. reverted to its former position. It is absolutely incorrect to say that Sindh was carved by the British.
Secondly, the name Sindh was not given by the British. Sindh is named after River Sindhu which flows through the province and is its bloodline. The name Sindh has existed for more than 5,000 years.
As for his assertion that the Seraiki-speaking people have been protesting against the move to name that area as Sindh is only a figment of the writer’s imagination. It has no historical basis.
Seraiki-speaking Sindhis are as much a part of Sindh as are Sindhis or Urdu-speaking Sindhis. The concept that the Baloch, Pakhtun and Sindhis are settlers is also concocted by the writer. These people belong to the soil.
Poverty, illiteracy and terrorism are issues of governance and have nothing to do with the idea of creating more provinces. Rather it is more likely that Seraiki or Hazara province will become a fiefdom of sardars and chaudhris and the fate of the people will remain the same or get even worse.
In fact, the redrawing of the boundaries of the present provinces on an ethnic basis is very dangerous. It will result in the demand for a greater Balochistan, or Pakhunistan or Sindhudesh.
It is only in the present demographic setup, with one community balancing the other in each province, that Pakistan can survive. Making provinces on an ethnic basis will lead to a speculative map of the region, projected by the American Defence Journal, in which only ethnic-based units were present but there was no Pakistan.
SHAHERYAR ALI
Hyderabad
The writer asserts that “the British separated the southern part of the Indus Valley from the Bombay Presidency and named it Sindh”.
His statement gives the impression that Sindh did not exist before the British came here and the British were creators of Sindh. The fact is that Sindh existed as an independent political unit since pre-historic times.
The British conquered the independent state of Sindh from Talpur rulers in February 1843. For four years Sindh remained a separate state and in 1847 Sindh was made part of the British India’s Bombay Presidency for administrative purposes.
The Bombay Presidency was a loose administrative unit which also comprised the present-day Indian state of Gujarat, Maharashtra, Karnataka and even the British territory of Aden in Yemen.
But practically Sindh was an unregulated province with an identity of its own and a commissioner with the rank of governor to look after its affairs with little interference from the centre.
On April 1, 1936 Sindh was again separated and made autonomous, i.e. reverted to its former position. It is absolutely incorrect to say that Sindh was carved by the British.
Secondly, the name Sindh was not given by the British. Sindh is named after River Sindhu which flows through the province and is its bloodline. The name Sindh has existed for more than 5,000 years.
As for his assertion that the Seraiki-speaking people have been protesting against the move to name that area as Sindh is only a figment of the writer’s imagination. It has no historical basis.
Seraiki-speaking Sindhis are as much a part of Sindh as are Sindhis or Urdu-speaking Sindhis. The concept that the Baloch, Pakhtun and Sindhis are settlers is also concocted by the writer. These people belong to the soil.
Poverty, illiteracy and terrorism are issues of governance and have nothing to do with the idea of creating more provinces. Rather it is more likely that Seraiki or Hazara province will become a fiefdom of sardars and chaudhris and the fate of the people will remain the same or get even worse.
In fact, the redrawing of the boundaries of the present provinces on an ethnic basis is very dangerous. It will result in the demand for a greater Balochistan, or Pakhunistan or Sindhudesh.
It is only in the present demographic setup, with one community balancing the other in each province, that Pakistan can survive. Making provinces on an ethnic basis will lead to a speculative map of the region, projected by the American Defence Journal, in which only ethnic-based units were present but there was no Pakistan.
SHAHERYAR ALI
Hyderabad