Interview with Yousuf Masti Khan
Written by SAO
Friday, 07 August 2009 09:31
What kind of a federal structure did our founding fathers envisage for Pakistan?
The correct answer to this depends on how we assess and understand the many upheavals
Pakistan has passed during its existence.
It is argued by the advocates of a "strong center" that Pakistan is a "successor state” to British
India which had a unitary form of government. First there was a center which extended to
peripheral parts, (now forming Pakistan) and it was this center which delegated powers to the
provinces for the sake of administrative convenience. Thus, when Pakistan was founded, it
retained its unitary character.
The second argument is that Pakistan was founded on the basis of religion, therefore, it can be
kept together only by the cementing force of "lkhwan". There are no nationalities in Pakistan or
anywhere in the world and the idea of nationalism is subversive.
How would you describe Pakistan: a successor state or a new multinational state?
British India could not really be considered a state; it was a colony whose sovereign was the
king or queen of England. The colonialists did what suited them to further their interests in the
sub-continent. It is strange that after two hundred years of struggle against colonialism and sixty
two years of independence, there are still people who invoke colonial models to resolve the very
problems which were accentuated by colonial interference.
Was Pakistan designed to be an Islamic national state?
There is the argument that Pakistan was founded on the basis of religion, and that it can be kept
together only by the cementing force of 'Ikhwan', that there are no nationalities in Pakistan. East
Pakistan with the majority of its population being Muslim, became Bangladesh in 1971. This is
the most eloquent example of the fallacy of this argument. Islam can, at best, be one of the
many factors which can help in creating a commonality of interest, but more decisive are
1/5
Interview with Yousuf Masti Khan
Written by SAO
Friday, 07 August 2009 09:31
common language, history, territory, mentality, cultural features, customs, traditions and
mutuality of political and strategic interests. These combine to create a commonality of interest
in the people of a certain area - a nationality.
It is not necessary for a person to renounce his national or ethnic identity in order to be a
Muslim. Thus it is clear that Pakistan being a voluntarily created federation of different
nationalities can remain viable and strong as a state, only if the participating nationalities enjoy
fullest autonomy and complete equality in the political, economic, social and cultural fields and
that they retain control over their resources. There is no other way to keep Pakistan together.
What was the pre-independence complexion of areas now forming Pakistan?
In the areas now forming Pakistan there existed 'independent sovereign nation states' which
were not at all parts of the Indian States before the British conquest.
Sindh was an independent state ruled by the Mirs of Talpurs. Balochistan was an independent
state ruled by the Khanate of Kalat. Punjab was an independent state ruled by the Sikhs and
NWFP was a part of the expanded kingdom of Ranjit Singh. The founding fathers of Pakistan in
the pursuit of a viable new state did not ignore these realities; they knew that the basis of the
new state would be voluntary union of the independent states in a federation through a
covenant. And that is precisely what the 1940 Lahore Resolution laid down. It describes the
constituent units of the new state of Pakistan as 'autonomous and sovereign'. It is not correct to
say that the provinces were formed for the sake of administrative convenience during the
colonial period. Nationality definitely figured in the demarcation of the provinces, otherwise
NWFP would not have been separated from Punjab and Sindh's demands for separation from
Bombay would not have been acceded to.
Even if we agree that British India was a 'unitary state' although the 1935 Act also envisaged a
federal structure, it does not mean that Pakistan was a unitary state at the time of its creation.
The formation of two independent states - Pakistan India - from one colonial state would show
that the British Indian state was not divided by a process of binary fission in which each
offspring would retain exactly identical hereditary characteristics. and
Pakistan was not the successor state, India was the successor state which retained its seat in
2/5
Interview with Yousuf Masti Khan
Written by SAO
Friday, 07 August 2009 09:31
the United Nations whereas Pakistan had to apply for admission afresh. The opinion of the
Assistant Secretary General for legal affairs of the UN on August 8, 1947, clearly shows that
Pakistan was the new state.
"From the viewpoint of international law, the situation is one in which a part of an existing state
breaks off and becomes a new state. On this analysis, there is no change in the international
status of India, it continues as a state with all treaty rights and obligations of membership in the
UN. The territory which breaks off, Pakistan, will be a new state, it will not have the treaty rights
and obligations of the old state, and it will not of course, have membership in UN".
What was the basis of Pakistan's federal structure?
The founders of Pakistan clearly envisaged a federal structure for the proposed state, in which
the national units (nationalities) would be "autonomous and sovereign." The 1940 Pakistan
Resolution demanded for the establishment of "Independent states" in the "North Western" and
"Eastern Zones" of India, the constituent units of each were to be "autonomous and sovereign".
The resolution was amended only with regard to the number of states that were to be
established by the Pakistan Muslim League.
To certain jurists today these facts do not mean a thing; what is important to them is the
"judicial" basis of a colonial state. That "State" died on August 14, 1947, and if at all there was a
successor state, it was India. Pakistan derived its legitimacy solely from the popular support the
Muslim masses gave it on the basis of the 1940 Lahore Resolution.
Then how did Pakistan derive its legitimacy?
Let me emphasize that Pakistan derived its legitimacy from the popular support the Muslim
masses gave it and the voluntary consensus among the Muslim leaders of the various units that
constituted the state of Pakistan with a federal democratic system of government.
Given the peculiar circumstances obtaining at that time, it was the only way a federal "compact"
could have been made. It was the subsequent violation of this understanding which led to the
3/5
Interview with Yousuf Masti Khan
Written by SAO
Friday, 07 August 2009 09:31
disillusionment of many stalwarts of the Pakistan Movement in Bengal, Sindh and Balochistan in
later years. Bengal and Punjab, through their respective provincial assemblies, British
Baluchistan through the Shahi Jirga, Kalat State of Balochistan through a controversial process
of accession (Kalat was declared independent on August 11, 1947), gave their consent to the
formation of Pakistan. If the units as nationalities had had no right to self-determination, there
would have been no need of Referendum in the NWFP and Sylhet or submitting of the partition
proposal to the assemblies. The fact is that the constituent units surrendered part of their
inherent sovereignty to the federation on the basis of the 1940 Lahore Resolution under which
their autonomy was guaranteed.
Pakistan was created as a voluntary democratic, multinational federation and that was precisely
what the 1940 Lahore Resolution and the founding fathers envisaged.
Do you agree with the endeavours made so far to establish provincial autonomy in
Pakistan?
Due to the consistent attempts by late Mir Ghous Bux Bizenjo, the demand for autonomy of the
nationalities of Pakistan Lahore on August 2, 1986, in which the pivotal role was played by late
Mir Ghous Bux Bizenjo. became an irresistible feature of the democratic struggle against Zia's
dictatorship in the 1980s. The MRD high command unanimously adopted a declaration in
The Lahore Declaration of 1986 met with the same fate as the Lahore Resolution of 1940.
Those very people who had acclaimed the declaration as a solution to the country's problems
forgot all about it when they came to power.
Late Senator Ejaz Ali Khan Jatoi of Pakistan National Parry played a leading role in introducing
a bill in the Parliament to amend the constitution but he was not able to submit it as he did not
have enough support from fellow parliamentarians.
Senator Manzoor Ghicki of JWP also submitted a constitutional bill in the Senate but failed.
Then, in 1994-5, Nawab Akber Bugti submitted a Provincial Autonomy Bill based on the 1940
Lahore Resolution. All these bills are lying in the archives of the parliament. The bills were
prepared by B.M. Kutty, the then central information secretary of the Pakistan National Party
(PNP). He is now central information secretary of the National Workers Party.
4/5
Interview with Yousuf Masti Khan
Written by SAO
Friday, 07 August 2009 09:31
So, what is the solution in light of the situation today?
What the country needs today is not merely autonomy for the units but devolution of power up
to the local bodies level which have long since been reduced to an extension of the provincial
governments and can be dissolved at will. It is only through local government that people's
participation in decision-making can be ensured and would also help to understand the
problems and requirements of the people at local level.
5/5