IDENTITY POLITICS AND CONFLICT IN PAKISTAN: THE CASE OF MOHAJIR COMMUNITY

In plural societies assertion for identity and autonomy on the basis of ethnicity, language, religion and culture has been a common problem. Owing to the majoritarian form of governance only the majoritarian groups are benefited in the process of modernization and they form the mainstream of the socio-political fabric. The minority groups remain isolated, deprived and at the periphery of the system. However, it has been seen that in the process of socio-economic and political modernization these groups are also mobilized. There mobilization makes them conscious about the discrimination that they are faced with and they began to assert in an organized way. This group mobilization and assertion naturally takes place on the basis of their primordial loyalties and sentiments. 1 Such as race, ethnicity, religion, culture, language and so on.

It is for these reasons that the process of nation building has always been challenging in the context of plural societies.2 In the process of nation building it was generally assumed that after a certain stage of development the minority cultural groups will assimilate in the mainstream. However, it did not happen in most of the cases due to the cultural impositions as well as the discriminatory policies of the majoritarian governments. As a result not only that the minority groups remained dissatisfied and isolated but they also began to assert in an organized way on the basis of their primordial loyalties and sentiments. It natural threatened the very process of nation-building and a conflictnal situation emerged thereby posing a challenge to the star security of the state.

This paper is an attempt to understand domestic dimensions of conflicts in Pakistan in the context of Mohajir Auami Movement.

Identity and Politics in South Asia

         The South Asian countries provide a unique example of multi layered conflicts animating due to social pluralities and discriminations. It is interesting to note that except Maldives to a large extent all the South Asian countries have plural societies divided in terms of race, ethnicity, caste, language, religion and culture. There are minority and majority cultural groups. The socio-economic and political dominance have been challenged by the minority cultural groups thereby giving rise to sub-nationalist tendencies in the region. In fact, the sub-nationlist tendencies have given rise to secessionist movements and even actual secession. Thus ethno-nationalism has become an important feature of the countries of the South Asian region. The assertion of identity and autonomy as the basis of culture, ethnicity, religion and language has been a significant issue and it has led to horizontal and vertical conflicts.

The fact remains that the mainstream approach which seeks to being various ethno-cultural groups into the composite mainstream culture has failed. It has not only been strongly contested by different groups but they have asserted upon their identity. In fact in the half a century since independence, the stability of the post-colonial state in South Asia has been threatened by recurrent and violent conflict between the central authority and a variety of ethnic minorities. The Mohajir uprising in Pakistan, Tamil separatism in Sri Lanka, tribal insurgency in the Chittagong Hill tracts of Bangladesh, irredentism in various parts of India such as Kashmir, problems in north east Sikh separatism rise of ethno-regional assertions in Nepal, etc are few examples of contemporary movements in South Asia. This demonstrates that a genuine spirit of unity, which is a necessary concomitant of nationalism, and a necessary prerequisite for the initiation of the process of nation building, does not exist in the third world countries in general and South Asia in particular. Therefore, it can safely be said that the process of nation-building and ethno-nationalism has worked at cross-purposes in the post-colonial world countries.

When the ruling elites in South Asian countries embarked upon the twin-projects of state-building, and nation-building simultaneously, they had to face many challenges and hurdles. Their, strategies, policies and methods of achieving the task was also fraught with short-sightedness, shortcomings and conflict generating. Thought potentially complementary, but in absence of a balanced approach, these two processes may worked in opposition to each other. While state-building is generally followed by creation and concentration of governmental authority, nation-building particularly in multiethnic societies requires a participatory and responsive political set-up. In their concern for the state’s survival as an independent international entity, the governing elite overemphasizes the process of the state-building, sometimes even at the cost of nation-building. 3

Meanwhile, both religion and ethnicity have been significant in the construction and reconstruction of group identities in the region. In the process both were sometimes competing, confronting and/of complimenting each other. From the early part of the twentieth century till 1947 the salient variable for defining national and nationality in South Asia was religion. Particularly, the religion based two-nation theory has been vital in determining the political fate of the Indian sub-continent. In post-1947 era, however, the religion as the basis of nation has often been put to acid test. Where on the one hand, Pakistan has officially upheld and carried forward the religious nationalism while negating the ethnic ground realities, in India on the other hand, religion was implicitly re in forced in the state-nationalism. However, at the same time in India, ethnic realities were acknowledged to certain extent, as there was a fundamental reorganization of the states (territory) on the basis of language within an Indian version of federal polity in the decade of fifties. But this recognition and acceptance of the ethnic realities was not always real and genuine.4 Moreover, in Nepal, Bhutan, Sri Lanka and Pakistan the state remained negligent to the issues of ethno-nationalism and as a result identity assertion become a serious issue.

Identity and Conflict in Pakistan

         In Pakistan the religious identity that was the basis of its creation also formed the backbone of the nation-building project in the post-independence period. ‘Pakistan-Islam-Urdu’ was the plank on which the leaders tended to create a homogeneous nation. However, this plank proved to be too fragile to keep the more organic and integral ethno-regional bonds and identities of the constituent groups at bay. A major jolt to the religious identity came with the secession of the then East Pakistan in the form of a new state of Bangladesh and resurgence of ethnic-nationalisms of Sindhis, Pashtoons and Balochis in its wake. These ethnic identities are so rooted in ‘territory’ that the Urdu –speaking migrants hailing from the northern provinces of the British India, who, also, are culturally different from the ‘locals’, ended up in becoming and ‘excluded’, though also ‘exclusive’ out-group with no territorial base. Initially they constituted the ruling community and insisted on a single, homogeneous, religious identity. But soon they lost to the ‘sons of the soil’ both at the central and provincial level and refusing to get assimilated in the local culture, reorganized themselves as a separate ethnic entity in the ethnic universe of Pakistan. If clearly shows that the creation of Pakistan on the basis of a distant religious identity failed in containing the rise of ethno-cultural identities.

         Human history is essentially the struggle for power and resources, and allocation and distribution of resources in the prime concern of politics. This makes the process of identity-formation a core political activities as no individual or community or group of individuals can either be a subject or the object of action without and identity because it is identity that orients an individuals or a group towards others in any transaction. In fact, “identity of a group makes political action possible”. This further leads to the inference that “identity is not maintained in isolation”. Identity cannot be formed in a vacuum it is always relational and contextual. According to Chautal Moufee identities should be considered relational, defined by their differences from other identities. At the same time it is contextual as “who are you? Makes little sense until we know the context of the question: in relation to whom? Doing what? When? Therefore, in construction of a political identity, context plays a significant role. 5

         Identity cannot be detached from what may be termed as real and visible interests of groups and communities. Social or political agents compete for recognition, acclaim, and social position, material necessities and other different socio-political goods. Within a political entity these social goods, however, are not evenly distributed. Some of the identities that would accrue them more political benefits, evaluation of a particular identity depends upon the relative success of the group employing and upholding that identity, while competing for scarce resources. In this regard Sahar Joseph states that:

“The process of selection of identities by the subject is more or less voluntary one, differences of power and privilege in society also play its part in the process. The process of identity formation is also influenced by the differences of power of inequality between groups”. 6

         The genesis of Pakistan has been traced to the doctrine of two nations, which emanated from the fear of Hindu domination detrimental to the fruition of Muslim nationalism. The irony of history is too well known in the upsurge leading to the emergence of Bangladesh in 1971 challenging the very basis of the two nation theory. It is against this backdrop that one would like to reexamine the relevance of two nation theory as the ideological foundation of the nation state, and also an instrument of national integration of Pakistan where various regional entities (Balochis Sindhis, Pashtoons and Punjabis), tribes and sects have raised the banner of autonomy aligned with separatism.

         The issue needs to be addressed in a historical perspective. And in this context it is pertinent to remember that with the expansion and consolidation of British hegemony in the Indian subcontinent, strategies of colonialist and imperial interest assumed ominous dimensions. The British strongly believed that the people of India divided by race, religion, language and culture precluded the possibility of ever forming a single unified nation. For perpetuation of their imperialistic and colonial interests, the alien, rulers persisted with the policy of divide et impera. The British claimed to have integrated India. However, this was an outcome of political and administrative self interest for consolidating and legitimizing the empire. In effect, the rulers calculatedly frustrated the attempts of Indian nationalism for the cause of integral, assimilative and composite Indian nationalism. Accordingly, the British at one time supported the perceived Hindu cause, and at other encouraged Muslim leadership and intelligentsia instigating separate religious identity. The spokesmen of Muslim interest failed to perceive the inherent ambivalence in pursuing the command alternatives and predilections allegedly legitimizing religio-cultural exclusiveness, separatism and divisiveness. The national movement consequently witnessed antithetical notions of sub-nationalistic orientation. Instead of integrative identity, the doctrine of two nations was contrived by the Muslim leadership which claimed to be the conclusive determinant of a separate Muslim homeland. The Two-Nation Theory, as employed by M.A. Jinnah failed to resolve the challenges of nation-building in a Muslim Pakistan. The people of Pakistan were profoundly conscious of their regional, ethnic and linguistic commitments and it was clear that they would socio-cultural identities in a vague ideal like “Islamic Nationhood”. In particular, erstwhile East Pakistan was over zealous about preservation of its “Bangla” culture and safeguarding the region’s socio-economic interests. The West Pakistan’s ruling elite, however, persisted with repressive regimentation, which ultimately culminated in the liberation of East Pakistan in December 1971. Thus, another Muslim state (Pakistan) which had gloriously claimed the inviolability of the ideology of Two-Nation Theory. Creation of Bangladesh also exploded the hitherto idealized myth of Islamic unity, integrity and brotherhood. It is a point of political trajectory that the rulers of truncated Pakistan have not realized the ideological imbecility of the Two-Nation Theory as the basis of state-building in spite of a major setback through the separation of Bangladesh.7

Mohajirs: Identity and Conflict

         The Mohajirs constitutes a community based on exclusiveness as a result of negative assimilation within the Pakistani state of Urdu-speaking migrants hailing from Hyderabad and Northern provinces of erstwhile British India, who failed to integrate in the local population due to cultural, linguistic, historical remoteness and differentiation. When they arrived in the Pakistan’s province of Sindh, Mohajirs and Sindhis perceived each other as different, owing to their past proximity to the centre of the Mughals and subsequently to the British Empire.8

         The Mohajirs took pride in their cultural heritage of Indo-Muslim civilization and practiced racial superiority vis-à-vis Sindhi sans looked down upon Sindhi culture as feudal, primitive, and backward. They retained their own customs, traditions life style, food rabits, manners and customs. They did not inter in marital relations with the local people. Migrations resulting from marriages averaged about 40,000 a year in the 1950s and 60s however; these trends had come down to about 300 a year in the 1990s. On the other hand, local people resented the cultural aggression of relatively privileged Mohajir migrants. This made the process of assimilation of the migrants and the locals further difficult. In this regard study of Karen Leonard provides starting insight into the plight of Hyderabadi Mohajirs who were indeed in a dilemma whether to retain their Hyderabadi identity of integrate themselves into the Pakistan identity. They, however, it to be extremely difficult due to unfavourable attitude of the local people. This was in contrast to the situation of refugees who migrated form East Punjab to West Punjab. Due to cultural affiliation they successfully got assimilated into the local culture and ceased to be identified as Mohajires. The fact that Mohajirs settled in large concentrations in the urban centers of the province of Sindh further prevented mixing up the migrants with the native population.9

Problem of Assimilation

         Creation of a single “Mohajir” community had also been generated by the instance of intermittent collective violence between Urdu-speaking migrants and other ethnic groups in which burning and destruction on Mohajir dominated localities within the native majority areas was witnessed. As conflict sets motion conspicuous and massive relocations of people members of the beleaguered communities were forced to leave the areas where they were minority and move back to their centers, ethnic enclaves or ghettoes. This led to clear spatial segregations and conspicuous “ethnic polarization” in the urban areas of Sindh. In the violence which took place in the 1990’s in Karachi and Hyderabad such disturbing patterns were witnessed.

         The two communities Mohajirs and Sindh stood in stark opposition to each other, acquired a myopic colour. Every aspect of the life be it social, economic or political, came to be interpreted in terms of ethnicity. 10 As the group prejudices took roots, Mohajirs regarded every Sindhi as a Sindhu-deshi and Sindhis viewed every Mohajir as anti Sindhi, an exploiter, a terrorist and someone whose sole aim was to partition the province. The polarization of the two communities in these cities was further endorsed by the fact that they had to come into direct confrontation and competition with each other for scarce resources like, housing facilities of jobs. Therefore, the external factors stated above helped Mohajirs to set aside their internal distinctions and amalgamate into a single Mohajir identity.

         Violence constitutes an important component of Mohajirs ethnicity. In mobilizing Karachi’s Mohajirs to ethnic and anti-state violence around the cause of exclusion; MQM shaped the contours of a new ethnic identity. Violence has undoubtedly worked in case of Urban Sindh as it led to the altering of community power structure there. Although, the conflict damaged the MQM’s reputation but it led the party to provincial government. The events in 2007 had shown how, in a profound turnabout, Mohajir violence had been directed at preserving the power of military.11

Moreover, the practice of the police and authorities of treating the Mohajirs as a unified security problems and collective threat to civic order has further generated a sense of unity among the group. During various army operations in Sindh, the members of the community were indiscriminately arrested and annihilated. Affiliation to MQM or being Mohajirs made an individual suspect. Army searched homes of Mohajirs in their localities in Karachi, ina ruthless province, houses were raided in search of wanted persons, even though not all of the were declared absconding. But these repressive activities of the state rather strengthened the group solidarity and led the Mohajirs to seek refuge in the leadership of Altaf Hussain, whom they regard as Quaid-e-Tehreek.

         It may also be stated here that the British Indian census categories had been blamed for strengthening communalism in colonial India. Similarly, Pakistan government census category were responsible emergence of Mohajirs as a separate category. The first census, in Pakistan in 1951, enumerated the migrants as Mohajirs. Similarity, in the subsequent censuses entries like’ Place of Birth’, ‘language’ etc. was made, which could be used to ascertain the overall social category. Similarity, category of ‘urban’ and ‘rural’ Sindh was made to allocate regional quotas, which was nothing but a proxy for ascertaining Mohajir category.

Mohajir Identity Assertion

         In case of ethnic conflict where one of the groups happens to be migrants, either directly or by descent territory is projected as a source of legitimacy for demanding jobs for locals and for constructing a culturally distinct identity. 12 Therefore, in response to the revival of Sindhi nationalism in 1970s, Mohajirs developed a sub-nationalist movement of their own seeking a territorial base so that they too can be sons of the soil. Such as aspiration got boost also from the hard fact that unlike the majority of Pakistan, who are tied emotionally and politically to a specific locality in the country. Mohajirs did not have these ties. This was handicap in a county where the natives based their socio-political demands on the basis of territorial exclusiveness. However, as the migrant community has got natives, they identify themselves as economic sons of soil of Sindh, particularly Karachi. Thus, whenever there has been a spree of upcountry migration, they have felt uneasy about it and opposed it. For instance, they felt insecure in the aftermath of one unit scheme when there was influx of circular immigrants from Punjab and NWFP. Similarly after dissolution of one-unit scheme, migration of Sindhis in Karachi invited wrath of Mohajirs. Meanwhile, latter joined with the former in the decade of 80s to defend their province from onslaught of upcountry migrants, who drain the wealth of Sindh by earning in the province and sending back the wealth of Sindh by earning in the province and sending back the returns to their respective home provinces. During various army operations when the members of the community and MQM were being persecuted there has been demand of separate Jinnhapur for the Mohajirs as a final abode. Thought over the years the realization has dawned upon the community that carving out of a separate province for the community does not hold water and this demand has faded away, but there still persists among the migrants and implicit sense of deserving a separate province of its own. This is visible is MQM’s demand for creating new provinces ostensibly for better administration.

Rise of MQM

         As sufficient subjective and objective conditions existed to evolve a new socio-political identity based on ethnicity, the only conditions now required was a political organization that could help the community to overcome the initial inhibition of identifying themselves in ethnic terms and that would project the same in an efficient way. Mohajir Qaumi Movement fulfilled this requirement. It had played a crucial role in consolidating Mohajirs ethnicity and providing a political organization to the community. It catered and articulated the demands of Mohajirs as a group, in specific terms and stood for what it is, MQM helped Mohajirs to overcome the initial inhibition of identifying themselves in ethnic terms. Thus, it becomes easier for other ethnic groups particularly Sindhis to deal with Muhajir. This is in contrast with their earlier stance when Mohajirs codified their particular interests as national interests of Pakistan and Islam and tried to secure them at the cost of the people of Pakistan. By weaning the Mohajirs away from the idea of waging a crusade for Pakistan or Islam and psychologically liberating them from the clutches of rightist Islamist parties, MQM has contributed towards secularization of the community. According to Hamza Alavi, emergence of MQM as a major political force was not merely a matter of Mohajirs getting organized as such, it marked a sea change in their political attitudes. As a wider implication emergence of MQM has indeed indicated the consolidation of ethnic and communal politics in Pakistan. 13 Amidst continued ethnic clashes with different ethnic groups in urban Sindh and the growing sense of alienation in Mohajirs, MQM emerged as a defender of the ethnic collectivity. Its personality cult further strengthened the cohesiveness of the community as the charismatic leadership of Altaf Hussain brought disparate people under one organization. He became a symbol of Mohajirs nation. Whenever the activists of the party were assaulted and targeted by members of any other ethnic group or the security agencies, Mohajirs felt persecuted and rallied behind their own political organization. So much so that in Pakistan, MQM is the only political party which is confident of its support base and invariably wins all the elections and by elections from the constituencies in decides to contest.

         Language has been an important tool to consolidate ethno-cultural identity. 14 Language is an important though not the sole symbol for the Mohajirs. Urdu which is an important aspect of the aesthetic sensibility of Ganga-Jamunai culture based in and around Lucknow and Delhi and proudly upheld and preserved by the community assumed a prominent role as a cultural marker by the community based in urban Sindh. Thus, the Mohajirs of urban Sindh consolidated themselves as an Urdu speaking collectivity during their resistance to the movement for the use of Sindhi in Sindh even earlier than the language riots of January 1971 and July 1972. This polarization of the two communities increased during the decades of 1980’s . As Sindhi nationalists kept pressing ‘Non Sindhis’ Learn Sindhi or Leave Sindh Mohajirs displayed their non assimilation tendencies and firmly asserted themselves as a collectivity that saw Urdu as their identity marker. Latter not only rejected the possibility of assimilation but were not even prepared to accept minority status. Thus, they upheld the notion that the province of Mohajirs ethnic identity that rose some time in the 1970s was first articulated during the language riots of that period.

Mohajir Movement in Retrospect

         It would be interesting to note that ethnic differences among Muslims have proved to be more tenacious in comparison to religion in Pakistan. The people supporting a strong Muslim identity themselves refused to assimilate with the ethnically and culturally different people of Pakistan. The ethnic identities in the country are so rooted in ‘territory’ that these Urdu-speaking migrants ended up in becoming an ‘excluded’, though also ‘exclusive’ out-group with no territorial base. In post-1971 era these territorial-ethnic associations indeed became political realities, when the constituent provinces, which were also the ‘historical homelands’ of the respective ethnic groups, became units of the federation of Pakistan. As result, Mohajirs ended up as an ‘in-between’ group with no historic territorial association in the country. In this way their journey to the dream ‘homeland of Pakistan’ has ended up nowhere. If expelled or persecuted, unlike their forefathers they don’t have any place to move on in the world community of ‘nation-state’ in which the territorial boundaries are clearly demarcated and are frozen and hard in nature. This became evident to them with the plight of Bihari Muslims in Bangladesh. Consequently, a sense of ‘Diaspora’ is generated within the community, who now feel that their search and longing for a territory that had started with their forefathers migrating to Pakistan can end when they get a rightful space in the province of Sindh.

It has identity been pointed out that initially Mohajirs constituted the ruling community and insisted on a single, homogeneous, religious, identity. But soon they lost to the ‘sons of the soil’ both at the central and provincial level and refusing to get assimilate with the local culture, reorganized themselves as a separate ethnic entity in the ethnic universe of Pakistan. Not only this Pakistan as abode of South Asian Muslims, as propounded by the two-nation theory could not explain as to why the Muslims who have been left out in Indian or even the Bihari Muslims in Bangladesh, who had supported the Pakistani forces in suppressing nationalist movement in East Pakistan, have not been incorporated and repatriated to the country. Refusal to accept them has not only negated the two-nation theory but has endorsed the ethnic reality of the polity as immigration of any more Urdu-speaking Muslims from the subcontinent will add to the numbers and clout of the Mohajirs, who now claim to be a separate nationality. No doubt, that the plank of ‘Pakistan –Islam-Urdu’ failed to create a homogeneous nation and proved to be too fragile to keep the more organic and integral ethno-regional bonds and identities of the constituent groups at bay.

Secession of predominantly ‘Muslim’ but ‘Bengali’ East Pakistan and resurgence of ethnic-nationalisms of Sindhis and Balochis in its wake was indeed a major setback to the nation-building endeavor of the ruling elite. Success of sub-national movement of Bengalis encouraged other ethnic groups in Pakistan, who tended to organize themselves with renewed vigour and became more assertive of their demands. However, even in the years following the secession of East Pakistan the centre’s lack of forbearance in tacking provincialism and its reliance on coercion instead of persuasion evoked resistance to federal authority from the ethnic conscious regions. The rise of Mohajir ethno-nationalism was a setback to Pakistani state. In the immediate aftermath of played during the initial phase the Mohajir dominance in civil bureaineray was on asset to them. But with the rise of military dictatorship and the increasing role of military in politics the importance of Mohajirs detuned. However, in the post zia phase MQM succeeded in increasing its electoral success and succeeded an may occasions in the politics of bargaining MQM joined civil and military governments. During the Musharraf phase Mohajirs agained got Political significance However, in the post Musharraf phase. They are again struggly to preserve their interests. If has however become clear that they can not be ignored and quotas did not impact the domination and share of Punjabis in bureaucracy and government jobs, Mohajirs’ share was drastically affected. In the subsequent years Mohajirs were relegated to the position of “junior partners” of the dominant ethnic group of Punjab in the power structure. Gradually, Pushtoons and Sindhis started replacing Mohajirs in the important positions. Their representation at various levels of government jobs has reduced over the years, due to quota system and partial policies of the government towards the Mohajir community at different points of time. This has led to the sense of ‘relative deprivation’ in the community and caused alienation among Mohajirs. In the immediate aftermath of independence, the community had provided much needed political leadership, skilled human resource, expertise as well as capital to the nascent polity and economy of the country. Moreover, they had ardently supported the Pakistan movement and had sacrificed their hearths and homes while migrating to the new country. Therefore, they had high expectations for the rewards in return to their contributions. But as their representation in the state structures started shrinking, they got disillusioned and experienced ‘relative deprivation’. Clearly, they perceived huge gap between what they deserve and what they actually were receiving. Consequently, they distanced from the state ideology of “pan-Pakistan-Islamic identity”. Moreover, after disintegration of the country in 1971, they felt disillusioned by the notion that religion cannot provide a unifying bond to otherwise ethnically fragmented polity. In the wake of revival of indigenous peoples, they felt a sever crisis of identity and sought to overcome it by organizing themselves on ethnic lines.

In the ethnic universe of Pakistan, where people claimed to belong to one or the other ethnic community, Mohajirs were left with the options of getting assimilated in one of the local groups, which rather they resisted by even refusing to learn local Sindhi language, or constructing their own ethnic group and they opted the second one. Here it needs to be emphasized that ethnicity in Pakistan is also linked with politico-economic interests. Hence for Mohajirs, as for other ethnic groups, it is also a fight for a political space and clout in the country.

Mohajirs lack common geographical and other objective criteria. Therefore it does not fit in the primordialist paradigm as an ethnic group. Similarly instrumental conception also does not completely explain the phenomenon as it does in case of one or other ethnic groups in Pakistan because the Mohajir movement was not led by elites traditionally associated with a land or territory rather its leaders were drawn from an urban middle class background. But its perception that ethnicity or ethnic identity is a ‘social construct’ explains the essentials of identity formation. The phenomenon of Mohajir ethnicity is also explained in terms of ‘New Ethnicity’. According to this notion Mohajir ethnicity is the outcome of erosion of state power from above and below. That is as a repercussion of Afghanistan war, Pakistan became a part of the international network of fundamentalism and arms and drug trade that led to the erosion of the state authority from above. Parallel to this ‘localism’, which was manifested in the ethnic assertions of the indigenous peoples in the county, was also challenging the notion of nation-state. It is in this backdrop that the Mohajir community, which was experiencing ‘relative deprivation’ at that time, redefined their political identity in terms of ethnicity. But Mohajir ethnicity also demonstrates the failure of the state in dealing with the macro-level issues of state-formation, federal-provincial relations, balanced economic development, defining the role of Islam, egalitarian power-sharing mechanism, etc., has compelled the people to articulate their micro-level demands and compete for the limited socio-economic goods, in terms of ethnicity.

It can be said that violence constitutes an important aspect and an integral feature of identity, popularity and influence of MQM. However, in the early years of the decade of 1990s, the party had to pay dearly for such an image in various army operations ostensibly aimed at flushing out militants and criminals from the province of Sindh. In the subsequent years, the party attempted to correct its image and adopted parliamentary methods. It has restructured itself a Muttahida Qaumi Movement in 1988, meaning United National Movement, and has tried to get rid itself of the Mohajir ethnic tag. This change of nomenclature also signifies that the MQM leadership has realized the futility of the separatist polity and it is now keep to win back the confidence of the centrist forces, particularly the army. It has restructured itself as a party of the middle and lower class of the country as opposed to the predominantly feudal parties, thereby claiming to represent the ninety eight percent of the middle class and poor population of the whole of the country whose interests are not condoned and accommodated by the two percent feudals who actually rule the country.

Due to electoral compulsions and aspiration to become a national party MQM has tended to broaden its support base by distributing party tickets to the members of other ethnic groups and fight elections in other provinces also. This has led to the distancing of certain radicals in the community from the party, but nevertheless hold of Altaf Hussain in the party and on the loyalties of the Mohajirs towards his leadership has not weakened which is evident from the fact that even the Sindhis have won in the recent elections from the Mohajir-dominated localities. However, it is yet to be seen that how loyal the MQM leadership is towards its goal of strengthening the lower and middle classes of the country as the party has a reputation of being opportunistic and is identified by its keenness and zeal to remain close to the power circles.

The MQM has distanced itself from the state-ideology of over-emphasizing Pakistani-Islamic identity and has taken accommodative attitude towards the ethnic groups and demands autonomy and group rights for the constituent units. To the extent that these demands, when fulfilled, would help the country to maintain its territorial integrity and then in forging a nation. Also, the rank and file of the party constitutes of young men belonging to the middle class, which has introduced a fresh and dynamic element in the policy of the country as opposed to the conservative feudal elements. This can prove vital in providing a momentum to the participative nation-building in the country. The party (MQM) has emerged as an exclusive urban middle-class movement. In this sense the party has induced a fresh and novel, element in the national politics of Pakistan. Unlike the Bengali, Sindhi, or Baluchi nationalist movements, which are rooted in territorial ethnicity, MQM has mixed ethnicity with a migrant ethos. Further the party has secularized the policy and tended to bring forth mundane issue that directly affect and influence the lives of the individuals and groups that, in turn, are necessary for improving the standard of living which would help in building a strong civil society and a civil nation. It exploited the sense of state-persecuted diaspora and amalgamated it with the nativistic idiom in order to make a territorial claim on Karachi and Hyderabad. It has particularly been popular amongst youth and its cadre constitutes mostly of the young men. The young, urban and educated leaders and members of the party movement have successfully resisted all the attempts by the central government to dismantle their organization and have been successful in maintaining a high level of legitimacy among their constituency as proved in all levels of elections.

With regards to its future prospects, it can be said that the level of violence since the appearance of MQM on the political scene is creating a growing sense of pessimism among the people of urban Sindh. The party thus far has remained unable to make any dent in rural Singh. Therefore, despite proving its credentials amongst Mohajir community, party has not been able to hold power either in the province much less in the centre independently rather it has to remain content with the position of an ally only. With its separatist rhetoric, militant methods and claims of being a separate nationality it has annoyed almost all the ethnic groups in the country who seldom sympathize with it. Hence in order to be acceptable to the people of Pakistan as well as to play a bigger role in the politics of country it has tended to involve members of other communities also. However, MQM remains to be a Mohajir party as long as the party structure is dominated and led predominantly by Mohajirs. Altaf Hussain has been in touch with PONM leaders like Attaullah Mengal and Mehmud Khan Achakzai. Recently MQM organized ‘Sindh Solidarity Convention’ at Nishtar Park in Karachi in April 2002, where Altaf sought a new constitution in accordance with the Lahore resolution of 1940. After declared that if people of Sindh are denied their right to self-determination, they will not hesitate to approach United Nations. Yet in March 2000, the party aligned itself with a separatist Sindhi group in a London rally. All these developments indicate that the party is now concentrating more on provincial autonomy as its major demand. An interesting fact that has come up in the study of political trajectory of the party is that it has off and on entered into alliances with Sindhi ultra-nationalists with relative ease without working out the details for a longstanding relationship with moderate Sindhi parties, like Pakistan Peoples Party.

Conclusion

         To sum up it can be said that, ethnic conflict is indeed and outcome of the incapacity of post-colonial ruling elites to reform the state in a direction of power sharing. Hence the most effective step to manage the secessionist impulses in the South Asian countries is to reconstitute the state in such a way that different ethnic groups be allowed to share state power along with the majority community as political equals. On the contrary, it is found that the ethnic conflicts have created a syndrome of ‘fear of reform’ in the minds of the majoritarian ruling class. They see federalist reform, or even limited devolution, as weakening the state already threatened by minoritarian separatist tendencies. What, however, required is political and economic restructuring in order to accommodate diverse population and radical shifts in value orientation so as to acknowledge that diverse culture-religious categories are part of the public space in these societies.

         Hence the ruling elite in Pakistan needs to realize that over-emphasizing ‘Pakistani-Islamic’ identity, while suppressing and downplaying ethno-regional identities, and also keeping the constituent groups out of economic and political set-up will not serve any purpose. Instead it will prove counter-productive. After all it is a failure of state-formation and religious nation-formation that led to the disintegration of the country in 1971. Not only has this, the emergence of ethnic-nationalism and the rise of MQM also depicted that the establishment needs serious overhauling of its policies and strategies for achieving the twin-tasks. Religion has proved to be too fragile to keep the country united, though it has been fundamental in the creation of the country. Ethnic linguistic and regional identities should be given due recognition for nation-formation and the constituent groups should be given due political share for appropriate state-building.

         Meanwhile, the ethnic caldron in Sindh poses a political problem and should be solved accordingly. While devising any solution to the ethnic crisis in the province it needs to be recognized that even though the migrants might not constitute a homogeneous cultural or even linguistic group but the sense of community within Mohajirs should not be underestimated. Also the law and order situation in the cities of the province should not be tackled militarily. Without offering real socio-economic relief to the urban population state authorities cannot wean them away from MQM, the party that claims to look after their interests and to which they have no alternative. On its part the party movement can do better if it realizes that Karachi and Hyderabad are demographically multi-ethnic and any solution to the hardships and problems of the people in these cities can be suggested and carried out by joint efforts of the representatives of all the affected groups. Perhaps this realization has triggered another pro-Sindhi phase in the party. Though a positive development, but it yet needs to be seen that how longstanding these are as with the disappearance of Punjabi factor and emergence of any elected, Sindhi national party at the centre and/or province, the thaw in Mohajir-Sindhi relations might evaporate, which will definitely impact the national integrity in a negative manner.

         Sindh is the most diverse, the most urbanized, the richest, the most unevenly developed province of Pakistan. Of all the provinces of Pakistan, it is faced with the most challenging internal ethnic problems. While Sindh continues to have difference with regard to its share in the development funds, other financial resources, and irrigation water, as well as with regard to land allotments, migration and employment, its real energy to deal with the centre is sapped because of its real energy to deal with the centre is sapped because of its internal ethnic problems. Sindh can not live up to its potential if it is unable to achieve peace, tolerance and cooperation among its residents, especially the two major communities-the Sindhis and the Mohajirs. Both communities have to coexist for safeguarding the vital interests of the Sindh province.

         The main problem with the MQM is that it has indulged in an exclusivist categorization of the ethnic issue. It has developed as the most unique ethnic movement in Pakistan’s history. It has been most vociferous and at times a violent movement in Pakistan. While it excels all other ethno-nationalist movements in its intensity, its claims of discrimination are hard to substantiate. Most of the issues on which the MQM has ethnically polarized the Sindh province as well as Pakistan are not even ethnic. In reality the Mohajir community is quite diverse. It can not be identified exclusively by the Urdu-speaking Muslims who migrated to Pakistan after partition. There are many Gujrati-speaking and other linguistic groups such as Biharis who are also addressed as Mohajirs in Pakistan. The demand for fifth nationality by the Mohajirs was not tolerated by the ruling establishment of Pakistan. Direct confrontation began between the ruling establishment and the Mohajirs. Even the military repression failed to silence the voice of the Mohajirs who succeeded in capturing maximum seats in the urban area in local, state and national elections. The Mohajirs under the leadership of Altaf Hussain resorted to violence to counter the violence of the other ethnic groups. Earlier the Mohajirs found the local Sindhis as their enemies’ number one. However, during the 1980s they became apprehensive of the ulterior motives of the Pushtoons and the Punjabis. The Afghan imbroglio of the 1980s added new dimension to the travails and alienation of the Mohajirs of Pakistan. In fact, it was the Afghan crisis which led to the consolidation of ethnic identity of the Mohajirs. The Mohajir community profited enormously from the ethnic clashes (Mohajirs and Pushtoons) of the 1980s which helped in the crystallization of Mohajir nationalism. General Election held in the post-Zia phase provides an excellent opportunity for the Mohajirs to consolidate their political base in the urban centre of Sindh province. With their political strength they entered into the political arena with their politics of bargain and assertion on the basis of political strength, the MQM got an opportunity to become the coalition partner in all governments in the post –Zia ear, that is, from the era of Benazir Bhutto to the present era of Asif Ali Zardari. In fact, the Mohajir community had seen two Pakistan with their own eyes. The Pakistan created by Mohammad Ali Jinnah, was an ideal Pakistan for the Mohajirs. However, the residual Pakistan which came after 1971national debacle was an eye-opener for the Mohajirs which inculcated a sense of realism and led to their ethnic consolidation and political solidarity.

         The general sympathy towards the Mohajir community in Pakistan started vanishing soon after the military take-over of General Ayub Khan whose regime gave encouragement for the settlement of Pushtoons in the urban areas Sindh. General Ayub Khan was himself a Pushtoon and his regime had sown the needs of inter-ethnic conflict between the Mohajirs and Pusshtoons. The local Sindhis were already having the attitude of ethnic rivalry against the Moharjirs. The interests of the Mohajirs were gravely threatened by the new alliance of the Pushtoons and the Punjabis. In fact, inter-ethnic conflict between Mohajirs and Pushtoons had been as decisive as Mohajir-Sindhi conflict in the growth of reactive ethnic politics of the Mohajirs. Subsequent to these developments, the Pushtoons acquired the position of loval collaborators of the Punjabi ruling elite as compared to the Mohajirs who were proving to be more irksome. In the mid-1980s the Pushtoons almost declared Jihad against the Mohajirs which has reemerged as the Taliban Jihad against the Mohajirs in present-day Pakistan. The major cities of Sindh such as Karachi and Hyderabad are the major victims of the Talibani-Jihad, which as completely shattered the hopes and expectations of the Mohajirs. The Mohajir community is thus, facing and existential, crisis in Pakistan. Their main dilemma in that they want to live as the true and faithful citizens of Pakistan. They are maltreated by the other ethnic groups and often accused of being the agents of India. It sound quite ironical that Urdu has been given the status of national language in Pakistan but the Urdu-speaking Mohajirs are often made the targets of ethnic hatred and violence. The Mohajirs argue that within 62 years of Pakistan, they have their two generations which were born in Pakistan. Even then they are still seen as the refugees and maligned as pro-Indian agents.

         During the military regime of General Pervez Musharraf ( Mohajir from Delhli), the Mohajir community of Pakistan felt more comfortable and secure. The Mohajirs regained the lost confidence to a substantial extent. However, General Pervez Musharraf never openly revealed his inner sympathy with the Mohajirs because he had to depend on the support of other major ethnic groups especially, the Punjabis.

References:-

1. For details see, Ramakant, B.C. Upreti (eds), Nation Building in South Asia 2000, South Asian Publishers, New Delhi, 1991.
2. C. Upreti, Contemporary South Asia, Kaliga Publications, Delhi, 2004,1-11.
3. See for details, Paul R. Brass, Ethnicity and Nationalism: Theory and Comparison, New Delhi, Sage, 1991.
4. K. Oomen, Nation, Civil Society and Social Movements: Essays in Political Sociology, New Delhi, Sage, 2004.
5. Chautal Maufee, The Return of the Political, London, Verso, 1993.
6. Sarah Joseph, Interrogating Culture: Critical Perspectives on Contemporary Social Theory, New Delhi, Sage, 1998.
7. Surendra Nath Kaushik, “Two Nation Theory and The Genesis of Pakistan” South Asian Studies, 1, Jan-Dec.1976:56-70.
8. See, H.P. Chattopadhyay and S.K. Sarkar (eds), Ethnic Composition and Crisis in South Asia, Global Vision, New Delhi, vol.2, 2003.
9. See, Zial Haque, “The Social Ruestion in Sind”, Viewpoint, 23October, 1986: 20-21; Charles Kannely, “The Politics of Ethnicity in Sindh”, Asian Survey, 31, No 10, October, 1991.

• See, Oskar Verkaaik, Migrants and Militants: Fun and Urban Violence in Pakistan, Prircetion University Press, Princetion,2004.

1. Nichola Khan, “Mobilization and Political Violence in the Mohajir Community of See for some references , sindh EPW, June 23-29,2009, No 25, 2007.
2. Adeel Khan, Politics of Identity, Sage Publications New Delhi, 2005.
3. Farhat Haq, “Rive of the MQM in Pakistan Politics of Ethnic Mobilization,” Asian Survey, Vol xxxv, No.ll, November, 1995.

• See B. C. Upreti, “Ethnicity Identity and State in South Asia” in Kowar J.Azam, Ethnicity, Identity and the State in South Asia, South Asian Publishers, New Delhi, 2001:1.