Sikander Hayat's World

By Sikander Hayat


There has been a feeling of mistrust between the countries of Afghanistan & Pakistan from the day of Pakistani independence from British rule. Afghanistan tried to stop Pakistan from becoming the member of United Nations as a recognised state. For the record, Iran was the first country to recognise Pakistan as an independent state on the map of the world.
Afghanistan is a country where Pakhtuns have always dominated the corridors of power and their percentage in the ethnic composition of the country is 40% with Tajiks, Hazara, Uzbek and other ethnic group making rest of the 60%. Although there is a large number of non Pakhtun nationals of Afghanistan but still the ruling class of this country look at it as a Pakhtun nation and thereby give itself a responsibility to save the Pakhtuns living in neighbouring Pakistan.

Here I am looking at the issue through the Afghan perspective which has the mindset that somehow people living in the tribal agencies of Pakistan need to be liberated from Pakistan as they were wrongly left on the other side of the Durand Line (International border between Afghanistan & Pakistan).

Mohammed Daoud Khan (an Afghan prince and politician in Afghanistan who overthrew the monarchy of his first cousin Zahir Shah and became the first President of Afghanistan from 1973 until his assassination in 1978) launched an attack Pakistan to conquer the tribal areas but was repulsed by the tribal army of the Pakistani Pakhtuns.

Afghanistan has never been strong enough to conquer Pakistani land but neither it is willing to give up its claim on these tribal agencies. This situation has left a festering wound in the relationship between Afghanistan & Pakistan. In my view this situation has to be solved as soon as possible as it is hurting the development of both countries while Afghanistan is being used by India to train and fund terrorists operating in Pakistan killing Pakistani civilians.

I believe that there are two main solutions which can help resolve the issue of Durand line between Afghanistan & Pakistan.
The first solution is that Afghanistan accepts Durand line. Both countries should remain in their boundaries and there are no more fights. But this solution is hard to sell to
people on both sides of the border. These are same people with same ethnic origin, same religion and same values.

The second solution is that Afghanistan and Pakistan form an economic trade zone with single currency and no border checks so that people can cross over whenever they want.

Pakistan and Afghanistan will keep their political & geographical entities intact but the free movement of people and finance will be guaranteed. Both countries will keep their separate armies, currencies and other arms of state.


We must not forget that there are more Pakhtun living in Pakistan then in Afghanistan so any right to vote for Pakistani Pakhtun in Afghanistan will brutally alter the power structure in Afghanistan by cornering Tajks, Uzbeks, Hazaras and other major minority groups in Afghanistan.

There seems to be a misconception about Afghanistan that it is a Pakhtun state, which is extremely wrong as Pakhtun make about 40% of the total Population with Tajiks, Uzbeks, Kirghiz, and Hazara as the other major groups in the country. Afghan demands for annexation of tribal areas is similar to Canada asking for the annexation of the northern USA because the same people live there as in Canada.

Pakhtun domination will create resentment in other stakeholders in Afghan population and may come to divide Afghanistan into Pakhtun and non Pakhtun areas.

The best possible option for both Afghanistan and Pakistan is to stop stoking flames in each others territories. The only durable option is to allow free movement of people across border and allowing Afghanistan access to Gwadar port.

By Sikander Hayat


At the moment Punjab has 60% of the population of Pakistan. Other Pakistanis think that Punjab is the usurper of their resources while at the same time people of Punjab are suffering the same prejudices as everyone else in the federation, like any Baloch, Sindhi, Pakhtun, Kashmiri, Balti & Hazara.
Saying that, I must add that sometimes perceptions are as powerful as truth and there is a need to allay those fears.
Many scholars in Pakistan have studied
and commented upon case-histories such as Switzerland, Belgium, India and Nigeria, populated like Pakistan by diverse people having different languages and cultures. Switzerland has German, French, Italian and Romanch as languages and culture. Like the Punjab (60%) in Pakistan, Switzerland is dominated by the Germans (70%) but the country is divided into 26 cantons. At the time of independence in 1947, India had 7 provinces and a few Union-administered territories despite 24 distinct languages.
Why then Pakistan can’t have more provinces.


Gen Burki has recommended 17 provinces. According to him Federal Government should have follwing areas under it:

(1) Defence
(2) Foreign Affairs
(3) Currency and Fiscal Policies
(4) Trade and Commerce, only policy
(5) Federal Taxation
(6) Railways
(7) Federal Highways and Motorways
(8) Water and Power
(9) Education, only basic policy and
(10) TV, Radio and Telecommunications.


& the Provinces would have

(1) Agriculture
(2) Irrigation
(3) Power Generation and Distribution
(4) Trade and Commerce
(5) Provincial Taxation
(6) Local Government and Provincial Highways.


According to eminent political scholar Ikram Sehgal “ Punjab should have four Provinces centred on Rawalpindi, Lahore, Sargodha, and Rahimyar Khan.
Sindh should have 2 Provinces centred around Karachi (less the Port and adjacent areas) and Hyderabad (Keti Bundar must be with Hyderabad).
Similarly NWFP should have 2 provinces
centred around Peshawar and Abbottabad. Balochistan should be split into 2 provinces centred around Quetta and Kalat, for a total of 11 with the Northern Areas (Gilgit/Skardu Dir/Chitral/Swat) constituting a separate Province, making it 12 in all.
The Federal territories should include Islamabad, Karachi Port/Adjacent areas and Gwadar.”



Mr Ikram Sehgal takes the view that the savings made by the good governance provided by these new smaller provinces will mitigate the expenses that will occur due to requirement for new political infrastructure. According to him “There may be all sorts of arguments about spending more on
Governors, Chief Ministers, Ministers, Assemblies etc but this is a necessary price not only for better administration but also for development. Even our smallest Provinces will be larger than 50 to 75 countries of the world. Each Province should have its own Assembly, the size varying according to population. The leaders of local government must act dually as Administrators and Assemblymen.”

He further says “ To give equal opportunity to each Province in the Federation they must have Members of National Assembly (MNA) as per a set delimitation as well as 5 Senators each in the Senate, all duly directly elected and 2 technocrats each (one male, one female) indirectly elected.
The Federal Territories will have 5 Senators, 2 each for Islamabad and Karachi Port/Adjacent area and one for Gwadar (plus 2 technocrats). There should be no quota except for one or two genuinely
backward areas and that too only a nominal one. Merit should be the only qualification for recognition and appointment. The buzzword for separation of East Pakistan was disparity, in creating more provinces and doing away with quotas we not only ensure parity but enter the new millennium as genuine and equal partners of a Federation made much more effective and viable.”

I believe that there is a need for a genuine debate among Pakistanis on this issue because the terrorism that we see today is a symptom not the real disease. The real disease is the feeling among the common man of Pakistan that power structures of Pakistani state are out of his reach and that is why there is need to bring these institutions of power closer to the people.
e.g currently if someone living in Bahawalnagar has a legal issue that he wants to pursue, he has to travel to Lahore where the Punjab high court sits. It is not possible for people of lower incomes to pursue this course of action. This in turn starves people of justice they deserve and breeds contempt for the system which leads to social unrest.