RASOOL BUX PALIJO

Interviews (English)

Weekly MAG July 10-16,1986

Monthly Herald August 1986
Daily Dawn 18 August 2003
Weekly PULSE Dec 30-Jan05 2006
RDPI April 5, 2011
________________________________________________
Compiled By: Kalavanti Raja ([email protected])
 Paleejo Recounts His 7 Years in Jail
Mariana Baabar

(Weekly MAG July 10-16, 1986)

“The name Rasul Bux Paleejo was brought on the national scene
from the obscurity of the Sind province when demands spearheaded by
the MRD for his release, arose.
This gained momentum after the lifting of Martial law and soon the
media was familiar with the son of the soil who had been behind bars for
seven years and was in a terrible state of health.
When one first meets him, one is taken by surprise how this gentle
person, with his lean frame and slowly greying hair, could have emerged
alive out of such a lengthy imprisonment, one is surprised again when
one talks to this intellectual who had not lost the flair for speech even in
solitary confinement he says, “it is the essence of the human desire to
live with certain humanity according to your own conceptions, not to live
like an animal”.
Son of a patwari in the interior of Sind his father wanted him to be a
‘mauli’, a prestigious position in those days. The young revolutionary
thought that he would bring reforms by religion until he read the legend
of Muhammad Bin Qasim and changed his mind.
He recalls, “I was meant to be a man who was born to do
extraordinary things” and righty so it appeared that when he had made
up his mind in the midst of injustice and poverty there was no force alive
that could restrain him.
Today the secretary general of the Awami Tehrik and a leader in his
own right though comes from one of the smaller provinces, shuns the
through of confederation. Recently in town to attend the MRD meeting he
talked to ‘MAG’.
 Q: What were your sins that the military government felt you needed
seven years of rigorous imprisonment?
A: My biggest sin is that I come from a class that is supposed to
follow, not to lead. I come from the peasantry. Now in our society you can
be a great leader if you belong to the ruling class or the ruling nation. I
happen to belong to the Sindh peasantry. This combination is not liked
by many. And if I do things that other are dong, then this is supposed to
be a great sin. I do not belong to the group who are actually supposed to
be dong such things. If a Zamindar, Jagirdar or even a gentleman
belonging to the great cities indulges in such activities, then it is quite
understandable. But a man belonging to a small hamlet that challenges
the powers of the ruling classes and tried to behave like the ruling
classes must be put down with a firm hand, according to the elite classes.
Among themselves they can allow each other everything but not to an
outsider, or intruder on the political scene. If I am allowed to do these
things, they think, and then every Tom, Dick and Harry will do it. My
cousins are still barefooted. I met my first cousin the other day and she
told me, that due to lack of funds her husband suffering from TB and
paralysis could not be treated. She took him to the graveyard of some Pir
to be treated. So this is my social background come on the national
scene as leaders and do not bow before the ruling classes, then people
will start getting ideas.

BRAVE, UNDAUTED
Q: Do you feel the regime has achieved its aim by this long
imprisonment, which eventually resulted in your present deteriorating
health, where even the doctors are baffled by your ailments?
A: What do you think? Do you see me bowed down? Broken?
Defeated? Is the element of fear and apprehension there? This is the fear
of our oppressors. But the fear has never affected me even in the worst
conditions. And I hope it never will. There are common fears like missing
a train. But the other fear, that because of this fear you will refrain from
doing certain things or do the kind of things you might not have
otherwise done, this has never and I hope will never affect me.
Q: No man comes out of prison unseen. Do you feel this long
confinement has made any positive changes in your personality?
A: The first thing is that I always wondered whether I could
withstand a long punishment. I am glad that I came out of it undaunted.
If you are tortured for one day, one month all right. But for me this
illness has been a continuous torture. Everyday, every hour, every
moment. You have to live not from month to month but from day to day
from hour to hour, telling yourself that yesterday is gone. And I never
knew that I would survive it. The fact that I have come out alive with firm
mind and unbroken spirit is a great thing and I am very happy about it.
Secondly, I have met various kinds of people with whom I may never
have come in contact with political people, businessmen, etc. it is a
wonderful experience to see people coming out of ordeals so bravely. I
only imagined but I never hoped I would be able to see people who were
real heroes. There were people sentenced to jail for 25 years, singing,
laughing, talking. I thought that such people existed only in China, or
Russia or France or England. Or in some other times in different places
in other historical setups. But ordinary men and women so brave, so
selfless, so determined, I had not expected to meet. So to come in contact
with them was quite an experience. I was on the same wavelength with
them, heard them, and shared their woes. It gave men not a theoretical
or emotional approach to people but there we were ordinary people in the
same camp. Misery effectively leveled us. All our intellectual heights and
slogans were completely shattered and we really achieved brotherhood,
friendship and a sense of common destiny. Then I had the opportunity to
come to the Punjab. For us humanity is the first thing. But practice is
different. So when I come over here, I talked with friends, we were able to
see eye-to-eye on many problems. We struck up friendship, which still
exists. So in the Punjab it was quite an experience and it will be a part of
my experiences in life when new vistas opened up for me. I wrote a book
in Sindhi. And the fact that you can bear it and stand it is recalling
encouraging and heartwarming.

HUMAN DIGNITY
Q: What is that basic element that makes a man behind bars want to
survive to witness yet another dawn? Again what is that which makes him
reach the breaking point?
A: It is the essence of the human desire to live like a human being
and not like an animal. So there was a common stand that we had all to
live with dignity or not to live at all. You have to be dignified and you
have to be brave. Otherwise, there is no survival in this world. If we are
cowardly and weep for over selves, then you can’t live in jail. You cannot
get out of any misery or ordeal if you are a coward or a timeserver. There
were examples before us of people who defied everything and survived,
others who broke down. The common desires were to hold our heads
high, to show that we were human beings, and as such were capable of
surviving any ordeal.
Q: Was there any time in this long and trying period when you
wondered if it was really worth it and you were on the verge of breaking
down?

NEVER LOST HOPE

A: No, Never. Not even one moment. But there was a time when I felt
that illness would break my spirits. There were such moments when you
could stay alive; I never knew what could happen to me physically.
Nothing good could be expected of the people you were dealing with. But
there was no moment where I lost hope. Losing hope that it was not
worth it otherwise there was moment when there was uncertainty.
 Q: Most political prisoners who come out from behind bars unlike other
prisoners emerge and are elevated to the status of heroes in our society.
What were your reactions?
A: There are different reasons. We are the people who have been
brought up on the cult of humility, and shunning all publicity. It is
considered very mean to feel heroic. This hero business is completely
banned in our organization. We teach everyone not to aspire after
personal glory. There is no heroism. How can you be a hero today if you
take up unwanted and undesirable causes? You take up issues, which
people don’t like. The moment you’re come out of jail you say something
people do not like. A hero should be a person who does not say
unpleasant things to the majority, of the people. But all the time we are
not only talking against the government but also against many things,
which are not liked by the people. So to remain a hero is to remain an
inoperative and inactive man. We are active people. We are constantly
pleasing and displeasing people. And a hero I wish to be, but in a
different sense, in my own sense. That I will do my duty, I will remain
humble, I will not crave after anything. I am not interested in publicity.
This is real heroism that were share with people of all centuries, at all
times. Party discipline has taught us that individualism has to be
sunned. If anyone of us strikes a pose and becomes a hero, we will laugh
at him.

A BORN REBEL
Q: Was there any indication in the process of growing up especially in
your social set-up that one day you would be addressing the masses from
a national platform, as you are doing today?
A: The First years of my life proved that I was always an outstanding
man. I was meant to be a man who was born to do extraordinary things.
For instance at the age of ten my teacher paraded me on his shoulders in
front of the whole school and said, “He’ll be a leader of tomorrow”. The
Pakistan movement was going on and a leader was the greatest thing. We
had doctors, an engineer at that time but a leader was considered to be
the greatest of all. Everywhere at every stage I have been considered to
do the most unusual things. People may call me an evil genius. I was
always rebellious even in childhood. Then I was always rebelling against
tyranny to children, against women related to me, in fact the whole set
up. I was given to study from childhood and I started trading tings, the
conventional kind of things. So I always had the reputation of being
somewhat out of the ordinary.
Q: As a person from one of the smaller provinces which is today in the
forefront of the campaign for provincial autonomy, where do you think the
answer really lies?
A: The bigger province has some inborn and inherent advantages
which if you take things in the normal course they are entitled to have.
Now if they do things, which they are allowed to by society, then the
smaller provinces will be destroyed. If the smaller provinces do things
that they are normally expected to do, then Pakistan will not remain. We
have never had a common state. I have no links with Pathans I have not
seen Baluchistan. This is not Europe where you are always travelling.
Here nobody knows anybody else. In Sind we don’t even know the urban
people. So here we are suddenly told that we are a nation. We were never
a nation. Is a nation made by an act of Parliament; that from certain the
nation of Pakistan? Therefore, if everyone does the things he is normally
entitled to do, nothing can remain otherwise. We have to adjust. If I
insist on my rights and you insist on yours, we cannot exist. Somebody
says I have the soldiers, I have the army. We are the majority, so we
must rule. Then the small provinces will say okay if you are the majority,
we don’t want anything. We want to have a different kind of a set-up and
we do not want to co-operate with you. When war comes we are not with
you. We will have our own say. You can keep on saying what you like. If
you want to fight us, okay. If you want to fight us, okay. If you want to
kill, let some of our people be killed. So you have to strike a balance
leaving your impregnated positions, leaving your own ideology.

LACK OF CONSENSUS
Q: But don’t you feel it is actually the smaller provinces, which have
unconsciously given the bigger provinces the role which it plays today?
A: History has given them that chance of doing certain things which
will be not in their interest in the long run. You can only have one time to
make mischief. It is a onetime shot. We had all our revolutions, like
Allama Iqbal, Naziria Pakistan etc. but you can only say it once. Even in
nation building, it is a very fragile structure. You have to accommodate.
Here is a lack of accommodation, lack of leadership, lack of orientation
towards understanding. If they are Jagirdars, they are Jagirdars why
should they listen to you. If they are the majority. They are the majority
why should they listen to you Are you going to be guided by your
immediate blind interest? So it is a lack of maturity in the leadership. A
lack of real revolutionary parties. The ruling classes do not know how to
behave like responsible people, how to attract the people and rule
democratically.
 This generation has to fight: Palijo
Personality Interview by Zahid Hussain
(Monthly Herald, August 1986)

“Hang Palijo!” screamed the headline in a national daily. Editorials and

columns in the right-wing press demanded his trial and expulsion from
the Punjab. Liberal intellectuals and writers, on the other hand, dubbed
him the messiah the nation has been waiting for.
The media last month was full of Rasul Bakhsh Palijo. His bold and
candid comments on history and politics during his visit to the Punjab
made Palijo, 56, general secretary of the Pakistan Awami Tehrik (now
merged into the newly formed Awami National Party) the centre of
a shrill controversy. Although the intellectual-politician made a lot of
enemies during his Punjab sojourn he managed to enchant Punjab’s
liberal intellectuals, writers and politicians. Often dubbed a “narrow
Sindhi nationalist,” the Awami Tehrik leader appears to have now
become more pragmatic, and has considerably softened his stance
on the national question.
A lawyer by profession, Rasul Bakhsh Palijo achieved nation-wide
prominence in 1983 when his Awami Tehrik played an active role in
the MRD movement. A national revolutionary democrat, as he calls
himself, the Awami Tehrik leader entered politics at a very early age.
Much criticized recently for his views on Mohammad Bin Qasim,
Palijo claims, interestingly enough, that he was in fact greatly
influenced by Qasim in his boyhood: “I liked Mohammed Bin Qasim
who conquered Sind and changed society. I wanted to conquer the world
like him.”
At the age of fifteen, Mr. Palijo joined a Washabi organization and actively
participated in the movement to change society on the basis of Wahabi
teachings, but he soon became disenchanted with the movement. He
was then attracted to socialism through his introduction to progressive
literatre. His first serious political involvement in practical politics came
when he joined the Hari Committee in the early ‘50s. He entered
journalism in the 1950s, when he joined a progressive Sindhi weekly
Sadaqat; later he worked for Nawai Sind and Nai Sind. A prominent
Sindhi literary critic, Mr Palijo wrote his first book Andha Undha Vaid
(Blind Physician) in the early ‘60s against the onslaught of the
Jamaat-i-Islami, and has since written several others.
He was also the general secretary of G.M. Syed’s Bazme Soofia (a
literary cum political organization), but left when, according to him, the
elder Sindhi politician joined the feudals. Palijo was also briefly asso-
ciated with NAP, but resigned in 1965 because of differences on
certain basis issues. In 1968 he formed his own Sindh Awami Tehrik
— a peasant-based organization. Later in 1977, it was converted into
the Pakistan Awami Tehrik.
Though often criticized for his changing political views, Rasul Bakhsh
Palijo is nevertheless admired for his political courage, which has often
subjected him to the wrath of rights groups and the ruling classes.
In this interview Rasul Bakhsh Palijo, currently the convener of
the 11party MRD alliance discusses his political views and the current
political situation in the country.
Q. You have been released after seven years of detention.
How do you view the present situation?
A. When I was sent to jail our Amirul Momineen had just
announced that martial law would be inflicted on the people, with
all its preventive detentions and other restrictions. Now there’s a
lot of talk about democracy, elected representatives and so on.
But basically, the sword of Damocles that hung over us during
martial law is still there. We continue to live under the reign of
terror. One man can still say, “I’ll do this to you or I’ll do that to
you, I’ll re impose martial law, I’ll withdraw these relaxations and
concessions that I’ve given.” So though outwardly there is a
relaxation, inwardly there is none. It is very transitory; it could end
at any moment. Any moment the whip could fall on you, any
moment the road to the dungeon could be reopened. Martial law
could be re-imposed; ordinances could start showering upon you from
Islamabad.
So inwardly, I don’t feel any real pleasure and joy in coming out of jail
after so many years. I had hoped that when I came out, I would
be in a different place, in a free land where we’d be able to talk
and think without any fear of reprisals, and where we’d all
have our democratic rights. But unfortunately it’s not so.
Of course , there is the different that people are more
understanding and less afraid. The terror of martial law has not
been able to make them forsake their cause. They have not bent,
they have not been brow-beaten. They hold their heads high. They’re
more ready to challenge the status quo. They’re become wiser, more
dignified, more full of confidence in their future. I think in that sense
there’s been a change.
Q. Do you think a qualitative change has taken place?
A. At that time, people thought nothing would happen. There were
many people in jail at that time, many people who felt that there
was no future, that marital law is re-imposed, it will not
really accomplish any purpose. I consider that to be a qualitative
change. You know, before an operation takes place, you feel you
won’t be able to stand it. But you’ve stood it and you can stand
worse. What happens to individuals is different. They can be killed
or put in jail and tortured: things that are happening in Latin America
and elsewhere, or have happened in Iran. But deep down everybody
knows that the forces terror and fascism can’t win, and the
people will defeat them. All the combined forces of reaction have
lost their credibility, their cover, their terror; they have lost their
viability, and stand naked before the eyes of the whole world.
That’s a qualitative change. A lot of water has flowed down the
Indus, and the forces of reaction have failed.
Q. You mean to say there has been a transition from a
military to a civilian government?
A. No, it’s not a question of the civilian government. It’s a question
of people having fought bravely and valiantly in the ’83
movement, it’s a question of the their not succumbing to the
terror and the jails. I’m not referring to the so-called civilian
government, which is a military government in civilian disguise.
I’m referring to the men who were in jail and women and
families who were behind them. That’s what I mean, not the “civilian
government.” That can push a button and the whole thing can
revert back in minutes. You can wake up in the morning and the
radio will be braying like a donkey, giving you orders. They can
put you into jail, they can kill you… but the basic fight has been
lost by the forces of reaction, in the face of the adamant spirit of
the people. They can prolong the agony of people, they can
prolong this tin show, the whole fraud, for a little while longer,
but the longer they stay, the longer they fight, the weaker will
be their power base. Individual can remain in power a little longer,
but by prolonging the agony of the people they’re making them
more conscious, more united, more strong from inside. New forces
are being born and will continue to be born. That’s why I say
there’s been a qualitative change and the forces of reaction have
been defeated.

Q. The democratic forces have been struggling for the

last nine years against the martial law regime and for
restoration of genuine democracy. Why haven’t they succeeded
in their objectives?
 A. There are many causes. One of them is that we haven’t had
the same body politics for any length of timer: our association
among ourselves is only is only 30 years old, unlike Iran or India
which have been nations for a long time. The Indians have
struggled jointly for over 100 years. We are a new state, and we
have few united struggles, so we don’t have the same
wavelength at the popular level. For example, I don’t know the
thoughts and aspirations of the people of the Frontier below a
certain level. So people have to come together on the basis of
certain imaginary nations and perceptions about one another. We
don’t have a very long democratic tradition, because of the lack of a
bourgeois or social democratic background. Most of our leaders
come from the feudal class, and then there’s government
penetration, there’s selfishness, there’s ineptitude. The people
want to fight; they want to unite and to struggle. But the correct
leadership has to be evolved.
The government is trying its level best to sow the seeds of
disruption and to break the democratic movement. So we cannot
go beyond a certain level of progress in the democratic movement,
and then it breaks down, at some level or other, and we have to
start again. There’s no revolutionary, democratic, progressive party in
the country. The lack of such a party is one of the main
weaknesses in the democratic camp. And then there are national
contradictions. We don’t have one agreed basic position. There are
many people who feel that the 1973 constitution, even in
its pure and virgin form, was not a constitution designed to
serve the interests of the smaller provinces. I myself wrote an
article at the times saying that this constitution would not serve
the interests of the smaller nationalities to the extent that we
want. So, because of the national contradiction, inbuilt
intervention, and the dubious role of some people in the
democratic ranks, we’re not as powerful as we ought to have been.
That’s our great weakness.
Q. Do you see any hope of the MRD achieving its objective
of forcing the government to hold fresh elections in the near
future?
A. I’ll put it another way. The very fact that so many people have
not deserted the democratic camp, in spite of the bribes of the
government, the disruption, the infiltration in the democratic
camp, is because of the MRD. I consider the very facts that we
haven’t broken during all these years, despite all the attempts of
authority, to be a very great achievement. The fact that you
have a platform from which you can say things and at least
have a pretence of unity is very important: you have got a
democratic plank where you are forced to at least pretend to be a
democrat. Even a situation which forces you to behave, thoughts
you may not want to behave, is in itself a great achievement. I
stress the negative aspect as well as the positive aspect. The
fact that the government has not been able to completely wipe
out the opposition is due mainly to the MRD. And then the people
can always hope that by putting pressure on the MRD, they
can achieve something more: more effort from the MRD, more
unity.
Even party in the MRD has a veto, so therefore you have to go
according to the wishes of the man who’s the least cooperative. He
has a veto over those who want to go the furthest. All the time
we’re being pulled back by the man who’s sitting back and
telling you, “Don’t go further, don’t go further, slow down, slow
down,”; the man who’s the slowest, the one who’s the least
willing to move, the one who’s the least anxious to have a
change in the status quo, can dominate the whole show, by the
very nature of the MRD.
But in spite of everything I think the MRD, by sticking to
its position, by having initiated something like the 1983 movement,
by having made the decision to give only four subjects to the
centre and give other subjects to the provinces, has done a
great job. By achieving consensus and by telling the people what
should be done in the future, it has made the basis for
further negotiation and cooperation. That alone, I think, justifies
the MRD’s position as the focal point for rallying the
democratic forces.

Q. It might exit as a sort of discussion forum but as for as

real politics is concerned hasn’t the MRD become very
ineffective in the present situation?
A. There are differences of perception and different approaches to
every problem. People do debate in MRD, they don’t have weapons,
they don’t have machine guns, they’re not active in that way. They
talk and talk and talk and try to reach a consensus. And they’re
not in a very great hurry to jump into the active struggle in the
streets. They’re very conservative. But it’s more than debating forum.
It’s a link with the people, at least in the field of the political
thought. It tells people what the government is doing: when it
carries on psychological warfare through it is lies and propaganda,
the MRD says, “No, this is not true.” We’ve stood against the
government, we have no bowed down. The MRD told the people
not to take part in the bogus election; if the MRD had not been
there, people would have participated in the bogus elections. The
opposition would have been wiped out. Because of the MRD, people
have to take stand; otherwise, may be, they wouldn’t feel
compelled to do so. When eleven people are sitting together, who
is going to say , “ I’m covered, I’m going to bow down? ”
When there is this institution and you’re talking in front of it…
every body pretends to be brave even thought he isn’t brave, every
body pretends to take the cause of people further, even thought
he may not really be all that interested in it. So it gives a lead
also, it tells people what to think at least, and what to believe.
The government and the authorities wish people to believe that
democracy is not feasible in this country, But the MRD says “No,
it is feasible.” The government says the people of Pakistan don’t
want democracy, and the MRD says “No, they do want democracy.”
The government says that the referendum is a very good
referendum. The MRD, as an embodiment of the thought and will
and ideas of the people, says “No, it was not a good referendum.”
Merely passing such a judgment is a political act. Some time great
action, tumultuous events, upheavals and the revolution are based
upon a mere statement of fact, mere judgment. So, passing the
judgment that the present government is illegitimate that is a fraud, that
the so-called president has no right to be president, that martial law is
not solution to problems, that Islam . . . we have got Ulema-e-kram here
(in the MRD). If they hadn’t been there the government would have said,
“There’s a Shoora, Islam doesn’t believe in parties, you have the right
kind of government here,” and the mullans in their millions would
have pronounced that the assemblies are all right, that everything
is fine.
But because of the MRD, no body dared to take a solo flight in the
domain of the ideological sides against the revolution. Who would have
dared to hold meetings alone if the MRD had not been there? The
MRD violated the government’s ban, it held meeting, people went
to jail, it went on for four years. It would have been impossible to
struggle at this level if the MRD had not been there. In fact, the
government has been trying to paint the picture that everything
you do is futile. It is the practice of the government to say that
whatever you do will be futile, so give up hope, give up the
struggle, bow down, join the ranks of the obedient.
Q. Don’t you think the MRD is virtually on the brink of
splitting up, particularly in the view of PPP’s decision to go it
alone?
A. The MRD has been worse days. Every MRD meeting is proceeded
by the predictions in the newspapers that it will not survive, that
it will split up in the next week, but some how it survives. We
have differences, of course, very important differences of perception,
of understanding about the role of the MRD, about the
relationship between the parties forming the MRD. Some people
even say that the present government is better than the
government that will come into power if election are held. So there
are many positions people have many different perception about
the past and about the future. We know all these
shortcomings of the MRD. But we have a Sindhi proverb: “Till the
beautiful new red cradle is ready for you to sewing in, use the
broken one.” We know that something new must come; a
revolutionary, democratic, progressive party has to be there to lead
the struggle, so that people can unite around it. We know all that.
But until that happens… even a 10,000 – mile long journey has to
start a with a single step. We’re so backward in the international
sense of social development that we have to go through the agony of this
lower level of struggle, through initial stages, the very slow, very
tortuously slow, pace of development.

Sometimes change comes very slowly and imperceptibly, so that you

don’t even know a change is coming. There’s such a big backlog, so
much has to be done, so many impediments, so much to be over
come in the domain of ideology. For instance, you don’t have any
analysis of the life and work of anybody belonging to the
liberation movement, because of the hold of fascist ideology over
the minds of a number of people. They have turned human beings
into icons to be worshiped these attitudes are weighting us down,
they don’t allow us to go forward specially in Karachi and Punjab,
you have to do a lot to clear the minds of the people , and make
them receptive to the ideas without which no great movement can
take place. It’s short an ideology that’s out of tune with the
requirements of modern times you can’t proceed very for on it.
In the 15th century in Europe, of the dark ages, people began to
think that perhaps everything that was written might not be true.
In fact, it happened long before, in Greek times, with Socrates and
even before, with Pythagoras, and in Indian culture at the time of
Gautama Buddha with people like Mahavira who questioned
everything, the whole myth of the Aryan philosophy, about the
Vedas and so on. So there have been times in humans history
which have been dark ages, when people have been forbidden to
think, to question, to examine, to contradict. There have been
centuries when people have been told to obey, not to see, to shut
their eyes, to shut their ears, to block their minds and merely
obey.
We in Pakistan are going through such a face in the twentieth
century. Something is said on radio or on television, or written in
a few books and they say, “Obey.” Now, if you obey them, if you
take things for granted, then how are we going to question or
overcome the obstacles – ideological, intellectual – that are blocking
our path? Our generation, therefore, has to work very hard, to
cover many countries during which many things should have been
done. But freedom of thought has not been possible for thinkers
in this country, because of imperialism at various times. We’ve
never had the kind of freedom of thought, the boldness of thought
that you had in Spain or in the Middle East. We didn’t produce
any body like Al-Kindi, Al-Farabi, Ibn Rushd, Abu Sina, Al-Razi, Alberoni.
We didn’t produce great minds, great philosopher, or thinkers,
or people of great stature in the domain of ideology. We produce
only a few historians here and there and a few poets. So all that
work must be done now. This generation has to fight, it has to go
to jail, it has to bleed. It has to have the boldness of Socrates, of
Al-Razi, of Ibn Rush, of Khayyam. And you have to create a new
generation of people. That alone will produce the kind of struggle that
you and I think should be waged.
But every perfect thing is created from something imperfect. Every great
development has behind it millions of insignificant, boring events
and actions carried out by insignificant ant people. There’s a
relationship between the perfect and the imperfect. The perfect doesn’t
come down from the heavens. The dazzling, great revolutionary event
of the world come from the slow process and slow evolution. So
that is something that we can’t go beyond. That process has to be
gone through. We can only accelerate it or decelerate it.
Q. What is the MRD’s position on Benazir’s call to hold
elections in the autumn? And what are your own views on
this?
A. I believe that elections should be held immediately, before
the year is out. The MRD has also said that elections should be
held now. It has been demanding elections from the very beginning.
Every years we say, “Elections, elections, elections, immediately.”
The word was “immediately.” That word has now been improved
upon. And taking into consideration the increased freedom and the
possibility of holding elections now, and the fact that there’s been
a tradition of holding election either in spring or in autumn, the
PPP’s call the MRD’s is identical.
Q. Do you think the PPP on its own can force the
government to hold elections?
 A. I don’t know. But if we all put our shoulders to the wheel
it’ll be a lot easier to do whatever we want to. I think whatever
we do, it should be done jointly. Supposing we’re all doing
something together and someone keeps bickering and quarreling
and pretending to do something but not really doing anything.
What do you do then? If somebody’s conspiring and pretending
and doing various things here and there, then what do you do?
So it is not a question of MRD members not departing from the
joint path. It is the duty of every one of us that we don’t give
any impression to our friends that we are doing things alone.
Q. Wasn’t the PPP’s call for a back day on July 5 a failure
because the MRD parties stayed away?
A. It is very good to act jointly. In fact, it is the only way to
succeed. But if you feel, rightly or wrongly. That your partners
don’t want do you anything then you are bound to think of
alternatives, like acting on your own. In this case, one of the
members of the MRD has held meetings without inviting the
others parties to participate. Now, holding swparate meetings is not
such an important issue. We have been holding joint meetings on
July 5 every year. But this year the PPP held its own meetings.
I wouldn’t call those meetings a failure. It was good to see how
many people would gather for a meeting without Benazir. It proved
two things. First, it showed Benazir the strength of her party in
each district, and how much work they have done. She must have
judged what the party leaders have done in each district during
this period. I think it was necessary for the People’s Party
leadership to know what has actually been done at the grassroots
level. In every organization there are black sheep who say many
things before their leaders, but don’t actually do anything. I know
many people in the PPP who have done absolutely nothing except
to talk about the sacrifices of Mr Bhutto all the time. It’s not
only in the PPP that you find people who pretend to be fighting
for democracy while licking the boots of the rulers. Such people
are in every party. They may be in my own party. But since the
PPP is the biggest party it may the greatest number of such
people in its ranks: people who come at the last moment and are
big gods, while the real workers who have sacrifices are left out.
So the leaders of not only the PPP but of every party should
know what people are actually doing and how popular they are in
their own areas.
The black day has also shown the MRD leaders that they will
soon be left behind. I would even say that an unsuccessful
movement is better than doing nothing. There is a tendency among
some people to just talk and to pass judgments and intrigue.
Even if the PPP’s call was a failure, people know that they at
least tried it and we did not even try. By going forward it has at
least made a distinction between those who want to go forward
and those who don’t. people like us who are left behind will have
to catch up. We say “Down with the PPP, because it is not
allowing us to participate,” whereas the real point is that we were
not prepared to do so. There are some good people in the MRD
who want to do something, but there are definitely others who,
under the cover of the MRD, just want to sit it out, enjoy
themselves and make the best of the situation. They issue
statement as representatives of the MRD without doing anything.
Some have used the MRD for their own purposes.
The MRD must now decide whether we want to go forward or just
sit and watch. We will now consider whether to jointly observe
August 14. I think the MRD parties are coming closer and a
consensus is emerging that we should act together. This realization
was not so clear earlier. The PPP’s meetings on July 5, even
without Benazir’s presence, were not, in my opinion, as
insignificant as the government wanted them to be, but they were
not as successful as they would have been with the participation
of the MRD.
Q. What are your views on an electoral alliance among the
parties of the MRD?
A. There was a time when the government wanted to isolate the
PPP, to crush it and to tell the other parties, “Look, you shouldn’t
associate yourself with the PPP because it passed black laws
against you.” The government’s policy was to beat up the PPP and
then take care of the rest. That was a very hard time, a very
cruel time for the PPP cadres. The treacherous elements ran away.
The people were confused, but they stood up and fought. Many
even burnt themselves to death. Other political parties also did not
fall into the government’s trap.
Then the MRD was formed. Those were dark times. The PPP might
have survived alone, but again, it might not have survived without
the combined efforts of the MRD. There is distinct difference
between the commitment of some of the workers of the party. The
workers are more committed to democracy, more loyal and more
sincere, thought there are exceptions everywhere who get corrupted.
But generally the workers of every party are more devoted and
committed than some of the people in the leading echelons. So we
all joined together to do the job. That was the first ray of light,
whereas before there was no hope. It was the spirit of defiance
which held us together against the regime, which was saying, “We
don’t want any political parties, we want Islam, there will be no
democracy, and his henchmen and nothing else.” At that time, the
worst period, the PPP was not left alone. The MRD workers,
everybody, the whole nation, fought together. Without that we
would not have achieved the present state of affairs, where the
ruling class has been compelled to pretend to give us that bit of
democracy. As the result of our combined efforts, there will be
real elections some day.
Democracy does not mean being an MNA or a minister. Democracy
means getting freedom of movement, freedom of expression,
freedom of writing. It means having dignity and the rule of law.
The other day, I was talking to one of the leaders of the MRD.
He said “Why should we fight for the PPP to come into power?
We have done our bit – let the PPP do its bit. If it wants to come
into power, let it fight it out and take power. Why should we fight
to bring a party to power which has not been known for being
kind to opposition parties?” Our stand is that there should be a
just, proper and equitable settlement, that the component parties
of the MRD should share the good things emerging from this
bitter struggle. But this should not be made an excuse for
destroying the MRD, if the other party does not agree to it.
Q. Would you call yourself a Marxist or a nationalist?
A. I consider myself a patriotic revolutionary democrat. I wouldn’t
go into Marxism right now, as it is not the proper stage to go
into this question. We are socially-oriented revolutionary patriotic
democrats. We combined class struggle with the national struggle
and both with the anti-imperialist and anti-fasciat struggle.
Q. How were you attracted to socialism?
A. After I matriculated in 1947, I became a librarian. There were
two types of books in the library, Islamic literature and English
novels. I read both of them. I read Thackeray George Eliot, Walter
Scott, Dickens. And I read all the books on Islam. Fiqh was
actually compulsory in our school. After matriculation, I thought
that I needed to add some Islamic history, so I read Maudoodi. I
read Qadiani and Shia texts. Then suddenly someone introduced
me socialist literature. And Nabi Ahmed, the trade union leader,
introduced me to revolutionary poetry. I read Makhdoom Mohieddin,
Sardar Jaferi, Josh and others. We used to have nothing in our
pockets, so we couldn’t afford trams and used to walk on Bunder
Road here, singing songs at night. My first introduction to Urdu
poetry was when I read Allama Iqbal at 15 years of age.
Then I started reading socialist literature, but I couldn’t
understand it. So I turned to novels. Those, I could understand.
My favourite writer was Elia Ehrenberg. I also read Lenin, Marks
and others. I could not understand socialist theoretical writings,
but I did understand the practical side of socialism. It was
through literature that I was first attracted to socialism.
Then I joined the Sind Hari Committee. That was a wonderful life.
We sometimes used to have nothing to eat. And when some
wadera used to give khairat we used to go there, speak against
him, abuse him and then eat his food. Then I also came in
contract with women. Even at that time there were revolutionary
and brave women. Those were great times for the progressive
movement. Revolution was in the air.
Q. What is your perception of revolution?
A. I could not understand all the talk about workers. They
would not talk about peasants and others, but all the time
workers, workers; only workers were revolutionary, and all others
were backward. I could not relate to the emphasis on workers
only. This was what put me at odds with these elements. I say
that revolution will probably never come with this attitude. All the
emphasis is on the workers – nothing about peasant, nothing about
students, nothing about us, nothing about love, nothing about our
problems.
Q. Do you believe in establishing a classless society?
A. Of course.
Q. How can it be achieved?
 A. After achieving a people’s national democracy, or whatever you
may call it, then gradually and slowly establishing a socialist state.
Then the whole world will become socialist, and in this way you
can establish a classless society.
Q. How would the transition to socialism take place in
Pakistan?
A. I would give first priority to the elimination of fascism in the
country, by uniting all the forces against fascism, which
masquerades as Islamisation: all the dark forces of reaction who
hate people, who hate workers, who hate the poor people. They
pretend to be the great flagbearers of Islam, but in fact it is
sheer fascism. It has nothing to do with Islam, or the
revolutionary spirit of the Islam of the Prophet. Then we will have
to eliminate feudalism. In a national people’s democracy we will try
to eliminate national contradictions and national oppression. By
stages we will achieve a socialist order. At this stage, even if
democracy is achieved it will be a feudal democracy. We have
never had people’s democracy in the country . . there has been
democracy only for the feudal. Never at any stage has there been
freedom for the people, for the working millions. Even at the best
of times, there has been liberty on for the ruling classed. But now
even the ruling classes have not been allowed to have their share
in democracy. In fact, what we are fighting for is, in objective
times, not a people’s democracy, not even bourgeois democracy,
but feudals democracy, although on paper it will we be democracy
for all people.
What has our struggle, objective speaking, resulted in? Elections
and more henchmen for the regime. Even if the MRD succeeds, it
will result in freedom for the feudals to stand in elections. For
example, the feudals of the PPP are not allowed to stand in
elections because of their affiliation with that party. Now these
feudals will stand a good chance of returning as or representatives
if the MRD’s movement succeed. The will enjoy the fruits of the
struggle and we will get a small share. But it does not mean that
our struggle is futile. We know that step by step we will grow
stronger and stronger and will have a bigger and bigger share, till
the time will come when all injustices will be liminated.
Q. You formed at Sindhi Awami Tehrik in 1968, But in 1977
you converted it in to the Pakistan Awami Tehrik. Does this
andicated a shift from purely Sind-based politics to a
countrywide position?
A. It was done merely to take part in the elections.
Organizations with a provincial bias were not allowed to participate
in the elections to be held in 1977.
Q. Was that the only reason?
A. It was a immediate reason. We had no other way but to drop
Sind from the name of the organization. But it was not the real
cause. The real cause was that we were international lists from
the very beginning. We have never been parochial in any sense, at
any stage. Our background, our society, our culture, our
psychology, have all been dominated by an international outlook.
Q. You are often criticized for being an a narrow nationalist.
Would you agree with this?
A. Suppose you belong Nigeria and are also internationalist. You
will obviously talk about problems peculiar to Nigeria. You have to
start from the particular and come to the general. You cant talk
about the whole world without talking about your own country, so
we talk about the Sindhi people. Secondly, the Sindhis are the
only people who are being reduced to minority in their own
province. They are only people who have lost their homes to a
flood of immigrants. It is the only province whose capital does not
consist of its own people. Karachi used to be a purely Sindhi
town with a few parsis from Bombay. No capital of any province
has been served from the rest of province and giving to settlers.
Sindh is at the end of the Indus and it gets its water last. It is
a flat area: Baluchistan and the Frontier have mountains in which
the people can take refuge. Any one come into Sind and run it
our with tanks. So this is a strategic weakness of the area. We
don’t even have any generals. We don’t have the tradition of
guerrilla warfare which the Baluch have. We have left their tribal
traditions for behind: lower Sind does not have any tribal system.
This province is the most oppressed and it is also the greatest
centre of contradiction. You have a cosmopolitan city like Karachi,
on the one hand, and places like Thar whoch have no water at
all on the other. So we have greater problems. Unless we become
strong in Sind we cannot have any impact on Pakistan’s politics.
We would not have participated in the 1983 movement as we did
if had no strong organization in Sind. You have to have some
basis of influence.
But otherwise, we have always combined both local and national
politics. There has no point in time when we have not strived
forum a countrywide organization. We have tried, but we have
not succeeded. It has been a big long ten-thousand mile march.
We don’t have anybody in Karachi, because up to this stage we
have not found anybody who agrees with us ideologically. We have
a unique political position in Pakistan, though we have some
affinity with the Mazdoor Kisaan Party. This is our misfortune.
How can you build an organization when people don’t agree with
you?
Q. Why don’t people agree with you?
A. Because some of them emphasis class struggle. If they ever
talk about the national issue it is as a forum the charity. There
are other people who only talk about nations. They refuse to do
anything with Punjabis and Muhajirs. Then there are some people
who talk about the class struggle and the national struggle but do
not believe in struggling in democracy. They believe that the
democratic struggle is basically a part of feudal politics, and that
only the feudal will come into the power as a result of this
struggle, so it is futile to participate in it. We believe that we can
become stronger only by participating in this struggle for
democracy. If we sit at home and allowed them to get all the
fruits then what we get? We can be tempered into steel only by
participating in the struggle. When, 1978, the journalists started
their movement, we sent our people from the peasantry to
participate in it and court arrest along with the journalists. Now,
what do they have to do with the journalists? But we told them
to work in a spirit of internationalism. You are fighting for
democracy, and so you fight for anybody who is just. If you are
in a position to help him, you must join him.
Q. Despite your ideological differences you have agreed to
merge into a single party with the NDP and MKP. Do you
think this merger of politically diverse elements can succeed?
A. I think it can function if we do not fall prey to ‘tailism’ or
closed-doorism. That we regard as the failure ANP was actually
due to the fact that the “progressive, leftist, democratic”
leadership from the lower classes confined itself to intrigues behind
closed doors, not speaking out and not participating in real
leadership of the party. They had become ideologues, sitting back
stage and pulling the strings but what we do is that participate in
the leadership on an equal basis. This was not so in ANP. We
insist on maintaining our position on the equal basis. All matters
should be thrashed out openly and with equal participate.
Otherwise, the leadership will go into the hands of ruling classes.
We even proposed that all the powers should be given to the
central committee and the office-bearers should be elected by
central committee. But it was not accepted. Bizenjo Sahib says
that his proposals were not accepted, but actually most of our
proposals were not accepted. We wanted a different kind of
organization but for the sake of unity we accepted the final
outcome. Actually this is not our idea of organization. There are
many aspects on which we differ.
Q. What will be the impact of this merger on the country’s
politics?
A. The people who have been disillusioned can be aroused.
Similarly, there will be more power, more following and more
credibility. We will have a little more influence in national politics.
Q. You have recently toured the Punjab. Have you found any
change there, particularly on the national issue ?
A. Actually, I found a change when I last went to Punjab, ten
years ago. I found them more realistic this time. There were quite
a few people who were prepared to think more realistically about
the situation in Sind. I found them more anxious to learn, speak,
and express themselves. There was more sense of the need for
democracy; more concern about the wellbeing of smaller provinces;
more concern about the future; less righteousness; less sense of
supremacy and of their being right in everything. On the whole,
there has been a great deal of change.
Everyone defended me when the media attacked me on my views.
They simply enveloped me me in love, and took up the cause as
their own cause. So the battle was on without my knowing about
it in tha bar room and in other places. People who would have
been the last ones to give me a reception invited me. Everyone –
lawyers, intellectuals, women, workers and people whom I had
never seen – came to listen to me. I went to Gujranwala,
Wazirabad and pther small towns. Everywhere we had heated and
frank discussions. I told them that because of their backwardness,
we are suffering so much. I told them, “You accept everything
which comes to you, without question. This is the kind of
mentality which is keeping you in chains.” I told them that I
admire my own people, because while our bodies may be
chained, our minds are not. We are freer and mightier. In
Karachi and Sind our minds are not chained. People here talk
about history and other issues, but nobody minds such things.
So I feel that we are freer, our minds are freer. Of course, I
am only talking about a small section of the Punjab. Otherwise
they are very brave and daring people. We have a lot to learn
from them. I found them eager to learn. It was a marvelous
experience, totally the opposite of what the reactionaries and
the henchmen of the government and the self-appointed
guardians of our conscience had expected. It was a complete
backlash. People came to me and said “You have brought us
together. We were fighting with each other, we have been at each
others’ throats, but because of this incident we are all united.
Now we are going to fix the reactionary elements.” I am grateful
to all the fine men and women who extended so much love
and sympathy and showed tolerance for what I said. There is
an earnest desire among the people of Punjab to build a new
Punjab.
Q. What are your views on confederation?
A. Suppose you have confederation, you have your army and
your own generals. The Sindhi general will be less powerful than the
Punjabi general. But the Punjabi generals will conspire with the
Sindhi and Pathan generals to rule us, because even the local
generals will be from the Pakistani army. What is to prevent the
generals in Lahore from taking over from the generals in Quetta
and Sind? A constitution is not an army, it is a piece of paper.
When people talk about the inability of a constitution to save their
rights, I simply laugh. How can a book or a piece of paper,
however sacred it may be, protect it?
No arm can protect anything, which cannot protect itself. It is absurd
to say that the constitution will protect itself. It is the people behind
a constitution who matter. Therefore, the confederation proposal is
more likely to protect the rights of the smaller provinces and to
create a greater balance between the centre and provinces. But the
point is, how do we get it? All the three smaller provinces
combined are weaker than Punjab. We are faced with the strongest
army in Asia. So you don’t have the requisite force to achieve
confederation. I don’t have anything against the confederation
proposal. If all the oppressed people in Punjab and other provinces
agree to this proposal, I am also in favour of it. If they don’t,
then I will take the best possible alternative, one which has the
support of the people. So it is on practical grounds that I support
federation over confederation.
The biggest problem facing Pakistan is structural- Palijo
(Daily Dawn, August 18, 2003)

In a Dawn Dialogue interview in Karachi, Mr Palijo blamed the ruling

class of Punjab for trying to dominate the smaller provinces, but at the
same time he said his party’s first struggle was against the feudal lords
of Sindh.
If “Sindhu Desh is created, the feudal lords will kill us. Our first struggle
is against autocracy,” he said.
Asked to specify steps that he would like to be taken for the country’s
progress, he said talk about the Thal Canal project and the Kalabagh
Dam should stop, and added: “Stop devaluing politics. Stop being cynical
about the judiciary.” Mr Palijo also warned against involving criminals in
politics, and involving the army in corruption.
He said the liberal and progressive path of genuine national
independence and civilian democratic rule charted out by the Quaid-i-
Azam was “the only path of salvation for this country”. Mr Palijo said the
issues currently being negotiated between the opposition and the
government were important ones, but stressed that the “petty
compromises” sought would not change the basic autocratic and anti-
people structure of the “neo-colonial, virtually non-federal, unitary,
oppressive and military state that Jinnah’s Pakistan now stands
tragically transformed into”.
(The Dawn Dialogue panel included Sabihuddin Ghausi, Lateef Baloch,
Bahzad Alam Khan and Shamim-ur-Rahman.)

QUESTION: To begin with, perhaps you could identify what you consider
to be the biggest problem facing Pakistan today.
ANSWER: The biggest problem is structural. This is a neo-colonial
country in which it’s rulers have been nominated by outsiders. This is
the case with every Third World country, though their rulers claim to be
representatives of their people. But that is not true. In 1971, the
federation envisioned in the 1940 Resolution ended. That resolution
seeking independent states was adopted because the supremacy of one
province was not considered acceptable. Domination of Sindh by Punjab
since Ranjit Singhs time was a known fact, but no one was prepared to
be part of greater Punjab. That is why the phrase ‘independent states
was used in the 1940 Resolution at the insistence of Bengal and Sindh.
We got rid of Bengal in 1971 by blaming them for all sorts of things. Now
this is a one unit, a foreign-inspired one unit. In fact, it is a foreign
colony, not just in name. Now we dont even have the pretence of a
federation.
Q: What exactly do you mean when you blame Punjab because most of
the people of Punjab have nothing to do with this problem of domination?
A: I am glad you raised the point, and you are right that the people have
nothing to do with this. I am not a traditional nationalist. I am a
proletarian internationalist. I now support the cause of the people of
Sindh. Earlier, I had supported the people of Bengal. And when during
the days of the great Sindhi leader Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, military action
was taken in Balochistan, I was an advocate of the rebels for which I was
sent to jail. By Punjab, I mean its ruling class. Punjabi people, American
people and European people are also our brothers. The way Europe is
fighting for the Muslim cause, none of us is doing so. In the same way,
we have differences with the Indian rulers, but we have nothing against
the people of India.
Q: How do you look at the Jeay Sindh Movement?
A: First of all, this country has to be sovereign. There should be a
federation of equals. There should be a proper constitution. The Senate
should be the dominant house. There should be democracy. There
should be no extremism. Pakistan should be sovereign, independent and
progressive. Pakistan has never been independent for a day. We want an
independent Pakistan.
Q: These problems have been repeatedly identified. One factor may be
the domination of Punjab because of its size. But what do you propose to
do to solve these problems?
A: The modus operandi of imperialistic forces has been this for the past
many years have democracy and fair play in your own country on the
condition that the rest of the world is your playground. There should be
light in your country provided that there is darkness in the rest of the
world. They want undemocratic regimes all over the world so that they
can be manipulated. This is criminalized state politics. They will keep
people in power in Third World countries as long as they continue to
commit the crimes they want them to commit.
It is not that Punjab’s size is the problem. Their ruling classes have been
given the licence on behalf of imperial powers. They have committed
crimes with the aid of the military. I know that the international climate
is such that they have to allow freedom to the press. There must be
amendments to the Constitution. There should be a real federation. The
criminalization of (politics and government) has to be understood and
resisted by all the people.
When Mr Bhutto was in power, we did our duty to stand up and be
counted and be hunted. People used to say that they did not regard me
as a Sindhi. I used to say that I was thankful to them. They used to say
that I was working as a lawyer to traitors.
Many crimes have been committed over the issue of water. I also want to
write the criminal history of the political processes of Pakistan. I have
always said that Mohammad Ali Jinnah was killed. They left Mr Jinnah
unattended on the road. He was very fragile. I had seen him. I am a
criminal lawyer. You do not need great methodology to kill a man. If you
leave a child in the cold, he will die. Now it is being said that Fatima
Jinnah was also murdered.
This administration is committing more injustices than its predecessors;
especially its focus is on Sindh. When growers in Sindh grow sugarcane,
they import sugar to keep prices down. The systematic manner in which
this administration is seeking to destroy Sindh as an entity, the way it is
pauperizing the population (is regrettable). Servicemen are posted
everywhere in Sindh. The way these people are using the army the army
decides who would be a union council nazim. They are running the whole
administration.
Even the British officers would not speak with the arrogance with which
the army generals speak. They do so because they have the backing of
the US. They urge the people of Punjab to use the kind of language
against Sindh they have not used in the past 50 years. Nobody talked
like that.
Q: How do you look at nationalist politics when you say that you are not
a nationalist but a proletarian internationalist?
A: I am not a nationalist in the strict sense of the word. I am not like that.
I do not accept that nationalism. If the definition of nationalism is my-
nation-right-or-wrong, I do not believe in that. I do not say that the
Sindhis are better than any other nation. I do not want to conquer other
areas.
Actually, I would not like to use the word nationalist at all. We support
Namibia. We supported Vietnam. We support the Palestinians.
Q: When voices were raised for the Vietnamese people, we saw more
crowds and more rage large crowds talking about the rights of the
Vietnamese people. Why is the proletarian movement in Pakistan no
longer so potent?
A: There are so many Muslim countries, yet the Muslims are being
destroyed. The imperial forces have set up a bogus democratic movement.
People have been compartmentalized. Democrats. Nationalists. Islamists.
They are all bogus. They are appointed by them. It is important to see
whether the so-called Islamists are really Islamists or not. Similarly,
whether the so-called democrats are really democrats or not? Are we real
nationalists?
Q: What is your stand on the Legal Framework Order and the
controversy on the uniform of the president?
A: The LFO is against the letter and spirit of the 1973 Constitution. With
the utmost respect, I do not consider the decision of the worthy Supreme
Court of Pakistan giving General Musharraf the power to amend the
Constitution as laying down the correct law. What the Muslims of the
subcontinent struggled for was not a state ruled by generals through
mafia-like agencies and their machine-made and mass-produced, power-
hungry, corrupt to the core and petty-minded puppet politicians. The
Quaid-i-Azam did not want the military to have anything to do with the
governance of Pakistan. Unfortunately, he was gravely ill at the time of
partition and was surrounded by the civil and military bureaucracy and
their puppet politicians, dancing to foreign tunes, who took over the
country lock,stock and barrel even during the life of the Quaid.
Successive coteries of foreign oriented generals have been riding
roughshod, directly or indirectly, over this unfortunate land for decades.
They drove out East Bengal, thus dealing the death blow to the federal
foundation of Jinnahs Pakistan, making it virtually a one-unit,
dominated by one province and the generals. So we find Punjabs military
general acting as a governor-general over Sindh and giving orders to the
nominal provincial authorities. Pakistan has been transformed into a
Prussian type military state in all but name.
In fact, as I tried to point out earlier, the majority of Third World
countries like Pakistan, which were the directly ruled colonies of the
western powers, became upon getting independence, indirectly ruled
neo-colonies of these powers. Whereas previously western parliaments
appointed the rulers of colonies and accepted responsibility for their good
and bad deeds, the new colonial masters who rule by remote-control now
do not accept any such responsibility. So the hand-picked rulers foisted
upon such countries-who are shown to have come to the top through
bogus electoral processes, coups or other intrigues, rendered reckless by
the knowledge that so long as they keep dancing to the tunes of the
masters, they need fear nobody else- feel themselves absolutely free to
play havoc with the lives, the rights, resources, liberties and destinies of
their semi-enslaved, illiterate and impoverished populations.
Many of the politicians we find around ourselves are commonly believed
to be the creatures of the generals and their agencies. And as long as the
worthy generals and their political creatures are riding on the backs of
the oppressed people of Pakistan, with the blessing and backing of
foreign powers, Pakistan’s status as a semi-slave military state, its
backwardness, abysmal poverty and helplessness cannot be changed.
The liberal and progressive path of genuine national independence and
civilian democratic rule charted out for this country by Mohammad Ali
Jinnah is the only path of salvation for this country.
The petty compromises sought in the current negotiations cannot change
the basic autocratic and anti-people structure of the neo-colonial,
virtually non-federal, unitary military state that Jinnah’s Pakistan now
stands tragically transformed into.
As for the controversy about the uniform, that is a superficial matter and
avoids the fundamental question about the future of the people and the
state of Pakistan.
That question is this. Have the crores of the people of Pakistan been
given birth to by their mothers to pass their whole lives under the sword
of Damocles of a now familiar phenomenon?
A general suddenly stages a coup, grabs power, invokes the historic
justification of all usurpers, viz, the law of necessity, gets his usurpation
condoned by the judiciary, throws away the Constitution of the country,
imposes his own self- serving interim constitution, stages the now
familiar drama of a totally bogus referendum and thus makes himself an
elected president followed by elections tailored to his needs, gets desired
results and then begins the haggling about petty concessions.
How long is this vicious circle going to continue? Will it ever end?
Q: Do you think, then, that the issues over which the government, the
ARD and the MMA have been fighting are non-issues?
A: No, they are very important issues. But our problem is that we are a
colony and the colony is being ruled through the army. And the army is
creating the politics (we see).
Q: How do you build up public pressure for your position when the
political parties remain so disorganized? Even your political party is not
organized. Political parties have no roots among the masses.
A: There must be and there are a number of individuals and groups who
do not like to keep trudging along the beaten path of traditional petty
power politics. If they think over the matter properly they will come to the
conclusion that sham democracy and pro-status-quo politics can never
improve the situation fundamentally. Only a persistent, courageous,
peaceful democratic struggle will create the conditions for basic and
lasting changes.
The Awami Tahrik has been working in this direction for the last three
decades. It has been in the forefront of every pro- people democratic
struggle in this country in general and the province of Sindh in
particular.
At present we are waging a struggle along with seven other parties
against the Greater Thal Canal Project. We invited all political parties
including those in the government, the Muslim League-Q and the MQM,
to join the struggle. Some friends including Aftab Shaikh of the MQM
appeared to be surprised at my invitation.
We are in contact with a number of friends throughout the country. I had
recently had discussions with Mr Abid Hasan Minto and several other
friends. We hope that the common struggle for real democratic change
will win many new adherents in the coming months and years. A great
and mighty global wave of mass movements for peoples’ rights, liberties
and rule is on the order of the day. The conscious and justice loving,
democratic-minded people of Pakistan couldn’t afford to lag far behind
the rest of the re-awakening and rising world.
Q: Do you think the 1973 Constitution is still relevant and valid?
A: After 1971 Pakistan has actually lost its federal character as a single
province now dominates the parliament and the senate has no real power.
In practice, the so- called federal government of Pakistan is but another
name of the establishment of the biggest province. The three small
provinces are virtually being treated as the undeclared divisions of the
dominating province and their resources are being mercilessly plundered.
Section 6 of the Constitution which punishes those who overthrow the
Constitution has become a dead letter. The Constitution therefore needs
to be appropriately amended.
Q: Politicians do not talk about ending Karo- kari, marriage with the
Quran,etc. They do not talk about spreading education. All they want to
do is grab power.
A: I agree with you. The Awami Tahrik and the Sindhiani Tahrik are
waging a struggle against this licensed brutal slaughter of helpless
women. But we lack resources. If some NGOs who are sincerely
interested in this cause come forward to work with us, I think we will get
better results.
Q: Now you are mobilizing people on the water issue. Will you be talking
to Punjab?
A: Absolutely. We will talk to them very soon. We will even go to the
Frontier and Balochistan. I prefer to go to the villages. In the villages of
Punjab, more people recognize us.
Q: In order to mobilize the people, we need a party and a leadership. Will
you ally yourself with the existing parties or will you form a new party?
A: When we invited the MQM to cooperate with us, they were surprised.
But there is no permanent hostility in politics. Do you know that I have
been in touch with Gen Musharraf? I like the man because at least he is
a polite man. He talks to people and listens to them. The things that I
have said here, I told him the same things. Can you believe it?
We will take this struggle forward. You will soon find a new awakening in
Pakistan. Our first struggle is basically against the feudal lords of Sindh.
Why am I against ‘Sindhu Desh’? Because I fear that if Sindhu Desh is
created, these feudal lords will kill us. Our first struggle is against
autocracy.
Q: What three or four steps do you specifically want the people of
Pakistan to take to tide over the present problems?
A: Stop the Thal canal. Stop talking about the Kalabagh Dam. Stop
squeezing Sindhis and stop obliterating them from the face of the earth.
Stop devaluing politics. Stop being cynical. Stop being cynical with
regard to the judiciary. Do not over-use the military. Stop the
militarization of Pakistan. Stop plundering the economic resources of the
people. Do not involve the army in corruption. Do not involve criminals in
politics.
Q: How do you see the normalization process between Pakistan and
India? Will it lead to any fundamental changes in domestic politics?
A: I should hope so. But all things do not happen the way we want them
to. Most things depend upon factors, which are not completely under
your control. I do not agree with the traditional interpretation of Indian
history. There was only one Indian nationalist, and that was Mohammad
Ali Jinnah. They had him killed. India has never played the role of an
elder brother. They have always acted like a ‘baniya’. Their hatred
against the Muslims has not disappeared. Having said that, I agree with
you that normalization of relations between India and Pakistan would
have a great impact.
Q: How will it have an impact on domestic politics?
A: They will not be able to incite people when they have talks with Indian
politicians in Delhi and Lucknow. We have the same language
and culture. How can you hate them in a mad and brutal manner? This
will bring about tolerance in politics.
POLY TO STEAL WATER SHARE: PALEJO
AAMIR LATIF
(Weekly Pulse, Dec 30 – Jan 5 2006)

Rasool Bukhsh Palejo was born on January 20, 1930 in a small village
called Mongar Khan Palejo in Thatta district. He is a staunch opponent of
any dam on Indus River, including Kalabagh. An advocate of Supreme
Court by profession, Mr. Palejo becomes emotional while talking about
water issue, especially the mistrust created by the federal government on
it. However, he never becomes sarcastic.
The veteran politician commenced his political career in 1954 from the
platform of Sindh Hari (farmers) Committee, and later joined the defunct
National Awami Party (NAP). He founded Awami Tehrik in 1968, and is
currently serving as its chairman. He also remained the secretary-
general of ANP, led by Wali Khan, for some time.
Mr. Paleejo remained behind bars for 11 years for "crimes" unknown to
him too. He was arrested in 1976 during Bhutto regime, and was
released in 1986 during Zia era. Mao cap is an essential part of his
dressing, whether with Shalwar Kameez or suit.
Mr. Paleejo, also known as a literary figure of Sindh, has 20 books on
literature/ politics, ideology, and other subjects to his credit. Weekly
Pulse recently interviewed him on the simmering water issue.
Sharing his views on construction of Kalabagh darn, Rasool Bukhsh
Paleejo, in an interview with weekly Pulse, out rightly rejects any dam on
Indus River, and terms such a move tantamount to stealing water share
of Sindh. He believes that water shortage is artificial and proposes
setting up an international water commission under the United Nations
or SAARC to settle the lingering issue forever
Q: Do you agree that there is acute water shortage in the country, and
construction of new water Reservoirs is necessary to cope with it?
A: First of all, there is no water paucity in the country. The existing water
shortage is artificial. Ok, for a moment I agree that there is shortage, so
what? This is all over the world. There is shortage of oil, shortage of food,
shortage of several other items. The issue is not the shortage, but just
distribution of available water among the four provinces.
Q: Who should monitor the "just distribution" because you are not ready
to trust the federal government?
A: Yes, you are right. We do not trust the federal government, which
stands alongside the "thief". My proposal is setting up an international
water commission under the United Nations or SAARC so that this
lingering issue could be settled forever. I repeat here that there is no
dearth of water.
Q: Then why the farmers of Sindh and other provinces have been crying
for water since long?
A: This is because of the series of criminal acts committed by the federal
government and Punjab from day one. Our farmers are crying for water
because their share is being stolen. And, the thieves are not ready to
concentrate on that, but they want to steal the remaining water available
to us in the name of water shortage and reservoirs.
Q: What do you mean by criminal acts?
A: The water dispute between Sindh and Punjab has been continuing
since 1859. The first prime minister of Pakistan had started negotiations
with the Indian government in 1947 on water issue, but Sindh was not
taken into confidence. The water of three Pakistani rivers was actually
sold to India in 1947 by Liaquat Ali Khan, but it was officially recognized
in 1960's water agreement between the two countries. In 1960, not a
single representative was included in the Pakistani commission as West
Pakistan was one unit. The entire process was beyond our back. I want
to ask that who had authorized Ayub Khan to sell our water to India?
Q: But Tarbela and Indus dams were built during Ayub's regime?
A: It was another criminal act. The World Bank was not ready to provide
any money for Indus and Tarbela dams. The international consultants
and the World Bank had suggested the construction of Barotha and
Mangla dam, but Ayub Khan had threatened the World Bank that if
funds were not provided for Tarbela and Indus, there would be a war
between Pakistan and India on water issue.
Q: But the dams were built!
A: Yes, because there was martial law in the country. The army rulers
were not ready to give any weight to the opinion of Sindhi people. They
just wanted and still want to steal our water. These are criminal acts and
fixed for international criminal court.
Q: But General Musharraf is ready to provide all guarantees, including
the Supreme Court!
A: What guarantee are you talking about? The Supreme Court! Can you
quote a single example whereby the courts have given ruling against the
usurpers? No, not a single one. In fact, the Supreme Court has always
strengthened the military rulers in the name of "law of necessity".
Sindhis do not trust any guarantee.
Q: General Musharraf is also ready for constitutional guarantee?
A: Very funny. The Constitution cannot guarantee its own existence. The
history of Pakistan very clearly suggests that there has been no
guarantee regarding the Constitution. Every military ruler came and
trampled the Constitution and the courts supported him in the name of
law of necessity and so-called national interest. Ok, if we trust a
constitutional guarantee, but in future, another military ruler will come,
and annul the guarantee in the name of national interest, then where
will we stand? And I want to ask what happened to the guarantee about
the "robbers canals" of Chashma, Jhelum and Taunsa Punjnad? The
rulers have fulfilled none of the guarantees.
Q: General Musharraf personally promises that he will not betray Sindh.
Why are you not ready to trust him?
A: He (Musharraf) is a violator of the Constitution. We are not ready to
even think of his promises. He should be tried under article 106 of the
Constitution, and the General knows what article 106 says.
Q: But Musharraf says he is a Sindhi too. Why would he go against
Sindh's interest?
A: He has broken his promise time and again. He had promised to shed
his uniform by December 31, 2004. What happened to that? He is the
most cynical and unreliable man I have ever seen. In fact, he-is more
dangerous for Sindh than Zia-ul-Haq. He has imposed terrorists on
Sindh in the form of Muttahida Qaumi Movement. He actually has given
us message that Sindhis had done a mistake by opting for Pakistan.
Q: General Musharraf is striving for consensus on Kalabagh dam. How
do you see this?
A: What consensus. The consensus is already there. The three provinces
have rejected Kalabagh dam. What other consensus do you need? The
rulers must keep it in their minds that Pakistan is not the name of
Punjab. Other three provinces are also in Pakistan, therefore, they must
not risk the solidarity of the country just to appease one province.
Q: General Musharraf says Kalabagh dam is technically more feasible
and beneficial, and he is ready for debate on that with the nationalists.
Do you accept his challenge?
A: Of course, I am. I accept his challenge. But Musharraf will never come
to debate on the issue with me, because he has no legal or moral ground.
He is just fighting the case of water thieves. A few days ago when a
journalist asked him (Musharraf) about holding a debate with me, he
replied that Palejo is an emotional man, and is not fit for discussion.
Q: But Sheikh Rashid Ahme says he is ready for debate with you!
A: Sheikh is an ignorant fellow. He is not fit for this serious matter.
Q: Various opponents of Kalabagh dam, like PPP, ANP and other
nationalist parties, propose the construction of Bhasha dam. Do you
support Bhasha dam?
A: No, not at all. I say no cut on Indus River. Sindh is the tail-ender and
it has the prime right on Indus River in line with international laws.
Q: But, technical experts and nationalists have no objection on Bhasha
dam!
A: They are fools. Dam is dam, whether Kalabagh or Bhasha. The basic
purpose of Punjab is to steal our water. It could be done through both
Kalabagh and Bhasha.
Q: Don't you think the government seems to be committed to
constructing Kalabagh dam?
A: I will only say that if the federal government and Punjab do not desist
from their ongoing policies, another debacle like East Pakistan may occur.
Sindhis will become a flock of sheep if Kalabagh dam is built. Before we
turn out to be a flock of sheep, it is better to die.
Q: If the government sticks to its guns?
A: Then we will see. We have seen the bravery and courage of these
generals in the battlefield in 1971 and Kargil.
Q: What do you expect from Punjab?
A: I appeal to the people of Punjab to rise and save Pakistan.
 There was no indigenous element in Communist Party of
Pakistan
Rasul Bux Palijo

Baithak With Rasool Bux Palijo (RDPI, Tuesday, 5 April 2011)

Rasool Bux Palijo, Chairman Awami Tehreek, has a large followings in

Sindh and certain other pockets. Mr. Palejo has been influential
politician and activist. He was born in District Thatta on September 21,
1930. He has also been Secretary General Awami National Party (Walli)
under the leadership of Walli Khan.

His active political career spreads on the last four decades of Pakistan’s
history. He has been linked in different capacities with major socio
political developments in national life. He is well-read and eloquent
politician who has been practicing socialist ideas in different forms at
different levels.

Highlights

Mr. Palijo in a very candid and informal way shared his early life, school,
college and university days. He told that he had a penchant for social
reforms since childhood. He had a strong religious frame of mind, as his
family temperament was quite religious. He read various novels based on
the campaigns of Muslim Generals and their exploits in far off lands.
He told that organized theft was a heroic occupation in his area, during
his adolescence. People would praise and fear those involved in that field.
Just to prove that he and his friends could do any thing that is regarded
difficult or impossible. He formed an association of young thieves. He led
that association. He failed in the annual exam, because he devoted more
time to the newly formed association than his own studies.

I read “Khoon Kay Aansoo” before I completed my fifth grade. I would

deliver speeches at Milaad and other religious occasions. I was impressed
by Muslim warriors. As a result “I made my own private army getting
inspiration from Muhammad Bin Qasim. I thought if he in the age of 17
could go and conquer a country why cannot we? I then started
motivating young lads of my village but they were all busy in their study
the army got scattered.”

He also talked about his interaction with Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto and how he
sought advice from various politicians like Ameen Faheem, Shaikh Ayyaz
(a poet), and himself at the time of Shimla Accord and the difficult times
of 1971. G.M Syed, he told, was a strong Sindhi leader and termed
Bhutto as agent of the Punjab and traitor of Sindh. G.M Syed at one time
even banned Bhutto entering Sindh, his home province. Mr. Palijo told
that he tried to convince G.M Syed to allow Bhutto the political freedom
to interact with the people. Paijo commented that “Bhutto was a brilliant
tactician not a political strategist. He had no bigger historical picture in
his mind”.

Mr. Palijo further commented on Bhutto saying that he was glib and
flattered Skindar Mirza saying “any impartial account of Pakistan’s
history would record you above Jinnah.” He was feudal; he betrayed the
aspirations of the masses. He was befooled by the establishment and lost
his life as a result of his shortsightedness.” Bhutto also at one point said
that ‘in third world countries military governments are unavoidable.
Kalson was hero of Bhutto
About MQM he said they are playing the same role as Kurds (in Iraq?).
He also told that he is the first matriculate of his village. His father was
Patwaari in revenue department. I did matriculation in 1947, met Mr.
Jinnah many times. I did law but started practical life as reporter and
became assistant editor.

Mr Palijo remained associated with Sindhi Adabi Sangat. “My political

and intellectual training was done in that Sangat. It was extremely
disciplined body.”
The political education and awareness among Sindhis owes a lot to the
teachers of that province.

Nawab Bahadar Yar Jung was an excellent orator. I had good English by
the time I did matriculation, but Mr. Jinnah’s speeches were difficult to
understand at that time.

Coming to the current political situations in the country, he told that in

last week SM Zafar asked me what is the future of Pakistan? I told
Pakistan has no future.

I have convinced Sindhi people that 1973 Constitution is not accepted to

Sindhis. My intellectual grooming has been by one of my teachers, who
was Muslim but he would neither say prayer nor observe fast but he was
a man of strong integrity. The other source of inspiration was M.N Roy.

Commenting on the current form of new imperialism, he said a long

historical span is needed before the real spirit of socialism can be
restored and brought to the force. For this you have to have an ideology
that no political party other than Awami Tehreek, has today.
Talking about his meetings with Dr. Najeeb, he told that Ajmal Khattak
would be translator during my chat with Najeeb.

Commenting on early communist party in Pakistan, he said all the

communists were members of congress before 1947. There was no
indigenous element. The support and inspiration all came from out side.
He revealed that even Jinnah was expelled from Muslim league in 1948
and was replaced by Ch. Khaleeq Zaman.

He also told that Muhammad Ali Jinnah was a lone fighter for the cause
of freedom. He was nationalist. But all other contemporary politicians
were not that gracious. Jinnah was aware of shortsightedness of his
political cronies in Muslim League.