Whenever we talk about “oppression”
we talk in a political sense. Oppression has mostly remained a political term
used extensively by the communists and freedom fighters throughout history. If
we look at big movements and revolutions of our recent history the popular
slogans of freedom is meant to get freedom from a group of oppressors and to
translate this freedom for a relatively larger group of people who are
marginalized and whose human rights have been violated. Nelson Mandela, Martin
Luther, Baacha Khan, Gandihi, Lenin, Mao and Khomeine are a few examples of
such big movements from our recent history. “Oppression” in these cases is
largely political or economic.
“Oppression" has also
another connotation. Let’s call it social oppression. It may be defined as
oppression of one social class against another or oppression of individuals
within a society on the basis of religion, gender, ethnicity, economic and
social status and so one. The contemporary desire for secularization of the
state and society, feminism and social empowerment through other such means are
aimed at emancipation of the relevant oppressed classes or individuals.
The Pashtun nationalists see all
kinds of social oppression as subsets of political oppression. They are of the
opinion that if Pashtuns get their political rights all other social forms of
oppression would be automatically addressed. There is a visible polarization
within Pashtun society on this issue where the traditional nationalist political parties ask
for political emancipation while others are in favour of reforming the society
from within. Thus Pashtun nationalism is mostly extroverted i.e. holding the
outsiders responsible for the ills of Pashtun society.
It is debatable whether different
forms of social oppressions are subsets of political oppression. May be
political oppression had been a spur and a reinforcing factor in the course of
history. For example colonialism interfered in the indigenous political order
and destroyed many of the good qualities of Pashtun social and cultural life. Successive
autocratic governments in Pakistan reinforced colonialism, exploited Pashtuns
resources and tried to change the very core of Pashtun identify. But it may
also be noted that both colonialism and the state structure of Pakistan brought
many good things for Pashtuns. Pashtuns were politicized. They achieved a legal status
for themselves. They got civic rights, education and many other facilities. The
list is not too short.
History may be important to keep the things in the right
perspective but more important than history would be to understand the current
status of Pashtuns in Pakistan. The political oppression for majority of the
Pashtuns (excluding FATA) is no more strictly political of the historical
nature. It may be politically relevant in the sense that Pashtuns need more implementation
of the already decentralization of the state. Both ANP and PMAP have formed
governments in their respective spheres of influence and they have no great
obstacles in doing politics. In this way they are already part of the state
structure and strict political oppression is no longer there. The only major
political oppression still remains is that the people of FATA are still politically
oppressed due to their isolation from the mainstream constitutional arrangement.
There may be certain political
slogans which are still relevant like CPEC or countering a more Punjabi
oriented government but I think the rest of Pashtuns are socially oppressed.
Our problems are becoming more internal as we have to address the oppression of
women, children and the poor and the marginalized.
