Pashtun nationalism and the question of “oppression”

 

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.