Restoration of Bahwalpur province: United Front demands separate commission

‘Creation and restoration of provinces should not be mixed’.


Kashif Zafar September 19, 2012

BAHAWALPUR:


A resolution adopted at a gathering on Tuesday demanded a separate commission on ‘restoration’ of Bahawalpur province.


It stated that the restoration of Bahawalpur province was a unique case, with no current parallel in the country. “There are no other demands in field by any group for restoration of former status,” it said.

The gathering organised by the Movement for Restoration of Bahawalpur Province was attended by representatives of the Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz, PML-Quaid, Tehreek-i-Insaf, Jamiat Ulema Islam, Jamaat-i-Islami and traders and professional associations.

The resolution moved by Malik Habibullah Bhutta, a former Pakistan People Party (PPP) member, rejected the parliamentary commission on formation of new provinces. It said with only two members, Bahawalpur’s representation in the body was inadequate. The commission has eight members from the treasury benches in the National Assembly, four from the opposition, five from South Punjab and two from Bahawalpur.

The speakers rejected the suggestion that Bahawalpur be included in a South Punjab province. They said restoration of Bahawalpur’s provincial status was much simpler than the creation of a new province.

They said before it was included in the One Unit, Bahawlpur had an elected assembly and various departments needed to run the affairs of the government.  They said Bahawalpur was then the only federating unit with a surplus budget.

They warned the federal and the provincial governments against attempts to undermine the demand for Bahawalpur’s restoration.

Mohammad Ali Durrani announced the revival of the Bahawalpur Muttahida Mahaz (United Front) of 1970’s formed to oppose the Bahawalpur’s inclusion in the Punjab after the end of the One Unit. He said all major political parties were represented at the meeting.

Durrani said General Yayha Khan was responsible for the dismemberment of Pakistan but also for Bahawalpur’s forced merger with the Punjab.

He said demands for new provinces should be treated differently from those for restoration of provinces and proposed that a permanent commission along the lines of the one set up in India be established for the former.  He said the people of Bahawalpur would oppose merger with a South Punjab province just as they had opposed merger with the Punjab in 1970s.

Durrani said the injustice suffered by Bahawalpur’s people was no less than that suffered by the Baloch. However, he said, the former had been protesting peacefully ‘because of their love for Pakistan’.

JUI-F Punjab Chief Maulana Rasheed Ludhianvi said like the appointment of the chief election commissioner, Bahawalpur’s issue should also be solved with consensus. He also suggested reviewing the composition of the commission on new provinces.

Chief Minister’s Task Force Chairman Samiullah Chaudhry supported the resolution demanding the restoration of Bahawalpur province.

Former MPA Sardar Khalid Mehmood Waran said his commitment to Bahawalpur came first and his membership of a political party second.

He said he would continue working for the restoration of Bahawalpur until the objective was achieved.

Punjab Bar Council Vice Chairman Mian Mumtaz Mustafa and Central Traders Association President Hafiz Muhammad Younis also spoke on the occasion.

Makhdoom Nasir Bukhari, Jam Hazoor Bakhsh Lar, Muhammad Rafiq Qamar Channar of the Bahawalpur Lawyers Forum, Fiaz Ahmed Noori of  Jamiat Ulema-i-Pakistan, Professor Abdul Rehman of Markazi Jamiat Ahle Hadith, Munir Ahmed Malik of Pakistan Tehreek-i-Insaf, Riaz bin Javed, Imtiaz Ali Raja, Advocate Afzal Nizami, PPP leaders Syed Ejaz Bukhari, Humayun Gulzar, Seth Shamsur Rehman, Shahid Hameed Rehmani and Qari Moonis Baloch also attended the gathering.

Published in The Express Tribune, September 19th, 2012.

COMMENTS

Replying to X

Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.

For more information, please see our Comments FAQ