UNEQUAL DEVELOPMENT IN A PERIPHERAL CAPITALIST STATE: A CASE STUDY OF KHYBER PAKHTUNKHWA PROVINCE OF PAKISTAN (1947-1977) Supervised By PROF. DR. AZMAT HAYAT KHAN Submitted By NEELOFER ASGHAR PhD Scholar DEPARTMENT OF POLITICAL SCIENCE UNIVERSITY OF PESHAWAR June 2012 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I am indebted to my department and university at Peshawar to have instilled and nurtured my thought process. The topic of my thesis was product of the KPK environment whereas Professor Dr. Israr Hussein and Professor Dr. R. M. Naib were instrumental in providing the needed input in formalizing the proposal. The thesis initially focused on constitutional aspects of the problematic under Professor Khalid Bin Sayeed in the department of Political Studies at Queen’s University, Canada, later however, my approach shifted from Professor David Easton’s (Queen’s University) System analysis to Historical and Sociological analysis. Professor Colin Leys, Bruce Berman and Grant Amyot’s historical materialist approach in development studies and political theory seemed a more relevant analytical tool for my research whereas critical thinking infused by Professor Jayant Lele added another dimension to my world view. The crucial input in the thesis however was provided by Professor Hamza Alavi and Dr. Iqbal Ahmed; their rigorous interaction enabled me to concretize the concepts considering the specificity of Indo-Pak subcontinent and KPK in particular. Major part of the thesis was written at Queen’s University in the department of Political Studies under supervision of Professor Jock Gunn. However, thesis saw the light of the day at the University of Peshawar under the supervision of Professor Dr. Azmat Hayat Khan. It needs to be reiterated that the inspiration of my parents in engendering my world view (weltanschaung) was the major source of tenacity in completing the dissertation. Besides the support of my kids Hamid, Zahid, Saira and Farah to follow it through was unflinching. Last but not the least the untiring effort of Shams ul Amin in bringing the thesis to the present format and assistance of Murad Khan in completing all the procedures certainly needs to be mentioned. I am grateful to all and accept the responsibility in final analysis. i ABSTRACT My thesis explores the problem of unequal development within the federation of Pakistan with reference to Khyber Pakhtunkhwa province from August 1947 to July 1977. In the development paradigm regionalism/provincialism is considered as a petty bourgeois phenomenon; my thesis refutes this viewpoint and considers the problematic of regionalism as inherent in capital logic. Maximization of profit engenders centralization of capital and concentration of resources thereby creating the dualism of core and periphery. The process of capital accumulation generates the contradiction of development and underdevelopment, Centre and periphery, core and hinterland. Development at the centre/core perpetuates underdevelopment in the periphery/hinterland. Poverty in the periphery is neither the poverty of natural resources nor the poverty of human resources; it is the enigma of capitalist growth. The problematic of core/periphery, centre/hinterland gains extra significance due to federal status of Pakistan where both the centre and the provinces derive power from the Constitution and neither one is subordinate to each other unlike a unitary state. My study however, unravels a different process, the State uses constitutional jurisdiction to legitimize power accumulation. In order to maintain hegemony over the civil society the state centralizes power, moreover this concentration of power is essential to fulfill accumulation and reproduction of capital as well. To do so the factors of production are mobilized to the areas with maximum return; as a consequence labour, capital and raw material from peripheral provinces is invested in the core regions. The state Legitimizes capital accumulation by concentrating political power in the centre through the Constitution, relegating the provinces to a subsidiary role. The second source of legitimation by the state is the academic and religious institutions as well as communication media (the ideological apparatuses). Besides the ideological institutions the state seeks support from the military, police, bureaucracy (repressive/coercive apparatuses) as well as landlords and bourgeoisie owning the means of production. Finally, hegemony is maintained by reorganizing the power bloc, hurting individual capitals in the process but protecting the total capital. My research is an holistic analysis of Unequal development in its historical, political and economic dimensions unraveling the Centre/Periphery problematic within the Federation of Pakistan with reference to Khyber Pakhtunkhwa province. ii TABLE OF CONTENTS S.No. Topic Page No. Acknowledgement i Abstract ii Map of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa FATA & PATA iii PART – I: INTRODUCTION 1. Chapter–I: Theoretical i. Method of Inquiry and Exposition 1 ii. Modes of Production 5 iii. Development, Underdevelopment and Unequal Development 9 iv. Nature and Role of the State 13 v. The Dominant Class and the Governing Class 18 Chapter–2: Historical Imperial Rule in the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa 2. 1849–1947 i. Area and the People 23 ii. The Great Game: Integration of the KPK in the British Empire 1849-1901 26 iii. Local Administration: 1901-1947 30 iv. The Economy 37 v. Constitutional Development 46 vi. Political Process 50 vii. Conclusion 58 PART–II: POLITICS OF PAKISTAN 61 Chapter–III: Centralization of Power in the State of Pakistan: 3. An Analysis of the Three Constitutions i. Theoretical Introduction 61 ii. Federal – Provincial Relations in the 1956 Constitution 66 iii. Federal – Provincial Relations in the 1962 Constitution 69 iv. Federal – Provincial Relations in the 1973 Constitution 71 v. Conclusion 75 Chapter–IV: Power Centralization of the Federal Governments of 4. Pakistan, 1947-1977 Introduction 78 i. Parliamentary Politics (1947–1958) 79 ii. Presidential Politics (1958-1968) 85 iii. Parliamentary Politics (1971-1977) 90 iii iv. Conclusion 98 S.No. Topic Page No. Chapter–V: Provincial Politics of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, 5. 1947–77 Introduction 100 i. The Muslim League Era (1947–1955) 103 ii. The One Unit Period (1956-69) 115 The National Awami Party and the Pakistan Peoples Party phase iii. 120 (1972-77) PART–III: ECONOMY OF PAKISTAN Chapter–VI: Unequal Regional Development in the Agriculture 6. Sector and Labour Force i. Agriculture Sector 129 ii. Labour Force: Unemployment and Underemployment 153 Chapter–VII: Uneven Development in the Industrial and Urban 7. Sector i. Industrial Sector 160 ii. Urban Sector 173 PART–IV: DOMINANT FORCE IN PAKISTAN 8. Chapter–VIII: The Governing Class: Military and Bureaucracy i. The Army 185 ii. The Bureaucracy 196 iii. Conclusion 202 9. Chapter–IX: The Hegemonic Class: Landlords and Bourgeoisie i. The Landlords and Bourgeoisie in the First Phase (1947-1958) 205 ii. The Landlords and Bourgeoisie in the Second Phase (1959-1969) 211 iii. The Landlords and Bourgeoisie in the Third Phase (1972-1977) 217 iv. Conclusion 224 10. Chapter – X: Conclusion 227 11. Bibliography 230 iv CHAPTER – I METHOD OF INQUIRY AND EXPOSITION Our attempt in this thesis is to analyze the problematic of regionalism / nationalism in the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa province of Pakistan during the thirty years since independence, 1947–77. The problematic both in its theoretical and empirical form has been approached in a variety of ways. The most popular and common mode of explanation has been within the realm of modernization theory. The regional/national question within this approach is considered as an institutional problem (weakness of the political parties, the army, and bureaucracy) or a problem of poverty (rich nations / poor nations). Modernization theory adopts ‘structural – functional’ approach in analyzing the regional / national question which makes the analysis a-historical restricting it to social and political realm, the super structural phenomenon.1 Our analysis differs from the above one. It is an historical materialist interpretation of the regional / national question. The materialist conception of history is explained by M. Cornforth as: “The general theory of the motive, force and laws of social change … consisting of several interconnected propositions, which together may be said to constitute a general law of social development …. (1) in order to carry on production people must enter into relations of production… (2) people enter into relations of production, and so associate in an economic organization, independent of any conscious decision but corresponding to the character of their productive forces.. (3) social institutions, and with them prevailing system of ideas, will then arise corresponding to the economic structure of society…. The theory thus postulates a law of interdependence between production, the relations of production, and the social supper structure of institutions and ideas.”2 We have attempted to explain the problematic as dialectic of structure and superstructure within a capitalist social formation.3 As a result there is no one ‘cause’ singled out for the regional / national problematic but a multiple of factors presented in their historical context as an explanation of the problematic. Moreover, our analysis differs from the structural/functional approach by distinguishing appearances from reality explaining not only the ‘apparent’ but also the ‘essential’ or the ‘real’ reasons contributing 1 David Easton’s