|
What’s in a ‘Mohajir’?
By
Ahmed Yusuf
The term ‘Mohajir’ quite literally means a refugee, unless one buys
the stereotypical perception of Urdu-speaking Mohajirs. This
differentiation was brought to the fore at the session of the City
Council on Tuesday, where internally displaced persons (IDPs) were
referred to as Mohajirs.
The Muttahida Qaumi Movement (MQM) has long shed the term Mohajir,
which once defined the party and its support. Yet, while names of
political parties can change without much agony, many of us still
relive the grief of the Partition and migration, something that
still connects them to the ‘Mohajir’ identity.
Some 62 years later, there is another group of people who can stake
claim to the same identity, and those very people (some 21,000 of
them, according to treasury member Abdul Jalil), now live in
Karachi. That, coupled with fears that the Taliban could have fled
the operation-hit areas to migrate to Karachi and would use the same
Mohajir terminology, is essentially the bone of contention between
the treasury and the opposition of the City Council.
Treasury members repeatedly said that MQM chief Altaf Hussain had
pointed out that Karachi was becoming a victim of a conspiracy (‘Saazish’
was the exact word used), and that there were ‘some forces’ who
wanted to destroy the peace and harmony of the city. Members of the
Jamaat-e-Islami (JI)-backed Al-Khidmat panel responded by saying
that the city govt was patronising the land mafia, and that they
would take the case to the Supreme Court of Pakistan. During all
this, what was lost is whether internal migration itself was a
Saazish against Karachi and Sindh or not.
During the cacophony, Jumman Darwan, acting leader of the
opposition, made a passionate speech to assert that there was a
difference between the land mafia and refugees, which needed to be
appreciated.
That set a precedent for hailing the soil of Sindh as “Meetha”,
“Angoor Jaisa” and “Aam Jaisa”, with Mazhar Alam from the treasury
bench urging members of the Council to ensure that there are no
Taliban residing in their house. Leader of the house Asif Siddiqui
said that the operation in the northern areas could not be supported
by any one, but unfortunately it was necessary to curtail the
“cancer” which had developed there.
What was oft-repeated in the session, though, was that Karachi is a
city for all, that it was home for all — almost as if Karachi and
its residents have a homogenous identity that encapsulates the
cultu1re and mood of the city on one hand, but the sharp and
antagonistic contradictions on the other.
In fact, this is just a perception and no homogeneity exists. One
thing is for certain: any (loose) “Karachi-ism” needs to cast off
any ethnic-based element, focussing instead on what is common –
resources, output, threats, and perhaps even the aspiration for good
governance. Unfortunately, politics in Karachi is getting
increasingly caught up in the catchphrases of this epoch: Taliban,
fundamentalism, land-grabbing, mafia. The new Mohajirs are not such
a big threat to the city, but the absence of a common understanding
on issues of mutual understanding, and dividing the city on ethnic
and religious grounds certainly is.
Our political parties — all of them — need to be wary of ethnicities
being pitched against other under the pretext of “Talibanisation”,
because in fact, this would be the real conspiracy against Karachi,
and indeed against Pakistan .
The News: Wednesday,
May 20, 2009
|
