05-12-2009, 05:36 AM
By Hussain Dada
Even two years down, the memory of May 12, 2007 – and the aftermath – rankles in the memory of most citizens of Karachi. Karachi is still caught up in sporadic incidents of violence between workers and sympathisers of mainstream political parties.
The city’s poorer suburbs routinely witness armed clashes between rival political groups while the police and media watch the events unfold from a safe distance. Many suggest that the recent upsurge in violence and the ensuing government action is part of the historical conflict that has plagued the communities of Karachi.
The incident of Aligarh Qasba and the aftermath of the Bushra Zaidi accident resulted in systemic violence due to which innocent persons from both communities suffered. The intermittent eruption of violence can often be traced back to the hostilities generated due to incidents that took place in the 1980s, while others see a pattern in its upsurge.
Politicians have tried to downplay the ethnic nature of the violence. For the two main ethnic communities caught in the conflict, certain things – especially the outlook towards the other – has changed.
Owais, who works at a software house, is strongly against the idea of given any official recognition to May 12. He was irked with the government for declaring a holiday on the date.
For him, the conflict was simple: ANP had been dispossessed from its geographical base in the NWFP and were trying to muscle its way to power in Karachi. A simple equation of power. And the MQM being the party in power was responsible for safeguarding the interests of party loyalists and supporters.
This, in his opinion, was manifested on May 12 when MQM workers came out on the streets to protect their constituency, supporters and workers. He also accused the Pakhtoon community of being responsible for the systemic influx of the weapon and drug culture in Karachi, hinting at the mass migration of Afghans during and after the Cold War era.
Most MQM supporters, including Owais, suggest that the solution lies in a heavy-handed operation against such miscreants that also eliminates the threat of the Taliban, who, they suggest, have the tacit support of the Pakhtoons and the ANP.
ANP supporters reject the allegations. ANP Sindh Chapter Vice-President Gul Umer Dad Hasanzai, while having tea at a famous eatery located at Hussain D’Silva town, a Pakhtoon dominated hill, pointed out that Pakhtoon-dominated areas remain friendly to the Urdu-speaking community.
Furthermore, he asserted that Pakhtoons are mainly menial service providers and labourers and they cannot afford a conflict with any community, let alone Mohajirs. The only source of conflict, he suggested, arises when Pakhtoons are denied the opportunity to earn their livelihood.
Hasanzai, ANP supporters and even apolitical Pakhtoons pointed out they have faced systemic persecution in non-Pakhtoon areas and their entrepreneurs have had their businesses shut down or vandalized, while others have been targeted for their ethnic affiliations.
For Hasanzai, the solution lies in a police or para-military operation that is aimed at disarmament. Other ANP faithful also suggested the same. They contend that weapons – whether legal or illegal – kill indiscriminately and they would support any such programme which requires laying down of arms.
About May 12, they say that their party were not responsible for starting-off the violence, and were merely headed towards the airport to welcome the CJ – a right of all democratic forces.
They only retaliated after they were targeted, and accuse the sitting government of the day for failing to ensure the safety of its constitutents.
Small businessmen and workers from both the communities say that the uncertainty created by clashes has affected business. Hashir, an Urdu-speaking florist who has a kiosk in the MQM stronghold of Federal B Area, says that he employs both Pakthoons and Mohajirs as workers and would continue doing the same.
Similarly, Ebad, a Pakhtoon domestic labourer, says that he avoids areas with high probability of ethnic clashes and stays at home on days when violence is reported. A resident of Gulshan-e-Maymar on the outskirts of the city, his locality is often the site of clashes. He says the police do little to stop the clashes. His main concern is that he is often forced to miss a day’s wage due to the conflict.
Most people insist that attitudes have not changed towards the other. But a sense of ‘us versus them’ appears to be prevalent in the narrative of party workers and sympathisers. For the common folk from both ethnicities, a return to normality that allows them to ply their trade remains the priority.
http://www.thenews.com.pk/daily_detail.asp?id=177112
Even two years down, the memory of May 12, 2007 – and the aftermath – rankles in the memory of most citizens of Karachi. Karachi is still caught up in sporadic incidents of violence between workers and sympathisers of mainstream political parties.
The city’s poorer suburbs routinely witness armed clashes between rival political groups while the police and media watch the events unfold from a safe distance. Many suggest that the recent upsurge in violence and the ensuing government action is part of the historical conflict that has plagued the communities of Karachi.
The incident of Aligarh Qasba and the aftermath of the Bushra Zaidi accident resulted in systemic violence due to which innocent persons from both communities suffered. The intermittent eruption of violence can often be traced back to the hostilities generated due to incidents that took place in the 1980s, while others see a pattern in its upsurge.
Politicians have tried to downplay the ethnic nature of the violence. For the two main ethnic communities caught in the conflict, certain things – especially the outlook towards the other – has changed.
Owais, who works at a software house, is strongly against the idea of given any official recognition to May 12. He was irked with the government for declaring a holiday on the date.
For him, the conflict was simple: ANP had been dispossessed from its geographical base in the NWFP and were trying to muscle its way to power in Karachi. A simple equation of power. And the MQM being the party in power was responsible for safeguarding the interests of party loyalists and supporters.
This, in his opinion, was manifested on May 12 when MQM workers came out on the streets to protect their constituency, supporters and workers. He also accused the Pakhtoon community of being responsible for the systemic influx of the weapon and drug culture in Karachi, hinting at the mass migration of Afghans during and after the Cold War era.
Most MQM supporters, including Owais, suggest that the solution lies in a heavy-handed operation against such miscreants that also eliminates the threat of the Taliban, who, they suggest, have the tacit support of the Pakhtoons and the ANP.
ANP supporters reject the allegations. ANP Sindh Chapter Vice-President Gul Umer Dad Hasanzai, while having tea at a famous eatery located at Hussain D’Silva town, a Pakhtoon dominated hill, pointed out that Pakhtoon-dominated areas remain friendly to the Urdu-speaking community.
Furthermore, he asserted that Pakhtoons are mainly menial service providers and labourers and they cannot afford a conflict with any community, let alone Mohajirs. The only source of conflict, he suggested, arises when Pakhtoons are denied the opportunity to earn their livelihood.
Hasanzai, ANP supporters and even apolitical Pakhtoons pointed out they have faced systemic persecution in non-Pakhtoon areas and their entrepreneurs have had their businesses shut down or vandalized, while others have been targeted for their ethnic affiliations.
For Hasanzai, the solution lies in a police or para-military operation that is aimed at disarmament. Other ANP faithful also suggested the same. They contend that weapons – whether legal or illegal – kill indiscriminately and they would support any such programme which requires laying down of arms.
About May 12, they say that their party were not responsible for starting-off the violence, and were merely headed towards the airport to welcome the CJ – a right of all democratic forces.
They only retaliated after they were targeted, and accuse the sitting government of the day for failing to ensure the safety of its constitutents.
Small businessmen and workers from both the communities say that the uncertainty created by clashes has affected business. Hashir, an Urdu-speaking florist who has a kiosk in the MQM stronghold of Federal B Area, says that he employs both Pakthoons and Mohajirs as workers and would continue doing the same.
Similarly, Ebad, a Pakhtoon domestic labourer, says that he avoids areas with high probability of ethnic clashes and stays at home on days when violence is reported. A resident of Gulshan-e-Maymar on the outskirts of the city, his locality is often the site of clashes. He says the police do little to stop the clashes. His main concern is that he is often forced to miss a day’s wage due to the conflict.
Most people insist that attitudes have not changed towards the other. But a sense of ‘us versus them’ appears to be prevalent in the narrative of party workers and sympathisers. For the common folk from both ethnicities, a return to normality that allows them to ply their trade remains the priority.
http://www.thenews.com.pk/daily_detail.asp?id=177112