ࡱ > [ ] X Y Z + bjbjss ) % L = 8 u u u 8 $ r " > Cr Er Er Er Er Er Er Lt v Er u K K K Er u u Zr 2N 2N 2N K ^ u u Cr 2N K Cr 2N 2N h j xE tK j Yi /r pr 0 r si : w K w 4 j j v w u #l , . & 2N 9 B < , , , Er Er M , , , r K K K K w , , , , , , , , , : THE SPECIAL PARLIAMENTARY COMMITTEE ON CONSTITUTIONAL REFORMS AND THE CONCURRENT LIST By Raja M. Ali Saleem January 2010 Islamabad, Pakistan for the FORUM OF FEDERATIONS Table of Contents Introduction ------- 5 Division of Powers before Independence ------- 7 Division of Powers and Concurrent List after 1947 ------- 10 Comparison of Concurrent List in 1973 Constitution with other countries ------- 15 Balochistan Insurgency and the Formation Of Special Parliamentary Committee on Constitutional Reforms ------- 17 Party Positions on the Concurrent List ------- 22 Three Likely Scenarios ------- 32 Recommendations ------- 42 The Forum of Federations project in Pakistan is funded by the German Ministry of Foreign Affairs List of Acronyms ANP --- Awami National Party BNF --- Balochistan National Front BNP --- Balochistan National Party BNP(M) --- Balochistan National Party (Mengal) CCI --- Council of Common Interests CoD --- Charter of Democracy FATA --- Federally Administrated Tribal Areas GoP --- Government of Pakistan ICFNL --- International Centre for Nigerian Law ICS --- Indian Civil Service JWP --- Jamhori Watan Party JWP(T) --- Jamhori Watan Party (Talal) MMA --- Muthida Majlis-e-Amal MNA --- Member National Assembly MQM --- Muthida Qaumi Movement NFC --- National Finance Commission NP --- National Party NWFP --- North West Frontier Province PMAP --- Pakhtunkhwa Milli Awami Party PML(F) --- Pakistan Muslim League (Functional) PML(N) --- Pakistan Muslim League (Nawaz) PML(Q) --- Pakistan Muslim League (Quaid-i-Azam) PPP --- Pakistan Peoples Party PPP(S) --- Pakistan Peoples Party (Sherpao) PPPP --- Pakistan Peoples Party Parliamentarians PTI --- Pakistan Tehrik-e-Insaf SPCCR --- Special Parliamentary Committee of Constitutional Reforms Introduction From ancient times, countries and empires have experienced a clash between centripetal and centrifugal forces. Hammurabi, King of Babylon (1792-1750 BC), came up with his famous Code to bring order in his large chaotic empire by giving one central law, applicable everywhere (Metz, 1988). Four thousand years later, the contemporary political scene still shows modern governments struggling to balance the conflicting needs of unity and diversity in their realm. The current security environment and the requirements of modern economic management favour centralization but liberal/democratic principles and the fact that modern economy breeds on innovation make one favour a free reign for every person, community and region. Examples of these pressures and resultant decisions are everywhere. Federal governments in many countries of the world, including US, have increased their scope of operations after September 11 and current economic recession has forced UK and EU to think about limiting bonuses of bank employees, something decided, up till now, by every company by itself. On the other hand, UK devolved powers to Scotland and Wales in late nineties and Muro et.al (1998) analyzed more than twenty decentralization efforts in Sub-Saharan Africa over a thirty-year period. Finding equilibrium between centripetal and centrifugal forces is more complicated in federations due to two reasons. First, unlike in unitary states, when decisions are taken in federation about more centralization or otherwise, power relations among different communities/ ethnicities change. So, implications of such decisions cannot be seen only in terms of administrative efficiency and effectiveness. For example, although effectiveness of decision-making may have improved after Russian Upper House decided to change election procedure of its members in 2000, it also meant a potentially dangerous shift of power from peripheral regions of East and South to Moscow. Secondly, federations cannot take such (de)centralizing decisions easily as they may require constitutional changes which are difficult to make. Due to the same reason these decisions, once taken, acquire a kind of permanency in a federation. For example, UK, having a unitary system, required only a simply majority to devolve powers to its regions and reversing it also entails a simple majority but such an action (or its annulment) in a federation would have required a long process of a constitutional amendment, involving super majorities and approval from the federating units. Pakistan has felt such opposing pressures in the past and is facing them again now. Bangladeshi independence movement was initially a movement for regional autonomy by constitutional means, asking for more powers for the provinces. It was only later that this centrifugal force turned into a secessionist struggle. Currently, smaller provinces are again demanding autonomy and their rights. While Sindh and NWFP have pleaded for more devolution, Balochistans long struggle has turned into an open rebellion. It is in this context that provincial autonomy was included in the agenda of the Special Parliamentary Committee on Constitutional Reforms (SPCCR), which was constituted in June, 2009. This committee is still deliberating and is expected to give its recommendations in March 2010. One of the main issues being deliberated by the SPCCR, in the context of provincial autonomy, is changes in the concurrent list of the constitution. This paper will discuss the history of the concurrent list in the context of Pakistan, its comparison with other countries, the working of SPCCR and the options available to the committee regarding changes in the concurrent list. The paper has been structured into four sections. First section discusses the division of powers between federation and provinces and concurrent list before independence and in the three constitutions of Pakistan. Next section compares concurrent list in Pakistan with such lists in other constitutions. Third part details the opinions of different political parties on changes in the concurrent list. The final part discusses three likely scenarios and gives recommendations. I Division of Powers before Independence After the War of Independence in 1857, British government did try to recognize and accommodate the political aspirations of Indians and of various regions, but it still retained over-riding powers and control till the time of independence. There was no legal division of powers between the Centre and the provinces before the Government of India Act, 1919. Centre had all the powers and Governors, appointed by the Centre, exercised some of these delegated powers as directed. The Government of India Act, 1919 for the first time gave two separate lists for the central and the provincial subjects and clarified division of powers between Delhi and provinces. The central list was extensive and included areas like defense, foreign & political relations, tariffs & customs, posts & telegraphs, patents & copyright, currency & coinage, communications, commerce & shipping, civil & criminal law & procedure, major courts, quarantine etc. The provincial list was more concerned about the implementation of decisions made at the federal level. It included subjects like local self-government, public health, sanitation & medical administration, education public works, water supplies & irrigation, land revenue administration, agriculture forests, co-operative societies, law & order including justice, police and jails. There was no concurrent list but all the residuary subjects were given to the centre. In practice, most of the subjects in the provincial list were also controlled by the Centre through their nominees as Governors and the Superior Services (like Indian Civil Service, Indian Police Service) which were responsible to the Secretary of State. Some independent sources of revenue were also allocated to the provinces in this Act. However, as the subject of finance remained under the control of Governor and thus indirectly with the Centre, this allocation had only a symbolic value. Government of India Act, 1919 thus didnt change the basic reality of a unitary government but it did move India toward becoming a federal state (Khan, 2001). The India Act of 1935 is called the first federal constitution of India as it recognized the separate existence of provinces and gave them a measure of autonomy. The act divided the legislative powers between federation and provinces through three lists: federal, provincial and concurrent. The federal list had fifty nine subjects, provincial list had fifty four subjects and concurrent list had thirty six subjects. These lists were an improvement as compared to lists in the India Act of 1919 due to three reasons. First, provincial lists were expanded and more powers were transferred to provinces. The most substantial change was in the financial powers which were not only expanded but were made part of the Act so now federal government could not change them. Secondly, concurrent list was added which also expanded provincial powers. Finally, powers of Governors, the nominees of the Centre, were greatly restricted. It was the first time a concurrent list was made part of an Act. So, the Joint Committee on Indian Constitutional Reforms (1934) explained why this list was made part of the Act of 1935:- Experience has shown, both in India and elsewhere, that there are certain matters which cannot be allocated exclusively either to a central or to a Provincial legislature and for which, though it is often desirable that provincial legislation should make provision, it is equally necessary that the central legislature should also have a legislative jurisdiction enable it, in some cases to secure uniformity in the main principles of law throughout the country, in others, to guide and encourage provincial effort and in others, again, to provide remedies for mischief arising in the provincial sphere, but extending, or liable to extend beyond the boundaries of a single province(Emphasis not in the original document). The third reason of having the concurrent list is interesting and gives a clue to the mind of constitution makers in 1934 and possibly even now in Pakistan. Provincial governments are either thought liable to do mistakes themselves or unable to control any mischief arising out of their domains. Either of the reasons necessitates that big brother Centre must keep provinces on a short leash and always keep a watchful eye on them. The next issue for the framer of the India Act of 1935 was that of residuary powers which must be allocated to the Centre or provinces as it is not possible for constitution makers cannot make an exhaustive list of all the powers and even if they do, new subjects are bound to appear in future. The residuary powers were, however, not given to the Centre or the provinces as is the usual practice in federations but allocated to the Governor General who could exercise these powers in his discretion. This decision was not only against the principle of provincial autonomy but also against democratic norms. Division of Powers and Concurrent List after 1947 Both India and Pakistan used the India Act of 1935 as their interim constitution after independence and as the base of their future constitutions. As the division of powers in India Act 1935 was tilted toward the Centre, both India and Pakistan tried to move toward a more decentralized structure when they adopted new constitutions in the 1950s. One of the main reasons why constitution was delayed in Pakistan was the controversy over the issue of the division of powers between the federation and the provinces. All India Muslim League, a party which stood for provincial rights and weak Centre before independence, now wanted a strong Centre. In the end, after the dismissal of a Prime Minister, dissolution of a constituent assembly and nine years, first constitution of Pakistan was promulgated on 23rd March 1956. Constitution of 1956 The Constitution of 1956 had two hundred and thirty four articles and six schedules. The Constitution of 1956 emphasized that Pakistan was a federation and established a system of parity between the two wings, East Pakistan and West Pakistan. Like the India Act of 1935, the Constitution of 1956 clearly demarcated the division of powers by giving three lists: Central, Provincial and Concurrent. Central list was reduced from sixty one areas in interim constitution to thirty areas while provincial list was increased from fifty five to ninety four. The concurrent list had nineteen items (Annexure-I). The residuary powers, in contrast to the India Act of 1935, were given to the provinces. Although, more powers were devolved to the provinces and residuary powers also came under their purview, it amounted to little change in the relationship between provinces and federal government as the strong control of Centre was not mainly based on enumeration of legislative lists. This was clear to members of constituent assembly in East Pakistan and leaders of United Front who demanded a change in economic relationship between the Centre and the provinces and more representation of East Pakistan in the civil services and the armed forces (The Republic of Rumi, 2009). The 1956 Constitution also made very little change regarding the distribution of financial resources between the centre and the provinces. Although, a specific body, National Finance Commission, was established to deal with these issues, the provinces continue to be short-changed by the Centre citing defense and economic development needs. 1962 Constitution The 1956 Constitution could last only two years as General Ayub Khan imposed the first martial law in 1958 and abrogated the Constitution. In February 1960, Ayub Khan appointed a commission, with former Chief Justice Shahab-ud-Din as its head, to consult and then advice about the future political set-up. Based on the report of this commission but mainly on his own preferences, Ayub Khan promulgated a new constitution on 8th June 1962. Ayub thought that the main issue disturbing the national harmony was not uneven distribution of resources between East and West Pakistan or different languages or cultures but politicians, who are mostly self-centered (Khan, 1967). Therefore, he came up with a system which limited politicians power and gave power to true national leadership. This resulted in a presidential, quasi-unitary political system (Sayeed, 1980). The 1962 Constitution, unlike the 1956 constitution, clarified the division of powers by giving a central list (Annexure-II). This list had forty nine subjects and all the residual powers were left to the provinces. Looking at the division of powers in the three constitutions of Pakistan, this constitution gave maximum autonomy to the provinces. However, actual situation was completely opposite to what appeared from the division of powers in the constitution. In reality, there were no provincial governments working in Pakistan from 1962 to 1969 and only extensions of the federal government were ruling the provinces. Provincial Governors had all the powers and they were appointed by the President and served at his pleasure. Financial distribution of resources was also directly controlled by the Centre as Governors couldnt make any independent decisions. East Pakistan aftermath and 1973 Constitution The 1962 constitution was abrogated in 1969 and Pakistan again came under military rule. The new military ruler, Yahya Khan, called elections on the basis of one-man one-vote. Awami League, a party mainly from East Pakistan, campaigned for severely limiting federal powers and won the election. It was thought that after these elections, the new democratic set-up will deal better with sub-national aspirations than Ayub Khan. However, power was never handed over to Awami League and a military action was started in East Pakistan. This led to civil war and creation of Bangladesh. The members elected from remaining Pakistan then started working on a new constitution. Provincial autonomy was still a big issue as smaller provinces wanted their rights which were denied to them under one-unit. As civil-military bureaucracy, which is always for a strong Centre, was also on the back foot because of the events in East Pakistan, politicians were able to approve some measures to increase provincial autonomy. The most important change regarding provincial autonomy in the new constitution was the formation of the Senate, making national legislature bicameral for the first time in the history of Pakistan. Senate had equal representation from all provinces and thus provided an additional lever to the three smaller provinces to influence policy or to stop most populous province (now Punjab) from imposing its policies on the whole of the country. The division of powers in the 1973 constitution has been quite different from the previous two constitutions. There were now two legislative lists, federal and concurrent (Annexure-III). The residuary powers were left with the provinces. Federal list had sixty seven subjects, while provincial list consisted of forty seven subjects. Another change was to divide the federal list into two parts. To give additional power to the provinces, a new constitutional body Council on Common Interests (CCI) was also created so that the Centre and the provinces can discuss any issues and take decisions on the second part of the federal list. Thus, Centre was restricted to legislate even on a part of the federal list. Fiscal division of resources was governed by the national finance commission (NFC) as in previous constitutions. Since 1973, six NFC awards have been announced. Over the years, the share of provinces in the national revenues have increased but since it started from a low base, only now provincial share has become more than fifty percent (Ahmed, 2007). The award announced in 2006 was major step backward in terms of provincial autonomy as after there was no agreement on NFC award, all the provincial governments gave the authority to the President to decide the distribution of resources. It is difficult to see how provinces could do that except under duress from a President who was also the army chief. Moreover, even if provincial governments made this decision voluntarily, it was still controversial as provincial government cant transfer their responsibilities under constitution to anyone, unless such a transfer is allowed under constitution (Dawn, 2006). II Comparison of Concurrent List in 1973 Constitution with other countries India is the most comparable country with Pakistan as both countries share history, ethnicities, cultures and languages. Moreover, in terms of the division of powers between the Centre and the provinces, the basis of the constitutions of both countries is the India Act of 1935. The seventh schedule of the Indian constitution gives the legislative lists (Annexure-IV). Comparing the concurrent lists in the Indian Constitution and 1973 Constitution, we find that although both lists are more or less similar, Indian Constitution adds some very important extra powers to the Union (federal) list which can allow an intrusive federal government large leeway. Some of these powers are given below: Price Control Education, including technical education, medical education and universities, subject to the provisions of entries 63, 64, 65 and 66 of List I; vocational and technical training of labour. Trade and commerce in, and the production, supply and distribution of foodstuffs, including edible oilseeds and oils; cattle fodder, including oilcakes and other concentrates; raw cotton, whether ginned or unginned, and cotton seed; and raw jute Factories Weights and measures except establishment of standards. Vital statistics including registration of births and deaths Charities and charitable institutions Moreover, the trend since the promulgation of Constitution in 1950 is transferring subjects from the state list to concurrent list (Bakshi, 2002). The extra powers given by the Constitution of 1973 are comparatively less important like Zakat, Islamic education etc. Only the powers of environment pollution and ecology and tourism in the 1973 concurrent list try to redress the balance. The US Constitution doesnt give any concurrent list. Section 8 of the Constitution gives the powers of the Congress and section 9 and 10 mention the limits on the power of Congress and States (Annexure-V). There is no separate section mentioning the powers of the states but tenth amendment in the Constitution clarifies that all the residuary powers are with the States. As Section 8 has only eighteen subjects, the number of powers left to the States is huge. There are some concurrent powers shared by the Congress and States such as those given below: Setting up courts of law and making and enforcing laws Introducing and collecting taxes Borrowing money and chartering banks and corporations Taking (condemning) private property with just compensation. (Longley, 2010) But their scope and scale is quite limited as compared to concurrent list given in the Constitution of 1973. If Pakistan is close to India in terms of colonial legacy and culture, its experience since Independence is closer to Nigeria which has also gone through many military interventions, constitutions and a civil war. The latest constitution, promulgated in 1999, is similar to Pakistans 1973 Constitution in terms of division of power structure. There are two lists, like Pakistan, an exclusive list (Federal) and a concurrent list, with the residuary powers left to the provinces (ICFNL, 2010). However, the similarities end here and the power listed in the concurrent list federation Nigeria are few and divided between the federation and the provinces (Annexure-VI). Nigerian concurrent list doesnt give equal jurisdiction to federal and State governments on powers enumerated in the list but most often clearly tells which powers belong to whom. Therefore, leaving few powers where both federation and States can legislate, most of the list can either be made part of the exclusive list (federal powers) or deleted (provincial powers) so that provincial can legislate on them based on their right of residuary powers (Ayua, 2007). Current insurgency in Balochistan and Special Parliamentary Committee on Constitutional Reforms (SPCCR) The current unrest in Balochistan has its roots in the continual denial of autonomy to provinces and the refusal of the Centre to cede control of the smaller provinces resources. This is especially true in the case of Balochistan, which is a sparsely populated but resource-rich province. The insurgency started from the refusal of army in 2005 to conduct an open inquiry against an officer accused of a rape in Sui, Balochistan. This issue was limited to Dera Bugti district but then killing of Nawab Akbar Bugti, one of the most important tribal chiefs and a former governor and chief minister of Balochistan, in an army operation in 2006 inflamed the whole of Balochistan. As the cries of self-determination and independence started, political forces in the Centre tried to defuse the situation. In 2005, a parliamentary committee on Balochistan was formed under the chairmanship of ruling party president and former prime minister, Ch. Shujaat Hussain. It talked with Baloch leadership and came up with proposals such as immediate payment of gas royalty, shifting of Gwadar port authority to Balochistan, release of political prisoners, consultations and approval of a new NFC award etc. The most important and far-reaching recommendation of the committee was the deletion of concurrent list and limiting of the federal list to the core functions of the Federation such as foreign relations, federal finance & currency, defense, communications, coordination and inter-provincial harmony. However, very few of its recommendations were implemented as most of these recommendations were against the stated policies of President Musharraf (Lakshman, 2007). After the 2008 elections, resignation of President Musharraf and apology by President Zardari to Balochistan raised hopes that the provincial autonomy issue will be resolved. A practical step was taken in this direction by the formation of a Special Parliamentary committee on Constitutional Reforms (SPCCR) by the Speaker National Assembly on June 24th, 2009 (Annexure-VII). It has twenty seven members from both houses of parliament. It also has representation of all the major political parties in the parliament (Ghauri, 2009). The first meeting of SPCCR was held on 25th June with Speaker, National Assembly presiding the meeting. It was decided that the committee will frame its terms of reference and elect a chair in the next meeting. Senator Raza Rabbani was elected chair in the next meeting and committee decided its rules of procedure and terms of reference (Annexure-VIII). The objective of the SPCCR was decided as The committee shall propose amendments in the Constitution, keeping in view the 17th Amendment, Charter of Democracy and Provincial Autonomy, in order to meet the democratic and Islamic aspirations of the people of Pakistan. It was agreed that the quorum of the meetings will be fourteen members and that the discussions in the meeting will be kept secret. The committee also decided that proposals will be solicited from general public and professional bodies (National Assembly, 2009). Taking a cue from its functions, the committee has decided to divide its work on constitution into three parts. The first part will deal with the repealing of 17th Amendment with four exceptions of joint electorate, women seats in the parliament, the increase in numerical strength of the National Assembly and Senate, and minority representation in the National Assembly. The second part will deal with the implementation of the Charter of Democracy (CoD) as agreed between PPP and PML (N). This part was further divided into two parts: first, dealing with issues that require constitutional changes for their implementation and the second, dealing with issues that require only simple legislation. Finally, the third part of the constitutional amendments was to deal with provincial autonomy. This part was added mainly due to the insurgency in Balochistan. This committee has so far held more than thirty meetings. It has evolved consensus on some major issues, including the issue of provincial autonomy. However, it still has not been able to come up with recommendations even after the passage of six months. There are many reasons for the delay in the coming up of SPCCR recommendations. First, initially there was a conflict between Pakistan Peoples Party and Pakistan Muslim League-N over the priority of issues. PML-N wanted to repeal the 17th amendment first and then have an overview of the constitution, but the PPP wanted to work on all constitutional reforms simultaneously. Secondly, there is a serious mistrust between smaller nationalist parties and the countrys major political parties (PPP, PML (N), and PML (Q)). Analysts agree that during past four years, most of the promises made by the major political parties never came true. Therefore, smaller parties have not shown much concern about the repeal of 17th amendment or other provisions of CoD, they only want enhanced provincial autonomy. For example, MQM and ANP believe that if they did not succeed in getting the provincial autonomy at this point of time, perhaps, they would never be able to get it. Therefore, these parties have adopted a rigid and tough stance on the autonomy issue which is making it difficult for the committee members to prepare a consensus document. Finally, as Chairman of the SPCCR Raza Rabbani has said, amending the constitution is a serious and complicated matter and different from ordinary legislation so it will take time. He has promised that the nation would soon hear good news about the repeal of the 17th Amendment and other constitutional reforms. Moreover, government is also dealing with other issues. One of them, Aghaz-e-haqooq-Balochistan (The Balochistan package), was partially done in December by a committee which was also headed by Mr. Raza Rabbani. Earlier, the government had promised to repeal the 17th Amendment before December, but it could not fulfill its promise. Federal Minister Syed Khurshid Shah has recently given a new date of March 2010. Prime Minister Syed Yousaf Raza Gilani has also directed the committee to finish its job as soon as possible (S. Bajwa, 2009). III Stance of Political Parties on Concurrent List Pakistan People Party (PPP) PPP is the most important party in Pakistan at the moment as it is leading the coalition governments at the centre, two provinces and Gilgit-Baltistan and is part of governments in the remaining two provinces. Moreover, it has majority in the Senate and its Co-Chairman is the elected President of the country. Another feather in PPPs cap, as compared to the main opposition party PML (N), is that only PPP has won seats in all the four provinces in the 2008 elections, thus strengthening its claim of a truly national party. Finally, as its base is a smaller province and not Punjab, its voice on provincial autonomy is considered genuine, rather than contrived. It is clear from above that PPP views will in fact make or break the SPCCR process. Looking at the PPP manifesto for 2008 elections, enhancing provincial autonomy is one of the promises made by PPP to the people of Pakistan. This promise will be fulfilled by giving provinces due share in their natural resources; changing the NFC criteria and royalty formula; returning sales tax to provinces etc. PPP had also promised to abolish the concurrent list (PPP, 2007). This was one of the demands of the smaller provinces agreed by both main parties, PPP and PML (N) in the Charter of Democracy in 2006 (PPP, 2006). PPP has been consistent on its stand in this issue since then. In 2006, The Constitution (Amendment) Bill 2006 was moved in the previous assembly by Abdul Mujeeb Pirzada, a PPP leader, alongwith other opposition members, which among other things, called for the deletion of the concurrent list (Asghar, 2006). Pakistan Muslim League (Nawaz) PML (N) PML (N) is the main opposition party in the Parliament and is the ruling party in the biggest province Punjab. Its main power base is also in Punjab and it is the party which until recently was most closely identified with the conservative (mainly Punjabi) civil-military bureaucratic establishment, which favours a strong centre and has actually governed Pakistan for the greater part of last sixty years. It is due to this reason that PML (N) views are very important and if PML (N) approves of provincial autonomy measures, very few other parties will oppose them. PML (N) manifesto for 2008 elections promises to promote unity among the federating units through maximum provincial autonomy and decentralization of administrative and financial powers to provincial and lower levels. It also states, The Concurrent List in the Constitution will be abolished or drastically curtailed. A new NFC award by consensus will be announced regularly at 5 yearly intervals and the principle of provincial autonomy fully respected (PML, 2007). However, this position is different from what PML (N) took when it signed the Charter of Democracy which, as explained above, called for the abolition of the concurrent list. The current position of PML (N) in the SPCCR is closer to its manifesto (Dawn Report, 2009). Pakistan Muslim League (Quaid-i-Azam) PML (Q) PML (Q) held sway on the political scene from 2002 to 2008. It was in power at Centre and in all the four provinces and had majority in Senate too, if we add the senators who usually voted with it. Moreover, Pakistans powerful President, who was also army chief, was also sympathetic to them and supported them. This support of the President allowed them to govern without undue pressure from the President/Army house and for the first time in the history of Pakistan, assemblies were able to complete their tenure of five years. However, the flip side of this support was that they were forced to defend Musharrafs policies and they were identified with forces which are considered anti-democratic and anti-provincial autonomy. This identification was the main reason for the catastrophic defeat of PML (Q) in 2008 elections. However, it still has large number of seats in Parliament (twenty one seats in Senate and fifty four seats in National Assembly) and it would be difficult for PPP or PML (N) to bring a constitutional amendment without PML (Q) support. Perhaps to absolve itself from what happened in Balochistan under its watch, PML (Q) came up with a very unambiguous commitment to the provincial autonomy in its manifesto for election 2008. It says, The PML believes that strong provinces mean a strong Pakistan and it does not subscribe to the doctrine of a strong centre. The Pakistan Muslim League is committed to provincial autonomy within the federal framework, and it will continue the positive initiative taken in this regard by the Parliamentary Committee on Balochistan. While there has been devolution of powers from the provinces to the districts, there is need for devolution of authority from the federation to the provinces (emphasis from the original document) (PML, 2007). It also formed committees on Balochistan in 2005 which held detailed deliberations and gave recommendations but most of its recommendations were never implemented (Khan, 2006). On the issue of abolition of concurrent list, PML (Q) leadership is for progressive approach. It agrees that concurrent list should be abolished but wants to do it in a phased manner. Initially, as Mr. Wasim Sajjad, former leader of the House in Senate and a PML(Q), said it should be slashed from forty seven to around twenty items (Shamim-ur-Rahman, 2006). Recent news reports have confirmed that PML (Q) is arguing for a smaller concurrent list in the SPCCR (Bajwa, 2009). . Muthida Qaumi Movement (MQM) MQM is the fourth biggest party in the parliament after PPP, PML (N) and PML (Q). It is primarily a middle-class party and its leadership is also from middle class, a rarity in Pakistani politics. It grew from an ethnic base and its views on provincial autonomy were initially based on its peculiar political situation. Representing mohajirs, who were and are a minority in Sindh province, it was initially lukewarm on provincial autonomy as giving more power to provinces meant more power to provincial government dominated by Sindhis, who were their main competitors in job, education opportunities and resources in Sindh province. In this situation, federal government appeared to be a natural ally. However, lately MQM has discarded its ethnic-based politics and is now vying for votes of all ethnicities. This change has led it to change its stance on provincial autonomy and now MQM supports powerful autonomous provinces. For example, despite being in government in 2006, it publicly opposed the military operation in Balochistan. Recently, MQM has been on the forefront of provincial autonomy debate. It has convened conferences and submitted a bill on provincial autonomy in the assembly (Shamim-ur-Rehman, 2006). In its latest manifesto, released in 2007, provincial autonomy is the first issue discussed by MQM. MQM calls it the sine qua non for a federation and declares that At present, this unresolved issue of Provincial autonomy is the biggest cause of disharmony and distrust between the federating units of Pakistan. Then, it goes much further than any major political party on the issue of division of powers between the federation and provinces and states that The federation should retain the subjects of Defence(sic), Foreign affairs and currency and all other subjects should fall in the domain of the federating units (MQM, 2007). At another place, MQM also promises that provinces will have full provincial autonomy in accordance with the spirit of the Lahore Resolution of 1940 (Sultan, 2007). Awami National Party (ANP) ANP is part of ruling coalition in the centre and leads he coalition government in NWFP/Pakhtunkhwa. ANPs focus has always been the Pakhtunkhwa and Pukhtuns, although it has tried to broaden its appeal to attract all downtrodden people. This regionalism has meant that provincial autonomy has always been high on the agenda of ANP and this is also confirmed by its manifesto which calls for Protection of the rights and identities of the peoples of all provinces of Pakistan and unrestricted freedom for the development of their cultures and languages. ANP also, not surprisingly, doesnt limit itself to demanding abolishing of the concurrent list but demands Full provincial autonomy with the centre retaining control of defense, foreign affairs, currency, (communications and such other subjects which the federating units agree to) (ANP, 2004). The members of the SPCCR belonging to the ANP and other smaller parties have forcefully propagated their point of view in the committee and have insisted on abolishing the entire concurrent list which they think was a temporary arrangement agreed by the constitution makers in 1973. They had told the committee that concurrent list is the main hurdle in the way of real provincial autonomy as provided in the 1973 Constitution (Bajwa, 2009). National Party NP was founded by former Governor Ghaus Bakhsh Bizenjo and is a progressive party. It has always stood for the Baluch rights and provincial autonomy for all provinces. Senator Mir Hasil Bizenjo of the National Party has rejected deletion of concurrent list as insufficient and said that a new social contract, not autonomy, needed. He is a member of SPCCR and is not happy with its working. Another party member NP Jan Mohammad Buledi said that the condition of Balochistan has worsened. Referring to the return of democracy and apology by President Zardari, he said that there were hopes initially but nothing has changed even after the passage of 18 months (Khan, 2009). Pakistan Tehrik-e-Insaf (PTI) PTI was formed in the late 1990s and was expected to provide a third alternative to the parties of Benazir Bhutto (PPP) and Nawaz Sharif PML (N). However, despite a good program and charismatic personality of Imran Khan, it has failed to get more than a few seats. Looking at its manifesto, one realizes that provincial autonomy has not been given due importance. Perhaps, it is due to the fact that PTI doesnt have much vote bank in smaller provinces. However, on the issue of Balochistan, PTI has opposed the military action and supported more rights for the Baluch people (PTI, 2007). Baluch National Front (BNF) BNF is a nationalist party which wants separation from Pakistan. Therefore, issues like provincial autonomy and concurrent list doesnt interest them. Recently, BNFs deputy secretary general Sadiq Raisani said that the BNF wanted restoration of the status of the Baluch state as it existed on Aug 11, 1947. He termed joining with Pakistan forcible annexation and wanted it undone. He also rejected Balochistan package and said that it had no importance for the Baluch people. (Kasi, 2009) Balochistan National Party (Mengal) (BNP-M) Balochistan National Party, as the name shows, is a Baluch nationalist party working for Baluch rights. Initially, it demanded provincial autonomy and wanted to attain Baluch rights within the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973 but after the latest army action in Balochistan, it changed its stance and its leader, former Chief Minister Sardar Akhtar Mengal, had said that The 1973 Constitution and the concurrent legislature list cannot heal Balochistans wounds (Daily Times, 2008). He had also said that his party does not believe in provincial autonomy and stands for self-determination (Daily Times Monitor, 2009). However, recently he has shown the indication to talk, if provincial autonomy in the true sense of the word is provided and Centre is limited to defense, currency and foreign affairs (Alvi, 2010). Jamhori Watan Party (Talal) (JWP-T) JWP was the party of Nawab Akbar Bugti who always believed in Pakistan and supported the federal government even when Marris and Mengals were up in arm during seventies (Sayeed, 1980). However, he also wanted provincial autonomy for the smaller provinces so that they can make their own decisions and develop using their own resources. After he was killed in the army operation, JWP has been divided into several factions. One of these factions is JWP-T which is led by Bugtis grandson Nawabzada Talal Akbar Bugti. JWP-T has also demanded real provincial autonomy and called Balochistan package a conspiracy to divide the country, prepared at the behest of the killers of Benazir Bhutto and Nawab Akbar Bugti (Kasi, 2009). Pakhtunkhwa Milli Awami Party (PMAP) PMAP was founded and draws inspiration from veteran Pukhtuns leader Abdul Samad Khan Achakzai. Achakzai campaigned for Pukhtuns rights even in British India and was imprisoned by British and successive Pakistani governments (Wikipedia, 2009). His son and current Chairman of the party wants massive constitutional changes so that provincial autonomy is enhanced and Pakhtunkhwa province is formed, consisting of NWFP and parts of Punjab and Balochistan. He has suggested that Senate should have equal powers with national assembly and all important appointments should be made after approval from Senate. On the issue of division of powers between Centre and provinces, he went further than deletion of concurrent list and recommended that Centre should only have legislative, executive and administrative powers relating to defense, foreign affairs, currency and communication and rest of the subjects should be with the provinces (Alvi, 2009) Religious Parties Religious parties in Pakistan are mainly based on sectarian grounds. Examples are Jamiat Ulma-e-Islam (Deobandi sect), Jamiat Ulma-e-Pakistan (Brelevi Sect), Jamiat-e-Ahl-e-Hadis (Wahabi Sect) and Tehrik-e-Nifaz-e-Fiqah-Jafaria (Shia sect). Although, in the last two decades, many of these parties have disintegrated due to personality issues, most of them are still identified by their respective sects. The only prominent non-sectarian religious party is Jamat-e-Islami but even most of its cadres from one sect (Deobandi). As religious parties believe all Muslims belong to one nation. It is difficult for them to acknowledge the importance of ethnic, linguistic and regional differences. Their usual solution to these issues is, as given in Muthida Majlis-e-Amal (MMA) manifesto, to eradicate linguistic, ethnic and regional feelings and create a peaceful society based on Muslim brotherhood. For example, at the height of Bengali nationalism in 1970, when almost the whole of East Pakistan was up in arms against Islamabad, Jamat-e-Islami was still refusing to acknowledge the issue and raising slogans and fighting for Muslim brotherhood (Wikipedia, 2010). However, now as the vote bank of religious parties has reduced from urban areas all over the country to just few areas of Pakhtunkhwa and Balochistan, the two smaller provinces, religious parties have also started talking about provincial autonomy issues. MMA manifesto now not only talks about eradication of differences but also of guaranteeing provincial autonomy and ending of concurrent list (Sultan, 2007). Pakistan Saraiki Party Pakistan Saraiki Party spearheads a movement to divide Punjab province into more than one part and carve a separate province for the Saraiki people of South and West Punjab. Its chairman Mr. Taj Muhammad Langah has campaigned tirelessly for the new province but is, not surprisingly, lukewarm on the issues of provincial autonomy as more provincial autonomy will reduce the need and appetite for radical reform (i.e. creating more provinces) which will bring him closer to his objective. Infact, rejecting other reforms he has said that division of Punjab is the only way to end the exploitation of smaller provinces (Dawn, 2005). IV Three likely scenarios One of the demands of several parties is changing the boundaries of the provinces or creating new provinces i.e. amending Article 1 of the constitution. The SPCCR has already considered this option and reports say that it was rejected (The Nation, 2009). The only change in Article 1 may be inclusion of Gilgit-Baltistan as a new province. Although the demand of creating new provinces or reorganizing provinces on linguistic lines, like India did in the 1950s, is old, popular support for it is not channelized as no major party seems to benefit from it. Pukhtun nationalists have been most vociferous and demanded a bigger Pakhtunkhwa province made up of NWFP, Attock and Mianwali districts of Punjab and Pukhtun areas of North Balochistan but it may lead to loss of Hazara to Punjab and Chitral to Gilgit-Baltistan. Demand of a Saraiki province in Southern Punjab has also surfaced time and again. Several other groups have supported Saraiki demand as it will make federation stronger by making provinces more proportional. Three scenarios are likely in relation to the concurrent list: little or no change, total deletion, and drastic curtailment of the concurrent list. It is difficult to foresee SPCCR recommending little or no change in concurrent list as nationalist parties has said time and again that they will not accept it. However, if such a recommendation is made, it will be disastrous for democracy as well as for the country. Short-term result of such a decision will be intensification in the civil dis-obedience and terrorist activities by insurgents in Balochistan and hardening of the stance of nationalist parties. This violence and failure of the democratic set-up to resolve issues, will give room and incentive to military to move back in the saddle. These developments will also put Pakistan on a slippery slope, not unlike the time in the fifties and sixties, when legitimate demands of Bengalis (like acceptance of Bengali as a national language or more officers in the administrative/military services) were only accepted after much bloodshed and after such delays that even moderate Bengalis had moved on. The second option of deletion of concurrent list is the best option for the country. It will satisfy most of the Baluchs as well as nationalities in other smaller provinces and take the wind out of extremist (Balochistan Liberation Army, Balochistan National Front etc.) demands of self-determination and independence. Politically, it is the best option but whether it can also be justified administratively? Will the governance of the realm suffer or efficiency and effectiveness of the government decreased from the deletion of the concurrent list? Before we try to answer these questions, it is necessary to reaffirm the principle of subsidiarity and the fact that the need for coordination doesnt necessitates involvement of Centre. Provinces can make arrangements to coordinate certain activities among themselves. Lets now analyze the subjects in the concurrent list individually. Concurrent ListAnalysis1. Criminal law, including all matters included in the Pakistan Penal Code on the commencing day, but excluding offences against laws with respect to any of the matters specified in the Federal Legislative List and excluding the use of naval, military and air forces in aid of civil power. 2. Criminal procedure, including all matters included in the Code of Criminal Procedure, on the commencing day. 3. Civil procedure, including the law of limitation and all matters included in the Code of Civil Procedure on the commencing day, the recovery in a Province or the Federal Capital of claims in respect of taxes and other public demands, including arrears of land revenue and sums recoverable as such, arising outside that Province. 4. Evidence and oath; recognition of laws, public acts and records of judicial proceedings. 5. Marriage and divorce; infants and minors; adoption. 6. Wills, intestacy and succession, save as regards agricultural land. 7. Bankruptcy and insolvency, administrators- general and official trustees. 8. Arbitration. 9. Contracts, including partnership, agency, contracts of carriage, and other special forms of contracts, but not including contracts relating to agricultural land. 10. Trusts and trustees. 11. Transfer of property other than agriculture land, registration of deeds and documents. 12. Actionable wrongs, save in so far as included in laws with respect to any of the matters specified in the Federal Legislative List. 13. Removal of prisoners and accused persons from one Province to another Province. 14. Preventive detention for reasons connected with the maintenance of public order, or the maintenance of supplies and services essential to the community; persons subjected to such detention. 15. Persons subjected to preventive detention under Federal authority. 16. Measures to combat certain offences committed in connection with matters concerning the Federal and Provincial Governments and the establishment of a police force for that purpose. 17. Arms, firearms and ammunition. 18. Explosives. 19. Opium, so far as regards cultivation and manufacture. 20. Drugs and medicines. 21. Poisons and dangerous drugs. 22. Prevention of the extension from one Province to another of infectious or contagious diseases or pests affecting men, animals or plants. 23. Mental illness and mental retardation, including places for the reception or treatment of the mentally ill and mentally retarded. 24. Environmental pollution and ecology. 25. Population planning and social welfare. 26. Welfare of labor; conditions of labor, provident funds; employer's liability and workmen's compensation, health insurance including invalidity pensions, old age pensions. 27. Trade unions; industrial and labor disputes. 28. The setting up and carrying on of labor exchanges, employment information bureaus and training establishments. 29. Boilers. 30. Regulation of labor and safety in mines, factories and oil- fields. 31. Unemployment insurance. 32. Shipping and navigation on inland waterways as regards mechanically propelled vessels, and the rule of the road on such waterways; carriage of passengers and goods on inland waterways. 33. Mechanically propelled vehicles. 34. Electricity. 35. Newspapers, books and printing presses. 36. Evacuee property. 37. Ancient and historical monuments, archaeological sites and remains. 38. Curriculum, syllabus, planning, policy, centres of excellence and standards of education. 39. Islamic education. 40. Zakat. 41. Production, censorship and exhibition of cinematograph films. 42. Tourism. 43. Legal medical and other professions. 43A. Auqaf. 44. Fees in respect of any of the matters in this List, but not including fees taken in any court. 45. Inquiries and statistics for the purpose of any of the matters in this List. 46. Offences against laws with respect to any of the matters in this List; jurisdiction and powers of all courts except the Supreme Court, with respect to any of the matters in this List. 47. Matters incidental or ancillary to any matter enumerated in this List. The first four subjects relate to laws and it is always better to have uniformity of laws as it helps understanding and aids enforcement & application of justice. However, Pakistan Penal Code and other procedures are based on British Indian Penal Code of 1860. It was the strength of this code that not many significant changes were made in it till 1947. Even after independence, both India and Pakistan are using this code for the last sixty years, with few changes. What will happen if this subject is devolved? If we look at the quantum of changes made by India and Pakistan in this code in the last sixty years, despite the cataclysmic changes since independence, we can reasonably predict that the changes made by provinces in future will also be small, which can be coordinated among provinces. Marriage & divorce in Pakistan are based on Islamic precedents so provinces will not have the much freedom to change them. Provinces can either coordinates their laws on bankruptcy, wills, trusts, arbitration and various types of contracts or simply decide to honour each other laws based on place/person involved. Transfer of property and actionable wrongs can be dealt better at provincial level. This item can easily be coordinated between two provinces as and when required. This subject may be dealt by provinces as maintenance of public order in their responsibility. The first item in the Federal list includes preventive detention for reasons of State connected with defense, external affairs, or the security of Pakistan or any part thereof; person subjected to such detention. So, this addition in the concurrent list is superfluous. When nothing specific is known about a subject, it should not be part of legislative lists. It maybe left in residuary powers. Provinces can coordinate their laws on arms and explosives. Already provinces issue firearms licenses and every province honours licenses issued by other provinces. Cultivation of opium is more or less prohibited so this item maybe discarded. The two subjects relating to drugs may be shifted to federal list to save money. This can easily be coordinated between provinces as and when required. It is difficult to see why mental illness and its treatment cannot be managed by provinces like other illnesses and treatments. Ecology and pollution are inherently related to a specific place so they might be treated at provincial level Population planning is a cultural issue so it can be better dealt at a lower level. Social welfare, welfare of labour, trade unions, labour disputes, setting up of labour exchanges and boilers/mines issues can be better dealt at provincial level than at federal level. Unemployment insurance is linked with local conditions and is a social welfare measure so it should also be left for provincial governments to decide. Inland shipping is similar to road traffic so as road traffic rules are made by provinces, inland shipping rules and mechanically propelled vehicles may also be dealt by them. This is one subject which can be transferred to Federal list part II Each province maybe allowed to make its own rules. There is no need of coordination or uniformity. Evacuee property archaeological sites/monuments are related to local customs and traditions so provinces are better placed to deal with them As education is a provincial subject, it is more pertinent to keep curriculum, syllabus and Islamic education with provinces. Rather than establishing centres of excellence itself, a much better option for federal government is financing such centres in provincial universities. Banks and other bodies should be asked to directly transfer Zakat funds to provinces as they can maintain a better Zakat distribution system and coordinate it with their other social welfare measures. There is no immediate or significant benefit of federal government making laws for production or censorship of cinema. Province can attract more tourists because they have better local knowledge. Health is a provincial subject so control of its professional side might also be left with the provinces. This subject is related to religious shrines. There is no need of coming up with one law/policy related to religious shrines. Each province can make its own laws/policies. The last four subjects are ancillary to other subject in the list. Therefore, if there are no other subjects, there is no need of these subjects. It is clear from the above analysis that deletion of the concurrent list will not affect the efficiency and effectiveness of Government of Pakistan in any major way. To make this change smooth and without interruptions, Parliament can give three months time between the constitutional approval and actual deletion so that necessary changes in laws and regulations can be made. The third option of partial deletion of concurrent list is the golden middle but it will not satisfy the nationalist parties. It will not make much difference administratively, if ten or fifteen subjects of the list are retained but politically, it will weaken support for moderate nationalists and reinvigorate extremists who are demanding right of self-determination. The political situation in Balochistan is especially precarious and demands that Centre should go out of the way to placate Baluchi people who have suffered a lot during the last sixty years. Recommendations Federations come into being because of two simultaneous powerful impulses of shared rule and self rule. The strength of these impulses decides the distribution of powers between the Centre and the federating units. Impulse of shared rule demands regions or countries to give up some of their powers and unite with others while self rule impulse wants them to be as autonomous as possible. The strengths of these impulses depend on many factors. Out of these factors, two are very important: the degree of homogeneity and the way the federation has come together. In relatively more homogeneous federations, like Australia, the impulse of shared rule is more powerful while in heterogeneous federations, like India, regions give importance to their own autonomy. The process of formation of a federation also influences desires of shared and self rule. When federations are formed by previously independent states, desire of self rule is pre-dominant and division of powers is skewed towards federating units. Examples of this kind of federations are United States and Australia. On the other hand, when a unitary state is forced to give away powers to regions, Centre will retain most of the powers. Examples of such federations are Belgium and Spain (Watts, 1999). Division of powers in Pakistans constitutions can also be understood as interplay of these two factors. One look at the racial map of Pakistan makes it clear that it is a heterogeneous society. Each of the regions and nationalities comprising Pakistan has a distinct culture, ethnicity, language, traditions and history. Only around ten percent of Pakistanis accept Urdu, the national language, as their mother tongue. A recent study compared countries on the basis of their homogeneity and colonial demarcation of boundaries and came up with a list of artificial states. Out of one hundred and sixty countries, Pakistan was declared the twelfth most artificial state (Alesina, 2006). Analyzing from a historical point of view, the formation of Pakistan was not the result of desire of independent states for shared rule. Although Pakistan started as a federation in legal terms, it was working more like a unitary state under India Act of 1935. Only Punjab and Bengal had a reasonable long experience of political leadership. Sindh and NWFP had only recently become provinces and Balochistan didnt have a provincial assembly at the time of independence. Moreover, even in case of Punjab, landed aristocracy, that provided most of the members of assembly and all of the premiers of the province, had close links with the British and looked to Governor for guidance (Yasmeen, 2006). Therefore, only Bengal province in Pakistan could claim a political class at the time of independence. West Pakistan was governed by bureaucracy (mainly Indian Civil Service (ICS)) who thought themselves inheritors of imperial mantle. After independence, as is the case with other unitary states becoming federations, Centre gave away some powers to the provinces but still remained pre-dominant. So, while heterogeneity supports desire of self-rule, history of formation process of Pakistan supports shared rule impulse. The result should have been a middle way but as this was not adopted and division of power remained skewed toward Centre, Pakistan was divided in 1971. Unfortunately, the current Pakistan is still extremely heterogeneous, with a multiplicity of ethnicities, nationalities and languages. The civil-military bureaucracy that used to rule Pakistan before 1971 is still very much in control and democratic governments are not allowed to work. Balochistan situation has given a wake-up call to our rulers to change their relationship with the smaller provinces and SPCCR can be the vehicle of change by deleting the concurrent list. However, the real change will not come from deletion of concurrent list or federal list, it will only come if militarys political role and federal bureaucracy critical role in provinces is eliminated. A lot has been written on the militarys political role in Pakistan and its effects on smaller provinces but the part played by federal bureaucracy (mainly District Management Group and Pakistan Police Service) in decreasing provincial autonomy has not been highlighted. In the current administrative system in operation in Pakistan, almost ninety percent of all the highest positions in provinces (Secretaries and Additional Secretaries of departments) are manned by the federal bureaucrats. Similarly, at the district level, almost eighty percent of the district coordination officers and district police officers in all provinces are federal officers. Invariably, these officers are from Punjab as Punjab has a quota of more than fifty percent in federal services based on having fifty six percent of Pakistans population. Political leaders want changes in constitution and laws but people are affected by policies and their implementation and in Pakistan, policy-making and its implementation, for the last sixty years, are in the hand of a very small group of officers belonging to Punjab. These officers are very learned and extremely efficient and effective but they belong to Punjab and work for the Centre so there is no confusion about where their loyalties are. It is about time that nationalists in smaller provinces, not only demand constitutional changes but also promote their own provincial services or demand that if an officer is assigned to one province, (s) he will serve in that province for the rest of his/her service as is the case in India. This will at least help develop a loyalty with the province one is working in. Most of the indications coming out the SPCCR meeting point toward the deletion of the concurrent list or a specific date of deletion in the near future. The SPCCR is going to announce its recommendations in March so after March, Pakistan will probably have only one legislative list, giving powers of the federal government and all the residuary powers will be left to the provinces. References Ahmed, Iftikhar et. al. 2007. National Finance Commission Awards in Pakistan: A Historical Perspective. Pakistan Institute of Development Economics Working Papers. Islamabad Alesina, A. 2006. Artificial states. NBER Working Paper No. 12328. Accessed from NBER website HYPERLINK "http://www.nber.org/papers/w12328" http://www.nber.org/papers/w12328 on 11th January, 2009 Alvi, Mumtaz. 2009. Achakzai urges massive constitutional amendments . The News. 29th June. Alvi, Mumtaz. 2010. Provincial autonomy to resolve Balochistan issues: Mengal. The News. 15th January. ANP. 2004. Manifesto of the Awami National Party. Accessed from ANP website HYPERLINK "http://awaminationalparty.org/news/index.php?option=com_content&task=blogsection&id=5&Itemid=27" http://awaminationalparty.org/news/index.php?option=com_content&task=blogsection&id=5&Itemid=27 on 25th December 2009. Asghar, Raja. 2006. Parties hit impasse on concurrent list. The Nation. 6th November. Accessed from HYPERLINK "http://www.nation.com.pk/pakistan-news-newspaper-daily-english-online/Politics/06-Nov-2009/Parties-hit-impasse-on-concurrent-list" http://www.nation.com.pk/pakistan-news-newspaper-daily-english-online/Politics/06-Nov-2009/Parties-hit-impasse-on-concurrent-list on 10th January, 2010. Ayua, Ignatius Akaayar and Dakas C. J. Dakas. 2005. Federal Republic of Nigeria. Dialogues on Distribution of Powers and Responsibilities in Federal Countries Series. Accessed from the Institute of Federalism website HYPERLINK "http://www.federalism.ch/files/categories/IntensivkursII/nigeriag1.pdf" http://www.federalism.ch/files/categories/IntensivkursII/nigeriag1.pdf on 29th January 2010. Bajwa, A. 2009. Parties hit impasse on concurrent list. The Nation. 6th November. Islamabad. Daily Times. 2008. The 1973 Constitution and the concurrent legislature list cannot heal Balochistans wounds. 8th June. Accessed from Daily Times website HYPERLINK "http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2008%5C06%5C08%5Cstory_8-6-2008_pg7_5" http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2008%5C06%5C08%5Cstory_8-6-2008_pg7_5 on 12th January. Bajwa, S. 2009. 17th Amendment. Weekly Pulse. Accessed from Pulse website HYPERLINK "http://www.weeklypulse.org/pulse/article/4727.html on 18th January 2010" http://www.weeklypulse.org/pulse/article/4727.html on 18th January 2010. Bakshi, P. M. 2002. Concurrent powers of Legislation under List III of the Constitution under List III. Unpublished paper for National Commission to review the working of the Constitution. Accessed from Ministry of Law, Indias website HYPERLINK "http://lawmin.nic.in/ncrwc/finalreport/v2b3-3.htm" http://lawmin.nic.in/ncrwc/finalreport/v2b3-3.htm on 20th January, 2010. Daily Times. 2009. BNP not for provincial autonomy. 19th May. Accessed from Daily Times HYPERLINK "http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2009%5C05%5C19%5Cstory_19-5-2009_pg7_30" http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2009%5C05%5C19%5Cstory_19-5-2009_pg7_30 on 12th January 2010 Dawn Report. 2005. Seraiki province demanded. Dawn. Accessed from website HYPERLINK "http://www.dawn.com/2005/04/03/nat17.htm" http://www.dawn.com/2005/04/03/nat17.htm on 17th January, 2009. Dawn Report. 2006. Opposition terms it Musharrafs retreat: Leaders criticize speech. Dawn. Accessed from website HYPERLINK "http://www.dawn.com/2006/01/18/top3.htm" http://www.dawn.com/2006/01/18/top3.htm on 17th January, 2009. Dawn Report. 2009. Parliament panel agrees to abolish Concurrent List. Dawn. 7th November. Election Commission of Pakistan website HYPERLINK "http://www.ecp.gov.pk" www.ecp.gov.pk Ghauri, I. 2009. 27-member body set up for constitutional reforms. Daily Times. 24th June. Kasi, Amanullah. 2009. Balochistan nationalists reject package. Dawn. 25th November. Khan, M. H. 2009. New social contract, not autonomy, needed. Dawn. 15th October. Islamabad Ghaus, A. 1995. Implications of a New NFC. Social Policy and Development Centre. Karachi. Government of Pakistan. 1997. Report of the NFC 1996. National Finance Commission Secretariat. Islamabad Harrison, S. 2009. Will Pakistan Break Up?. Remarks by Harrison at Carnegie Endowment for International Peace seminar in June. Accessed from HYPERLINK "http://www.carnegieendowment.org/files/0609_Remarks_Harrison.pdf" http://www.carnegieendowment.org/files/0609_Remarks_Harrison.pdf on 25th January, 2010 International Centre for Nigerian Law (ICFNL). 2009. Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria. Accessed from the ICFNL website HYPERLINK "http://www.nigeria-law.org/ConstitutionOfTheFederalRepublicOfNigeria.htm" www.nigeria-law.org/ConstitutionOfTheFederalRepublicOfNigeria.htm on 27th January 2010. Khan, M. Ayub. 1967. Friends Not Masters. New York: Oxford University Press. Khan, Hamid. 2001. Constitutional and Political History of Pakistan. Karachi: Oxford University Press. Khan, S. B. 2006. Unanimous call for dialogue on Balochistan. Dawn. 12th December. Accessed from Dawn website HYPERLINK "http://www.dawn.com/2006/12/12/top1.htm" http://www.dawn.com/2006/12/12/top1.htm Kundi, M. A. and Arbab Mohammad Jahangir. Federalism in Pakistan: Issues and Adjustment. Asian Affairs. HYPERLINK "http://www.cdrb.org/journal/2002/3/2.pdf" http://www.cdrb.org/journal/2002/3/2.pdf Lakshman, K. 2007. Deadlock in Balochistan. Accessed from website HYPERLINK "http://www.satp.org/satporgtp/sair/Archives/3_43.htm" http://www.satp.org/satporgtp/sair/Archives/3_43.htm on 14th January, 2010. Longley, R. 2010. Federalism: National Vs State Government. Accessed from website HYPERLINK "http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/rightsandfreedoms/a/federalism.htm" http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/rightsandfreedoms/a/federalism.htm on 17th January, 2010 Mahmood, Dr. Safdar. 1989. Constitutional Foundations of Pakistan. Lahore: Jang Publishers. Metz, H. C. ed. 1988. HYPERLINK "http://lcweb2.loc.gov/frd/cs/iqtoc.html" Iraq: A Country Study. Washington, DC: Federal Research Division of the Library of Congress. Accessed from HYPERLINK "http://www.shsu.edu/~his_ncp/Iraq.html" http://www.shsu.edu/~his_ncp/Iraq.html on 31st January 2010. MQM. 2007. MQM Manifesto Election 2008. Karachi. National Assembly. 2009. SPCCR meets and Parliamentary Committee on Constitutional Reforms elected Senator Mian Raza Rabbani as Chairman. Accessed from National Assembly website HYPERLINK "http://www.na.gov.pk/press_release_comm.html" http://www.na.gov.pk/press_release_comm.html No name. Federalism in British India. From HEC website HYPERLINK "http://prr.hec.gov.pk/Chapters/1601-2.pdf" http://prr.hec.gov.pk/Chapters/1601-2.pdf Accessed on 1st January, 2010. PILDAT website HYPERLINK "http://www.pildat.org" www.pildat.org PML. 2007. Manifesto of Pakistan Muslim League 2008. Islamabad. PPP. 2002. PPP Manifesto. Accessed from PPP website HYPERLINK "http://www.ppp.org.pk/manifestos/2002.html" http://www.ppp.org.pk/manifestos/2002.html on 22nd December 2009. PPP. 2006. Charter of Democracy. Accessed from PPP website HYPERLINK "http://www.ppp.org.pk/elections/cod.html" http://www.ppp.org.pk/elections/cod.html on 22nd December 2009. PTI. 2007. An Agenda for Resurgence: Manifesto of PTI. Accessed from PTI website HYPERLINK "http://www.insaf.pk" www.insaf.pk on 13th January 2010. Sayeed, K. B. 1980. Politics of Pakistan. New York: Praeger Publications. Shamim-ur-Rahman. 2006. Call to announce autonomy framework before 07 polls. Dawn. Accessed from Dawn website HYPERLINK "http://www.dawn.com/2006/02/26/top3.htm" http://www.dawn.com/2006/02/26/top3.htm Sultan, Ali. 2007. Promises to Keep. Special Report, NOS. The News. 9th November. The Nation. 2009. Reform body opposes new province. The Nation. 5th September. The Republic of Rumi. 2009. PM Speech 1956. Accessed from website HYPERLINK "http://therepublicofrumi.com/archives/56_pm1.htm" http://therepublicofrumi.com/archives/56_pm1.htm on 30th December 2009. Watts, R. L. 1999. Comparing Federal Systems. Kingston: McGill-Queens University Press Wapedia. 2009. India Act of 1935. Accessed from Wapedia website HYPERLINK "http://wapedia.mobi/en/Government_of_India_Act_1935" http://wapedia.mobi/en/Government_of_India_Act_1935 on 17th January 2010 Wikipedia. 2009.Abdul Samad Khan Achakzai. Accessed from Wikipedia website HYPERLINK "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdul_Samad_Khan_Achakzai on 16th January 2010" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdul_Samad_Khan_Achakzai on 16th January 2010. Wikipedia. 2009. Bangladesh Jamaat-e-Islami. Accessed from Wikipedia website HYPERLINK "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdul_Samad_Khan_Achakzai on 16th January 2010" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdul_Samad_Khan_Achakzai on 16th January 2010 Yasmeen, S. 2006. Communal Politics in Punjab (1925-1947). Unpublished PhD Thesis. Baha-ud-Din Zakaria University. Zaidi, S. A. 1992. Regional Imbalances and National Question in Pakistan. Lahore: Vanguard Publications. When there was confusion about whether a particular subject belongs to Centre or to a province, courts were not allowed to adjudicate on it, as is the usual practice in federations. It was the Governor General who decided these issues. These services had special rights and no adverse order could be passed against them without the prior approval of the Governor. They also had right to appeal to the Secretary of State if such an adverse order has been passed. [Joint Committee on Indian Constitutional Reforms (1934) pages 30-31, para 51, quoted in Mr. Justice E. S. Venkataramiah and P. M. Bakshi, Indian Federalism(1992) page 85 para 7.13]. Masculine pronouns have been used not inadvertently but because of the fact that all of the persons concerned were male. In 1955, to deny East Pakistan, the most populous provinces, majority in the legislature, all the other provinces, tribal areas and some princely states were combined into one-unit. The principle of parity was then introduced under which both East and West Pakistan had equal members in the legislatures under 1956 and 1962 constitutions . The 17th amendment in the constitution was passed in 2003 to legalize all the actions/changes in laws/rules/regulations done after the imposition of martial law on 12th October, 1999 and before the elections and composition of new government in 2002. Charter of democracy was signed by PPP and PML(N) as an agreement on broad rules to ward of future military interventions. Due to this order of secrecy, party positions/proposals submitted to the SPCCR on different constitutional issues and discussions in SPCCR are not available. Therefore, for the purpose of this paper, party positions have been gleaned from party manifestos and public statements of party position holders. Similarly, reference to SPCCR discussions are based on newspaper reports and not on official records. Its exact translation in English is Start of the (giving of) the rights of Balochistan. However, Balochistan nationalists might have a different view about PPP, due to the military action ordered by PPP founder Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto in the seventies. Party position of different parties in the current parliament is given in Annexure-VI. Principle of subsidiarity is an important federal principle. It contends that matters ought to be handled by the smallest, lowest or least centralized competent authority. PAGE PAGE 2 > ? @ A E I S Z y z 嵧xgUK@5 h/ hP CJ aJ h/ h{C CJ aJ hoR h{C 5>* #hoR h{C 5>*B*CJ aJ ph hoR h