Addressing a youth parliament event, Senate Chairman Raza Rabbani proposed that apprehensions of the Baloch people, that they would be demographically converted into a minority as a result of the population census, should be looked into through a possible legislation. His view was that the right of vote of immigrants should be limited to the place of origin, instead of Gwadar. Almost a decade back, Gen Musharraf had also offered the same gambit to the people of Balochistan. Similar concerns have also been echoed by Sindh.

A deluge of non-local population in Sindh and Balochistan has raised the anxieties of the local population; the data of 1998 census explains the reasons. Sindhi speaking were approximately 60 per cent and Balochi speaking were 55 per cent in their respective provinces. The census data gives credence to their apprehensions.

What Raza Rabbani has suggested can address their concerns in part at least. The fear of becoming a numerical minority is one of the triggers of the ongoing insurgency in Balochistan and a protracted political discontentment in Sindh. While insurgencies can be quelled by using force, public sentiments remain bruised. Movements having roots in chronic injustice leave indelible marks on minds.

Balochistan has remained under heavy influx of the Afghan population for decades. The porous border with Afghanistan has drastically altered the demographic landscape of the province. A large number of illegal immigrants from Afghanistan mix easily with the local Pashtun community, swelling their head count in the census as many of them have obtained citizenship documents.

The Baloch population is apprehensive that development of Gwadar Port and implementation of the CPEC schemes could pave way for a fresh spate of population influx. The government of Balochistan has formally communicated to the Bureau of Statistics that its concurrence to the next census is contingent upon expulsion of Afghan immigrants.

Similarly, Sindh went through an unprecedented upheaval in 1947 when the province was catapulted by cross border migration. According to the census of 1941, native Sindhi, Seraiki, Dhatki, Thari etc. population was 3.9 million out of total 4.5 million i.e. over 86 per cent population of the province was speaking native languages. The creation of Pakistan triggered massive migration on both sides of the border. As a corollary, Sindh’s demography went through a sea change.

Five decades down the road in 1998, Sindhi and Seraiki speaking local population constituted approximately 63 per cent of the total population in Sindh. It means the local population’s shrunk by nearly 23 percentage points.

Adverse swing of the population pendulum is evident from the fact that since 1941, the native population increased five times whereas the non-local population has swollen approximately 20 times. Hence every single local person added in Sindh’s native population was outnumbered by four non-locals. This indicates that the inflow of population to Sindh remained unabated throughout the period.

Karachi was forcibly detached from Sindh in 1948 and made the first capital of the country against all wishes and demands by the native population. Discriminatory laws pertaining to purchase of property systematically alienated the native population depriving them of their engine of economic growth and political power. Over the years, Karachi emerged as the only economic magnet of the country, mainly because of its ports and the ensuing trade, commerce and industry. This made Karachi a bewitching city for immigrants from other provinces and countries.

Census results of 1998 created ripples of concern among native population. In the post-census years, new streams of population flew into the province. Within a few years, Afghanistan was invaded by the US and its allies that triggered more emigration. Later, two military operations in Swat and North Waziristan displaced a large number of people. A large number of these migrants also found Karachi a delectable destination.

The ethnic composition of Karachi has visibly changed and that has also been a root cause of communal violence in the city during recent years. A jittery local population is thus genuinely concerned for its thinning share in the overall population of the province. This is time to contemplate some concrete legislative fencing for native populations in all federating units.

Indian Kashmir, for example, has protected the native population by maintaining prohibition on purchase of land by any non-local. This restriction was introduced by the Dogras who bought the territory from the British in 1846 under the Treaty of Amritsar. Although Indian constitution and the constitution of Indian Kashmir do not explicitly stipulate such restriction, the old rule is still in vogue. Nehru defended the rule in Indian parliament in 1963. He said, "that is an old rule coming on, not a new thing, and I think that it is a very good rule which should continue, because Kashmir is such a delectable place that moneyed people will buy up all the land there to the misfortune of the people who live there; that is the real reason and that reason has applied ever since British times and for one hundred years or more."

Such exceptions are not uncommon. Sri Lanka and Malaysia have also special provisions to safeguard the rights of native communities. Leadership of Pakistan movement also demanded certain constitutional guarantees to protect political and economic interests of Muslims in the united India. One such precedent is provision of quota system in our constitution.

Pakistan can become a tenable federation by recognising similar exceptions to provide specific safeguards to privileges and rights of non-local population. Constitutional provisions of Articles 15 and 21 protecting right to freedom of movement and property are often misconstrued as unconditional rights. In fact both the articles entail a caveat "subject to any reasonable restrictions imposed by law in the public interest".

This proviso empowers provinces to introduce an appropriate legal framework to safeguard public interest of their population as suggested by Rabbani. Modalities can be debated in the Council of Common Interest to develop consensus on such emerging realities.

Census can also be made non-controversial by detaching it from certain advantages and replacing population with some other indicators to decide the share of the federating units especially in the finance award.

Size of the pie in the national finance award and seats in the national and provincial assemblies are two enticing reasons for provinces to jostle for greater share in national population. This has transformed the census from being the data source for national planning to a politically volatile substance. Thus, pegging census with resources’ distribution only is a completely flawed approach for a federation like Pakistan, which is perhaps the only country where population has remained initially a sole and now a dominant determinant of national finance award.

Till the secession of East Pakistan, Punjab benefited through the parity principle where East Pakistan having 56 per cent population was equated with the rest of the country having 44 per cent population. After the debacle of East Pakistan, Punjab found itself a numerical majority in the new country; therefore it took a 180 degree turn and imposed population as the sole criterion for national finance award. It was only after the relentless hue and cry of the three smaller provinces that Punjab reluctantly agreed to allocate some weightage to other indicators. Yet the bulk of allocation (82 per cent) is still latched on to population.

A pertinent example to this effect is India’s formula of national finance award. In the 14^th national finance award, India assigned only 17 per cent weightage to population. To cater for demographic transition, it assigned 10 per cent weightage to demographic changes as per the census of 2011. India also used the census data of 1971 as the basis to determine population-based share in the finance award. This formula effectively delinks census from the finance award as its impact is insignificant.

Pakistan is mired in an unrelenting political ineptness of the ruling elite. A federation created by the provinces has a chequered history of ambivalent relationship between the provinces and the federation. Overdue reforms to run the country as a fair federation should not be delayed further. Politically and economically satiated provinces would guarantee a progressive, peaceful and prosperous federation.