Bengal71
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Sep 21, 2018
- Messages
- 4,535
- Reaction score
- -11
- Country
- Location
Well West Pakistani leadership wanted to stay united on THEIR terms. Which meant Bengalis would have to play second-fiddle and tag along as underclass in every national affair while West Pakistanis (especially Punjabis) blatantly and overtly dominated in the armed forces, in civil service, in every facet of administration.
That would not have been very good for Bengalis....as it turned out.
Level of fairness for equity (and needed administrative sophistication) was already lacking by late 60's with Islamabad politicians. West Pakistanis politicians actually started preferring an 'Idhar hum + Udhar tum' solution. Of which the Bhutto negotiations with the Sheikh were an outside expression. When talks broke down, plans for 'unity' (as you mention) broke down too.
One cannot stay 'united' when the terms being dictated are unequal.
This is in stark contrast to how govt. administration situation in India proceeded...the states themselves have tremendous power of self-administration. The center is in charge of foreign affairs, printing money and defense matters, among other things.
Pakistan lacked that level of sophistication, and things really went South (Banana-Republic-wise) when the army took over courtesy of Ayub Khan.
That is exactly what I meant. United in their terms and the rest was the cause of dismantling of democracy and the army men taking over the state. Punjabi politicians probably had same problems to some extent but them being politicians means there's room for politics to give a chance. If Pakistan remained under politicians and elected rulers this would not have happened.
I personally think that the army is behind every woe of Pakistan.