I doubt I'd disagree with that, but your initial statement that started this whole thing off, was to prove that discrimination actually HAD occurred, not that it was a perception amongst them. If it's a perception, it was created by the brainwashing by the leaders, which means that real discrimination did not exist. So their reason for separation was baseless. They preferred to believe they were being discriminated against because one of "their own" was telling them. Not very "brotherly" of them at all.
My initial statement was nothing but wikipedia quotes.
The perception of discrimination wasn't created by "brainwashing", as you term it, but by concerns that any state withing a multi-ethnic country would have.
Instead of addressing these concerns, Pakistan continued to drag its feet.
My points regarding military representation and government jobs
still stand.
If Pakistan had shown perhaps a little understanding, and declared Bengali as a subsidary language, nobody would have complained.
I've explained about the East being funded by private investors, leading to the larger GDP. If you can't understand it, then you naturally think this point of yours still stands.
OK first of all I have taken your word your claim that all the GDP was generated by private investors, which you haven't backed up.
You are not understanding my points, but simply trying to refute them using any means possible.
East pakistan was the most populous province, generated the most GDP, and naturally deserved the greater amount of government spending. How is that not logical?
As far as West Pakistanis owning some industries, won't they be taxed?
Did you see the Pashtuns taking up arms en masse to defeat the Pakistan army, or creating a language movement to have Pashto instated as the national language. No, it's never happened. Before you start going on about FATA, I'll remind you that Fata is only a small proportion of Pashtuns, a couple of tribes, 90% of the tribes are not hostile to the Pakisatani government, and the same with Balochistan. East Pakistan it was more like 90% of the people were hostile to the Pakistani Army, a completely different situation.
I do know that the writ of the Pakistani state does extend to FATA, and was seriously compromised in Balochistan.
FATA was a part of Pakistan only in name. Those 90% Pashtun tribes also know that they don't have follow Pakistani laws.
You cannot use it as an example.
I mean comeon, if you had allowed East Pakistan to have its own laws, I"m sure they wouldn't have complained much. Get my point?
Neither can you use Balochistan.
Look man, again you are not trying to understand the situation but hell-bent on out-arguing me.
East Pakistan was thousands of Kilometres away from the west. Naturally, it would have to be treated differently than the rest of Pakistan.
I had made my earlier point about the lack of cultural ties between the west and the east due to large distances, which you have chosen to ignore.
IMO these 2 Pakistans were a stupid idea in the first place. It never a viable state.
It is true that Bengali is written in a different script to Urdu, but it fits the grammar and syntax of Urdu, which is why it's classed as Indic. it's much easier to learn up these new words and fit them into the Indic class of language than it would be to learn Pashto and then try and learn Urdu. The two languages are completely different.
Do you know why Bengali professors and academics were massacred by the Pakistani army? It is they who were expressing their anger about the non-usage of Bengali.
The point isn't whether Urdu is easier to learn or not. It is that the East Pakistanis considered Urdu as an alien language, and they wanted to use Bengali instead.
Different societies have different perception about what's fair.
For example, Rajasthanis never complained about the use of Hindi for official purposes, but Tamils did.
The reason was that there were a sizeable number of Tamil intellectuals who could shape popular thought, and hence pride in their language and culture.
Also, the fact that the capital was located in the north led them to believe that they were being shortchanged.
Eventually, a compromise had to be worked out to keep the federation intact.
Now, would you call Tamils intolerant people?
He wasn't an ethnic Kashmiri at all. He was born in Dhaka, Bangladesh..look it up (don't use wiki).
He was born in Dhaka, but he was an ethnic Kashmiri.
In the same way that Yahya Khan was born in Punjab, but wasn't Punjabi.
The clinching fact is that he studied at Aligarh, in India, and Cambridge.
His identity was Pan-Pakistani, not Bengali. I am not convinced that the Bengalis identified with him.
This simply proves that he was born in East Pakistan. It says nothing about his ethnicity or his affiliations.
LOL. Bogra wasn't an iranian. He too was born in Dhaka. Does he look Iranian to you?
He was of Iranian
descent. An elite Nawabi family which spoke urdu and didn't enjoy the loyalty of the Bengalis.
Yes, he looks perfectly Iranian.
Suhrawardy is perhaps the closest you'll get to being a non Bengali from Bengal. But he too was born in bengal, Calcutta and so was a Bengali. A person from bengal was still allowed to rule Pakistan, and he was fluent in Bengali (as were the other two).
Obviously, one cannot be from Bengal and not speak the language.
The question is of affiliations and identities.
I can speak English, but that doesn't make me loyal to Britain.
Suhrawardy again was urdu-speaking. He only learnt Bengali in later life.
Needless to say he didn't have popular support in East Pakistan.
Punjabis were in fact the last to join Pakistan and were not of the core units that formed Pakistan.
They got the capital, the lions share of army recruitment and government jobs.
Why wouldn't they be happY?