It is amusing to see those people who applauded and some of those who shamefully abetted the action in East Pakistan, now shedding crocodile tears on how the division of the country could have been avoided. I lived through those days in Lahore as a student, a young economics teacher and a writer of sorts. The people condemning the action were few and far in between. The dominant section of the press supported the action as a befitting response to the machinations of the so-called Indo-Soviet lobby. Progressive elements were also divided along the Moscow and Beijing lines. Political leaders and workers echoed the patriotic propaganda. Some went as far as to deploy vigilante groups to put the fear of Moses in the “Hinduised” hearts of the Bengalis. Ordinary folks had no idea of the facts on the ground and were completely sold to the absolute essentiality of the action to save the country.
In welcoming economists congregating for a conference at the Dhaka University in 1959, Justice Hamoodur Rahman, then vice-chancellor, subtly presented the problem of East Pakistan: “situated as we are, some thousand miles away from the capital city of our country, we are still somewhat undeveloped and backward and cannot, as such, play hosts to you in as befitting a manner as we would like to”. Bangladesh was not formed in one day. It had long been in the making. I wrote an article, “Political economy of regional autonomy” in The Pakistan Times, making a case for the acceptance of the six points of the Awami League. Some 40 years on, I still remember its last lines: “Pakistan is a case of two brothers minding their own business most of the time and [minding] each other’s business some of the time”. There was a sharp reaction. Mr Reza Kazim, then a member of the PPP’s central committee, wrote a quick rebuttal. Most disturbing at a personal level, my colleagues — all very respectable names — dubbed me as an agent of Sheikh Mujibur Rahman. Only the publisher, Hussain Naqi, and the late Khadeeja Gauhar, backed me.
In the collective wisdom of Pakistan today, its geographically contiguous provinces requires a large quantum of autonomy under the 18th Amendment. Our younger generation would find it hard to believe that any mention of autonomy for East Pakistan, a thousand miles away, with a country considered an enemy in between, was nothing short of a treasonable offence. Economists, an important part of the intelligentsia, were also polarised. In his address at the annual conference of the Pakistan Economic Association held in 1955 at the University of Peshawar, Professor Ahmad Mukhtar of the same university noted that in the event of war, the land and sea links between the two wings would be cutoff. The solution proposed by him was to allow the two wings to attain complete self-sufficiency in the essentials of life. His fears came true within a matter of 10 years in 1965, when the war drowned in the Bay of Bengal the strategic doctrine of defending East Pakistan in West Pakistan.
What came to be known as the Dhaka School of economists articulated the position that economic planning in Pakistan could not proceed on the assumption of one economy. The reason, elaborated in a special conference held in Dhaka on the first five-year plan, was the immobility of labour and the low mobility of goods between the two wings. Again, in a conference held on the second five-year plan, East Pakistani economists attempted to clarify that two economies did not mean two countries. Economists from West Pakistan, however, stressed the need to maximise growth in terms of one economy; the distinction between one or two-economies was academic. The governor of East Pakistan, a central government representative, was dismissive: “The progress and prosperity of Pakistan is linked up closely with the concept of one country, one nation and one economy”. No wonder, the panel of economists on the fourth five-year plan split along regional lines and the economists from East and West Pakistan presented separate reports. A similar panel on the third plan failed to present any report.
The failure to accept two economies resulted in two countries.
Published in The Express Tribune, December 17th, 2011.
COMMENTS (19)
Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.
For more information, please see our Comments FAQ
It appears to me Pakistan's sole destiny and purpose of existence (and creation) is to prove how one human being cannot live with another. The 1947 partition was promoted by the 2 nation theory which said people of two religions - Hindus and Muslims - cannot live as a single nation. With 1971 it proved that two communities cannot live together due to cultural differences (albeit the same religion). And today we see sectarian killings which are trying to prove that two different religious sects - Shia and Sunni - cannot live together (albeit belonging to the same religion and having same culture). Wonder how long this saga will continue and where it will take Pakistan.
@G. Din: I am not sure why you are so upset with the conclusion of the article. The author makes a very strong and persuasive point by highlighting the misdeeds of the Pakistani government/s in 1950s and 1960s. Let us recognize our mistakes. Yes! There was economic disparity and also flight of capital. The entrepreneurs were mostly Karachi based and extensively benefited from taxation policies. So if Mujib was asking for a separate currency, there was a point. Adding insult to the economic disparities was the arrogance of our state functionaries (no disrespect towards anyone). You may look at the following work. Raunaq Jahan: Pakistan: A failure in National Integration. I think it came out in 1973 or 1974 and was published by Columbia University Press. There was also one by Abdul Islam or Abdul Salam who had worked for Pakistan Planning Commission and later became finance minister of Bangladesh. Both of these were their doctoral dissertation at Columbia and Cambridge respectively. You may also look at two other works one by a civilian officer and other by a military officer. I am forgetting the title at the moment. The authors were Hasan Zahir or Hasan Zahir and Arshad Hakim Qureshi. There was one in urdu by either by Masood or Majid Mufti but it was more polemical, however gives you an insight into the bureaucratic arrogance. The gentleman was the last chief secretary of the province. I forget the title; it was either Ankhain or Nazrain. Your example of German integration does not make much sense over here. Integration and disintegration are two separate processes.
@G. Din
Spot on!
Within the 1st 11 years of Pakistan we had more leaders from East Pakistan then the west. Seed of Bangladesh was planted when our democracy was ceased by Pakistan army. History all ways have example to learn. A very similar case was building at the same time in Provence of Quebec Canada. Like muktibahini, Canadian also faced The Front de libération du Québec (FLQ; English: Quebec Liberation Front). FLQ demand was similar like Mujeeb like René Lévesque [1] (August 24, 1922 – November 1, 1987) was 23rd Premier of Quebec (November 25, 1976 – October 3, 1985). He was the first Quebec political leader since Confederation to attempt, through a referendum, to negotiate political separation for Quebec. His idea of separation failed, He resigned from the party. When he died he gets the highest honors by Canadian from all parties. This is democracy.
Mosiqar
The last sentence of the author: "The failure to accept two economies resulted in two countries." is absolutely the most wrong conclusion reached and if I daresay, the most fatal doctrine to base one's nationhood on. Not only that, it is also quite impractical in the real world, for in any sizable country there will be "rich" and "poor" areas and regions. India was -and continues - to be no different. Let me suggest to the author to make a case study in economics of the German reunion. When that event took place recently, the differences between East Germany and West Germany were stark to the point of being grotesque. Per author's conclusion, there should have been no reunion because for all practical purposes these were entirely two different economies and should have remained separate. So, were West Germans idiots who not only accepted their impoverished Eastern neighours but welcomed them and proceeded to pump in its resources to build up their economy? No, they were not. It may set them back for a while but eventually they will surge forward with the additional pool of talent and other kinds of resources now available to the unified country which shared its history, culture, language. Then what happened in Pakistan? Simply, the assumed sole basis- religion - of its nationhood proved to be fallacious. Author should have drawn that so obvious conclusion but it would militate against common mythical fantasies of ummah and khilafah in which followers of Islam indulge. No Muslim has that much courage. One wonders what would have been the standing of Pakistan in the world today had it made a success of itself against the obvious odds. It would have been a case study of the will to succeed. That would have needed much hard work. Naah, it would never have worked!
Don't cry over split milk, its been 40 years now. Let's move on and think on the current issues.
The Decade of Development (1958-68) of the Ayub era blessed East Pakistan now Bangladesh with four cadet colleges, namely:
Faujdarhat Cadet College - Chittagong (1958) Ayub Cadet College - Rajshahi Jenidah Cadet College - Jessore Momenshahi Cadet College - Tangail
Names must have been changed now.
While during the same period there were only three cadet colleges established in West Pakistan, namely, Petaro, Hasan Abdal & Kohat.
This was a grass root effort by the late general to remove disparity. He went on to raise the East Bengal Regiment that adorned the Royal Bengal Tiger as the color of the regiment.
One should be large hearted to give credit where credit is due!
@sk:
What are these numbers supposed to mean?
Before going into any comment, it should be noted that during the years between 1960 and 1965, the annual rate of growth of the gross domestic product per capita was 4.4 percent in West Pakistan versus just 2.6 percent in East Pakistan. Furthermore, Bengali politicians pushing for more autonomy complained that much of Pakistan's export earnings were generated in East Pakistan by the export of Bengali jute and tea. As late as 1960, approximately 70 percent of Pakistan's export earnings originated in the East Wing, although this percentage declined as international demand for jute dwindled. By the mid-1960s, the East Wing was accounting for less than 60 percent of the nation's export earnings, and by the time of Bangladesh's independence in 1971, this percentage had dipped below 50 percent. This reality did not dissuade Mujib from demanding in 1966 that separate foreign exchange accounts be kept and that separate trade offices be opened overseas. By the mid-1960s, West Pakistan was benefiting from Ayub's "Decade of Progress," with its successful "green revolution" in wheat, and from the expansion of markets for West Pakistani textiles, while the East Pakistani standard of living remained at an abysmally low level. Bengalis were also upset that West Pakistan, because it was the seat of government, was the major beneficiary of foreign aid.
Sir, can you please expose the lies that East Pakistan was a burden on West? In fact it was the other way around if one cares to look at the numbers. Thanks and regards, Mirza
Religion isn't a binding force . Culture and Language are . We Bangladeshis have a lot of problems , religious disharmony isn't one of them .
We - in West Pakistan, did not want the majority winner of elections - Sheikh Mujibur REHMAN and his party to assume power. As long we held power, the rules applied. But not when the "lesser" - "hinduised" Bengalis won a fair election. Till today, we refuse to acknowledge the racism we practiced, the discrimination we promoted and the genocide we perpetrated. These are hard and undeniables facts from which we cannot escape.
Great article, and I agree with everything you said, except the conclusion: The failure to accept two economies resulted in two countries.
The seeds of Bangladesh were sown further back in the Two-Nation theory. The ideology of this theory is that people of different religions "cannot coexist in a harmonious relationship" (Muslim League's words, not mine). But once that pandora's box was opened, it was a certainty of time that by induction this would be applied to linguistic, cultural, and eventually regional differences. The economic differences were merely a reflection of these other differences.
This is also the reason that Pakistani society imposes intense pressure to conform with lower threshold of tolerance of differences -- the theory needs homogeneity to sustain the country.
I love the honesty and truthful logic here. Dr. Mubashshar Hassan has written an article in yesterday's paper about this subject with the actual numbers. How we spent less than 1/3 on East P and they were brining in more than us in foreign exchange. I was also termed a traitor whenever I tried to talk to people about the democratic rights of Bengalis, just like today we are called Zardari's agents if we support the ongoing democracy.
PT,
Devolution yes, But the Six Points? Could you remind us what they were? If my memory serves me it demanded that except for defense and currency issues, everything else would be devolved.
What does that sound like to you?
Not to mention the hash we have made of fiscal devolution in what remains of Pakistan. Every province is off to the races in a competitive dash to spend, spend, spend with no effort to raise revenue! Each province, even the richest one, is in deficit and debt. Not to mention in over-draft to the central bank.
It is a complete disaster with no conditionality and no matter what parameters are agreed to in the NEC meeting. It is the death-knell of any kind of fiscal discipline that we could have achieved.
insightful article...you pay the price for short sightedness. the world will not hand over the cake to you.
We have been idealist throughout our short history. One nation, one flag, one language has been our mantra before and after the independence. We have continued on the same idealistic path with hawkish claims but little or no acts. Bangladesh separated and we reverted to the religious zeal claiming to restore a system of governance and economy that dates back to the seventh century and having no roots in our own cultural tradition. Dr. Sahib, I am not sure if it is my age but I am getting very cynical, frustrated, and disillusioned with developments in Pakistan. Every new day dawns with something unique happening in Sar Zamin Shad baad. I am not sure how long Hafiz Jalandhari’s ultra-nationalistic marching tunes will keep pumping air in otherwise empty pipe-bags.