Comments by "agon noga" (@agonnoga6100) on "ThePrint" channel.

  1. 14
  2. 13
  3. 13
  4. 13
  5. 12
  6. 12
  7. 12
  8. 12
  9. 12
  10. It was Ayub Khan and not Bhutto or Yahya Khan who planted the seeds of Pakistan's breakup. Bhutto was trying to defend Sindh and had good reasons for opposing Mujibur as PM. East Bengal joined Pakistan on the condition that it'll remain an autonomous region in Pakistan. This like the promise to Balochistan was forgotten after formation of Pakistan state. East Bengal which became East Pakistan used to have a higher GDP than West Pakistan in 1947 till early 1960s. East Pakistan gradually became a colony to prop up West Pakistan and its military where Bengalis had negligible presence. Situation of Sindh then and today was very similar to East Pakistan with large economy and little presence in Pakistan Army. Mujibur's 6 points demand was basically two countries under one flag. After Mujibur's big victory in 1970 election the West Pakistanis particularly Bhutto got unnerved as they knew autonomy of East Pakistan would mean Sindh bearing the burden of funding Pakistan government and its humongous military. This is why maximum opposition to Mujibur came from Bhutto and not Yahya Khan who was open to the idea of autonomy to East Pakistan. Mujibur was also open to the idea of two PMs under one flag hence the accusation that Bhutto wanted to be PM doesn't holds good. The reason for breakup of Pakistan was economic. A Bengali economist from Harvard had predicted breakup of Pakistan in 1960 to Ayub Khan, the then military dictator of Pakistan. PS: Yahya Khan was a dimwit propped up by Ayub Khan to keep the president seat warm. He was a drunkard and no leader.
    11
  11. 11
  12. 11
  13. 11
  14. 10
  15. 10
  16. 10
  17. 10
  18. 10
  19. 10
  20. 10
  21. 10
  22. 10
  23. 10
  24. 10
  25. 10
  26. 10
  27. 9
  28. 9
  29. 9
  30. 9
  31. 9
  32. 9
  33. 9
  34. 9
  35. 9
  36. 9
  37. 9
  38. 9
  39. 9
  40. 9
  41. 9
  42. 8
  43. 8
  44. 8
  45. 8
  46. As per 1946 cabinet mission plan, India was not supposed to be governed centrally by one political party. As per this plan only defense, communication, currency and foreign affairs would be governed centrally and rest would be governed by the states. This plan was accepted by both Congress and Muslim League but vehemently opposed by business houses profiteering under the centralized British rule. Since Congress was aided, funded and guided by these business houses it had to withdraw its consent to the 1946 cabinet mission plan. Withdrawal of Congress from the cabinet mission plan led to the demand for Pakistan by Muslim League. Therefore India was not partitioned for religion but to save the monopoly of few business houses over the Indian economy. This part of Indian history is completely missing from our history books. Both India and Pakistan are not one nation state but a union of nation states. This is why the constitution of India defines India as a union of states and not a nation state. Centralized rule will lead to some states capturing power in the central government to the detriment of states who don't have the numbers to gain political power. Political marginalization leads to economic, social, cultural and nearly every other forms of marginalization. Centralized rule is basically continuation of colonial rule. In a diverse disparate subcontinent like India, at least economic power needs to rest with the states. The central government needs to be formed with representatives from every state in the union of India and not one political party representing only certain ethnic, religious, linguistic groups in the subcontinent.
    8
  47. 8
  48. 8
  49. 8
  50. 8