I know the mainstream literature in both Bangladesh and Pakistan consider it the main prelude to 1971 but it's not, trust me. Language movement was mainly spearheaded by Tamaddun Majlish, an Islamic organization based in Dhaka and its members were fierce supporters of Pakistan Movement. It could at best be considered an anti-government movement but not anti-state. And as I said, there were such anti-government incidents in West Pakistan as well at that time, so there's no reason to single out East Pakistan only.You are a bit wrong my friend the language was one of the maim reason for this partition we can't deny that fact it was used. Urdu was never a language of certain ethnic majority in Pakistan cause Pakistan in different areas had a different language. People had Sindhi Punjabi Pashtoon Kashmiri Baloch Bengali all spoke different languages.
If you persist, then let's just agree to disagree.
Again, I'm focusing on the period from 1958 onward. I'm not interested in discussing the earlier events for reasons I've already stated earlier.Regarding your power sharing politics do you realize that Pakistan of that time was a democracy. Development done in the east Pakistan was higher than west so the reasons of power sharing being a cause are not valid.
You are saying there was more development in East, most Bangladeshis will say it was more in West. Pakistan saw its greatest economic and development growth during Ayub Khan's time, in both wings, yet he's considered a villain in Bangladesh for suppressing democracy. Ironically, the same people argue democracy should take a back-seat to make way for development, in support of Hasina's rule.
These are all narratives. And such narratives are created and disseminated by those who hold power. It's pointless to argue who's right or who's wrong. What we need to do is analyze the underlying conflict, that is, the disagreement between the politicians of both sides which eventually led to the break-up (and the dissemination of opposing narratives).
My view is that this disagreement could have been sorted out by developing an effective power-sharing mechanism that I mentioned earlier. And there lies Ayub Khan's main flaw: the failure to reach an agreement between the two sides, despite the enormous economic growth achieved during his rule.
It's purely incorrect to say power is only held by one person, democracy or not.Secondly if you make power sharing a cause then it also imply that this all was done to feed the ambitions of one person as power only goes to one person & democracy gives power to people.