Tell me more ×
History Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for historians and history buffs. It's 100% free, no registration required.
up vote 2 down vote favorite

In 1947, Both India and Pakistan were given independence from Britain. India was able to establish Hindi as its national language with minimal problems. Pakistan on the other hand, was created with mutual understanding between East and West, (Muhammad Ali Jinnah was from West Pakistan and Sir Nawab Salimullah, the founder of Muslim League was from East Pakistan). However, in 1952, when Pakistan declared Urdu its national language, a language mainly used by the people of West Pakistan, it was hugely opposed by the people of East Pakistan, who spoke Bengali.

My question is, why did the people of East Pakistan decide to revolt so early while Indian people successfully embraced Hindi? Was it an Indian conspiracy to agitate the people of East Pakistan or was it the East Pakistani population failing to understand the value of keeping the country united?

share|improve this question
4  
Flawed assumption here : Hindi is one of the many (18, I think) official languages in India. (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Languages_with_official_status_in_India) Describes the opposition to Hindi as the sole official language in India. – apoorv020 May 10 '12 at 11:51
2  
@BROY I don't really understand the last line of your question. What does "Was it Indian conspiracy or docile Indian people or Ignorance of East Pakistani population?" mean? – Russell Nov 13 '12 at 14:36
Would you answer the question if I correct my question or are u just policing? – BROY Nov 13 '12 at 14:38
@BROY, No I'm just policing. My knowledge of India and Pakistan is not very good. Sorry. – Russell Nov 13 '12 at 14:49
IMO, the bit about Hindi should be removed from the question due to its factual incorrectness. It is also not really all that pertinent to the question either. – coleopterist Nov 14 '12 at 8:09

3 Answers

up vote 7 down vote

Frankly a country made up of two large population lobes completely separated by 3000 kilometers of relatively hostile neighbor (or twice that in ocean) is bound to break up eventually. It just logistically can't work out very well, and culturally they are bound to start going their separate ways. I'm unaware of any country like that in history that lasted for a decent length of time. (OK...there was Burgandy, but the distances were shorter, it never really achieved the "kingdom-hood" it was shooting for, and it was felt it couldn't without joining up its territory somehow).

So really what specifically they picked to fall out over I don't think matters much in the long run.

Also, it should be noted that the language issue in India wasn't as simple and peaceful as you're making out either. English is an alternative "official language" there, and individual states can make their own. Additionally India has had the advantage of being able to march their army into any complaining provinces to restore order. From wikipedia:

The Indian constitution, in 1950, declared Hindi in Devanagari script to be the official language of the union. Unless Parliament decided otherwise, the use of English for official purposes was to cease 15 years after the constitution came into effect, i.e., on 26 January 1965. The prospect of the changeover, however, led to much alarm in the non Hindi-speaking areas of India, especially Dravidian-speaking states whose languages were not related to Hindi at all. As a result, Parliament enacted the Official Languages Act, 1963, which provided for the continued use of English for official purposes along with Hindi, even after 1965.

In late 1964, an attempt was made to expressly provide for an end to the use of English, but it was met with protests from states such as Tamil Nadu, West Bengal, Karnataka, Pondicherry and Andhra Pradesh. Some of these protests also turned violent. As a result, the proposal was dropped, ...

share|improve this answer
I would like to add a point here. India has many official languages .at union it can either English or Hindi. But in states it wholly depends on the state government .for example, in karnataka,where i stay,the official languages is Kannada ,not Hindi or English . And we should not forget the fact that the states were later reformed on linguistic lines avoid clashes between people of different linguistic origins . – kartshan Apr 19 '12 at 2:17
OK. But what happened only within 5 years in EP? – BROY Apr 19 '12 at 8:20
2  
@Saqib - Again, I don't think the time is all that significant. The two sides had different cultures, and there has never in all of history I'm aware of been a country like that. When one side tried to impose its language on the other, the other did exactly what one would expect them to do. 5 years just happened to be the time it took Pakistan to get around to trying to impose their language. – T.E.D.♦ Apr 19 '12 at 13:36
up vote 4 down vote

Apart from the fact that they were both Muslims, the people of the former East and West Pakistan were basically different people. The people of West Pakistan were more Caucasian and spoke Urdu, while the people of East Pakistan were more "Asian" and spoke Bengali. In the latter respect, the people of East Pakistan (now Bangladesh) were more like their immediate Indian neighbors than like West Pakistanis.

Resentments began when the capital of the combined country and the official language, Urdu, was claimed by West Pakistan, even though East Pakistan actually had a majority of the people. These institutional arrangements led over time, to West Pakistan receiving a lion's share of foreign capital and other economic benefits. By 1951-52, after five years or so of this "unfairness," the resulting dissatisfactions crystallized into an East Pakistani independence movement led by Mujib Al Rahman and his Awami league. The seething rebellion finally boiled over in 1970-71 when a major flood crisis focused international attention on "East Pakistan" and the Parliamentary elections that put the Awami league in power. http://storyofpakistan.com/the-separation-of-east-pakistan/

MOST Indians were Hindu, which made it easier for them to rally around Hindi as the official language, even though many of them spoke different languages. Also, "India" is one contiguous country while the two "Pakistans" were not. This made it possible to distribute benefits more fairly in India to the non-Hindi Indian population. Finally (based off of the comments below), India allowed its different areas to use their own languages, while "Pakistan" did not with East Pakistan. Meanwwhile the geographical split of Pakistan led to a "polarization" of benefits, and of public opinion.

share|improve this answer
You are more closer than the previous answerer. Clarify these and get an acceptance (1) If the people of two areas had different ethnicity, why didn't East Pakistan join India in the first place? Why did it take 5 years to recognize the fact that they are different that WP? (2) Did India instigate the 1952 Language Movement? If yes, how? (3) If Indians can unite on the basis of Hinduism, why WP and EP can't on the basis of Muslimism? – BROY May 12 '12 at 14:38
1  
@BROY: East Pakistan had a different religion than the Indians, and a different ethnicity than the West Pakistanis, so they preferred to join NEITHER. Indian (with Hinduism) were less different linguistically, and ethnically and geographically from each other than to the two "Pakistans." It's mainly a matter of degree. – Tom Au May 12 '12 at 16:42
1  
@BROY: Added a new paragraph that hopefully clears things up. Also, to amend my previous statement, the East Pakistanis ULTIMATELY preferred "neither" even though they preferred West Pakistan INITIALLY. The non-Hindu Indians didn't go through the same disillusionment as the East Pakistanis, and hence didn't rebel against India. – Tom Au May 12 '12 at 20:08
1  
@Tom Au I Don't agree that Indians were less different linguistically. In fact, Indians are very different linguistically,ethnically . In fact there has been movements within India to have different nations and they failed because India took a major decision to divide states on linguistic basis and gave the local state government the power to name its own official language. so there are many official languages in India . Also i can tell you, language plays more important role in binding people than religion,in many parts of India. – kartshan May 13 '12 at 2:37
2  
@BROY: I say that the 1952 Language Movement led (much later) to the 1971 Independence War. The two are related. – Tom Au May 13 '12 at 13:54
show 2 more comments
up vote 0 down vote

Sepration of east pakistan from west pakistan is on religous or ethnic basis. In muslim religion their are many communites, In pakistan their are mainly shiya and suni communities. In west pakistan most of muslim are shiya while in east pakistan mostly are sunnis.

Due to political exclusion, ethnic and linguistic discrimination and economic neglect by the politically dominant western wing, popular agitation grew and gave rise to a secular cultural nationalist movement, leading to the declaration of independence and Bangladesh Liberation War in 1971.

share|improve this answer
I'm not sure you're addressing the original question about Urdu, but esp. the point about west Pakistan muslims being mostly shiya is an interesting one. Perhaps you can edit and thus further improve your answer. Thx. – Drux Jan 1 at 19:34
I find this is a good answer, but you should focus more on the language aspect. You talk about linguistic discrimination, why don't you expand on that? Good start and welcome! – astabada Jan 1 at 21:12

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.