Class Notes (839,079)
Canada (511,183)
POLI 322 (59)

POLI 322 oct 10.docx

5 Pages

Political Science
Course Code
POLI 322
Narendra Subramanian

This preview shows pages 1 and half of page 2. Sign up to view the full 5 pages of the document.
POLI 322 – Lecture Notes October 10, 2012 -midterm: covers material up to and including formation of Bangladesh  80 minutes (2:35 – 3:55) SIGNIFICANCE -only secession between WWII and 1989 -unfavourable circumstances:  initial enthusiasm about parent state  parent state in control of seceding region  no collapse of parent state  parent state determined to prevent secession -favourable condition: neighbour state open to military intervention -seemed to be widespread support for formation of Pakistan in area which would come to be Bengal -those who opposed it left the region, so opposition declined -other regions in South Asia where there was reluctance to join the new states in which they were incorporated (e.g. Kashmir, NWFP) -conditions that seemed more favourable to secession in these regions -parent state was in control of the region until the last minute -Pakistani state had managed to establish control in East Bengal -parent state hadn’t collapsed; it wasn’t like the communist regime of the former Soviet Union -it was determined to prevent secession -wasn’t a situation where 2 units were willing to go separate ways and there was no resistance -major favourable condition: India was willing to support secession  not just support it, but even invade and get involved in the war -India’s invasion wouldn’t have happened and wouldn’t have led to secession if there hadn’t been widespread support for secession in Bangladesh HISTORICAL BACKGROUND TO AUTONOMISM -Pakistan Movement’s ambiguous status in Bengal  initially weak  grew strong in 1940s by promising autonomy -sources of discontent with Pakistani regime  inadequate Bengali incorporation in elite  unequal economic relations with West Pakistan  language policy  dismissal of Bengali Nationalist Coalition Government  limited provincial autonomy -the imposition of authoritarian rule closed of the electoral route to political power -by the late 1960s, the world market for jut declined -this made the economic situation worse in East Bengal -1954: coalition of Bengali nationalist parties was elected to govern East Bengal -Awami League was formed at the same time, and would later lead the movement to form Bangladesh -by 1955 the government was dismissed (as were the state governments in Pakistan) BENGALAUTONOMISM: ORANIZATIONS AND DEMANDS -main organizations:  Awami League; leader = Mujib-ur-Rehman  Krishak Sramik Party; leader: Fazul-ul-Haq -main demands:  Bengali as additional national language  increased representation in state institutions  considerable autonomy  retention of foreign exchange in East Pakistan  separate paramilitary/military forces for provinces  equalization of East-West economic relations  democratization -1965: 2 goals; adding Bengali as a national language, and giving it increased representation in state institutions -after 1965, opposition grew -East Pakistan: movement was led by nationalist groups, led by the Awami League -demand for federalism, establishment of clear relations for provincial autonomy -wanted everything except defence and foreign affairs to be provincial -wanted the foreign exchange generated through exports to be retained in East Bengal  by means of either 2 types of currencies or 2 separate accounts -sometimes autonomous movements make such demands because they really want secession but fear repression if they demand that, so they demand something just short of that -other movements will demand a lot but be willing to negotiate for much less -between 1965 and 1970, chances are the majority of Awami League leaders were aware that they were unlikely to get all their demands and were willing to negotiate -1970: first national elections, Awami League swept the East (won all but 2 seats), and since East Pakistan had just more than 50% of the population, Awami League had an overall national majority -having won the majority of seats, they had a shot at ruling the country as a whole, or sharing the power by means of a coalition -a share of power at the national level might make them back off from the extent of autonomy they demanded for the provinces -some West Pakistani elites hoped this would happen -however, the majority of the bureaucracy and military in the old regime and the new elected leaders demanded of the Awami League to not push for so much autonomy OP
More Less
Unlock Document

Only pages 1 and half of page 2 are available for preview. Some parts have been intentionally blurred.

Unlock Document
You're Reading a Preview

Unlock to view full version

Unlock Document

Log In


Join OneClass

Access over 10 million pages of study
documents for 1.3 million courses.

Sign up

Join to view


By registering, I agree to the Terms and Privacy Policies
Already have an account?
Just a few more details

So we can recommend you notes for your school.

Reset Password

Please enter below the email address you registered with and we will send you a link to reset your password.

Add your courses

Get notes from the top students in your class.