16December – the blackest day in Pakistan’s history – has come and gone. There was not even a token remembrance of this day of shame at the national level in Pakistan. Only a couple of seminars were arranged by some research institutes and NGOs where learned speakers even after 50 years, did not unequivocally condemn the military action/genocide and the shameful surrender by Pakistani forces.

They instead indulged in polemics of numbers and the role India played in dismembering the country. Does it matter now whether the number of killed was 35,000 or a million, or ‘only’ 5,000 women were raped and not 100,000? India – our declared enemy No. 1 – did what it had to do in a situation created by our paranoid rulers.

They did not have the courage to tell the audience that there would have been no Pakistan if Bengalis, represented by Maulvi Fazlul Haq had not supported the Lahore Resolution in 1940, and if SH Suhrawardy had refused to accept the ‘typographical’ error (‘state instead of states’) in 1946 in the AIML meeting in Delhi.

They also did not tell the audience that the same Suhrawardy (who was the Prime Minister of Bengal till 14 August 1947 and enjoyed huge popularity), was unseated from the Constituent Assembly of Pakistan on flimsy grounds and was almost declared persona non grata.

They also did not have the courage to say that from day one, the bureaucratic-military alliance, dominated by Muhajirs and Punjabis, treated East Pakistanis as secondclass citizens, and their aspirations and expectations as part of an independent nation, were spurned with contempt. Whether it was their legitimate share in political power, allocation of resources, national integration, language or culture, they felt a sense of deprivation from the very beginning.

Learned Pakistani speakers also did not tell the audience that East Bengalis’ love for Pakistan was more profound than any other province because they were the most exploited people, firstly at the hands of the rapacious East India Company, who after the Battle of Plassey, reduced prosperous Bengal to penury, and secondly by landlords and business interests, who had initially partnered with Britishers and later on continued loot and plunder on their own.

It was unfortunate that most (West) Pakistanis believed that Bengalis were lesser Muslims as their culture and language was dominated by Hinduism, and Ayub Khan had the guts to say that they “have all the inhibitions of downtrodden races”. The obnoxious propaganda that the debacle of 1971 took place because Hindu teachers had brainwashed the Bengali youth still persists. It was also unfortunate, that with few exceptions, no voices were raised by West Pakistani leaders or intelligentsia against the military action, and the destruction which came in its wake. As a matter of fact, most of them were in cahoots with the Pakistan army.

Now let us come to another important point. Is it not a fact that from the mid-1950s West Pakistani ruling elite started considering the eastern part as a liability and threat to their rule? Initially they exploited the foreign exchange earned through jute export, but then thought that rampant poverty and absence of infrastructure in Bengal would require huge resources which would hamper the progress of the Western wing.

They also realized that sooner or later a constitution would be framed, followed by general elections. Since the eastern wing had 55 per cent of the then population, the national assembly and federal government would naturally be dominated by them. What happened between August 1947 and December 1971 is a sad story of power play, shenanigans, intrigues and betrayals to stop dominance of East Pakistanis in national politics.

Most Pakistanis treat Ayub Khan’s rule as the ‘golden period’. In mid-sixties, even acclaimed economists had declared Pakistan as a ‘model of development’ for third world countries. But it is ironic that in 1971, the same people found that Bangladesh was a basket case. And a basket case it was. Over 40 million people crammed in 54,000 square miles, East Bengal being a deltaic country had a history of natural disasters i.e. floods and cyclones, resulting in food shortages and frequent famines. Over-population, poverty, disease, hunger and lack of infrastructure was a daunting challenge for any government.

Initially, Bangladesh faced the twin-menace of political and economic instability as well. It was not easy for a poor country to come out of the trauma of a costly war of ‘liberation’. To top it all there were problems of military interventions, poor governance, institutional vacuum, corruption and polarization in society.

Given all these factors, these difficulties looked unsurmountable, but from 1980s onwards growth picked up. Initially it was lacklustre, but once it was on track, there was no looking back. Since the beginning of the new millennium, Bangladesh’s growth momentum has not declined. To the surprise of many, its economy grew 8 per cent in the past fiscal year even surpassing those of India and China. Its exports have touched $40 billion and foreign exchange reserves are impressive. In one of his recent articles, Prof SM Naseem of Quaid-e- Azam University has pointed out that apart from steady GDP growth, Bangladesh has achieved significantly higher progress in terms of social indicators. As a matter of fact, given its level of economic development, Bangladesh has over-performed in social development. Special mention needs to be made about the population’s growth rate of 1.1 per cent per year, and rise in average life expectancy surpassing those of India and Pakistan by 4 and 6 years respectively.

Compared to Bangladesh, where does Pakistan stand today? After three or four superficial cycles of high growth, we are back to square one. This year if we achieve a GDP growth rate of 1.5-2 per cent, it will be a miracle. Our exports remain stagnant at $25 billion. Our foreign and domestic debts have crossed all limits and foreign exchange reserves are down to $15 billion.

Having a population growth of 2.1 per cent and youth bulge of 60 per cent, we are sitting on a demographic time bomb. In HDI, we are at serial number 140. Whether it is routine immunization, infant mortality, gender balance in primary and secondary education or sanitation, we are almost at the bottom and regressing.

A question can be asked: if Bangladesh had remained a part of Pakistan could it have become a ‘development surprise’ in a generation’s lifetime, or would it have remained as under-developed as most parts of Pakistan are even after 73 years of independence?

The writer is a retired Pakistani civil servant who had served in erstwhile East Pakistan and as Chief Secretary of Sind. He is Chairman of Saiban Action Research for Shelter, Karachi.