What's new

16th December 1971: From East Pakistan to Bangladesh

Not sure if this was posted before. Who is S.G. Jilanee? Looks like he writes for Dawn newspaper in Pakistan.

http://archives.dawn.com/weekly/encounter/20051210/encounter4.htm

The fall (and rise) of Dhaka

By S.G. Jilanee

O, what a fall there was my countrymen!
—Julius Caesar Act 3 Scene II


THE morning in Chittagong on December 16, 1971 was chilly. There was some fog, too. But people of all ages had begun to pour out from their homes since dawn and line up along the main trunk road from Dhaka. Celebrations had started the previous night as news of the surrender of the Pakistan army came over the radio. But now the excitement was beyond control. The crowd awaited the arrival of the Indian troops. As the fog lifted and the first truck of a convoy came into view a thunderous roar of “Joi Bangla” from the multitude rent the air.

Cheerful faces glowed with a sense of victory (vijoi). The pall of gloom that had enveloped them for more than eight months had disappeared. The old Dhaka had fallen and a new Dhaka arisen from its ashes. A province had become a country. Bangladesh was born. And people were welcoming Indian troops as their liberators.

Liberators? Standing wrapped in a shawl among the crowd, I was lost in a reverie. Events from the past flashed on memory’s screen. In 1947, these same people had celebrated the birth of Pakistan and freedom from Indian hegemony with similar unbounded succes fou.

In the 16th century it was Emperor Humayun’s troops that were trapped and routed in these parts; now it were Pakistan’s. The planners of military action then and now were from the same part of the country, smug, self-sufficient, ignorant of the cast of the Bengali’s mind.

Bengalis are a spirited people with an acute sense of self-respect. They furiously resent tyranny. In the 19th century when a Hindu zamindar in the 24-Parganas district of (now West) Bengal attempted to levy subscription for Durga Puja from his Muslim ryots, Titu Mir rose in an armed revolt against him and gave his life fighting. And, in 1975, when Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, founder of Bangladesh, whom they had hailed as Bangabandhu (Friend of the Bengalis), tried to become a dictator, they killed him without a qualm.

Bengal had always been divided on “communal” lines; the eastern part predominantly Muslim; the western, Hindu. Lord Curzon partitioned the province on those lines in 1907. But it was annulled four years later after violent Hindu agitation. The cultural divide is manifest in their language and even their cooking. They use different spices and different names for curries.

So, when A.K. Fazlul Haq moved the Pakistan Resolution, the Bengalis hoped that their dream, shattered when the separation of Bengal was annulled, would now be realized. For instance, when, during his tour of north Bengal, Jinnah stopped by the wayside near the level crossing of the Natore railway station and asked the crowd that had gathered to greet him, “apni ki Pakistan chahen? (Do you want Pakistan?),” there was a crescendo of “yes!” A pillar with Jinnah’s words in Bengali was erected at the spot to commemorate the event.

Another flash. Direct Action Day on August 16, 1946. The Bengal Muslim League appeals for a complete hartal in Calcutta, and suburbs. The Hindus, instigated by the Congress and Hindu Mahasabha, resist the Muslim League’s call. The face-off ignites, what the Statesman called, “The Great Calcutta Killing.”

Bengalis become the first to give their blood for Pakistan and set the pace for its birth. Calcutta killings trigger anti-Hindu riots in Noakhali and the adjoining areas of the Chandpur subdivision of Comilla district. The Hindus in turn wantonly massacre Muslims in Bihar after which Pakistan becomes a settled fact.

And the same people were now welcoming Indians as their liberators. The mood of the Bengalis had begun to sour quite early. Mass outflux of Hindu officials after the partition had caused a vacuum in the administration in East Pakistan. There were few Muslim Bengalis in superior jobs even in provincial administration; in federal government services scarcely any. The only Bengali ICS was T.I.M. Nurunnabi Choudhry. So, while the federal government departments already overflowed with non-Bengalis, swarms of officers from West Pakistan swooped upon East Pakistan, occupying most of the superior administrative positions. The Bengali felt disappointed.

But what irked him most was their behaviour. The British were colonialists, yet they gave them respect and empathized with their aspirations; the West Pakistanis saw no need for that. That music and dancing were part of Bengali culture was not seen in good light.

The Muslim ‘ryots’ of big landlords in Bengal, also, were unlike the “kammis” of West Pakistan. No Hindu zamindar or Muslim nawab could exercise droit de signeur over the wife or other womenfolk of his “ryot” as they did in West Pakistan. Nor had Bengali Muslims suffered the like of a Ranjit Singh. And finally, the land of Faraizi Movement least needed any lecture about how to be “good Muslims.”

In 1948, the founder of Pakistan made his controversial declaration that “Urdu, — and Urdu alone, shall be Pakistan’s national language.” It ignited a prairie fire of nationalist sentiments which translated into the “language movement.”

In 1952, Dhaka’s police superintendent, Masood Mahmood ordered his men to fire on an unarmed procession of protesting students, killing four. It gave further boost to Bengali nationalism and the Awami Muslim League, later Awami League (AL), was founded. Maulana Abdul Hameed Khan Bhashani and Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, two fire-brand demagogues took command. Bhashani had led a violent protest against cow-slaughter in Goalpara district of Assam before partition. Mujib was cutting his teeth. They took the people by storm.

In 1954, the ruling Muslim League was routed by the AL-KSP (Krishak-Sramik Party). It was followed by dismissal of provincial government, imposition of governor’s rule, the Agartala conspiracy case, the six-points, “gherao-jalao” against Ayub, 1970 elections, political stand-off, break-up of negotiations, army action and, finally, the declaration of the birth of Bangladesh in the wee hours of March 26, 1971.

While the major political and economic factors had paved the way for independence, smaller incidents had contributed to buttress it. These included the mistreatment of Khwaja Nazimuddin, Maulvi Tamizuddin Khan and Suhrawardy and Fazlul Haq.

Then there was the Bihari factor. Because east Bengal was expected to become Pakistan, many people from Bihar had fled to settle there after the Bihar massacre. The Biharis identified themselves more with the West Pakistanis than the Bengalis, and both spoke Urdu. They made little attempt to assimilate with the local populace. So a distance between the two communities developed which became gradually wider.

In 1954, as soon as the AL-KSP government was formed, there were violent anti-Bihari riots in the Adamjee Jute Mills in Narayanganj. The incident was a clear signal of the shape of things to come. But being sure that the West Pakistanis would protect them the Biharis kept the blinkers on. To make matters worse, in 1971 they went all out to assist the Pakistan Army.

This morning I mused on their ultimate fate as I recalled how during the first few days after the launch of the army action when Chittagong was under Mukti Bahini control, many Biharis and West Pakistanis were brutally killed in Pahartali Railway workshop, Chandraghona and Kaptai.

Quaid-i-Azam’s portentous pronouncement again came to mind. He thought that Muslim Bengalis would one day be lured by the Hindus to secede from Pakistan and merge with West Bengal. This did not happen. East Pakistan became Bangladesh, not even “East Bengal.” If there is anything that the Bengali loves as dearly as life, it is his independence.
 
the pathetic, grisly and untold story of the massacre of non-Bengalees and pro-Pakistan Bengalees by the Awami League led insurgents in the East Pakistan during March-April 1971 is bared in Blood and Tears. The details of the genocide waged by the rebels in those murderous months were concealed from the people of West Pakistan by the then federal government to prevent reprisals against Bengalees in West Pakistan and also not to wreck prospect for a negotiated settlement with the Awami League.The 170 eye-witnesses, whose tragic accounts of their splintered and traumatic lives are contained in this book, were picked from nearly 5,000 families repatriated to Pakistan from Bangladesh between the autumn of 1973 and the spring of 1974. Although they hail from 55 towns of the former East Pakistan, their narratives and the published dispatches of the foreign newsmen quoted in this book, cover 110 places where the slaughter of the innocents took place. The majority of eye-witnesses consist of parents who saw their children slain, the wives who were forced by the rebels to witness murder of their husbands, the girls who were ravished and the rare escapees from the rebel operated human slaughter-houses. While the focus in Blood and Tears is on the rebel atrocities it also highlights the courage and heroism of many Bengalees who saved their non-Bengalee friends from the fire and fury of the bloodthirsty insurgents.


http://xa.yimg.com/kq/groups/3366347/247194982/name/Blood+and+Tears--qutubuddin+aziz.pdf 


ANy eye witness accounts that corroborates such outrageous claim made by american diplomat?

While on the other hand Read blood and tears which describes and backup it's account with complete proof. Thousand of Bihari's and pro Pak banglas murdered, raped by Muktibahini.
 
the pathetic, grisly and untold story of the massacre of non-Bengalees and pro-Pakistan Bengalees by the Awami League led insurgents in the East Pakistan during March-April 1971 is bared in Blood and Tears. The details of the genocide waged by the rebels in those murderous months were concealed from the people of West Pakistan by the then federal government to prevent reprisals against Bengalees in West Pakistan and also not to wreck prospect for a negotiated settlement with the Awami League.The 170 eye-witnesses, whose tragic accounts of their splintered and traumatic lives are contained in this book, were picked from nearly 5,000 families repatriated to Pakistan from Bangladesh between the autumn of 1973 and the spring of 1974. Although they hail from 55 towns of the former East Pakistan, their narratives and the published dispatches of the foreign newsmen quoted in this book, cover 110 places where the slaughter of the innocents took place. The majority of eye-witnesses consist of parents who saw their children slain, the wives who were forced by the rebels to witness murder of their husbands, the girls who were ravished and the rare escapees from the rebel operated human slaughter-houses. While the focus in Blood and Tears is on the rebel atrocities it also highlights the courage and heroism of many Bengalees who saved their non-Bengalee friends from the fire and fury of the bloodthirsty insurgents.


http://xa.yimg.com/kq/groups/3366347/247194982/name/Blood and Tears--qutubuddin aziz.pdf 



ANy eye witness accounts that corroborates such outrageous claim made by american diplomat?

While on the other hand Read blood and tears which describes and backup it's account with complete proof. Thousand of Bihari's and pro Pak banglas murdered, raped by Muktibahini.

War crimes happened on both sides.
 
To understand the phenomenon read this book - 'Brennt Paris?' (Is Paris Burning?) - it talks about the Liberation of Paris on August 25, 1944. When General Choltitz and his men surrendered, many German civilians and people of German descent were singled out as 'le boche' and killed. Sad but inevitable. Only difference was that the Americans and the French didnot protect many Germans except for the officers, while the Indian Army took all West Pakistani soldiers as well as civilians and staff and spared them from retribution.
 
the pathetic, grisly and untold story of the massacre of non-Bengalees and pro-Pakistan Bengalees by the Awami League led insurgents in the East Pakistan during March-April 1971 is bared in Blood and Tears. The details of the genocide waged by the rebels in those murderous months were concealed from the people of West Pakistan by the then federal government to prevent reprisals against Bengalees in West Pakistan and also not to wreck prospect for a negotiated settlement with the Awami League.The 170 eye-witnesses, whose tragic accounts of their splintered and traumatic lives are contained in this book, were picked from nearly 5,000 families repatriated to Pakistan from Bangladesh between the autumn of 1973 and the spring of 1974. Although they hail from 55 towns of the former East Pakistan, their narratives and the published dispatches of the foreign newsmen quoted in this book, cover 110 places where the slaughter of the innocents took place. The majority of eye-witnesses consist of parents who saw their children slain, the wives who were forced by the rebels to witness murder of their husbands, the girls who were ravished and the rare escapees from the rebel operated human slaughter-houses. While the focus in Blood and Tears is on the rebel atrocities it also highlights the courage and heroism of many Bengalees who saved their non-Bengalee friends from the fire and fury of the bloodthirsty insurgents.


http://xa.yimg.com/kq/groups/3366347/247194982/name/Blood and Tears--qutubuddin aziz.pdf 



ANy eye witness accounts that corroborates such outrageous claim made by american diplomat?

While on the other hand Read blood and tears which describes and backup it's account with complete proof. Thousand of Bihari's and pro Pak banglas murdered, raped by Muktibahini.

<i>Dead Reckoning</i>: Disappearing stories and evidence

2011-12-18__pcp01.jpg

Gita Sahgal
The 40th anniversary of the liberation of Bangladesh is special not simply because it marks the passing of decades, but because of the current passionate attempt to recapture the founding spirit of the nation. The recent debates on the Constitution and an attempt to return it to its original secular character of 1972 are vital to the future survival of the country. But the hurried changes made, with an ultimate outcome of keeping Islam as the state religion, have disappointed many. In contrast, the war crimes trials that are underway still offer hope.

But I observe that, in London, Bangladeshis seeking justice are isolated and told instead to seek reconciliation, and even that genocide didn't happen. Further, Bangladesh is criticised for holding the trials in a national court rather than as a Rwanda or Yugoslavia style international process. But the establishment of an International Criminal Court was intended to step in only when national judiciaries failed to act, or collapsed entirely.

The current war crimes trials should be able to provide a basis for future examination of other issues. Ending the impunity enjoyed by those responsible for violence in 1971 will go some way towards reassuring minorities that attacks on them will not be tolerated. As it grapples with one kind of impunity, Bangladesh, which has shown the way on many issues, should be able to tackle the constitutional questions that were avoided earlier. Removing Islam as the state religion is one of the key changes that will begin to ensure full citizenship for all, and a framework for addressing more modern forms of impunity.

My own encounter with 1971 was War Crimes File, a documentary I produced for Channel Four (UK). The film investigated three men of Bangladeshi origin, by then all British nationals, for 1971 war crimes or crimes against humanity. David Bergman was a stubborn and persistent reporter, and he led the research with a large team of Bangladeshi academics, filmmakers and young researchers until we found a trail of information that led to the three accused. We found serious and credible allegations that they were involved in making lists of people to be picked up, ordering killings, being involved with torture centres and participating in the killing of the intellectuals. Many of those we interviewed were eye witnesses, or even targets who had evaded capture.

Our interviewees told us that local collaborators of Jamaat e Islami "not only collaborated with the Pakistani army in the genocide, but had their own scheme of killing." But recently, a number of recent writings about Bangladesh have obscured this story entirely.

At a December 8th presentation at SOAS, London, Sarmila Bose presented a talk "The legacy of 1971 - 40 years on," at the invitation of the Center for the Study of Pakistan. During the Q&A session I asked her directly why, in her book Dead Reckoning, she had been dismissive about Razakars, as if it was a figment of fevered Bengali imaginations. She had treated them as a "discourse" rather than a fact on the ground that needs examination. Why was there no discussion of their actions, no mention of peace committees or their political linkages to the Jamaat e Islami? In reply, she simply said that these issues were not her concern and the book dealt with only certain incidents. This evasive response is elaborated in her just-published essay "The question of genocide and the quest for justice in the 1971 war" (Journal of Genocide Studies, November 2011), where she states: "It may be argued that the groups doing the killings were the creation of the regime, but their exact identity and motives remain shrouded."

Looking at how she responded to various questions at SOAS, she appears to be going through a central shape shifting in the face of mounting criticism of her book. At the time of launch, she claimed Dead Reckoning was groundbreaking, a new account of the war, showing that the major narrative was not merely flawed or incomplete but fundamentally wrong. By now, after months of published criticisms of her book (Mookherjee, Mohaiemen, in EPW, among others), she says it is only a "few incidents" and when key issues like Razakars are brought up, she says these are "not her concern."

When the book was first launched, the Pakistanis were gentlemen and the Bengalis were racist and nasty towards them. Now, she states, she was not intending to be rude, but rather to display "the richness of the vocabulary" of Bengalis criticising Pakistanis. Then, there was no genocide (except of Biharis). Now, she says she has written an article saying that there might have been some genocidal killings.

That is why I call her a shape shifter.

One method used by her is to look at written narratives, and then take them apart by "checking" with the Pakistani army. She clearly started out with a great deal of access, but she uses none of the material which could help make a case against the Pakistan army. In several cases, people are alive and she could have talked to them directly rather relying on hearsay. Bose has certainly not attempted to raise the shroud she referred to, although she had the perfect opportunity to do so.

In Dead Reckoning, Bose quoted General Niazi, who wrote that sanction to set up al Badr and al Shams was given at the end of August 1971 and they were drawn from well-educated students from schools and madrassas. But by the time she writes this new article on genocide, she has apparently forgotten this citation and all mention of al Badr. In the book, she discusses accounts of "the killing of the intellectuals." Now, in the article, she concludes that there is no evidence that the Pakistani army was involved. In neither the book nor the article does she connect al Badr and al Shams to the Jamaat e Islami or examine their ideology, intentions or actions. There is a blackout in her book about the peace committees and the role of the Jamaat in systematic killings and torture.

The most striking thing about the book is the complete absence of any framework, theoretical or political. Some of her material clearly shows an uprising in progress. Fear, rumours and exaggeration are well known features of uprisings, but you don't get any sense that she understands this, or has read anything about the behaviour of crowds. There is also a non-discussion of genocide, war crimes or crimes against humanityeither legal or political movements for accountability, or the case that has developed through international tribunals

Now it is true that only certain incidents are discussed, so she may argue she does not need to cover every incident. But the book claims to dismiss the genocide allegation based on these selective incidents. In her book, she summarily denied genocide allegations against Pakistanis. For instance, she makes no determination on the crimes committed at Dhaka University, though she doesn't deny the direct accounts of targeted attacks on civilians. But she mocks them for "cowering" instead of fighting. There is a strong whiff of admiration for the military, instead of these paltry people who hid when the army launched a massive attack. Her main concern is numbers and other issues of burial and evidence.

There was an emphasis in her EPW article on rape (preceding this book) on randomness, as she keeps calling rape "opportunistic." In the book, there is a refusal to see any patternstargeting of civilians, even where it is described, it is not commented on. After being challenged on the EPW article (by Mookherjee, Mandal, Rahman and others), she excluded some of the rape material from the book. Although Yasmin Saikia is cited as a reliable source, none of Saikia's information about rape, or contrition of Pakistani soldiers, is used. Other secondary sources are frequently used, so why not this one? My film The War Crimes File is cited, but very little of the material in it, except for footage of the killings in Dhaka University, is discussed.

One of the difficulties of the definition of genocide is that there is a requirement to prove "intent." That, along with the requirement to show that a group (for instance, religious or ethnic but not political) is being destroyed is of paramount importance. This requirement does not have to be met in the case of war crimes or crimes against humanity. But evidence that crimes are either "widespread" or "systematic" would be crucial in determining a crime against humanity. As the Rwanda tribunal showed, inflammatory speeches calling for extermination of a group, can be an element in genocide. It would be important to show whether there were organised groups, whether they were acting on their own or under military command. Bose's failure to gather and present such evidence, in a book and subsequent article on genocide and other grave crimes, is inexcusable.



The writer is Executive Director of Center for Secular Space, London (centreforsecularspace.org). She earlier headed Amnesty International's Gender Unit. Gita also produced the award-winning War Crimes File (Channel 4), a documentary on alleged 1971 war criminals associated with Islamist groups in England
 
And it was always the bengalis who started it... just like calcatta massacre lead to massacres in bihar,delhi,punjab etc...

Calcutta killing started after the declaration of direct action day when party cadres of league attacked Hindu areas of Calcutta. There was even a public holiday declared by league's government in Bengal on 16th August.
 
And it was always the bengalis who started it... just like calcatta massacre lead to massacres in bihar,delhi,punjab etc...

I see you have hatred issues with Bengali's. For your information, most rioters in Kolkata in 1946 were Bihari Muslims, as far as I recall. Others with more knowledge can elaborate more.
 
I see you have hatred issues with Bengali's. For your information, most rioters in Kolkata in 1946 were Bihari Muslims, as far as I recall. Others with more knowledge can elaborate more.

I dnt have hatred for anybody...as for biharis in kolkata? are you serious? kolkata is in bengal not bihar..
 
I dnt have hatred for anybody...as for biharis in kolkata? are you serious? kolkata is in bengal not bihar..

They are actually North Indian urdu speaking Muslims who have been living in Kolkata for centuries. They are notable entrepreneurs also contributed to political class. @genmirajborgza786

However there is no proof to show only Urdu speakers engaged in rioting.
 
They are actually North Indian urdu speaking Muslims who have been living in Kolkata for centuries. They are notable entrepreneurs also contributed to political class. @genmirajborgza786

However there is no proof to show only Urdu speakers engaged in rioting.

yes, in fact some notable entrepreneurs from among us along with the north Bengalis were the very first to assimilate with the Calcutta chamber of commerce during the British time, for example hotelier & catering licence ( an privileged & extremely difficult one for any non-white to get) the other being tea & karkhana (factory) licence of the north bengolis etc, Calcutta was always a multicultural city no two thoughts on that
 
They are actually North Indian urdu speaking Muslims who have been living in Kolkata for centuries. They are notable entrepreneurs also contributed to political class. @genmirajborgza786

However there is no proof to show only Urdu speakers engaged in rioting.

A lot of Noakhailla involved in Calcutta riots. The riots later spread in Noakhali once the news of the death of relatives reached home.
 
Hey Guyz. I came across these 2 videos related to Bangladesh War.

One is a Documentry and other one a Interview. I am not able to link stories in both vids. Ineteresting nonetheless.


 
Back
Top Bottom