What's new

16th December 1971: From East Pakistan to Bangladesh

Where have you gotten this information from? We are in 2010 and the relation between Bangladesh-Pakistan is 6 feet under so where the hell you have come up with this imagination???

it is easy.. as BNP is clearly opposing India now... it will certainly strengthen relationship with Pakistan & China after ascending to power..... You don't have to be a specialist for understanding that.......
 
There were options! if u hadnt played in the hands of indian proxy and bloody politicians........ just imagine where we would have been today!

A country with 3 or 4th largest army,30-40 billion dollars in reserves! A diverse country! ...... heck Pakistan was created by people of both countries! not just west pakistanis!

Imagine wat they would be feeling today!
Brothers killing brothers and the enemy winning!

.................

I was born in the 90s! but still whenever i think abt BD i get goose bumps and tears roll out of my eyes!A very bad pain rises from my heart tht paralyzes my soul!

Once U were my brother my country fellow! i would have given my life for u!
But today where do u stand? who won 71 war?Pakistan?Bangladesh? NO neither......... india did!

With tears in eyes and pain in my heart"Oh! deathly cold December, thou shall always be in mourning".


You are very right.
We would be third most populous country of the world
 
All news and articles about the 1971 debacle should go into this thread. Please refrain from posting offensive, exaggerated or point scoring articles for the sake of better discussions.

The concentration should be on Pakistan and Bangladesh, the past, present and future.


My opinion about the events are clear to many here, as I have stated before, there would not even be a Pakistan if it wasn't for the Bengalis who supported an idea which neither mentioned them nor acknowledged them in our nations name. Yet they worked tirelessly with the father of our nation Jinnah to create Pakistan and they were the most patriotic of Pakistani's.

The injustice that the Bengalis suffered from an early time in our nation is regrettable to say the least. While West Pakistan flourished, it was all at the expense of East Pakistan. The shortsightedness and power hungry attitude of our ruling elite is the main cause of the separation of Pakistan.

When Mujib-ur-Rahman won the election, he should have been appointed as the leader but the mockery made of fair elections caused a damaging event to occur that left Pakistan open to attacks by any of it's enemies.

The consequent military action to solve a political crisis was even worse and it led to an irreversible disaster.

But the past is in the past now and nothing can change what occurred.

There is a lesson in everything and we should have learned a lesson from the event in question - or did we?.

The mere fact that these two courageous reports were published, by the moderators, speaks for itself. It is a hugely healing gesture, although it is for the formal citizens of Bangladesh, not for a child of her diaspora, to say so. The child may, however, legitimately salute the moral courage and high responsibility demonstrated in putting up these reports, and does so. Your actions do you proud, gentlemen.
 
dear pakistani members how you remember 16 December in your country ?

I can only speak for myself and many of my generation I converse with and grew up with - the events of 1971 are primarily academic for us. We were born long after the events of 1971, and growing up the Pakistan we knew was the Pakistan with its current political boundaries. My parents (and as far as I know the parents of my peers) never really broached the subject of East Pakistan and its separation, outside of answering questions we raised as we grew older and more aware of our history.

Of course I cannot generalize my limited experiences and interactions over 180 million people, and there are bound to be diverse approaches within families and individuals to how they see the events of 1971, but my own experience is as above.

Its academic.
 
Govt posts was not a big issue. the seeds of hate were sown much before by traitor mujeeb. his speech at the time of independence is also an eye opener. he at that time tried to create divide on the basis of language.

Our politicians had committed blunders no doubt, they did not accepted the verdict of the people who voted for Bengali Pakistani politicians. Along with our own blunders All this was exploited by India for State Terrorism in Pakistan.

It is apparent that you do not have a clue about Muslim League politics and about the relationship of Fazlul Haque with the League, or of his younger comrades, Suhrawardy and Maulana Bhashani. It is far more complex and intertwined than your silly little coffee house analysis makes it out to be. Why is it that you can see Mujib as a traitor, although he was faithful and loyal to the idea of Pakistan to the bitter end, to the point of time when with the majority of seats, he was wilfully kept out by a manipulator and a villain, and his military dupe? Why is it that you cannot see Bhutto for what he did, shattered your nation in blind pursuit of his own aggrandisement?

It is not clear what you mean by Mujib's speech at the time of independence. Whose independence? When he declared non-cooperation with the military authorities, his speech was in Bengali, because he was addressing Bengalis. If you are talking of 47, you should know that language came into the equation only because of a huge misunderstanding between the Bengalis and Jinnah, partly due to the terms that they used. Jinnah was clear that Bengali could be an official language but not the language of state; the Bengalis thought that he was outlawing Bengali altogether, which was emphatically not the case. It was a genuine misunderstanding. However, for those who are determined to see vileness in others, this must be a minor obstacle. You should know that Bengali sentiment about language grew over years, and there was no sudden eruption. It was in 52 that the language riots broke out, after 5 years of seeking answers and clarifications and getting clever replies from the bureaucrats and the establishment in the west - the exact same bureaucrats and establishment who are to be found hiding under their tables, even today, even now, whenever it comes to accepting accountability.

Before you hurl accusations at Mujib, whatever his later faults, please take the trouble of reading up on the details of your own country's struggle for freedom. If you have any difficulty getting sources, there will be many to help you.
 
Lessons of December 16

Dawn
I.A Rehman


TODAY, Dec 16, Pakistan`s opinion-makers will once again raise a loud wail and lament the final act in their country`s dismemberment almost half a century ago. It will again be a ritualistic display of grief and no one will be convinced of its genuineness.

Nothing will be gained by beating chests, like Mary, Queen of Scots, did over the loss of Calais. The mourning will have meaning if the people of Pakistan took stock of their establishment`s acts of commission and omission that drove the Bengalis out of the state that they more than any other community had helped create barely 24 years earlier. This exercise, which should include repentance as well as a legitimate reappraisal, is necessary if Pakistan is to ward off the danger of its demise as a democratic polity and the threat to its integrity.

Pakistan`s founding fathers were so greatly carried away by the Muslim League`s 1945-46 electoral victory across the subcontinent and the euphoria created by partition just a year later that they ignored the challenge posed by the provincial units` rising aspirations for autonomy. The 1919 scheme of diarchy had given the provincial authorities control over agriculture, education, public works and local bodies, key departments because of their relevance to the largest sections of their populations. It was this heady feeling of empowerment in one`s own yard that had emboldened Fazl-i-Husain to tell the Quaid to stay away from Punjab and Sikandar Hayat to present an alternative to the scheme suggested in the Lahore Resolution. The same was the feeling in other provinces, a fact conceded by the authors of the Lahore (subsequently Pakistan) Resolution while deciding on its language — and which has haunted the rulers of Pakistan all of its 63 years.

The East Bengal people`s aspirations for maximum power at the provincial level had an extra dimension. They had had a share in the Bengal government for 10 continuous years (1937-47) — led by Muslim premiers. But they had not forgotten how much more power they had enjoyed when Bengal had been first divided in 1905. The partition of 1947 gave them the province they had in 1905. Only full autonomy could mitigate the pain of loss of authority over West Bengal, especially Calcutta.

However, they were more than willing to restrain their desire for power for the sake of making Pakistan a success. They agreed to elect Muslim League leaders from minority provinces to the constituent assembly, they accepted the formula of bureaucrats` promotion whose beneficiaries were all non-Bengalis except one, they also accepted Karachi as the new state`s capital and the fact that the offices of the governor-general, the prime minister, the president of the constituent assembly and the East Bengal governor were held by non-Bengalis. These gestures were not appreciated; instead a tendency to take the people of East Bengal for granted started taking root.

Before partition actually took place the Quaid-i-Azam briefly acknowledged East Bengal`s yearning for autonomy by allowing Suhrawardy to make a bid for keeping Bengal united but after that Pakistan`s leaders closed their ears to autonomy demands, beginning with their unwise language policy. Mujib might have indulged in exaggeration when he said that the denial of permission to a Bengali member to make oath in his mother tongue at the first session of the constituent assembly marked the beginning of his people`s alienation from Pakistan, but the fact is that the country`s establishment failed to realise that denial of a people`s language is one of the first warnings of their loss of identify and sovereignty.

The policies of the centre took little time to make the people of East Bengal aware of their status as a colony. Provincial elections were held in the western wing in 1951-52, the Bengalis were made to wait till 1954 and then the elected representatives were not allowed to rule in peace. A strong man, Iskander Mirza was sent to drill them into submission. By and by the people of East Bengal became aware of the scale of denial of their rights.

Ayub Khan tried a trade-off between the Bengali people`s rights and mega-projects and set Monem Khan after them. At the same time the hollowness of the strategy of defending East Bengal by making the defence of Lahore strong was exposed. This was a strategy effective in the Middle Ages when defence was an exclusively military affair and the people`s relationship with the state did not matter.

Yahya Khan seemed determined to preside over Pakistan`s dissolution. He tried to use his `gift` of a general election and acceptance of Bengali majority in the constitution-making body to bargain in his and his class`s interest. When this tactic failed he unleashed a war he had no chance of winning. He relied on ineffective patrons and turned effective actors into enemies. The day by-elections were decided upon to fill the seats of parliamentarians who had fled across the border the final countdown to Pakistan`s disintegration began. Among other things, the Bengali people`s courage and grit in conducting their war of liberation contributed to a quicker than expected end.

No narrative on political blunders over two decades can be as simple and one-sided as the foregoing paragraphs may suggest. True, an inexperienced, resource-starved and rather inadequate leadership at the centre did not possess the means to satisfy East Bengal`s aspirations. The preoccupation with security problems and external factors complicated matters. The politicians lacked the will and the mental capacity to resist being outmanoeuvred by an alliance of over-ambitious civil and military bureaucrats. But politicians who can keep their wits in fair weather only have no right to high offices; they can only invite disaster. They did just that.

Historians and analysts are unlikely to give up their attempts to identify who were heroes and who were the villains in the East Bengal story and at what point Pakistan started breaking up. Perhaps it is time to realise that Pakistan came to grief by adopting a flawed policy towards East Bengal from day one.

Whatever the causes the founding fathers did not grasp the dynamics of provincial politics. When Ghulam Mohammad sacked Nazimuddin and then dissolved the constituent assembly he destroyed Bengal`s confidence in the rulers` commitment to constitutionalism. The strategy for winning the hearts of the Bengali people comprised developmental bribes and control through quislings. No people will forever surrender their rights to political power, social progress and cultural identity for tinsel. And throughout the two decades that East Bengal formed part of Pakistan religion was used as the only cement to preserve the state`s integrity.

The Bengalis were more religious than their western compatriots but they had no use for a religion that smacked of occupation and oppression. Pakistan had to pay the price of ignoring the lesson humankind (including Arabs) learnt after many sanguinary contests, that religion has never, nowhere defeated the rising tide of nationalism.

Dec 16 is the appropriate occasion to realise that the laws of history have not changed.

This sensitive and detailed analysis is really appreciated, although I do not fully agree with every aspect.

On a very small point of pedantry, which has no bearing on your basic logic, it was Mary of England, "Bloody Mary", who said on losing Calais,"When I die, you will find 'Calais' written on my heart."

Mary Queen of Scots, her cousin and Queen of neighbouring Scotland, was actually married to the Dauphin, and would have been delighted at the revision of Calais to French authority.
 
@fallstuff, You have COMPLETELY missed the point. Bhutto was convincing Pakistanis who were angry about 1971 to befriend Bangladesh. He used the word you probably latched on to as something those who oppose this viewpoint would say. And then he deconstructed the opposing argument.

This speech actually asks Pakistanis to embrace Bangladesh as a brother Islamic nation and as a friend.

Were we watching the same clip?

He tried to explain to the crowd that the call of unity within the Qaum, similar to the call for unity with even Egypt, Lebanon, Morocco and a host of others, called for them to decide how to react to Bangladesh. The crowd disconcerted him by standing up against reconciliation, and he then made the best of it by agreeing with their emotional stand, and agreeing that 'Suwar ke bachche jahannam jayen.'

He started asking the crowd to embrace Bangladesh, but it didn't quite end that way.

If you are saying that he started out with the right intentions, that seems to be the case, no doubt about it. It just went horribly wrong.
 
I agree.. Thats the only thing Pakistan would be missing for the years to come. Bengalis would never let Pakistan to get involved in proxy war with Soviets neither it allowed extremism.



Then you should not had separated from India in the first place.
2nd Bengalis are Bengalis, Hindus or Muslim would not make any difference. They all will do the same.



Can you name 10 Hindu name who formed core of Mukti Bahini. No offence to any of my country men. Hindus had very little to say in any political party even within AL.



He was forced to spread them thin. His opponents were way too smart.



Dont understand what you talking about???

The problem is that most of those commenting so wisely about those years were not even born. I was there, a volunteer in the camps; many who played leading roles played those roles in close proximity. Mukti Joddhas were never mixed up with the refugee camps; if someone took a decision to join the MB, he would leave, and while we saw some faces back, very briefly, they had their own places, quite separate from the refugees. The refugee camps were horrible places, marked by daily death, mainly of women and children. There could have been no resistance operations from them. But I saw - we all saw - who were going out.

I have news for my Pakistani friends. It wasn't the Hindus.

They were completely out of it, defeated by terror and exhaustion and the loss of the meagre little that they owned. Men, women and children - they crossed the border, and the moment they realised they were safe, they needn't keep walking, they just lay down, wherever they were. Many died there, on the road, on the fields next to the border; many more in the camps. Nobody counted. The first few weeks (I wasn't there then, other volunteers told me later) were terrifying; it looked as if it was to be mass-scale death, on an unimaginable scale. It wasn't possible even to inoculate the hordes coming in. There were no tents, it was the monsoon, a Bengal monsoon where the water comes down in solid sheets. The worst time was after Searchlight, the months of April, May, June, a bit of July. By then, the flood had stopped; only trickles of people were still coming through. Western organisations came forward to help; some of the doctors carried new-fangled syringes which could deliver inoculations in seconds, and clean, without need to change needles. They looked like paint-guns and we thought the doctors holding them were angels; it was the first clue we had that we could hold on to the refugees.

It was largely the Muslims who turned, although I can't give you proof, nothing beyond anecdotes. Some of us who had turned up at these camps without permission from home were soon tracked down and yanked out and ruthlessly sent back; probably just as well, we were probably breaking down and getting in the way of the professional workers. But if I saw rage and anger, it was when people had had a few days to take stock, to realise that they were alive, to realise what had happened to them, to listen to the recruiters, to listen to the rallies and the songs and the pep talks; Nazrul's songs were sung every day, Mujib's Ramna Maidan talk was played every day, these were the two great recruitment drivers, besides the quiet, earnest young man in khakis, sometimes (very rarely) an EPR guy to stir things up with his stories of resistance, mostly Bangladeshi government people in semi-civilian clothes and rubber sandals cut out of tyre treads. There was a constant trickle leaving camp. Someone losing his woman and children was an almost automatic recruit.

I keep hearing stories, mainly Pakistani stories, about how the refugees were systematically grouped and recruitment done among them. Whoever believes that should have been in the camps. It didn't work like that. It worked nothing like that. Those camps were hell. You didn't have time to identify who was which religion, you just got their inoculations in, their gruel in, got them a brick plinth and tarpaulin and hoped like hell they'd survive the first week. They were usually OK after that.

Most of us lasted a very short while before we were chased out, if we had no good, effective NGO backing. I wasn't in that NGO crowd and lasted less than two months before my father's policemen caught me and hauled me back to Calcutta. At the time, I yelled and shouted and wept trying to stay back, but I realise now I hated the camps.

Sometimes I read these weird stories about Machiavellian Indian planning and I smile when I think of what was happening on the ground then. Machiavelli was at some other camp, not the one I was at.
 
In the last 8 Pages everyone’s talks about West Pakistani’s mistakes in the separations of erstwhile Pakistan in to two but no one talked about how East Pakistanis get it wrong from the starts…I like to reminds some of them here just for the sack of records.

1. East Pakistanis never believe in “Two Nation Theory” by their hearts compares to West Pakistanis who believe in it as to life over death.
2. EPs believes in “Bengali Muslim” identification over “Muslim Bengali”, there is too much in the placement of words which proves deadly after 47.
3. Right after the creation of Pakistan prominent Bengali Muslims opted for provincial politics over Pakistani i.e., Shiek Mujib parted with Muslim league and created a new party Awami Muslim League just to capitalize on Bengali identity and that is too within a year or two of Pakistan Independence.
4. EPs force WPs for Bengali language to be equated at par with Urdu, which is clearly the language of Muslims all over India with a language of a province alone.
5. Just after 47 when we are facing great difficulties in running the affairs of Pakistan with so much cash starved and refugees issues the EPs felt its better time to be on the streets for not other than “coinage issue” in 49’ to why not they be in Bengali as well.
6. EPs are the first who creates sectarianism in Pakistan, they just feels happy to press upon the language issue to even Balackmailing tactics, the 52’ riots are the clear example in which EPs politicians uses it as a crying call just to gain sympathy of Bengali alone over West Pakistanis.

One may asks how they are less believer in Two Nation Theory over WPs, So the answer goes like this.

Bengali Muslims don’t know Urdu very Well…Wait! Wait! By not knowing Urdu they just miss the very important part of the other lot of Sub continental Muslim Phsyche feels, The “IQBAL” syndrome, his poetry which basis upon Ummah, Millat and one Nation creates euphoria in the minds of the Muslims all over the subcontinent except Bengal.

The Bengali Renaissance in the late 18th and early 19th century gave them a sense of Bengali Nationalism over Muslim and that Nationalism is very strong, they just want to separate with Bengali Hindus to safeguard their interests just as in 1905, (Bcz Bengali Hindus are dominated in and around Calcutta whereas Bengali Muslims are in rural areas which creates unequal distribution of wealth) but not what eventually West Pakistanis lead them too. The Muslim Leagu inception in 1906 by Bengali leaders is primarily for Bengali Muslim Identity its never created for the Ummah, Millat in the first place. This idea only created by West Pakistanis and North Indian Muslims alone.

Urdu is not the language of any province of United Pakistan, but all other nationalities accept its supremacy as only the one binding force over many except Bengalis, I just don’t know why? Quaid rightly refused Bengalis demands for their language because once there is Bengali than why not Punjabi, Sindhi, Pashto, Baloch etc. The other point in Quaid’s refusal is Pakistan is in early days of their independence this will surely looks a pandora’s box to be open. The bottom line is Bengalis are wrong in demanding it with so early and that’s the other proof of their negligence towards Pakistan problems over their pity issues, which creates hatred in the minds of WPs establishment from the starts.

By pressing more in Bengali Nationalism over Muslim, Hating Urdu, unnecessary blackmailing towards sectarianism, Keeping only interests of Bengal over all Pakistan they created mistrust in the hearts and minds of West Pakistanis from the starts and both these parts were on the collision course right after independence.
 
Pakistanis need to understand Bangladesh now. Bangladeshis are generous and good people. If few Bangladeshis still hate Pakistan then there are some reasons.

1. Misunderstandings.
2. Some extant of discrimination to the East Pakistani Bangali people and Killing during war without proper judgment.
3. Also AL and Indian propagandas are playing effectively for having hatred towards Pakistan now.
4. Neither PK left any good impression of themselves after 71-war nor we are getting any good impression of them still now. Most of Bangladeshis have negative idea about PK for their continuous bomb blasting.
5.And lastly, there were many patriot people in Mukti Bahini and fought against PK to save their mother land, because -in some cases- they were informed by propaganda that PK is killing and looting us.

But it is also true that most of Bangladeshi people have a soft corner for Pakistan. Many Bangladeshis consider PK as brother. And Pakistan should take the bilateral and economical opportunities with BD. We need to know each other again and we need new relation.
 
Last edited:
What hurts the most is the fact that there were 30000 troops in Dacca and these 30000 surrendered to 3000 Indian troops. Gen Jacob who negotiated the surrender said multiple times in various interviews that if Niazi had decided to fight and had lasted a few more weeks the Cease Fire would have been disadvantageous to India.

Remembering General Niazi

Surrender blundenr by general niazi in east pakistan? Let us build Pakistan Forum

Gen Jacobs is revered in India for his feat of converting a cease fire negotiation to a public surrender with only 1/10th of troops. He bluffed and Niazi fell for it.
 
0066.jpg.html
 
Only people i here this 1000 mile separation logic frrom pakistanis.i dont think any other country except pakistanis give such a logic.
fir se be sar-pair ka logic.If you are a diverse country culturally,climate wise will that mean you will claim on on diverse part.do u see india doing it or for that matter china doing it.both are diverse countries.

This is what I meant to be far apart from each other. Indians get to interfere in our matter easily. Just like this discussion is between Pakistan and Bangladesh with Indian interferences.
 
What hurts the most is the fact that there were 30000 troops in Dacca and these 30000 surrendered to 3000 Indian troops. Gen Jacob who negotiated the surrender said multiple times in various interviews that if Niazi had decided to fight and had lasted a few more weeks the Cease Fire would have been disadvantageous to India.

Remembering General Niazi

Surrender blundenr by general niazi in east pakistan? Let us build Pakistan Forum

Gen Jacobs is revered in India for his feat of converting a cease fire negotiation to a public surrender with only 1/10th of troops. He bluffed and Niazi fell for it.

General Jacobs is remembered with respect in the Indian military for his meticulous staff work, and careful and detailed planning. On the other hand, his public reputation is largely due to his selective memory of the 'high spots'; the surrender at Dhaka, for instance, the assignment of troops by collusion between him and 'Norman' Gill, a very straightforward soldier, no smart-arse, supposedly without Sam Manekshaw knowing about it, his rather disloyal implication that Jagjit Arora was rather out of it; his tall tales ranging on to terminological inexactitude about counter-insurgency work in West Bengal after the Bangladesh episode, when he himself was GOC-in-C East, his even taller tales about life in the higher echelons of politics.

With regard to the moment of surrender itself, he was in a hurry to get the surrender because field formations led by K. V. K. Rao were approaching much faster than had been planned, and were expected to be in the city outskirts in a day or two. It was not 3,000 against 30,000; please look at the situation maps, the numbers would have changed dramatically in three to four days, and the upshot would have been a bloody fire-fight with only one outcome at one end, and systematic, sustained killing of the remnants of the establishment packed into Dhaka at the other.

I suggest you read Z. A. Khan's account of his Bangladesh days, to get an idea of how tightly the establishment had clustered into one or two pockets, and then think through in your mind what would have happened if they had not been taken into protective custody quickly.

All can be forgiven Jake, however, including his Munchausen moments, for the sake of that beautiful planning, with the contingencies built in, which worked like clockwork. It helped to have Niazi on the other side; the only decent general the Pakistanis had in the field proved to be a hard nut to crack, and fought a brilliant rearguard action. Unfortunately for Niazi, he had only that one general; the others were simply not up to it. If Jake's planning had not been superior, and provided for at least two ways of achieving everything, the hold-up at Hilli would have cost a lot.

These bits about Niazi being hoodwinked into surrender is frankly, latterday journalistic myth-making; Niazi did the right thing, although he did a lot of wrong things earlier, as there was really no way out, and a prolongation would have led to hugely higher number of deaths, largely among the defenders. it wouldn't have been 93,000 odd PA and assorted personnel coming back; perhaps half of that. The MB was in a killing frenzy and impossible to hold back; read what happened to Tajuddin Hussain Malik to understand why Niazi took the only decision he could. And leave reading about Jake doing an Armenian rug-seller on the hapless Niazi for after dinner bed-time reading.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom