What's new

1971, a story of fear, loss and hope

Is Urdu imposed on the 1 million plus native Bangalis residing in Karachi? Urdu along with English maybe the languages of Pakistan but they are not widely spoken compared to Punjabi & Pashto. However Urdu is a language that unites all corners of Pakistan as it is understood by almost all Pakistanis.

You did not answer my question.

How many Pakistanis would accept Bangla as their language at that time (or even today if it was majority language)? And if they would not - then why?
 
My personal oppionion I don't think Pakistanis should be the sole bearers of carrying the banner of Muslim unity or raising their voice whenever tradegy strikes upon the Muslims. This should be a collective response by ALL Muslims nations. Just as how the Muslim nations have rallied around the call to defend Jerusalam from being taken from Palestine equally Muslims inparticular Arabs should openly support the Kashmiri cause and the plight of the Rohingyas. Its time Pakistan put its interests and priorities first. Pak helped the Afghans but got nothing in return apart from accusations.
I agree .Indeed Saudi Arabia should openly support Kashmir issue ,and also Jerusalem. but they will not as they have more love for their throne than Islam.

We sunnis always blame Shia's , ahle hadeeeths even are ahead of some degrees and declared Shia's as kafir but they also don't show real love to Islam.
If we (Muslims )have to be real Muslims we must try hard to solve other Muslims problem.
There is no place of selfish act in Islam .
If someone want to be Muslim , he must be compassionate to his musim brother as first priority.
 
image-29-united-front-copy.jpg


image-28-dr-mohammad-shahidullah-and-moulana-bhasani-copy.jpg
image-30-martial-law-proclaimed-ayub-monaem-copy.jpg


image-35-6-point-movement-copy.jpg


image-38-agartala-conspiracy-case-2-copy.jpg


image-41-mass-upserge69-asad-copy.jpg


image-42-mass-upserge69-motiur-copy.jpg


image-43-mass-upserge69-zoha-and-anwara-copy.jpg
 
I disagree. It wasn't a wise move.
Our economy is also rising. Better than Pakistan's. Your nut job mullahs are the main problem i think.
LOL your economy is not better than Pakistan's.

Pakistan has a much higher nominal GDP than Bangladesh's. :lol:

Please don't compare your country to Pakistan.

Pakistan is light years ahead of Bangladesh in many sectors like manufacturing and services.

Don't post crap here.
 
LOL your economy is not better than Pakistan's.

Pakistan has a much higher nominal GDP than Bangladesh's. :lol:

Please don't compare your country to Pakistan.

Pakistan is light years ahead of Bangladesh in many sectors like manufacturing and services.

Don't post crap here.

Not light years brother maybe little bit better. Your capital city is better than ours i give you that. Pakistan is future Russia while BD trying to become Singapore,Malaysia and Japan.
 
if instead of one big country, they ask for 3 countries then it was most likely the smaller 2 won' get any freedom at all and Bangladesh would' have to live with India. And Bangladeshi leaders were correct in this assessment,
There was no potential three muslim country.Hyderabad was not a muslim region.Muslim was a tiny minority there.Bengal was the largest Muslim block in the sub-continent.More than 1/3rd of all muslim of Sub-continent were living in Bengal.Bengal had muslim population greater in number than all the western Muslim province like Punjab,NWFP,Sindh or Beluchistan combined.

Bengal was the most politically active region in the sub-continent.Muslim league was in power here since 1937, at first as a coalition partner than forrmed govt. unilaterally.The only province where Muslim league got a chance to form govt. before Partition.This largest province of British raj had tremendous influence in all India politics.It was the main power base of Muslim League from where it's claim of muslim representative and muslim voice got legitimacy.Western muslim province specially Punjab and NWFP didn't support Muslim league until very last moment when Muslim league was already the biggest political force in Bengal and among the minority muslims of Bihar and Uttar Pradesh.

The singular event which catalyst the Partition and achievement of Pakistan was the Calcutta riot which triggered the Hindu-Muslim riot all over the Sub-continent.Next was the Noakhali riot in Eest Bengal, then Bihar, then Uttar Pradesh.Communal riot spread in this direction.Only Bengali muslims responded to the call of Jinnah for direct action day for Pakistan and set example of giving blood for Pakistan to achieve it.So how can you say that, Bengal was smaller entity which would not get any chance without the support of West Pakistan? It is actually the other way around.Without the Bengali muslim support, forget about a separate muslim state in the western side of the sub-continent.
 
Last edited:
I feel sorry for all people involved in 1971 war...

Pakistani soldiers fighting losing war and then surrendered.
Pakistani people in East and west were brainwashed to the core by respective governments
Bengali nationalists played into hands of India

Every fukin thing happend due to elite of west Pakistan...

I have nothing against common bengalis - It's just the government of Bangladesh who pisses me off...

Anyway, Bengalis got their country and are happy with it.
Pakistanis grew more striong after 1971, haven't allowed India to attack full scale on Pakistan.

Everyone got tricked...Fighting now on forums is useless.
 
What tragedy you are talking about? Tragedy was for the people of east Pakistan who were brutalized by the PA bullets we paid to buy. Nuclear weapon will remain an old and unusable thing during any future war. You guys are so happy to talk about this weapon, when all other countries of the world are trying to get rid of it. Get rid of your Taleban mentality.

Progressive Bangladeshi best Bangladeshi :)
 
When you say this, you keep on wiping your tears of being defeated by us, is not it?

Defeated by you :rofl: don't delude yourself midget stinky bengali. your sanghi master and old lord Pak army (who never deployed enough man to defend that cursed land) liberated you. 34000 Pak army combatant killed your 3 million militants like mosquitos and raped your 300000 sisters... although i never believe your propaganda but still its yours.:lol:

When the Muslims of Bengal and Bihar fought for Pakistan, you guys were still sleeping on the lap of Hindu Congress. Go and check the provincial elections of 1946. All your provinces elected Congress or parties supported by the Congress. Among all the provinces of then India, it was only Calcutta where Muslim League had formed the government. This was the strongest point in favor of splitting the country into India and Pakistan.

i know i have hit your nerve and you are desperate but plz dont create fake history like your fake victimhood..

Why don't you learn the history yourself? Punjab was not as oppressed as your kind, Punjab was the richest province which was under rule of Muslim landlords from 1925.. Muslim PM used to rule Punjab even then Muslim league won majority seats in Punjab and later secular unionist party of Punjab (ruling party) also joined Muslim league after 1946 elections.. same goes to Sindh, Sindh provincial assembly was the first one to pass Pakistan resolution, it was only NWFP which was following Bacha Khan who was congressi. but even when time come Muslim league won referendum with overwhelming majority.


This is why Pakistan crumbled in 1970, finally. After doing 23 years of unfair treatment of the east you guys are claiming happiness at our separation from your Taleban nation, where each week a hundred dead bodies are scattered across the markets by your fanatic and terrorist activities. Yes, only you guys will be promoted to the Paradise for acts like killing innocent people. We are happy to have ridden ourselves from the fanatics.

I know truth hurts, but this much :lol: if i started using suitable language for your kind you will start bleeding from your rear..

anyways It was never a good example of union.. a land separated by thousands of miles distance, with completely alien people who want to speak their language.. east and west should have separate countries, as i said you were alien to us (you are as alien to us as any Bhutanese) forced in one union.. Finally Thanks to our bharati friends who end this misery.. although i think it should be peaceful,

Ayub wanted to give your kind independence but his offer was rejected by Bengali leaders, i also heard that Ayub was so annoyed by whining of bengalis that in early 60's (army+ bureaucracy) was ready to give freedom but he could not bcoz of fear of public resentment..
 
LOL your economy is not better than Pakistan's.

Pakistan has a much higher nominal GDP than Bangladesh's. :lol:

Please don't compare your country to Pakistan.

Pakistan is light years ahead of Bangladesh in many sectors like manufacturing and services.

Don't post crap here.

I am happy for you, brother. Gareeb or Daulatdar - you guys will be my brother.

main-qimg-05909ced8eab90b9856576bdd12fbb62
 
Pakistan itself, it was Punjab, Afghania (kpk, fata, waziristan), Kashmir, Sind, BalochisTAN.
What does 'I' stand for in Pakistan? Indiana Jones??? :cheesy:
Or maybe it was deliberately added later to represent any other territory in Indian subcontinent that wanted to concede?

Exactly. Bangladesh was mostly a liability. Overpopulated, with loads of poor people.

Good riddance.
No Bro! Let's not become a bully. We're not much different from other countries in region. Poverty, unemployment, inadequate level of basic facilities, bad governance, lack of development and so on are our problems too. Let's focus of removing these problems first for ourselves and for the sake of our nation.

Sadly niazi proved that he was incapable defending pakistanis from opponents.
I envy your thoughts but not on this line - maybe leadership in Pakistan realized the people they are dying for are actually not worth dying for.

PS: I'm talking about majority, please don't confuse it with small percentage who stood for the unity of Pakistan - I salute those people but I cannot accept our army did something wrong by surrendering. More people would have died, though the surrender was biggest shame for a Muslim Soldier but in my view the people they were fighting and dying for were not worth it.

You support feudalism then?
No! But I'm not feudo-phobic. Though I don't follow politicians but whenever I see some successful politician - the first things that would come in my mind is great leadership, communication, following, successful venture etc not feudalism. Bonded labor, extortion, massive blackmailing are things that I would associate to feudalism. Anyway, I don't know what you want to prove - just spit it out and move on. I don't think we're going spend our talking on this.

We could have made a great country with west and east Pakistan.
No, sorry for disagreement again but I think it was east Pakistan is gone for good, though I understand what you meant but everything comes at cost and we might have ended up paying even bigger cost. We were never a nation - their priorities were different than ours. That was unlucky coincidence that joined us in Indo-Pak partition and brought us all that shame - Pakistan was only train leaving British India atleast in century to come after partition. There leadership tried every other alternative until end but boarded on 'Pakistan' train when they got no other choice. Today they call Pakistanis 'Mullah' or 'Islamists' because they feel shame in these words but they're proud to be called 'secular'. Frankly, majority among them are the people who're ashamed of their identity as Muslim, how would they have accepted 'Pakistan' which came into existence in the name of 'Islam'.

I agree .Indeed Saudi Arabia should openly support Kashmir issue ,and also Jerusalem. but they will not as they have more love for their throne than Islam.
Hmm, things got too much complicated in today's multifaceted world - every country will put their nation interest first and others later. Though, they should support these issues and they do as long as their own national interest isn't on stack. Representation of KSA at OIC meeting was disappointing though - they should have come out loud by sending some high profile representative but they didn't - though they know their reasons and we don't.

Pakistan has a much higher nominal GDP than Bangladesh's. :lol:

Please don't compare your country to Pakistan.

Pakistan is light years ahead of Bangladesh in many sectors like manufacturing and services.
LOL! Don't provoke him or he would just pull the facts from [awami league website] to prove you wrong. Though, we're ahead of them on real GDP count instead on nominal (and nominal figures for different countries are not comparable).
Pakistan stands on 25 position in 2017 ranking with $1060 Billion economy; yay, we're $1.60 trillion economy but we need to work too hard to catch up high income economies based on per capita income because it only $5350 yet.
 
http://www.thedailystar.net/supplements/victory-day-special-2017/the-war-footage-1505443

Spotlight

THE WAR OF FOOTAGE
Representation of the Liberation War in US Media
Kaberi GayenMarch 24, 2017

the_war_of_footage.jpg

Foreign journalists began to write on the military clampdown as early as the end of March 1971, much before Mascarenhas' report was published, and many of the stories referred to the event as “massacre”, “slaughter” and “tragedy”1. New Nation from Singapore and the Saturday Review from New York used the terms “holocaust” and “genocide”. However, it was Mascarenhas' eye-witness account that attracted the world press to the magnitude of the Bangladeshi crisis.

An interesting research shows that in Britain, from March to December 1971, The Times published 29 editorials, The Daily Telegraph published 39, The Guardian, 37, The Observer put out 15, and The Financial Times, 13. BBC broadcast at least eight episodes of Panaroma, the investigative current affairs programme, on the war.2

1971_screenshots_from_abc_and_cbs_news_footage_1.jpg

But content wise, the reports neither focused on the humanitarian grounds of the war nor did they support the Bangladeshi people's struggle. A research cast light on the content of the reports of The New York Timesand The Times (London). Analysing the front page reportage of these two, the research found that 34 percent dealt with military conflict dimensions of the crisis, 30.5 percent with its potential consequences, and only 16.8 percent focused on human interest stories relating accounts of the Bengali people, victims, and refugees. Nearly half of the reports had a neutral tone, 14.4 percent negative, and only 35.1 percent positive.3

However, we do not find much research on television coverage. Fortunately, I got access to footage of ABC, CBS and NBC prime time news from March 25 to December 25, 1971. The footages, along with transcripts, perhaps characterise the then US administration's stance on the Liberation War of Bangladesh, and show the response of the powers involved in the war and US media. However, the focus of this short write-up is how these three US television news channels represented the Liberation War in 1971.

Pakistan/Civil War!
The ABC Evening News for March 25 broadcast studio news on the military crackdown in Dhaka. Ted Koppel and Harry Reasoner reported:

(Dacca, E. Pakistan) Negotiations break down, results in Civil War; only West Pakistan has professional army; East Pakistan leaders speak of fighting Vietnam style guerrilla war; those involved in training following British model for army know nothing about guerrilla warfare.


This 20-second news in fact says a lot. It not only termed the military crackdown of the Pakistan government on the unarmed people of Bangladesh in the dark of night a 'civil war', but it also highlighted the supremacy of the professional army of Pakistan over the people's resistance to this oppression. It said that although East Pakistani leaders spoke about Vietnamese style guerrilla fighting, they in fact knew nothing about it. This first news after the massacre of the 25th in Dhaka thus distorted the truth of the cruel, premeditated killing by the Pakistani Army as civil war, and trivialised the people's resistance by saying “they know nothing about guerrilla warfare.”

1971_screenshots_from_abc_and_cbs_news_footage_2.jpg

ABC Evening News for March 26 reiterated the situation in Bangladesh as civil war, mentioning that East Pakistan declared independence. But interestingly, the accompanying commentary mentioned that “East Pakistan Leader Sheik Mujibur Rahman wants improved relations with India.”

CBS and NBC similarly termed the massacre a “civil war” on the next day, March 26, and used a clip from French Television Film by Frank Mcgee that gave a background of the situation and Sheikh Mujibur Rahman's recorded interview. As a result, news on the Liberation War was named, broadcasted and preserved as 'Pakistan/Civil War' in all the three channels. The name persisted for a long time, till it was replaced by the title 'India-Pakistan War'.

'Rebellions Crushed'/'Rebellions Not Totally Crushed'
Interestingly, both CBS and NBC claimed that “East Pakistan rebellion [has been] crushed” on March 28. The name of the news remained the same: 'Pakistan/Civil War'. On April 1, CBS Evening news reported, 'East Pakistan rebels capture Jessore'; they substantiate this information with the next line: “West Pakistan charges Indians crossing into East Pakistan to fight with rebels.” NBC Evening News the same day reported, “West Pakistan radio continues to maintain East Pakistan rebellion crushed,” while CBS Evening News on April 2 broadcasted a very interesting short report:

(Studio) West Pakistan admits for 1st time East Pakistan rebellion not completely crushed.

It then went on to broadcast the report by Richard Lindley of the BBC:

(Jessore, E. Pakistan) Film shows Jessore villagers killed by West Pakistan army before retreating; West Pakistan now beginning counterattack; rebels living on coconuts; accounts on both sides exaggerated.

West Pakistan begins counterattack? Who were the attackers then? The same tone is in later reports as well:

CBS Evening News for 1971-04-11:

(E. Pakistan) West Pakistan army controls large East Pakistan cities… East Pakistan rifles are main rebel strength, but no match for West Pakistan army… rebels unorganised; refugees crossing into India by hundreds.


Indians crossing borders to help rebels!
After the dark night of March 25, people from East Bengal crossed over to take refuge in the border districts of India. Instead, from early April, ABC, CBS and NBC started to report on West Pakistan's claim of Indians crossing the border to help rebels.

Walter Cronkite reports: (Studio) West Pakistan charges India volunteers infiltrating into East Pakistan to aid rebels (CBS Evening News for 1971-04-05)

David Brinkly reports: (Studio) East Pakistan rebellion continues… Indians repeatedly crossing border to fight with rebels. (NBC Evening News for 1971-04-05)

Both sides involved in 'Execution of civilians'
NBC Evening News for April 6 reported: Both rebels and West Pakistan army involved in executions of opposition civilians, while the accompanying footage described:

(Teheran, Iran) Film shows plane load of Americans arriving in Teheran from East Pakistan. [Unidentified Americans say many Pakistani friends now dead; husband, father still there; many endanger lives if speak too freely.]

The introduction of 'China' and 'Soviet Union' in the scenario
Interestingly, one may find clear bias in the way these news channels introduced the positions of superpowers in the war. For example, CBS Evening News for April 7 reported:

(Studio) Communist China supports West Pakistan in East Pakistan rebellion; charges India with interference in civil war.

NBC Evening News reported the same day:

(Studio) Communist China accuses India of supporting East Pakistan rebels; last week, USSR indirectly supported rebels.

1971_screenshots_from_abc_and_cbs_news_footage_3.jpg

Support of China for West Pakistan was highlighted quite often. CBS Evening News for May 1 again reported:

(Studio) West Pakistan says China (People's Republic) offered to increase aid to help West Pakistan against East Pakistan rebels.

On the contrary, support of USSR for East Pakistan was always interspersed with China's opposing position, for example, ABC Evening News for April 12:

(Studio) USSR Leaders Brezhnev and Podgorny criticise West Pakistan for bloodshed in East Pakistan; Premier Kosygin meets with West Pakistan and India Ambassadors. Communist China pledges support for West Pakistan, criticises India.

What is interesting was that support for East Pakistan by any country or world personality, other than USSR, was hardly ever mentioned in news. Even the famous 'Concert for Bangladesh' by George Harrison and Pandit Ravi Shankar went unaired by these channels. To be on the safe side, no footage was ever found regarding this concert in the archives, even though newspapers filmed the event extensively.

India enters the 'Pakistan/Civil War' hash
The denomination 'Pakistan/Civil War' now turned to 'Pakistan/Civil War/India', 'India/Cholera', 'India/Refugee/Cholera', 'India/Cholera', and 'India/Refugees', and that is what it continued to be called until nearly the end of the war, and incessantly till mid-June for certain. The refugee crisis was undeniable, but there was a tension of who was winning in this politically crafted humanitarian race. I would like to share one particular incidence.

1971_screenshots_from_abc_and_cbs_news_footage_4.jpg

Walter Cronkite in the CBS Evening News of June 14 and Howard K. Smith on the next day reported that USSR had helped fly East Pakistan refugees from Calcutta to central India. In both the cases, the accompanying footage showed the poor living conditions in refugee camps. But the interesting part was when American aircrafts were shown transporting refugees. They broadcasted a clip comparing US' process of flying people with that of the USSR, emphasising that their way was far better because the crew showed the passengers how to buckle up and at the end of the trip gave them chocolate.


India turned to be the centre of the news eventually. Senator Kennedy's visit to refugee camps, Kissinger's visit to India and Pakistan, Indira Gandhi's world tour, the Nixon-Indira meeting, India's Friendship Treaty with Soviet Union—this series of events brought India to the spotlight. The titles of the report started to turn into India/Refugees/US AID, India/Kissinger/Refugees/Agnew, India/Kissinger, or India/Kissinger/US-Pakistan Aid. Finally, by the end of August, or at most the early days of September, the whole 'Pakistan/Civil War' tag had been transformed into the 'India-Pakistan War'.

Dhaka falls!
It was December 16. The result of the war had been decided. Bangladesh emerged as a new nation in the world. The headline of CBS Evening News for December 16 is 'India-Pakistan/Dacca Falls'. That of NBC Evening News for December 16 is also 'India-Pakistan/Dacca Falls'. For whom Dhaka was considered fallen? I do not know if this naming means something, but I certainly know that the 16th of December was the day of victory for the Bengali people, the day we regained Dhaka from the occupying Pakistan forces. It would be understandable if Pakistan media was saying 'Dacca Falls'. But why US television channels would term our victory as such, is beyond comprehension.

1971_screenshots_from_abc_and_cbs_news_footage_5.jpg

However, the last news I would cite here is NBC Evening News for December 16. The news was named simply 'Bangladesh'. John Chancellor reported:

(Studio) New nation of Bangladesh profiled. 8th largest in world in population; 1 of the poorest (USD 77/yr/person); geographically size of Arkansas. Flag includes map of nation in gold. Problems cited: returning refugees, rebuilding of war rubble. Political turmoil probable with leader in jail; dependence on India necessary.

The media is not only words, symbols or codes; it is the centre of targeted selectiveness implemented through a plethora of expressive means. We do not convey reality the way it is; the language we use shapes our perspective of it. And our language is the media. Information is not only the fact – it is also its formation as a media event. Information – presented or suppressed – both tell about the deeper meaning and the deeper politics of an event or history. The absence of the people's war in the footage of the media, and the absence of the word 'Bangladesh' till the very end of the time, speaks volumes of the associated politics. And footage speaks volume about the war.

The writer is Professor, Department of Mass Communication and Journalism, University of Dhaka.

Photo: Screenshots from ABC and CBS News footage.



1 For instance, New York Times, 28 March 1971, 31 March 1971, 7 April 1971; The Guardian, 31 March 1971; Times [London], 3 April 1971; New Stateman [London], 16 April 1971.

2 Harun-or-Rashid. 1995. “British perspectives, Pressures and Publicity Regarding Bangladesh, 1971”, Contemporary South Asia 4(2): 140-41.

3 Mohammed Delwar Hossain. 2010. “Framing the Liberation War of Bangladesh in the U.S. and the U. K. Media: A Content Analysis of The New York Times and The Times (London)”. M.A. thesis, Southern Illions University, Carbondale. Cited in Srinath Raghban. 2013. 1971: A Global History of the Creation of Bangladesh, Harvard University Press.
 
Last edited:
Well as our prime minister Indira Gandhi said with just one war we have defeated Pakistan's 2 nation theory which the Muslim league drilled in the minds of the people

Id like to raise 2 points here.:

If 2 Nation Theory gas been defeated... Why is Pakistan still a nation.. And so KS Bangladesh... Why did Bangladesh not join India?


2nd) The only thing drilled was Indra herself... Rather she was roasted by her own body guards.. Taking a dump on her and the hypocrisy of India.

Even if they were super rich.... Good riddance, they don't belong to us. a land separated by thousands of miles, completely alien to us.


Dil behlanay ko ghalib yeh khayal bhi acha hai.

Awami league isnt the only culprit here.. PPP and Yahya are almost equally responsible for 71.

Bhutto more so.. He was as greedy as Mujib..
 
Id like to raise 2 points here.:

If 2 Nation Theory gas been defeated... Why is Pakistan still a nation.. And so KS Bangladesh... Why did Bangladesh not join India?


2nd) The only thing drilled was Indra herself... Rather she was roasted by her own body guards.. Taking a dump on her and the hypocrisy of India.
To your first point I would say, it was the concept that a nation could be created solely on the basis of religion, i.e. religion itself could act as a unifier that was defeated. And Pakistan is hardly the first country to have the misfortune to prove that. Just look at the Middle East, where multiple nations have been created on the basis of religion but haven't stayed unified for long. Or Europe during the crusades.

To the second point....well Indra dying didn't bring back East Pakistan either did it? She did what she did and that's permanent.
 
Back
Top Bottom