1. Recognize the fact that mass killings were committed by the EPR, EBR and Muki bahini before the army action.
Non-Bengalis were indeed killed, but only as reaction to the atrocities committed by the Pakistani army. Your allegation is akin to accusing a rape victim of ‘hurting’ her rapist in the process of defending herself.
‘Revolution is not a dinner party, nor an essay, nor a painting, nor a piece of embroidery; it cannot be advanced softly, gradually, carefully, considerately, respectfully, politely, plainly, and modestly. A revolution is an insurrection, an act of violence by which one class overthrows another.’ – Mao.
2. Provide the proof for 3 million killings.
You forgot to tell us, what would constitute ‘proof’ in your book. In fact you have ended up doing exactly what you have accused people of – that of beating about the bush. Not only that, to provide your ‘proof’ you have simply distorted history – even the ones which are recorded by neutral parties – and have quoted dubious research works to support your claim.
Initial thoughts:
While the killings were unfortunate but blaming it purely on the Pakistan Army alone is very one-sided. Pakistan Army in any case was a very late entrant in the drama. By the time they took action, massive number of West Pakistani soldiers, their families, civilians and non Bengalis were already killed by Indian created and trained Mukti Bahini, deserters form the East Pakistan Rifles and the East Bengal Regiment. The killings even continued months after surrender of Pakistan Army.
Horsesh!t. That’s what it is.
Far from being a ‘late entrant’ – PA was the reason why things happened the way it happened. On March 1st, 1971, US Memorandum report to Kissinger notes:
‘
A general atmosphere of tension prevails throughout Dacca, and numerous spontaneous processions and demonstrations calling for the independence of East Pakistan are reported to be underway. So far violence reportedly has been limited, but the potential for major destructive outbursts would seem to be great, especially if the West Pakistani-controlled provincial regime takes any heavy-handed actions against the demonstrators.’
On March 4th, 1971 Memorandum report to Kissinger notes:
‘
At least one Pakistani air force C–130 has been seen flying into Dacca and there are recurrent reports of forces being flown into Dacca via the Pakistani commercial airline and of the movement of troops from the West via ship. These reports can not be confirmed but it is known that there is pressure from some elements in the military to make a quick repressive strike against the East Pakistani leaders in hopes of cowing them and the rest of the province.[The contingency paper says intervention is “very unlikely”. This seems less and less true. CIA working level judges that the East would respond with further violence rather than surrender.] ’
At that point, PA had around 20,000 troops of which, 15,000 alone were deployed in Dacca – the initial killing fields.
On 13th March, 1971, the Memorandum report to Kissinger notes:
‘
An immediate showdown between East and West Pakistan has been averted for the time being. […] There is also evidence that the military forces in the East Wing are being gradually strengthened by troops being airlifted through Ceylon.
[…]
Yahya could decide not to take Rahman’s challenge lying down and to retaliate, perhaps to the extent of arresting Rahman and the other leaders, and attempting to clamp a military lid on East Pakistan. There are two basic problems here: (1) Rahman has embarked on a Gandhian-type non-violent non-cooperation campaign which makes it harder to justify repression; and (2) the West Pakistanis lack the military capacity to put down a full scale revolt over a long period.
A static waiting game could develop with neither the army nor the civilians prepared to take a bold initiative to break the deadlock and each hoping the other will break first. This is where we are now and Rahman would probably prefer to continue like this for a while longer so that he can gradually take de facto control of East Pakistan without forcing a showdown.’
On 15th March, the US assessment was:
‘
If Yahya, or others in the military, decide to resist Mujib’s action by force, East Pakistan will be engulfed in a struggle between the military and the Bengali nationalists, the outcome of which can only be eventual independence of Bengal and the breaking of all ties with West Pakistan—unless, as seems unlikely in the long run, the army can successfully contain a rebellion. Mujib’s statement called on Bengalis to resist “by all possible means” any force used against them.’
It is pretty clear that during March, right upto the infamous crackdown, the situation in Bangladesh was nowhere near as violent as ‘mass killings’ of non-Bengalis would indicate. In fact there was a ‘deadlock’ between the military and the civilians. Even US was doubtful, if any severe crackdown could be justified by PA, given the status quo. Your allegation that by 25th March, ‘massive number of West Pakistani soldiers, their families, civilians and non Bengalis were already killed’ just doesn't fly. It is nothing but a self-serving delusional rant. Besides, there are two gross factual errors.
a) The mass defection had taken place only after the crackdown, not before and b) Indian trained Mukti Bahinis entered East Pakistan for the first time, only during the last week of April, 1971. So they couldn’t have possibly taken part in any sort of ‘killings’ of non-Bengalis, before the crack down. The killings didn’t continue even after surrender, because all the prisoners, 90,000 in total, were in Indian custody and Mukti Bahinis were disarmed, accept for some pockets in the rural areas.
A word or two (or three) about Hamoodur Rahman Commission (HRC).
1. No one has seen the original HRC. What is available on the net is what GoP released as supplementary report. No one knows for sure if the contents on that supplementary report actually correspond with the original report. Hence any conclusion of the report, which goes against common and/or researched knowledge and wisdom, would have to be taken with a pinch of salt.
2. HRC was formed to investigate into the failure of PA and to find the reason behind the break up of Pak and not to investigate into the number of deaths.
3. The supplementary HRC report claims that only
213 witnesses were examined to arrive at its conclusion. HRC arrived at that outrageously ridiculous number of deaths on the basis of this even outrageously little witness. It is a joke, by any standard.
Quoting HRC figures of death toll, as something etched in stone, is intellectual bankruptcy.