I saw veteran freedom fighter who met Pakistani soldiers fought in then East Pakistan hugging each other with nostalgia. They respect each other as a true soldier but you wont find any who had respect for Rajakars. Neither a freedom fighter nor a true Pakistani soldier ever liked Rajakars. They are the hated ones from both sides.
For starters, it was the people of Bangladesh who created Bangladesh. If some idiot, whatever his nationality, thinks it was a gift handed over on a platter, he needs his arse kicked, and I would be happy to do the honours. I don't mind checking if it is Sheru Thapliyal and travelling to Delhi for the express purpose.
Second, it is unbelievable that a friendly neighbour's struggle for independence is seen in terms of what difference it has made to yet another neighbour's military capability. What was Bangladesh supposed to have done? Said something on the lines of, "Oops, sorry, nearly goofed up bad on that one, we'll stay on with Pakistan after all and let them stumble along handling us along with every other problem. No worries about the couple of hundred thousand people they've killed, and twice that number of women they've raped, we'll just kiss and make up, wouldn't like to unbalance your military disposition, would we?"
This is pathetic. At the time of Bangladesh liberation, when Tajuddin Ahmed and Col. Osmany, later General Osmany, demanded help from the Indian military in terms of direct intervention, it was said to them that there were no dedicated forces for moving against Bangladesh; that XXXIII Corps, for instance, was guarding the northern frontier, and that III and IV Corps was distributed across Dibrugarh, Bomdila, Rangia and Leimakhong, with one, count it, one division rear-echeloned in Ranchi? Was this why Jake Jacob used Mountain Divisions for his campaign, for the thrust west from Agartala? With this disposition, what difference did it make whether Pakistan had one or a dozen divisions within Bangladesh, East Pakistan as it then was?
Next we are told that by creating Bangladesh, we made an implacable enemy of Pakistan. OK, this guy won't learn, he's got it fixed, hardwired in the PCBs that he insists are his brains. Let's not even try to explain to him that when a people half the size of the total Arab population in the world decide on a course of action, they generally get what they want.
Let's concentrate on the implacable enemy of Pakistan bit. There's always been Pakistanis who've been implacable enemies of India, and always will be. And there's always Pakistanis who are glad to be Pakistanis, but unless there is gross provocation, are peace-loving citizens and good denizens of the world like everyone else.
This particular piece of bitching comes from a fixed impression that the author could have taken from the novel Animal Farm,"Two feet bad, four feet good!" Pakistanis bad, repeat after me. Give me a break. This is not to say that problems between India and Pakistan will go away, not at all. But to imagine that ALL the people of Pakistan are committed to breaking up India is as delusional as imagining ALL people of India are committed to breaking up Pakistan.
And what's next? Bangladesh is firmly in the enemy camp? I think Sri Lankan reads a lot, much more than is good for him. And also that he posts a lot, much more than is good for us. Maybe he should clearly indicate the dates of his third-party posted pieces. This was so obviously written during a particularly bad day during Begum Khaleda's regime. If it is intended to refer to the current situation, I can only shake my head in wonder.
Then he goes on to describe one of the most wholesome developments, the handing over to a third party administration the government of the state until the elections scheduled are over, in his own incredulous language as a 'farce', as something that happens in no democratic country. Is he aware that under the merciless gaze of the Indian Election Commission, any Indian government in power is allowed to do nothing substantial till the election results are declared. What's the difference?
The one single solitary thing that was said was that Indira Gandhi's regime made investments in individuals rather than in institutions. Fair enough. We need to convey in unmistakable terms that our relationship with Bangladesh is with the country, with its sovereign people, and not with transient political regimes.
The article should never have been reproduced. It is wholly unrepresentative of the general feeling among Indians for Bangladesh, leave alone the swelling pride in a Bengali's heart, even an Indian Bengali, when he sees a free Bangladesh' flag. It is also very mischievous to have reproduced it and posted it .
