Pakistan will not apologise to Bangladesh: Qureshi

[blain2]

The short explanation is - Yes India did prepare for the war, but the situation was presented on a platter by Pakistan!

Surely, if all was well and Pakistan was one country from 1947 to 1971, India could not have changed the status in 1971 either!

Nobody is debating that and we accept that the failure was ours..however the issue was whether India had some other options or not. They did but went in for the military one.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

but the situation was presented on a platter by Pakistan!

Absolutely agree Salim.

I am in no way diminishing Pakistan's own mistakes in letting the situation become one that as you say 'presented itself on a platter' to India.

My only argument is that the canard of 'moral justification' and 'no choice' needs to be dropped. It was real politic through and through.

 

[Tiki Tam Tam]

There is moral justification and of that there is no doubt.

Notwithstanding, it was used to pursue India's own strategic requirement. I, personally, would have no doubt about that based on my limited understanding, nor will I shy away from agreeing so!

 

[Flintlock]

Absolutely agree Salim.

I am in no way diminishing Pakistan's own mistakes in letting the situation become one that as you say 'presented itself on a platter' to India.

My only argument is that the canard of 'moral justification' and 'no choice' needs to be dropped. It was real politic through and through.

If you ask my honest opinion, I feel that it was bound to happen. It is a big task to forge unity between two wings of a country, separated by 1000 kms of enemy territory.

 

[BanglaBhoot]

Indira Gandhi at a public meeting on Nov, 30, 1970 observed, "India has never reconciled with the existence of Pakistan, Indian leaders always believed that Pakistan should not have been created and that Pakistan nation has no right exist".

The quote actually appears in my book The India Doctrine and I got the reference from the Pakistan Defence Journal and there are many more such quotes of IG and her family members whose objective was to literally destroy Pakistan but was restrained by the US and China.

There was nothing inevitable about the break-up of Pakistan. IG cleverly played Mujib and Bhutto against each other and succeeded to play up Bengali nationalism inside East Pakistan. The break-up only became inevitable after the crackdown on March 26, 1971. No doubt there was legitimate grievances on the part of East Pakistan but the cunning of IG, the arrogance of Bhutto (including the incompetence of Yahya Khan) and the ambitions of Mujib all came together to create an impossible situation.

President Musharaff has on 2 occasions apologized for the events of 1971 and history has passed judgment on the actions of the above named political leaders of 1971 by not allowing them a natural death or a graceful exit from this life.

A logical argument for present and future generations to consider is that without the contribution of Bengali Muslims Pakistan would not have come into being. Without the creation of Pakistan a Bangladesh would later never have come into existence. The history of both nations are therefore inextricably linked and the existence of both Pakistan and Bangladesh is justified on the terms contained in the original version of the Lahore Resolution. The creation of Bangladesh is the fulfillment of the ideals of the Lahore Resolution and not its refutation or rejection. This realization is now dawning on Bangladeshis. This consciousness had been suppressed by India for the last 4 decades but knowledge cannot remain hidden for long.

 

[vish]

India's 'choice' was to never have exploited the situation and armed violent groups, - you chose not to. Beyond that Blain and I have both pointed out that India had several choices, but instead it started preparing for war (and had it not been for Manekshaw's insistence that he was not ready, the war would have started then). Don't complain about no choice after you yourself helped create the conditions.

We exploited the situation but our "exploitation" had no role in aggrevating your situation... It was post Operation Searchlight that we entered the crisis and influenced the events to our liking.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Munshi Sahib,

Thank you for the clarification on the quote, and thank you for posting this excellent point:

"The history of both nations are therefore inextricably linked and the existence of both Pakistan and Bangladesh is justified on the terms contained in the original version of the Lahore Resolution. The creation of Bangladesh is the fulfillment of the ideals of the Lahore Resolution and not its refutation or rejection."

 

[cactuslily58]

I have a question on the entire issue of apology.In fact it is quite similar to a call made upon Japan for what it did during WW II.

Why should Pak have to aplogise ? East Pakistan was a part of Pakistan, it therefore was well within its rights to do all it could & felt necessary to control a situation in its Eastern wing as any Govt would do. Is there any govt in the world who has gone entirely by the book ? The answer is NO.

Why then the call then for Pak to aplogise ? Things went wrong and a price was paid. All of us ( including Govts) take the decisions in our lives based on the available inputs then. Sometimes they work other times they don't. We may end up wiser but sadder men later but that's what learning & life is all about.

GOP took the best decision in March '71 or thereabouts & paid the price. How will an apology help ? I feel it amounts to rubbing salt into the wounds quite unnecessarily. The fact that Pakistan has accepted the reality of BD I feel amounts to more than an apology.

 

[Tiki Tam Tam]

Munshi Sahib,

Thank you for the clarification on the quote, and thank you for posting this excellent point:

"The history of both nations are therefore inextricably linked and the existence of both Pakistan and Bangladesh is justified on the terms contained in the original version of the Lahore Resolution. The creation of Bangladesh is the fulfillment of the ideals of the Lahore Resolution and not its refutation or rejection."

Munshiji,

Not understood how it is a fulfilment when it continues to remain an independent country!

Funny!

 

[BanglaBhoot]

The concept of the Two Nation theory was originally taken too literally and only to mean two states ( i.e. India and Pakistan). This ignores the ideological and metaphorical context of The Two Nation theory and the spirit of The Lahore Resolution. There could be several states created out of the undivided India but all based on the Two Nation Theory and deriving legitimacy from it. If for example not only Bangladesh but also Kashmir or any other Muslim majority state were to become independent this would in no way be a rejection of the Two Nation theory.

If however other minorities such as the Sikhs, Dalits and the indigenous peoples of the Seven Sisters also demanded independent states based on something other than religion (such as ethnicity, caste or language) The Two Nation Theory would then have to become a several Nation Theory.

These ideas are developed further in my book The India Doctrine.

 

[BanglaBhoot]

Lahore Resolution outlined Bangladesh's separate entity

M.T.Hussain

The New Nation – March 23, 2008

Is it not fantastic to hear from some section here that Bangladesh had its independence in March 1971 that owed everything for happenings and movements by people between 1952-1971? Did not the assertion mean that Bangladesh had only a background history of people's struggle of 18 years and nothing beyond prior to 1952 for independence?

Neither Bangladesh is a 'newfound land' nor all are newly settled people living here only after around 1952. Geographically, it is quite ancient a land and the people are equally old settlers, though composition of races changed and intermixed from time to time through millenniums of human habitation. Not only that it was so about the composition of the people but the country had also been independent as an entity, bigger in land size though, long before in the 15th century ruled by the Ilias Shah dynasty as a Muslim welfare state having everything of sovereignty at that point of history and human civility. Again soon after the weakening of the Mughals in Bengal, it is well known that our country had been similarly independent that the British conspired to take over from Seraj Ud Daula in 1757 A.D. through deep conspiracy based in the then Calcutta (now Kolkata). Our forefathers had to struggle hard afterwards for 190 years until 1947 to get rid of the British and their local henchmen. And in the struggle a critical and culminating point of history was reached in 1940, in this month of March on the 23-24, 68 years ago, meeting then in a special session of their own political organization, All India Muslim League held in Lahore, the then provincial capital of the united province of the British Indian Punjab. The session though was presided over by the Muslim League President Muhammad Ali Jinnah, the resolution that outlined among other things the location and separate identity of what is now known as Bangladesh along with what constitutes Pakistan territory was spearheaded by Sher E Bangla A K Fazlul Haq, the then Prime Minister of the British Indian province of Bengal (united) having capital at Calcutta (Kolkata). Had there been no Lahore Resolution of 1940 passed unanimously and implemented through further follow up united struggle, there would have been neither Pakistan in 1947 nor Bangladesh in 1971. It is as such really amazing that while in March the independence of Bangladesh is celebrated with all razzmatazz, the March 23 commemoration of the Lahore Resolution is kept under the carpet for our present generation to forget everything about it.

If one would go in a bit of background, one is certain to see clearly that the Muslim League until 1940 and even after sought nothing more than the minimum as equal rights of citizen as would any other have which the Congress party hardly intended to accede. On the contrary, the Congress went on doing almost everything against the interests of the Muslims in every way they could lay hands on. That was what the Muslim minorities experienced shockingly in all cultural and economic matters when following the 1937 election Congress ministries were formed the seven of the eleven provinces in the British Indian dominion.

The governments in those provinces, for instance, imposed their party chorus Bande Mataram as the compulsory song for school class starting in all academic institutions that the Muslim children did distaste for religious belief in monotheism. They imposed further in schools bowing down to the portrait of Gandhi hung in class rooms that as well the Muslim students did not relish for religious faith. In employment and business the Muslims were sidelined. The frustration for such grievances led to jubilation of the Muslims at the fall of those Congress ministries in December 1939 followed by observance of the DAY OF DELIVERNCE by the Muslim League on the 22 December (See, S. Wolpert, The Jinnah of Pakistan, OUP, 1988/1992, p. 176). The Lahore Resolution soon followed the Day of Deliverance in about 12 weeks that spelled clearly two Muslim States, one in the North Western and the other in Eastern locality of the then British India meaning Bengal and Assam provinces in this region.

Unfortunately, the eastern part, in particular, was later on in 1947 reduced to smaller size by the Radcliffe's evil mechanics than what was envisaged in the 1940 Lahore Resolution. The smaller and the 'moth-eaten' eastern part formed East Pakistan in 1947 what is `now called Bangladesh after 1971.

In independent Bangladesh since 1972 political rhetoric is full of partial truth. Such airing of half truths for mainly gaining narrowly selfish ends did not remain limited to ordinary vocabularies but penetrated deep into school textbook contents obviously for indoctrination through brainwashing of our younger generation to commit to memory many fictions and half-truths rather than whole truth about our authentic past and recent history just as the colonial British rulers of foreign land did hide our glory for their own selfish ends for two hundred years of their occupation of our dear land.

Whose interest is being served by presenting such tunnel vision view of our past history? Such distortion and half truths may hardly serve our own national interests but for the group who stood prior to 1947 for AKHAND BHARAT or united one India under the Indian Congress Philosophy destined perpetually to keep the minority Muslims on all India basis in subjugation, particularly, in this land where the ruling elite belonged to the Congress variety (See, MBI Munshi, The India Doctrine, Dhaka, 2006). Shying away from the Lahore Resolution, that is, tuning up with the Indian Congress view of issues certainly implies as before that the 'wrong' division of 1947 of the British India be remedied by forgetting the event, whatever historic significance that had had. How is the argument tenable?

Think for a moment, had there been no division following the Lahore Resolution what the fate of the people of Bangladesh following 1947 would have been. Anything other than the ill fate of the minorities of big India? How could then the sons and daughters of nearly illiterate peasants and subsistence farmers' of East Bengal who rose up fantastically in education, professions, businesses etc. directly owing to the partition of Bengal in 1947 have socio-economic mobility just only in a generation?

Well, the 23 March is celebrated in Pakistan as their national day to commemorate the adoption of the Lahore Resolution that made a taboo here. But there is no denying the fact that until the fateful 1971 we shared a common nationality decided in the 1946 general election through fully democratic means. How could one erase that past common history and legacy? Forgetting the past proud common legacy of our forefathers would in all likely lead to 'INDIANISATION' (See, Balraz Modhok, Indianisation, Delhi, 1970).

It is as such only befitting that the Lahore Resolution event be observed in Bangladesh with due fervor on the 23 March along with the Independence Day on the 26th March.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Is Dhaka turning into Delhi�s client state?

M. Shahidul Islam

HOLIDAY– March 21, 2008

Much of the latest diplomatic dancing of the Caretaker Government (CG) is out of tune with the music the nation wants it to follow. Dealings with the USA and India in particular have become too controversial as the government is only giving away too much without taking anything substantive in return.

In recent months, a number of major power plant deals were contracted out to Indian companies without any scrutiny while suspected Islamic militants are being sent to gallows for reasons that remain at best obscure. The candid admission by the IGP that the charges brought against the accused of the April 2004 Chittagong port arms smuggling incident were false - and the real culprits were the HuJI- has made observers very suspicious of how the so called US-led war on terror is being conducted by the current administration.

If the charges were falsely laid, were the inputs in the investigations made for years by the Interpol, FBI, Scotland Yard and the RAW too were misleading? Did not the same IGP work under the previous administration when the false charges were brought against innocent people many of whom have long been languishing in custody? Even the frustrated widow of former finance minister SAMS Kibria had accused the government of blaming the HuJI for all crimes in order not to get into the real facts.

That aside, the style and the posture of diplomacy with India in particular is evoking serious concerns among experts who think, under the CG, Bangladesh is turning into a client state of our big neighbour. They say, having completed much of the border fencing, India has been aggressively pursuing to get land, air and sea transit facilities from the CG which it could not obtain from the elected governments of the past due to the entrenched geopolitical and economic implications, and the sensitivity of the issues among the estranged population of the Indian north east.

That partly explains why the Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) signed in mid-February with respect to mutual air services has allowed India to transport by air all types of military hardware to the troubled north eastern states without Dhaka being afforded an opportunity to raise question about the contents of the consignments being transported over its sky. Sources say the MoU also agreed to allow Indian military cargo aircrafts to land and take off inside Bangladesh soil, without any prior notification. Given that India has signed a deal with the USA to procure about two squadrons of transport aircrafts that can land and take off surreptitiously and on any terrain, those experts have much to be wary of how the air service deal entailed such a clause.

The blunder was, however, spotted belatedly by the DGFI and that is what has led to the chief of the Bangladesh delegation, secretary of civil aviation, being relegated into an Officer on Special Duty (OSD) upon his return to Dhaka from Delhi at the conclusion of the bilateral aviation meeting on February 15.

Land transit

Sources also say the land transit demand of India is on its way to be approved, albeit in a circuitous manner, once India is allowed to use Chittagong port facility for which a draft agreement is ready.

The veracity of this news came from Sudhakar Dalela, the councillor for trade and commerce at the Indian High Commission in Dhaka, who was quoted by an Indian media outlet as having said on March 13 that, “The Bangladesh government is actively considering the Indian proposal to allow Chittagong port to be used by India for easy communication with northeastern states.” Chittagong port is only 75 km from Tripura’s border town of Sabroom.

Dalela also confirmed he and other Indian officials, accompanied by Bangladeshi officials, have recently visited India-Bangladesh land custom stations along Tripura. Of the 32 land port custom outposts along the 4,095-km border, 24 are on the Indian side; 4 of them being in Tripura, 5 in West Bengal, 8 in Meghalaya and 3 in Assam. Only Mizoram, which shares 318 km long border with Bangladesh, has no custom outpost along the border. Delhi is now pressurizing Dhaka to open Demagiri-Thegamikh and Sabroom-Ramgarh routes between Bangladesh and Mizoram. Add to this the inland water transit facility India enjoys from Bangladesh, pursuant to the IWT&T Protocol of 1972 - which is renewed at an interval of every two year. The Protocol allows India to use port of call transit inside major Bangladeshi ports at Narayanganj, Sirajganj, Khulana and Mongla.

The demand from India for transit facilities has been one of the most persistent and controversial ones in the diplomatic history of the two neighbours. Yet, even the AL government did not concede to this sensitive issue due to fear of public anger, although everyone knows the distance between Kolkata and Agartala could be reduced from 1,500 to 350 km if Dhaka agreed to the Indian proposal.

Another major factor is: Indian geopolitical handicap in north eastern states predates the emergence of Bangladesh as an independent country and the fault does not lie with Dhaka. That the CG has chosen to ignore that historic fact and agreed to cure that long standing Indian handicap by compromising our national security and vital economic concerns is very unfortunate. Sources say, upon assurance from Dhaka, work toward Kolkata- Agartala rail link has nearly completed and Kumarghat and Agartala will be connected via rail within months. This fact is further corroborated by the information contained in the 2008-09 Indian railway budget outlays, which has earmarked special funds for rail link between Sabroom and Agartala.

Southeast via Ctg

Besides, Tripura Chief Minister Manik Sarkar said in a recent interview, “If the Indian Railways extends its line up to Sabroom, it will be very easy to connect with the Chittagong international port, which is just 75 km from the bordering town.” Sarkar added, “After extending the railway line to Sabroom, Tripura and the entire northeast would be linked with Southeast Asia too.”

One might be tempted to ask what the CG had received in return for fulfilling all the pending demands of India which the elected governments of the past did not dare to comply with? Records show, only US$150 million line of credit for railways development in bordering areas. Interestingly, this measly offer of credit has created so much impetus among the CG stalwarts that the Dhaka-Kolkata train service has been slated to begin soon, according to army chief General Moeen U Ahmed who has personally visited the train crossing point at the border during his recent high profile India visit.

No one, however, cared to examine how these deals would change the entire geopolitical landscape of a region where Delhi has been fighting a series of insurgencies since the 1950s. None also bothered to ponder how the Bangladeshi producers of goods and services will compete and survive if India is given further opportunities to take over our internal market by using this cobweb of connectivity? The government also overlooked the ramifications the newly acquired land, air and sea connectivity will engender by changing the very fundamentals upon which the geopolitical and economic landscapes of the region have evolved over the ages.

Until now, northeast India obtained its major access to Bangladesh through Dawki (India)/ Tamabil (Bangladesh) route and all freight traffic by road to and from Bangladesh needs transshipment at the border. Trucks from other neighbouring countries are not allowed to travel on the road networks of Bangladesh due to differences in the axle load limit and India do not allow Bangladeshi trucks to travel to India. Given that Bangladesh imports many time more than it exports to India, the Benapole - Petrapole route carries the heaviest traffic, accounting for about 80 per cent (in terms of value) of India’s export to Bangladesh. Currently, around 300 trucks are moving daily via Benapole - Petrapole border point.

With the added Tripura-bound traffic movement from Chittagong port, Bangladesh must not only cater for extra traffic and extra vigilance at the Tripura border points to guard against cross border arms smuggling of north eastern insurgents, surveillance is also needed to ensure that goods imported for Indian northeast via Chittagong port do not end up in Bangladesh markets to inflate the fortunes of Indian importers by inspiring smuggling within Bangladesh. Geopolitically, by obtaining facilities to use Chittagong port to connect Tripura - and the forthcoming Dhaka-Kolkata rail link affording transportation of Indian goods between Kolkata and the northeastern states of Assam, Meghalaya, and Arunachal Pradesh - the Indian authorities will have obtained almost everything it needed to connect Delhi with the landlocked north east. This must make Delhi happy enough to celebrate as such a feat had denied India since 1947.

Wrath of NE insurgents

With respect to the dividend for Bangladesh, no one needs reminding as to who will dominate that connected market while Bangladesh will earn the wrath of the northeastern insurgents for allowing Delhi such an opportunity. Militarily, the insurgents have so far proven insurmountable to the mighty military capability of India and, our own military may seem like helpless insects before them.

These fundamental concerns aside, there is something more in the offing as Delhi’s appetite for more economic and geopolitical advantages remains insatiable. Since January 2008, India began to insist on the signing of a Free Trade Agreement (FTA) with Bangladesh. “India is ready to sign an FTA with Bangladesh in view of the positive outcome of a Delhi-Colombo FTA,” Indian High Commissioner Pinak Ranjan Chakravarty said in Dhaka before a delegation of the foreign and international chamber of commerce. The envoy lamented as, what he said, “There had been no progress on FTA discussion after the latest negotiations of 2002.”

Chakravarty might have outsmarted many of his predecessors, but he ought to have been mindful that the last elected government of the country made much of those deals contingent upon India agreeing to facilitate energy transfer from Nepal and Bhutan by allowing the intervening Indian land for such usage, among some other preconditions. Brushing aside as a ‘wrong concept’ the usage of Indian land as a transit route between Bangladesh and Nepal, the Indian envoy quipped, “Both Bangladesh and Nepal are now enjoying such a facility in other ways.” Are they really?

In that January gathering, the Indian envoy also made hints of the ongoing construction of the Agartala-Akhaura rail link and Delhi’s hoped for access to New Mooring Terminal at Chittagong Port. Thus began the hurry-scurry among the CG officials which has resulted, in weeks, Dhaka agreeing to allow India to use Chittagong port. Coincidentally perhaps, the decision came on the heel of army chief’s return from Delhi after a series of meetings with senior Indian officials and ministers.

Now that Delhi has got in months what it could not obtain in decades, will India lift all restrictions on Bangladesh-Nepal relations; something Bangladesh can legitimately claim due to the prevalence of a number of bilateral agreements signed between Nepal and Pakistan, and, for which, Bangladesh is the lawful inheritor?

By not allowing corridor facility to Bangladesh in the by gone years, India has obstructed the execution of many international agreements signed between Pakistan and Nepal since the two countries established full diplomatic relations in 1962. Two such agreements between Kathmandu and Karachi (then Pakistan’s capital) were signed in October 1962, calling for reciprocal most-favoured- nation treatment. And, a January 1963 agreement provided Nepal with free trade and transit facilities through the port of Chittagong. This arrangement reduced the landlocked Nepal’s dependence on India for import privileges, particularly after the establishment of an air link with East Pakistan later that year. The efforts to secure another transit route through East Pakistan were blocked by India as it contained proposal for the use of the intervening Indian territory. Bangladesh too failed to secure that accord in the last 36 years.

Although a turning point in Nepal-Bangladesh relations arrived in April 1976 once the two countries signed four new agreements relating to trade, transit, civil aviation, and technical cooperation, Indian obduracy prevented the implementation of the commitments expressed by the two neighbours in a joint communiquéthat promised to maintain close cooperation in the fields of power generation and water resources development.

All these agreements also laid out the legitimate foundation for unobstructed dealings between Bangladesh and Nepal on all bilateral matters, provided the Indian authorities facilitated the use of the land corridor to such purposes and did not create pressure on Nepal not to cooperate with Bangladesh.

The lesson for our government is hence an instructive one: Decades of India’s highhandedness over Nepal has turned that country into a Maoist bastion. Bangladesh too is likely to be swept by radical elements if the Indian regional desires are not treated with discrimination, case by case, and without jeopardizing our vital national interests. After all, globalization is a bogey for exploitation which small and poor nations must brace with care and caution. And, pass up altogether if possible.

DeshCalling: Partition and Independence – The Story After 1971

 

[Tiki Tam Tam]

Munshiji,

The answer is simple.

1971 was an error of Islamic Bangladeshis. Nothing stated about the PA i.e. rape, genocide etc etc are true. It is all a fabrication and fantasy. An Indian diabolical plot!

Rejoin Paksitan! Hurry!

Why are you hesitant?

Get cracking Mushniji!

You are the sole saviour of East Pakistani pride!

Let no one stop you.

 

[BanglaBhoot]

No where have I stated the things you claim. The creation of Bangladesh is a fact and there is no going back to being East Pakistan. My point is that simply because Bangladesh has been created does not entail the rejection of the Lahore Resolution or the Two Nation Theory. See my earlier post on page 13 of this thread.

 

[ejaz007]

No where have I stated the things you claim. The creation of Bangladesh is a fact and there is no going back to being East Pakistan. My point is that simply because Bangladesh has been created does not entail the rejection of the Lahore Resolution or the Two Nation Theory. See my earlier post on page 13 of this thread.

Very well stated. You have indeed raised very valid points and ones that were not in many peoples mind before.

Bangladesh indeed is a relaity and reversal not a good option. However your posts do merit careful reading.

 

[Niazi9]

I'm personally ashamed to the core of what was perpetrated then. Just google "War Babies" and it'll sicken to you stomach what some soldiers did with full impunity. Just sickening. All those involved brough shame to the tradition our country was founded upon.