Role of Indian Intelligence Bureau (IB) and R&AW in East Pakistan 1963-1971

[Abu Zolfiqar]

RAWami league or ****** league sounds more liek it......hope Bengalis do the right thing. Vote them out or impeach them.

 

[Zabaniyah]

NO erstwhile congress politics is widely discuss in Bangladesh. But Mr. Bose was such a personality who could reach both Hindus and Muslims alike. He was widely admired with common Bengali masses as he could show middle finger to both Gandhi and British together. My grandfather was a activist of Muslim League movement in British era but he always used to mention about Netaji and admired him as far as I can remember.

And how is he exactly relevant to the present-day Bangladesh? He was a controversial figure nonetheless.

The biggest political party in BD advocates Bengali Nationalism days and night. What you guys, considering them as if they dont exist in Bangladesh. LOL

I said specifically 'was'. Of-course now it exists, otherwise Bangladesh wouldn't be here.

The very concept of 'Bengali Nationalism' is a very new one with little shape and form. Let alone principles. Does it even have a vision? Do we ever see Kolkatans chanting 'Joy Bangla'? Never.

As I said, it is a very new concept. And will perhaps take several generations to mature.

 

[TopCat]

And how is he exactly relevant to the present-day Bangladesh? He was a controversial figure nonetheless.

He is a dead man. Why do you want to relate him to present-day scenario. He could be a good personality to be an example. And NO he is not controversial. He lived by his ideology and died for it.

 

[kalu_miah]

The more I look at history of our people, the more it pains me. In the history of mankind, many a times this tool of nationalism was used by imperial powers to break countries and empires and caused immense suffering for people. Essentially this nationalism is a European disease, a nasty virus imported from Europe. Before the advent of European nationalism such ideas were not commonplace among people:

Nationalism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Nationalism is a political ideology that involves a strong identification of a group of individuals with a nation. There are two main perspectives on the origins and basis of nationalism, one is the primordialist perspective that describes nationalism as a reflection of the ancient and perceived evolutionary tendency of humans to organize into distinct grouping based on an affinity of birth; the other is the modernist perspective that describes nationalism as a recent phenomenon that requires the structural conditions of modern society, in order to exist.[1] There are various definitions for what constitutes a nation, however, which leads to several different strands of nationalism. It can be a belief that citizenship in a state should be limited to one ethnic, cultural, religious, or identity group, or that multinationality in a single state should necessarily comprise the right to express and exercise national identity even by minorities.[2]
The adoption of national identity in terms of historical development, has commonly been the result of a response by an influential group or groups that is unsatisfied with traditional identities due to inconsistency between their defined social order and the experience of that social order by its members, resulting in a situation of anomie that nationalists seek to resolve.[3] This anomie results in a society or societies reinterpreting identity, retaining elements that are deemed acceptable and removing elements deemed unacceptable, in order to create a unified community.[3] This development may be the result of internal structural issues or the result of resentment by an existing group or groups towards other communities, especially foreign powers that are or are deemed to be controlling them.[3]
National flags, national anthems, and other symbols of national identity are commonly considered highly important symbols of the national community.

…..........................

Critics of nationalism have argued that it is often unclear what constitutes a "nation", or why a nation should be the only legitimate unit of political rule. A nation is a cultural entity, and not necessarily a political association, nor is it necessarily linked to a particular territorial area - although nationalists argue that the boundaries of a nation and a state should, as far as possible, coincide.[55] Philosopher A.C. Grayling describes nations as artificial constructs, "their boundaries drawn in the blood of past wars". He argues that "there is no country on earth which is not home to more than one different but usually coexisting culture. Cultural heritage is not the same thing as national identity".[56]
Much of the early opposition to nationalism was related to its geopolitical ideal of a separate state for every nation. The classic nationalist movements of the 19th century rejected the very existence of the multi-ethnic empires in Europe. Even in that early stage, however, there was an ideological critique of nationalism. That has developed into several forms of anti-nationalism in the western world naming it a 'theoretical and political challenge for the foreseeable future' [57]. The Islamic revival of the 20th century also produced an Islamic critique of the nation-state.
At the end of the 19th century, Marxists and other socialists (such as Rosa Luxemburg) produced political analysis that were critical of the nationalist movements then active in central and eastern Europe (though a variety of other contemporary socialists and communists, from Vladimir Lenin(a communist) to Józef Piłsudski (a socialist), were more sympathetic to national self-determination).[58]
In his classic essay on the topic George Orwell distinguishes nationalism from patriotism, which he defines as devotion to a particular place. Nationalism, more abstractly, is "power-hunger tempered by self-deception." [59]
For Orwell the nationalist is more likely than not dominated by irrational negative impulses:
There are, for example, Trotskyists who have become simply enemies of the U.S.S.R. without developing a corresponding loyalty to any other unit. When one grasps the implications of this, the nature of what I mean by nationalism becomes a good deal clearer. A nationalist is one who thinks solely, or mainly, in terms of competitive prestige. He may be a positive or a negative nationalist — that is, he may use his mental energy either in boosting or in denigrating — but at any rate his thoughts always turn on victories, defeats, triumphs and humiliations. He sees history, especially contemporary history, as the endless rise and decline of great power units, and every event that happens seems to him a demonstration that his own side is on the upgrade and some hated rival is on the downgrade. But finally, it is important not to confuse nationalism with mere worship of success. The nationalist does not go on the principle of simply ganging up with the strongest side. On the contrary, having picked his side, he persuades himself that it is the strongest, and is able to stick to his belief even when the facts are overwhelmingly against him.[59]
Massacres of Poles in Volhynia in 1943. Most Poles of Volhynia (now in Ukraine) had either been murdered or had fled the area.

In the liberal political tradition there is widespread criticism of ‘nationalism’ as a dangerous force and a cause of conflict and war between nation-states. Nationalism has often been exploited to encourage citizens to partake in the nations' conflicts. Such examples include The Two World Wars, where nationalism was a key component of propaganda material. Liberals do not generally dispute the existence of the nation-states. The liberal critique also emphasizes individual freedom as opposed to national identity, which is by definition collective.
The pacifist critique of nationalism also concentrates on the violence of nationalist movements, the associated militarism, and on conflicts between nations inspired by jingoism or chauvinism. National symbols and patriotic assertiveness are in some countries discredited by their historical link with past wars, especially in Germany. Famous pacifist Bertrand Russell criticizes nationalism for diminishing the individual's capacity to judge his or her fatherland's foreign policy.[60]Albert Einstein stated that "Nationalism is an infantile disease... It is the measles of mankind." [61][62][63]
The anti-racist critique of nationalism concentrates on the attitudes to other nations, and especially on the doctrine that the nation-state exists for one national group to the exclusion of others. This view emphasizes the chauvinism and xenophobiathat have often resulted from nationalist sentiment. Norman Naimark relates the rise of nationalism to ethnic cleansing and genocide.[citation needed]
Political movements of the left have often been suspicious of nationalism, again without necessarily seeking the disappearance of the existing nation-states. Marxism has been ambiguous towards the nation-state, and in the late 19th century some Marxist theorists rejected it completely. For some Marxists the world revolution implied a global state (or global absence of state); for others it meant that each nation-state had its own revolution. A significant event in this context was the failure of the social-democratic and socialist movements in Europe to mobilize a cross-border workers' opposition to World War I. At present most, but certainly not all, left-wing groups accept the nation-state, and see it as the political arena for their activities.[citation needed]
A snack bar sign advertising "American" fries at Knott's Berry Farm. The sign formerly read "French".
In the Western world, the most comprehensive current ideological alternative to nationalism is cosmopolitanism. Ethical cosmopolitanism rejects one of the basic ethical principles of nationalism: that humans owe more duties to a fellow member of the nation, than to a non-member. It rejects such important nationalist values as national identity and national loyalty. However, there is also a political cosmopolitanism, which has a geopolitical program to match that of nationalism: it seeks some form of world state, with a world government. Very few people openly and explicitly support the establishment of a global state, but political cosmopolitanism has influenced the development of international criminal law, and the erosion of the status of national sovereignty. In turn, nationalists are deeply suspicious of cosmopolitan attitudes, which they equate with eradication of diverse national cultures.[citation needed]
While internationalism in the cosmopolitan context by definition implies cooperation among nations and states, and therefore the existence of nations, proletarian internationalism is different, in that it calls for the international working class to follow its brethren in other countries irrespective of the activities or pressures of the national government of a particular sector of that class. Meanwhile, anarchists reject nation-states on the basis of self-determination of the majority social class, and thus reject nationalism. Instead of nations, anarchists usually advocate the creation of cooperative societies based on free association and mutual aid without regard to ethnicity or race.[citation needed]

Anti-nationalism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Anti-nationalism denotes the sentiments associated with the opposition to nationalism, arguing that it is undesirable or dangerous. Some anti-nationalists are humanitarians or humanists who pursue an idealist form of world community, and self-identify as world citizens. They rejectchauvinism, jingoism and militarism, and want humans to live in peace rather than perpetual conflict. They do not necessarily oppose the concepts of countries, nation states, national boundaries, cultural preservation or identity politics.
Some anti-nationalists oppose all types of nationalism, including ethnic nationalism among oppressed minority groups. This strain of anti-nationalism typically advocates the elimination of national boundaries. Variations on this theme are often seen in Marxist theory. Marx and Engelsrejected nationalism as a whole, believing "the working class have no country". [1] More recently, certain groups descended from the Maoist tradition of Marxism have moved towards this fiercely anti-nationalist stance in a different way than Trotskyists, saying that although it may be a painful and unpopular position to hear, ultimately opposing all nationalism strengthens proletarian internationalism. Many Trotskyists, however, such as Chris Harman, were critical of nationalism while advocating support for what they saw as progressive national struggles. [2]
In recent times, Islamism has been described as anti-nationalist movement, calling for unity of all Muslims and discarding the notion of nationality.
Anarchism has developed a critique of nationalism that focuses on nationalism's role in justifying and consolidating state power and domination. Through its unifying goal, nationalism strives for centralization, both in specific territories and in a ruling elite of individuals, while it prepares a population for capitalist exploitation. Within anarchism, this subject has been treated extensively by Rudolf Rocker in Nationalism and Culture and by the works of Fredy Perlman, such as Against His-Story, Against Leviathan and "The Continuing Appeal of Nationalism".[3]
In his "Aphorisms on the Wisdom of Life", Arthur Schopenhauer rejected nationalism, seeing it as an abandonment of personal identity.[4] The philosophy of Friedrich Nietzsche can also be seen as opposing all forms of nationalism, although he opposed virtually every other form of social movement and ideology as well.[5] Søren Kierkegaard's philosophy is a criticism and vehement rejection of Christian nationalism.[6]

Now consider this, traditional mainstream Islam is against nationalism, which is called Asabiyyah, it is not encouraged:
Asabiyyah - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

`Asabiyya or asabiyah (Arabic: عصبية, ʻaṣabīya) refers to social solidarity with an emphasis on unity, group consciousness, and social cohesion,[1] originally in a context of "tribalism" and "clanism", but sometimes used for modern nationalism as well, resembling also communitarism. It was a familiar term in the pre-Islamic era, but became popularized in Ibn Khaldun's Muqaddimah where it is described as the fundamental bond of human society and the basic motive force of history. `Asabiyya is neither necessarily nomadic nor based on blood relations; rather, it resembles philosophy of classical republicanism. In the modern period, the term is generally analogous to solidarity. However, the term is often negatively associated because it can sometimes suggest loyalty to one's group regardless of circumstances, or partisanship.[2]

Overview
Ibn Khaldun uses the term Asabiyyah to describe the bond of cohesion among humans in a group forming community. The bond, Asabiyyah, exists at any level of civilization, from nomadic society to states and empires.[3] Asabiyyah is most strong in the nomadic phase, and decreases as civilization advances.[3] As this Asabiyyah declines, another more compelling Asabiyyah may take its place; thus, civilizations rise and fall, and history describes these cycles of Asabiyyah as they play out.[3]
Ibn Khaldun argues that each dynasty (or civilization) has within itself the seeds of its own downfall. He explains that ruling houses tend to emerge on the peripheries of great empires and use the much stronger `asabiyya present in those areas to their advantage, in order to bring about a change in leadership. This implies that the new rulers are at first considered "barbarians" by comparison to the old ones. As they establish themselves at the center of their empire, they become increasingly lax, less coordinated, disciplined and watchful, and more concerned with maintaining their new power and lifestyle at the centre of the empire—i.e, their internal cohesion and ties to the original peripheral group, the `asabiyya, dissolves into factionalism and individualism, diminishing their capacity as a political unit. Thus, conditions are created wherein a new dynasty can emerge at the periphery of their control, grow strong, and effect a change in leadership, beginning the cycle anew.
Khaldun's central concept of asabiyah, or "social cohesion", seems to anticipate modern conceptions of social capital arising in social networks[citation needed]:
This cohesion arises spontaneously in tribes and other small kinship groups; and it can be intensified and enlarged by a religious ideology. Khaldun's analysis looks at how this cohesion carries groups to power but contains within itself the seeds - psychological, sociological, economic, political - of the group's downfall, to be replaced by a new group, dynasty or empire bound by a stronger (or at least younger and more vigorous) cohesion.[who?]
Examples

The Asabiyyah cycle described by Ibn Khaldun was true for nearly all civilizations before the modern era. Nomadic invaders had always ended up adopting the religion and culture of the civilizations they conquered, which was true for various Arab, Berber, Turkic and Mongol invaders that invaded the medieval Islamic world and ended up adopting Islamic religion and culture.
Beyond the Muslim world, the Asabiyyah cycle was also true for every other pre-modern civilization, whether in China whose dynastic cycles resemble the Asabiyyah cycles described by Ibn Khaldun, in Europe where waves of barbarian invaders adopted Christianity and Greco-Romanculture, or in India or Persia where nomadic invaders assimilated into those civilizations.

Now that we know a little bit more about nationalism, consider how linguistic (language based) nationalism was used by past Empires as geopolitical tools. Turkish nationalism, which came out of Pan-Turanism and Pan-Turkism started in 19th century were used by European powers, such as British and French empires. Arab nationalism was nurtured and created by them educating Lebanese and Syrian Christians in France, which still lives on as Bathism, but on its deathbed now in Syria. Note what they did, they broke Ottoman empire and create immense suffering for its inhabitants and the region still have not stabilized today. Note also Europeans how after seeing the negative effects of nationalism, have decided to go for a European Union. Also note how Indian nationalists borrowed this idea from Europe and drove out the British from India, but alas a Muslim nationalism was also created here, which gave rise to two nation theory, based on which Pakistan was created. In Bengal there were some Hindu and Muslim Bengali nationalists, here is the history of it:

Bengali nationalism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Bengali nationalism is the political expression of ethno-national consciousness of the Bengali people, who inhabit the ethno-linguistic region of Bengal.[1][2] The region's territory is divided between Bangladesh and the Indian state of West Bengal. Arising in the 19th century with the Bengal Renaissance and the Indian independence movement, it would be the central influence in the Bengali Language Movement, the Bangladesh Liberation War and the creation of Bangladesh (Country of Bengal) in 1971.

History

Main articles: History of Bengal and Bengal Renaissance
Bengali nationalism is rooted in the expression of pride in the history and cultural heritage of Bengal.[citation needed] In what is described as the Bengal Renaissance, the introduction of Western culture, science and education led to a major transformation and development of Bengali society. Bengal became a centre of modern culture, intellectual and scientific activities, politics and education under British Raj. The first social and religious reform movements such as the Brahmo Samaj and Ramakrishna Mission arose in Bengal, as did national leaders and reformers such as Raja Ram Mohan Roy, Sri Aurobindo, Ramakrishna Paramhansa and Swami Vivekananda. Bengali literature, poetry, religion, science and philosophy underwent a massive expansion with the works of Bankim Chandra Chatterjee, Debendranath Tagore, Michael Madhusudan Dutt, Sharat Chandra Chattopadhyay, Rabindranath Tagore, Satyendra Nath Bose, Jagdish Chandra Bose and Kazi Nazrul Islam. The Young Bengal , and Jugantar movements and newspapers like Amrita Bazar Patrika led the intellectual development of India. The Calcutta-based Indian National Association and the British Indian Association were the earliest political organisations in India.
The first Bengali nationalist agitation emerged over the 1905 Partition of Bengal by British authorities.[citation needed] Although the partition was supported by Bengali Muslims, a large majority of Bengalis protested the partition and participated in civil disobedience campaigns such as theSwadeshi movement and mass boycott of European goods. Seeking a united Bengal and rejecting British hegemony, Bengalis also spearheaded an emerging revolutionary movement, which assumed a central role in the national independence struggle. Bengal became a strong base of the Indian struggle for independence, giving rise to national political leaders such as Bipin Chandra Pal, Khwaja Salimullah, Chittaranjan Das, Maulana Azad, Subhash Chandra Bose, his brother Sarat Chandra Bose, Syama Prasad Mookerjee, A. K. Fazlul Huq, Huseyn Shaheed Suhrawardy — the latter two would become important leaders of the Pakistan movement.
United Bengal

Main article: United Bengal
As the Hindu-Muslim conflict escalated and the demand for a separate Muslim state of Pakistan became popular amongst Indian Muslims, the partition of India on communal lines was deemed inevitable by mid-1947. To prevent the inclusion of Hindu-majority districts of Punjab and Bengal in a Muslim Pakistan, the Indian National Congress and the Hindu Mahasabha sought the partition of these provinces on communal lines. Bengali nationalists such as Sarat Chandra Bose, Huseyn Shaheed Suhrawardy, Kiran Shankar Roy, Abul Hashim, Satya Ranjan Bakshi and Mohammad Ali Chaudhury sought to counter partition proposals with the demand for a united and independent state of Bengal. Ideological visions for a "Greater Bengal" also included the regions of Assam and districts of Bihar.[citation needed] Suhrawardy and Bose sought the formation of a coalition government between Bengali Congress and the Bengal Provincial Muslim League. Proponents of the plan urged the masses to reject communal divisions and uphold the vision of a united Bengal. In a press conference held in Delhi on April 27, 1947 Suhrawardy presented his plan for a united and independent Bengal and Abul Hashim issued a similar statement in Calcutta on April 29. A few days later, Sarat Chandra Bose put forward his proposals for a "Sovereign Socialist Republic of Bengal." With the support of the British governor of the Bengal province, Frederick Burrows, Bengali leaders issued the formal proposal on May 20.
The Muslim League and the Congress issued statements rejecting the notion of an independent Bengal on May 28 and June 1 respectively.[citation needed] The Hindu Mahasabha also agitated against the inclusion of Hindu-majority areas in a Muslim-majority Bengal, while Bengali Muslim leader Khawaja Nazimuddin and Maulana Akram Khan sought the exclusion of Hindu-majority areas to establish a homogenous Muslim Pakistan.[citation needed] Amidst aggravating Hindu-Muslim tensions, on June 3 British viceroy Lord Louis Mountbatten announced plans to partition India and consequently Punjab and Bengal on communal lines, burying the demand for an independent Bengal.
Language movement

Main article: Bengali Language Movement
February 22 rally after Janaja at Dhaka Medical College on Dhaka University road, Dhaka.
The Language movement was a political and cultural agitation in East Pakistan that centred around the recognition of the Bengali language as an official language of Pakistan and a broader reaffirmation of the ethno-national consciousness of the Bengali people.[citation needed] Discontent against Pakistan's "Urdu-only" policy had spilled into mass agitation since 1948 and reached its climactic strength after police fired upon and killed student demonstrators on February 21, 1952. After the creation of Pakistan in 1947, the central government under Muhammad Ali Jinnah ordained Urdu to be the sole national language, even though the Bengali-speaking peoples formed a majority of the national population.He did so because Urdu was a neutral language;not the mother tongue of any one of Pakistan's ethinicities. The policy, compounded by sectional tensions served as a major provocation of political conflict. Despite protests in 1948, the policy was enshrined into law and reaffirmed by national leaders, including several Bengali politicians. Facing rising tensions, the government in East Pakistan outlawed public meetings and gatherings. Defying this, the students of Dhaka University and other political activists started a procession on February 21. Near the current Dhaka Medical College Hospital, police fired on the protesters and numerous protesters, including Abdus Salam, Rafiq Uddin Ahmed, Abul Barkat, and Abdul Jabbar were killed. The deaths of the students served to provoke widespread strikes and protests led mainly by Bengali political parties such as the Awami League (then Awami Muslim League). The central government relented, granting official status for Bengali. The Language movement served as a catalyst for the assertion of the Bengali cultural and national identity within Pakistan.[citation needed]
Creation of Bangladesh

Main articles: Awami League, Six point movement, and Bangladesh Liberation War
Nationalist flag of Bangladesh
The Language movement and its fallout had created substantial cultural and political animosity between the two wings of Pakistan. Despite constituting a majority of the Pakistani population, Bengalis constituted a small part of Pakistan's military, police and civil services. Ethnic and socio-economic discrimination against Bengali people aggravated and agitations arose in East Pakistan over sectional bias, neglect and insufficient allocation of resources and national wealth. Stepped in Perso-Arabic culture, West Pakistanis saw Bengali culture as too closely associated with Hindu culture.[citation needed] One of the first groups demanding the independence of East Pakistan was the Swadhin Bangal Biplobi Parishad (Free Bengal Revolutionary Council).[citation needed] Under Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, the Awami League became more secular in character[citation needed] and launched the Six point movement demanding substantial political, administrative and economic autonomy for East Pakistan. Seeking democracy, a separate currency and balanced sharing of wealth and resources, Mujib also sought the recognition of the term "Bangla-desh" to describe the eastern wing of Pakistan, instead of East Pakistan.[citation needed] Mujib was arrested by Pakistani forces in 1966 and tried for treason in what became the Agartala Conspiracy Case. Following violent protests and disorder, Mujib was released in 1968. In the elections of 1970, the Awami League won an outright majority in the Parliament of Pakistan. When Pakistan's president Yahya Khan and West Pakistani politician Zulfikar Ali Bhutto resisted Mujib's claim to form the government, sectional hostility escalated significantly. Before his arrest on the night of March 25, 1971, Mujib issued a call for Bengalis to fight for their independence; the message was conveyed over Shadhin Bangla Betar Kendro by MajorZiaur Rahman on March 27 and the independent state of Bangladesh was officially declared by the Awami League's government-in-exile in Mujibnagar. Mujib's trademark "Joy Bangla" (Victory to Bengal) salute became the rallying cry of Bengali nationalists,[citation needed] who mobilised to form the Mukti Bahini guerrilla force, which received training and equipment from the Indian government. Indian intervention at the height of the liberation war would eventually lead to the surrender of Pakistani forces and the establishment of the Bangladeshi state on December 16.

Note that this Bengali Nationalism was a product of Bengal Renaissance based in Kolkata (1757-1947), and in a way it was a tool of domination of the Hindu Zaminder (land lord) class, created under the British and subsumed and marginalized the strong Muslim ruling class that has developed in Sultanate and Subah Bangala during Muslim rule 1200-1757.

It was used by this same Hindu Zaminder (land lord) class in 1905 to oppose Bongo-Vongo or division of Bengal, which was supported by Muslims of East Bengal. This incident was the point where Muslims of Bengal created Muslim League.

Ironically when the time of partition came, this same Hindu Zaminder class opposed Bengali nationalism and supported partition of Bengal to separate West Bengal and Kolkata to save it from Muslim domination and merge it with greater Hindu “mainland” India.

After partition, there should have been no hope ever to get West Bengal again with East Pakistan, Hindu Bengali’s would never agree to join a Muslim dominated independent Bangladesh, even if it had Assam and North East states along with it as its part. Once that opportunity was lost in 1947, there was no possibility of getting West Bengal back, which renders Bengali Nationalism after that point a moot exercise.

About North East states of India, they wanted independence and Pakistan’s ISI and Chinese intelligence were trying to help them, as at that time it was within the realm of possibility to bring it to fruition. But once India got wind of this ISI activity in Nagaland in 1956, they quickly realized that they have to counter fire with fire. So they found some ready made “useful idiots” like Mujib and others in Awami League who were still nostalgic of lost opportunity to create their own country. So India started its own game of secessionism in Pakistan using Awami League. They played a very skillful game, which is beyond the capacity of brains such as Mujib. Note what they did. They told them strictly never to utter the word independence but only AUTONOMY within the six point, which would get broad public support, this was how the public was deceived by RAW and their agents within Awami League. The rest has been repeated many times. The end result:

- India got a broken Pakistan, a reduced threat
- North East states was secured and saved from China and Pakistan’s help for secession
- people of Bangladesh were left with the bag or hate hariken as we say in Bengali, now we have become a small isolated Muslim nation with no physical connection to any other Muslim nation of the world with small limited resource to protect our people. While Pakistan went on to develop Nukes, which we could share and also protect Rohingya’s against threat from Burmese/Rakhine, now our ability to address geopolitical threat like this has become much reduced and constrained

Essentially people of our landmass had been taken for a ride by a Bengal Renaissance influence group of Bengali’s who were used as geopolitical pawns by masterminds in Delhi.

People quickly figured it out in 1971-1975 from the incompetence and misrule of this Awami League (many rival freedom fighters were gunned down by Awami supported militia Rakkhi Bahini, some say around 40,000) and from signing of secret treaties with India compromising the sovereignty of our people. So Bangladeshi masses did not shed much tear when Mujib’s family was massacred in 1975, except for blind loyalist party activists of Awami League. After all this coup was planned by one of the founders and friend of Mujib, Khondoker Mushtaque Ahmed, who knew all inside dealings within Awami League and finally realized the truth about them. The country realized what just happened with leadership of Awami League (1960’s-1975). So now it was time for picking up the pieces and Ziaur Rahman, a freedom fighter, who is much closer to the heart of Bangladeshi people created and promoted Bangladeshi Nationalism, which is based on the territory of Bangladesh and also on the Muslim consciousness of its majority population:

Bangladeshi nationalism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Bangladeshi nationalism is a political ideology that glorifies and promotes the citizens of the People's Republic of Bangladesh as a distinctive cultural and political nation. In contrast with its rival Bengali nationalism, the ideology emphasizes a clear distinction amongst the Bengali people, that essentially Bangladeshi citizens are different from their linguistic and cultural counterparts in the Indian state of West Bengal which borders Bangladesh. The term also has religious significance and was initially developed by Bangladesh's first military regime in order to politically counter the ideology of the Awami League party, that professed Bengali nationalism and led the Bangladesh Liberation War on the basis of the establishment of a sovereign homeland for the Bengali people. As opposed to the secular Bengali nationalism, Bangladeshi nationalism stresses the ethnic and Islamic consciousness of the people of Bangladesh, where 89% of the population are Bengali Muslims.
Throughout the late 1970s and then in the 1980s, the concept of Bangladeshi nationalism evolved into the principal ideology for a large section of Bangladesh's political and military establishment. It had been fiercely promoted by President Ziaur Rahman and his formation of the Bangladesh Nationalist Party, now one of two major political parties of the country, had centered around the development of Bangladeshi nationalism. Politically, the concept is today advocated by the center-right and rightist political parties in Bangladesh led by Zia's Bangladesh Nationalist Party.

This is close to:
Territorial nationalism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Territorial nationalism assumes that all inhabitants of a particular nation owe allegiance to their country of birth or adoption.[1] A sacred quality is sought in the nation and in the popular memories it evokes.[2] Citizenship is idealized by territorial nationalist.[2] A criterion of a territorial nationalism is the establishment of a mass, public culture based on common values and traditions of the population.[2]
Because citizenship rather than ethnicity is idealized by territorial nationalism, it is argued by Athena S. Leoussi and Anthony D. Smith (in 2001) that the French Revolution was a territorial nationalistic uprising.[2]

Territorial nationalism in Europe

In Western Europe national identity tends to be more based on where a person is born then in Central and Eastern Europe.[3] Scholars have argued this might be explained by the fact that states in the later two emerged from imperial states.[4] Thecommunist regimes in the Eastern Bloc actively suppressed what they described as "bourgeois nationalism"[4] and considered nationalism a bourgeois ideology.[5] In the Soviet Union this led to Russification and other attempts to wipe out cultures other the Russian culture,[4] even while, at the same the Soviet state promoted certain forms of nationalism that it considered compatible with Soviet interests (Ron Suny, The Revenge of the Past). Yugoslavia being the exception, where "Yugoslavism" was promoted.[4]
Territorial nationalism in the Middle East

Although territorial nationalism is on contrast with the university of Islam[6] Especially Egypt and Tunisia had territorial nationalistic policy's after gaining Independence.[1] This was gradually replaced by Pan-Arabism in the 1950s, but Pan-Arabism declined by the mid-1970s[6][7]
Territorial nationalism in North America

Just like in Western Europe national identity tends to be more based on where a person is born than in North America.[3]

This is what I promote, as it is free from dependence on overt religious, ethnic or linguistic affinity and it is more logical to our current Westphalian nation states:

Westphalian sovereignty - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Westphalian sovereignty is the concept of nation-state sovereignty based on two things: territoriality and the absence of a role for external agents in domestic structures.
Scholars of international relations have identified the modern, Western originated, international system of states, multinational corporations, and organizations, as having begun at the Peace of Westphalia in 1648.[1] Both the basis and the conclusion of this view have been attacked by somerevisionist academics and politicians, with revisionists questioning the significance of the Peace, and some commentators and politicians attacking the Westphalian system of sovereign nation-states.

BNP’s Bangladeshi nationalism is closest to the above and definitely much closer to this ideal than the anachronistic monstrosity called "Bengali Nationalism" that was used as a geopolitical tool by India. I would suggest more movement towards this goal of territorial nationalism for all states avoiding linguistic, religious or ethnic versions of nationalism, as much as it is practically possible.

Territorial nationalism also can be smoothly extended with expansion of territory of evolving supra national state systems, such as the Regional Unions like EU or a future ASEAN union, Eurasian Union, African Union, UNASUR, GCC union, etc.

And to solve our geopolitical vulnerability and weakness, I suggest that Bangladesh should look towards ASEAN observership, as is already the national policy of Bangladesh govt. and eventually become a part of ASEAN without depending on land connection via Myanmar, rather using sea-links, as many nations in ASEAN are island nations and their only connection to ASEAN mainland is via sea. Hopefully in the future we can create a new ASEAN territorial nationalism and promote it. For the people of North East states, if they can keep the demographic invasion in check from “mainland” India, they may hope to become a part of this ASEAN in a peaceful separation, but if they become a minority in their own land because of demographic invasion, then the option for separation will not remain as a future possibility. But at least with development of ASEAN and Bangladesh in it, North East states will greatly benefit from its close proximity with ASEAN. Since Bangladesh becoming an ASEAN member state will mean that the NE states will be surrounded by ASEAN from almost all 4 sides, except for the 14 mile wide connection to mainland India via Siliguri corridor. Essentially once Bangladesh joins ASEAN, North East States will become an island enclave nation within ASEAN union community territory and its economy and culture will gradually become more interconnected with greater ASEAN community.

People should understand geopolitics and should have clear conception about geopolitical ideologies such as different forms of nationalism. Only when people clearly understand the implications of these -isms and ideologies can they choose and promote certain nationalisms or any other -isms for practical and pragmatic future benefit of their group of people. Ideas that harm the geopolitical interest of a people, should be avoided at all cost. Islamic extremism is one such toxic idea for example.

Just like for Bangladesh I support our country to become ASEAN member, I support other nations to consider promoting their own regional unions and then promote a territorial nationalism for the larger regional union rather than being stuck with older narrower idea of nationalism of a smaller territory. That will be beneficial for all nations on the globe. Nations and people are what we make of them. When a child is born, the baby has a clean slate, it is up to us how we program the minds of future generations for the greater benefit of mankind.

 

[kalu_miah]

Do you know the facts about Partition. East pakistan and West pakistan are bound to separate alot of people predicted it. Pakistans ideology is to maintain the supremacy of the Islamic ruling elite on the Indian subcontinent.
How can you Bengalis think they will be treated equally in the ernst while pakistan. The break up of pakistan was on the cards right after independence. Even now pakistan is experiencing violence and instability.
The main reason is lies in the thinking of the West Punjabi ruling elite.

Yes, but the Punjabi thing is bs, as Punjabi's themselves will tell you. Military feudal elite of Pakistan come from all states. Bhutto was Sindhi landlord and Yahya was kizilbash (shia turko-iranian) general. And we could get amicable separation if RAW and India did not hatch this evil plan using their pawn Awami Leauge.

there was no divided bengal before 1905,

the man was for free india, even jinnah had that stance and so did many other prominent bengali leaders...

i am not pro india i am pro justice and truth, just because something is your ancestral homeland you must support it blindly...

i consider both home equally and my fathers side which is from bangladesh is very political and I will tell you this they are avid supporters of awami league by virtue of being related to suruwardi, that being said the current political regimes in bd regarless of party awami bnp or jamatis are the worst things to happen to this part of the world after the great famines

and mr lulffy please try to refrain from ad hominem

This explains his behavior. It is called ancestral blood ties, ancestor worship and hero worship. Suhrawardy is a cult hero of this clan. Just because he was born 100 or 800 years ago, we should not idolize a personality and think that the person in question could do no wrong or be misguided. Suhrawardy had a shot at undivided Bengal before 1947 partition, but once Radcliffe lines were drawn and the partition happened, that dream should have ended right there and then. But some people carry on with their nostalgic dreams even after their failures in some projects and some idiot later generations carry on those failed dreams and become a pawn of some powers to cause immense suffering for people. It is time we put this evil beast called "Bengali nationalism" in incinerator and spread the ashes in bay of bengal.

 

[Luffy 500]

how was I bad mouthing? I just asked questions... what is zia your cult leader?

I am a muslims unlike munafiq awami leaguers and don't do hero worship and make somebody a cult. He was also a human and had his fare share of mistakes but he undoubtedly was one of the greatest leader of BD/and the subcontinent without whom BD would have been a part of India by now. Only awami indian dalals can badmouth leaders like him.

 

[Srinivas]

Somebody is jealous.Crying for some gratefulness eh pathetic indian.



Well Mr.Awami clown fish Shubhas Bose was not born in E.bengal and doesn't have anything to
do with BD.Even if this guy was born in today's BD being an Indian nationalist he has nothing to do with BD. He was an Indian nationalist and so the question of forgotten doesn't even come.
You are an unique piece really, a pakistani-bangladeshi origin pro-indian. SO which country do
you consider your second home PAK or BD.

Your Pride and spirit got hurt in the hands of your oppressor west pakistanis and here you are trolling with unnecessary comments. The truth is your ancestors has been humiliated on the basis of language and ethinicity and people like you always support west Pakistanis which implies you like to be oppressed that is the bottom line.

Yes, but the Punjabi thing is bs, as Punjabi's themselves will tell you. Military feudal elite of Pakistan come from all states. Bhutto was Sindhi landlord and Yahya was kizilbash (shia turko-iranian) general. And we could get amicable separation if RAW and India did not hatch this evil plan using their pawn Awami Leauge.

Are you living in fools paradise. There won't be any separation if India does not interfere. At that time China and US supported Pakistani atrocities and it is Indian which galvanised support and dared to risk its own national security to do war.

1971 was a daring step by India, do not forget India is against West,US and China. If Indian involvement is not there then Todays BD will be like Balochistan. Do you think West pakistanis who think they are decendents of moguls will let BD peacfully separate??
Right after partition there are slogans like "Has ke liye pakistan and lad ke lenge Hindustan" the goal of west pakistanis especially west punjabis is to establesh mugalistan.

 

[kalu_miah]

Your Pride and spirit got hurt in the hands of your oppressor west pakistanis and here you are trolling with unnecessary comments. The truth is your ancestors has been humiliated on the basis of language and ethinicity and people like you always support west Pakistanis which implies you like to be oppressed that is the bottom line.

Current generation of Pakistani's had zero role and the masses in earlier generation played little role in what happened in East Pakistan 1947-1971. It was the military-feudal elite, specifically Bhutto-Yahya that made decisions which caused the civil war and resulting suffering. So there is no reason to have bad feelings with a newer generation of Pakistani's because of a past history, where the earlier masses or current generation played no role.

Are you living in fools paradise. There won't be any separation if India does not interfere. At that time China and US supported Pakistani atrocities and it is Indian which galvanised support and dared to risk its own national security to do war.

1971 was a daring step by India, do not forget India is against West,US and China. If Indian involvement is not there then Todays BD will be like Balochistan. Do you think West pakistanis who think they are decendents of moguls will let BD peacfully separate??
Right after partition there are slogans like "Has ke liye pakistan and lad ke lenge Hindustan" the goal of west pakistanis especially west punjabis is to establesh mugalistan.

India engineered this break up to create weaker two parts on both sides and also to secure North East states, where China and ISI were helping insurgents since 1956:

- pre-existing "Bengali Nationalism" since pre-partition days that became the ideology for secessionist Awami League
- Indian Intelligence Bureau and RAW worked with Awami League to shape public opinion using 6 point movement for Autonomy as a deceptive facade while all along they worked behind the scenes for secession
- touting autonomy, Awami League won election in 1970
- Bhutto-Yahya refused to give up power to Mujib, while RAW and Awami operatives started killing of Bihari/Hindustani Muslims to provoke a reaction from the Army
- Operation Searchlight was initiated on March 25, 1971 to quell the rebellion
- this harsh military crackdown on mostly unarmed civilians, switched public mood from autonomy to independence

The rest is well known history.

The breakup was a geopolitical loss for both parts, in my opinion, because smaller unit is always less powerful and it was a net positive for India. So of course India would do anything in its power to make it happen and they were successful in their project.

 

[Joe Shearer]

^ Agree with you, splitting West and East Pakistan was need of the hour for India, to somehow weaken Pakistan and focus on enemy than facing two on both sides.

Article itself reveals the hidden geopolitics under the cover of civil war. Even Russia sent its SSBN to counter USS Enterprise.

We need more discussion like this to share each others' knowledge and understandwhat happened then. Seriously I didn't know about Burmese and Chinese angle.

It is there in the book. Also, there are clear references to past and continuing Chinese presence in border states of Burma, in public literature, including even something as free to access as Wikipedia articles on the Burmese liberation movements.

There is no substitute for reading about a topic, in depth, well away from the time of any discussion on the subject.

I got wind of it when sh!t hit the fan in Burma recently and I started digging with Burma insurgents, then I came upon North East states insurgents and finally I understood the geopolitical game that was played in this theater. Like B Raman says, ISI started operations in NE states with China's help in 1956 in Nagaland. To save and secure NE India, Pakistan was broken up and Bangladesh was created, in my opinion. Mujib, Tajuddin, Awami League etc. all were pawns in this geopolitical chess game. Of course it did not just serve one purpose, like you said, it broke a strong enemy into two weaker half and the main enemy was only on one side, while the weaker other was/is a potential vassal state, surrounded by 3 sides. But something did not go right so this lament here:

Creation of Bangladesh: Shining Moment or Strategic Blunder » Indian Defence Review
Maj Gen Sheru Thapliyal
................
Every election time, Bangladesh goes through convulsions. Same is the case now. The two Beghums have reduced the whole election process to a farce. In no democratic country, executive powers are handed over to someone else to conduct elections. Hopefully better sense will prevail and election process, however farcial, will be gone through. We also need to seriously reexamine our policy of investing in individuals rather than institutions. We have learnt nothing from the past. In 1972, Indira Gandhi thought that by making concessions to Bhutto, she will earn his goodwill. What we got instead is a nuclear Pakistan. Similarly in Bangladesh, we put all our eggs earlier in Sheikh Mujib’s basket. With his assassination, we lost all our bargaining power. Thereafter it was Sheikh Hasina’s turn. The result is that whenever Beghum Khalida Zia comes to power, anti Indian forces gain upper hand. Unfortunately in our country foreign policy has been made an exclusive preserve of the ruling party. What we need is greater transparency and greater debate – both within the Parliament as also out side in the media and think tanks. But perhaps it may be too much to expect.

This was an unwarranted, baseless and thoroughly naive, unprofessional article. There should be a gag order on retired servicemen and spooks.

The situation in BAngladesh before independence was appropriate for intervention, for the two reasons being discussed. The situation in Bangladesh after independence was not appropriate for intervention. More later.

cross posting from 1971 thread:

Here is an Indian blaming Bhutto for the 1971 civil war, Bhutto did make the final decisive move by giving a go-ahead for the Operation Searchlight, but the chess board was set long before to push him into a corner where he was forced to make an irrational blunder, in my opinion, or was it deliberate? (may be some member with more knowledge can elaborate):
Was Bhutto the Catylist for the Creation of Bangladesh ?

Indira Gandhi interview during 1971:
Rare Mrs Indira Gandhi Interview on Bangladesh Liberation War 1971 (Video) | Ekawaaz - One Voice - Many Issues : News Views and Reviews
Mrs Gandhi Interview on Problems with Pakistan - YouTube

While watching the video, imagine that this lady while growing up as the daughter of Nehru, lived and breathed the geopolitical great game politics between nation states, but perhaps she understood this game much better than her father or any of her family members before or after? Please notice how happy she looks, like the patient hunter whose prey is in her clutch and no escape is possible. She worked for this kill for at least a few years since she took power in 1968, now the chess board is ready for the final move of check mate. The interviewer is trying to pry out of her the confession that she will invade, but she is denying, but her self assured posture and smiles give away her true intention.

It is my belief that our leaders never understood the full consequence of their actions, the lives they were playing with, the lives that were lost, in 1947, in 1971 and it will continue. But this is not just here in South Asia, it is true the world over. If leaders had to sacrifice their own family or themselves, then they probably would be more circumspect, but alas these are mere pawns in their great geopolitical chess games. Some who understand it can play this game, others who do not understand, become mere pawns.

What was the point you sought to make here?

Thanks for assurance but reality proves some folks are correct.

Here is how R&AW staking out in every corner of Bangladesh.

Delhi public school in Uttara

An utterly paranoid remark. Some elementary knowledge about the organization and business methods of DPS would have helped. This was a worthless comment.

 

[Joe Shearer]

You are getting funnier day by day. Why not you go back to the subject called Kallu's new World Order which seemed more realistic to me.

Quite right.

Leave the dim-witted paranoia to those proficient in the subject.

 

[Joe Shearer]

I will rest only when we have identified all Indian agents and "useful idiots" among our midst, so people know about who they really are, ignorant fools who have been manipulated as pawns and are still being manipulated. Then it is up to the people what they want to do with them.

My world order is to promote the interest of the oppressed and down trodden of the world, but then if you had the brains you would understand that by now.

And why no comment about what B Raman said in his article and his book?

About the number of death, as I said always we need a new investigation to find out the real number from all sides.

The question you have that is worth answering is about Raman's book. There is a public angle to that book, and a private angle. They need separate treatment.

What is public is that there was a Chinese presence in lightly-administered parts of Burma, with numerous security implications for India. The first instance was on the Indian border. There is no doubt, on reading accounts of the battles fought in 1962, particularly accounts of Walong, that there was more to the Chinese presence in such numbers and state of superiority than met the eye. It was quite different from Tawang, and, of course, the follow-up battles used the same infrastructure as for Tawang. So where did the supplies for Walong come from?

There is also extensive public information about the porous border with Yunnan. This much is public.

Much of Raman's account is just that, his account, uncorroborated by any other source. On the private aspects, we have to take his word for it. How much can we rely on him?

I would also like to compliment you on your marshaling of the available facts, and the well-rounded picture you have presented. That is not to say that all the facts have equal credibility; nor that your interpretation of them is beyond question. The way you have gathered data and pieced together a picture remains impressive.

 

[Srinivas]

Current generation of Pakistani's had zero role and the masses in earlier generation played little role in what happened in East Pakistan 1947-1971. It was the military-feudal elite, specifically Bhutto-Yahya that made decisions which caused the civil war and resulting suffering. So there is no reason to have bad feelings with a newer generation of Pakistani's because of a past history, where the earlier masses or current generation played no role.



India engineered this break up to create weaker two parts on both sides and also to secure North East states, where China and ISI were helping insurgents since 1956:

- pre-existing "Bengali Nationalism" since pre-partition days that became the ideology for secessionist Awami League
- Indian Intelligence Bureau and RAW worked with Awami League to shape public opinion using 6 point movement for Autonomy as a deceptive facade while all along they worked behind the scenes for secession
- touting autonomy, Awami League won election in 1970
- Bhutto-Yahya refused to give up power to Mujib, while RAW and Awami operatives started killing of Bihari/Hindustani Muslims to provoke a reaction from the Army
- Operation Searchlight was initiated on March 25, 1971 to quell the rebellion
- this harsh military crackdown on mostly unarmed civilians, switched public mood from autonomy to independence

The rest is well known history.

The breakup was a geopolitical loss for both parts, in my opinion, because smaller unit is always less powerful and it was a net positive for India. So of course India would do anything in its power to make it happen and they were successful in their project.

This is the same kind of attitude the people from BD,UP,Bihar and other parts of India were in when they crossed Indian border through Land and Sea. To their surprise the west pakistanis labelled them as Mohajirs and this term is still used today by the current generation of people. "



Where is the evidence that RAW and Awami operative started violence. Again it is a classic case when there is a huge opinion against a current regime Armed forces do provoke violence in order to crush it. I feel the prime suspect of this killings should be "PA" not India.
You got your independence based on Bengali nationalistic idea are you trying to degrade that by saying India orchestrated the 6 point movement.
I feel the current generation of BD posters in this forum are insecure because of existence of imaginary enemy called India. This is the prime reason for India bashing nothing more.

 

[kalu_miah]

This looks like a Pakistani source, not sure how credible it is, but it is funny and entertaining:

Indian RAW's 'Kao Plan' unleashed in Balochistan ~ Terminal X

and it may have elements of truth in it. It fills in many gaps that B. Raman has left out and the broad outline of the story matches with my theory about 1971. At least anyone will get a good laugh if nothing else, I highly recommend it. But be warned, its long, almost like a mini-book.

Some more interesting info in this new thread OP:
http://www.defence.pk/forums/bangla...-inspire-dhaka-s-principles-state-policy.html
article link:
http://www.weeklyholiday.net/Homepage/Pages/UserHome.aspx

I will answer the new posts when I have some free time. Thanks for patience.

 

[Srinivas]

This looks like a Pakistani source, not sure how credible it is, but it is funny and entertaining:

Indian RAW's 'Kao Plan' unleashed in Balochistan ~ Terminal X

and it may have elements of truth in it. It fills in many gaps that B. Raman has left out and the broad outline of the story matches with my theory about 1971. At least anyone will get a good laugh if nothing else, I highly recommend it. But be warned, its long, almost like a mini-book.

Some more interesting info in this new thread OP:
http://www.defence.pk/forums/bangla...-inspire-dhaka-s-principles-state-policy.html
article link:
Holiday

I will answer the new posts when I have some free time. Thanks for patience.

balochistan is completely different scenario than BD. What ever you have give as an evidence is based on west Pakistani propaganda article. Not worthy as evidence.

 

[kalu_miah]

Where is the evidence that RAW and Awami operative started violence.

RAW Kao "boys" and their agent Awami propaganda myth making have long been busted:

Story of Bangladesh
http://pakdefenceunit.files.wordpress.com/2011/09/blood-and-tears.pdf
Blood and Tears
Patriot-Traitor Question
Behind the Myth of 3 million - Chapter - III: Mujib's Search for Fact
http://www.statelesspeopleinbanglad.../articles/TheBihariMinoritiesInBangladesh.pdf

Thematic Chronology of Mass Violence in Pakistan, 1947-2007 - Online Encyclopedia of Mass Violence

June 2008

Cite this item

Lionel Baixas, Thematic Chronology of Mass Violence in Pakistan, 1947-2007, Online Encyclopedia of Mass Violence, [online], published on 24 June 2008, accessed 13 July 2012, URL : Thematic Chronology of Mass Violence in Pakistan, 1947-2007 - Online Encyclopedia of Mass Violence, ISSN 1961-9898

Table of content
1. Mass Violence Related to the State’s Formation, page 1
2. Ethnic Violence in Sindh, page 5
3. Religious Violence, page 7
4. War on Terrorism related Violence, page 9
5. Lower-Intensity Political Violence, page 11
Bibliography, page 12
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
1.2.2. Civil War in East Pakistan and the creation of Bangladesh, 1971

1.2.2.1. Mob violence by Bengalis on non-Bengalis

1971; March 1 to 3: Following General Yahya Khan’s decision, the day before, to postpone the Assembly indefinitely, while it was supposed to meet the day after, Sheikh Mujibur Rahman reacted by calling a five-day hartal throughout East Pakistan. Bengalis went to the streets in protest processions. During this period, the Awami League managed to marginalize the authority of the federal government and to seize control throughout East Pakistan. Its followers indulged in large scale massacres and rape against pro-Pakistani civilian elements, mostly west Pakistanis and Biharis but also Bengalis who supported West Pakistan, in the towns of Dhaka, Narayanganj, Chittagong, Chandragona, Rungamati, Khulna, Dinajpur, Dhakargaoa, etc. (Hamoodur Rahman Report, 1974: 17). The army answered by force and several clashes between soldiers and unarmed demonstrators occurred in Dhaka, Khulna, Jessore, resulting in approximately 172 persons killed.

1971; March 3 to 25: On March 3, the army went back to their cantonment and stayed there till March 25. Until that date, some attacks were done by Bengalis mobs on non-Bengalis civilians and commercial properties, and a large-scale riot occurred in Chittagong on March 4. Bengali demonstrators passed through Urdu-speaking Muslim Bihari areas in order to force them to keep to the hartal but were fired at by Biharis. Subsequently, a riot started in which around 200 persons were killed on both sides and around 700 Biharis houses were burnt. According to various estimates, between 100,000 and 500,000 persons were killed during this period by Awami League militants (Aziz, 1974). Even though talks between General Yahya Khan, Zulfikar Ali Bhutto and Sheikh Mujibur Rahman took place between March 4 and 24, their failure to find a compromise and the subsequent breakdown of the talks resulted in a breakdown of law and order. On the one hand, General Yahya Khan decided to reassert his authority by resorting to coercion while on the other hand, the Awami-backed liberation army, the Mukti Bahini, was prepared to launch an armed insurrection to sustain their claim of independence in accordance with the principle of the right for self-determination.

We also have personal accounts from friends and acquaintances who have mentioned that they have witnessed some of these events. I am not presenting these as evidence, but since it happened in our landmass, there is enough people that witnessed this and many people know about them, despite the propaganda drive to sweep these stories under the rug/tapestry of 3 million Bengali genocide story.

What I propose is to have a fresh investigation under UN auspices to determine number of deaths, their time and place, details of victims and perpetrators as well as details of RAW and Awami League masterminds who planned to trigger the secessionist civil war under deception of a 6 point autonomy movement, so truth can be established without a doubt. But Mujib and subsequent administration in Bangladesh always avoid this issue, instead people like Hasina make political theater and persecution with one sided "war crimes trial" in their Kangaroo court, without much solid evidence to back up these trials. There were Jamat followers and Razakars who committed atrocities and I support an effort to prosecute them for war crimes, but not in the partisan environment we have at the moment, which has zero credibility. Also, along with Jamati's and Razakars, we need to prosecute Bengali Awami activists as well as their trainers and funders in India, who have participated in or instigated war crimes against non-Bengali civilians.

I find it funny that while we, common Bangladeshi's, are interested to find the truth of what actually happened, specially the real story of puppet masters pulling their strings from behind the scenes, Indians here are always to trying to obfuscate and derail these efforts, pushing the RAW and Awami propaganda line, trying to hide Indian hidden hand in the manufacturing and engineering of this secessionist movement by Indian intelligence agencies. But we cannot blame them, I guess they are doing their patriotic duty to deflect blame and responsibility of Indian state for the large number of loss of lives in this conflict.