Balkan Tragedy: A Re-enactment of the 1971 Genocide in Bangladesh

Yahya/Hamlet : To Be or Not to be. That is the question. Whether tis nobler in the mind to suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune or to take ARMS against a SEA OF TROUBLES, and by opposing ... so end them.

This is PRECISELY the choice Yahya faced in those critical, fateful days of United Pakistan in 1971 in deciding whether to convene the national assembly or not, and thru the rest of 1971 including March 25/26 1971.



I think however if i were to add the last lines of Horatio in Hamlet, `good night sweet prince, may flights of angels take you to your rest,` it might be just a tad too much for our former countrymen, now Bangladeshis, to stomach.

But the analogies with my Shakespearean cast and story are very viable and are supported by scholarly acounts and memoirs regarding the players in this tragedy.

The Cast of Characters in the Shakespearean Tragedie of East Pakistan 1970-71

United Pakistan: Appearing as Ophelia and Desdemona

Yahya Khan: Appearing as Hamlet & Othello

Indira Gandhi: Playing Iagette

Mujib Ur Rehman: Playing Iago, Hamlet`s stepfather, and Laertes

Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto: Playing Iago, Hamlet`s stepfather, and Laertes

Henry Kissinger: Horatio

Nixon: Horatio

Brig gen Z.A Khan : also appears as an extra, in a cameo appearance as Horatio, or perhaps as the representative of the Duke on Cyprus who took charge of Iago after the bloody deeds had unfolded. And recorded them faithfully for posterity.

MORE Shakespeare and the great tragedy of 1971

Yahya too died a broken man, just like Othello. Realzing that he had killed his guiltless Desdemona/United Pakistan because of the duplicity of Iago (Mujib & Bhutto, Indira Gandhi).

As for Mujib`s and Bhutto`s love of Pakistan ;

`Forty Thosand brothers could not love her (Ophelia/United Pakistan) as much`. Hamlet to Laertes. So much for the crocodile tears of Bhutto and Mujib at the devestation they had wrought as Iago, and the love of Pakistan they professed as Laertes.

MORE Shakespeare and the great tragedy of 1971

Yahya too died a broken man, just like Othello. Realzing that he had killed his guiltless Desdemona/United Pakistan because of the duplicity of Iago (Mujib & Bhutto, Indira Gandhi).

As for Mujib`s and Bhutto`s love of Pakistan ;

`Forty Thosand brothers could not love her (Ophelia/United Pakistan) as much`. Hamlet to Laertes. So much for the crocodile tears of Bhutto and Kujib at the devestation they had wrought as Iago, and the love of Pakistan they professed.

Shakespeare and the Great Tragedy of 1971 Cont`d



At the risk of sounding conceited, I have a few intellectual passions in life; Shakespeare, politics, history and law all of which I have an extremely good grasp of. I have never lost a debate when fighting on any of these hallowed grounds. You cannot win. You cannot prevail. I always triumph.

I repeat for purpose of clarity, Yahya is deeply misunderstood as was Othello. United Pakistan, the great love of his life, Ophelia/Desdemona was lost despite all his best attempts to save her. Like Othello he felt bound by his honor as a professional soldier. The end was predictable. It had to be so. Iago/Mujib/Bhutto/Indira Gandhi triumphed over his simple virtue and understanding of events. This is a great TRAGEDY. I understand the man, and I feel sorry for him. Do I feel sorry for Desdemona and Ophelia’s fate? Yes Of course, but that is what makes this an eternal tragedy. Yahya wound up killing the very country he loved. Iago had to accomplish his evil ends for it to be so. Mujib (also Hamlet`s stepfather)was prepared to sleep with his brother’s wife (India) and in doing so commit incest, and kill the rightful sovereign (United Pakistan), in order to be King, just as Bhutto was (another Stepfather of Hamlet`s).

Shakespeare and the tragedy in East Pakistan in 1971 (2nd revision more claity ignore all previous versions posted please)

Frankly, Yahya Khan played the character of Hamlet in this drama on the world stage, a character driven by his internal contradictions. He wanted peace and justice. Democracy and a United Pakistan. He finally made the choice to kill his stepfather and died a tragic death shortly after. I.E order what occurred in East Pakistan and eventually being forced to invade India. Yahya made a desperate bid to `save` his country in 1970-1971. In all things indecisive, as was Yahya. Yahya was far from the character of Iago, much closer to the character of Othello in fact. Truly honest Othello, simple minded Othello who once he realized he saw Mujib`s deceit, was driven utterly by his desire for revenge, his passions, for the great wrong that Mujib/Desdemona was doing to his beloved country, the love of his life.

But Mujib was no Desdemona. Rather, it was United Pakistan that was Desdemona and paid the price Of Iago`s twisted scheme. Mujib, Bhutto and Indira Ghandhi ALL played the role of `honest` Iago/Iagette in turn/contemporaneously. They were all well practiced in the Machiavellian games of power politics, and outwit the simple Yahya at every turn, raising the stakes, leaving him with few alternatives to choose from but to act in sheer desperation like Othello. They drove poor Yahya/Hamlet/Othello to pave the road for the eventual destruction of United Pakistan. This is my heartfelt and original, Unique insight/interpretation, using Shakespeare of the tragic events of 1971.

The characters of the plays Othello and Hamlet do go a long way to explaining the personas of the characters of the main personalities involved in the 1971 drama.

Nixon and Kissinger by the way, fit perfectly into the role of Horatio, who lived to tell/write Hamlet’s tale faithfully after he had died. Iago of course got the his hust deserts at the end, as did Mujib (assasinated), and Indira Gandhi (assasinated) and Bhutto (hung by the state of Pakistan). Interesting aye!

Comments?

The insistence in some quarters of calling ``Bangladesh`` East Pakistan is amusing yet questionable. The Independence of Bangladesh was declared on March 26, 1971, thus any army of another country would be considered an occupation force after that day. The point is raised that it was still ``united`` PAkistan since no other entity had recognized Bangladesh. Well, just because nobody has recognized the ``independence`` of Kashmir does not mean that the Indian army there is not an occupying force or that it is an ``akhand`` part of India. And all Rand-McNally maps I have seen colour it a part of India, wrongly of course.

War crimes is a sensitive issue to say the least. Yet, as Mr. Siddiqui points out with his usual reason and eloquence, we have to get to the bottom of it if only to move forward in Pak-BAngla relations free of the albatross around our necks. Obviously the appointed court should be at a neutral site and of a neutral composotion like the current Hague tribunal. Just as former and current members of the Pakistani army get overtly defensive about the matter, many Bengalees get overtly emotional about it too. That does not excuse us from at least trying to get to the bottom of this. Epithets like ``ghaddar`` or ``butcher`` hardly contribute to this solution. Those terms are loaded and misleading. Nathan Hale was hanged by the British as a ``ghaddar`` and is revered by the Americans as a martyred patriot.Many a nationalistic Indian called H.S. Suhrawardy a ``butcher`` because of his alleged role in the Calcutta riots of 1946; to Bengalis(and Pakistanis) of my grandfather`s generation he was a hero and a saviour. The point here is that charges terminology is often a matter of perspective. Calling someone something and proving it are quite different matters.

Perhaps now would be good time for all of us in this Chowk forum to discuss what structure, procedure etc needs to be involved in finding out and trying alleged war criminals of 1971. To the list of many Pakistani officers I`d like to add those Indian officers whose men allegedly looted industrial machinery and other items on their departure in January 1972. My own late grandfather, a venerable supporter of freedom in 1947 and 1971 both, had his firm emptied by departing Indians in 1972. His loss was the rule rather than the exception.

At the risk of repeating myself:

This discussion is I hope, only a beginning. We
as Pakistanis and Bangladeshis need to interact
more to JOINTLY get to the bottom of this very
bloody mess. And if we get too emotional at this
stage then we will have to wait for another
generation to even get close to the truth.

Between Omar1974`s ``Ghaddar`` and Jamal Hasan`s ``War Criminals`` lies this
truth. First I must say loud and clear, I do support
Muneezae Khan`s right to defend her father. And I do find it difficult
to deny the fact that ``War Criminals`` especially from a losing side of a
war rarely write books to detail their activities (i.e Z.A. Khan)
Here I will ask my Bangladeshi friends to quit targeting a daughter`s
loyalty to her father.

So could we please not write stuff like:

``The same two year old daughter is probably the writer aho is
threatening Jamal Hasan, right? The same girl, who was then two years
old. The same girl who lived because the baby food of many
Bengali kids were snatched, the same girl who lives now on looted
property, the same girl who lives now by being saved by provisions,
which was obtained by killing Bengali kids and the parents of
Bengali kids and looting Bengali properties.``

Such writing makes for very counterproductive resentment amongst the
present generation in Pakistan which had absolutely no part in the
events of 1971. Let us resist high drama and get on
with some serious soul searching and reflection.

Personally, I preferred Samina`s reply which included an apology YET GOT
NO RESPONSE from the Bangladeshi contributors or media. She too
is from a military family and blames Bhutto (I am not convinced on that
yet). Let us please refer back to her reply instead of generating
``baby food out of the mouths of..``.

I support Jamal Hasan for pursuing this topic over the years because I
believe that he is helping Pakistanis too who need to know the HOW and
the WHY of the events of 1971. This is the game plan that I would hope
Pakistanis too will help to pursue.Only then can we come close to any
type of ``War Crimes``. Because to me it seems that neither the victims in
Bangladesh nor the Pakistanis have much information to share on HOW this
all happened. So let us resist sensationalism and talk turkey.

Ras H. Siddiqui

``Truth`` is right that I blurred the line between ``generosity`` and interpretation of prudence regarding India`s non-absorption of Bangladesh. My sincere apologies for getting carried away. Having said that, I don`t hold my breath for the two Bengals to be united in my life time just as Husain Shaheed Suhrawardy and many a Bengali patriot didn`t hold his. Hoping against all odds is the dilemma and dream of patriots. When Pakistan`s army couldn`t silence Bengal, I doubt India`s politicians will be able to in the long run. A nation deserves a state. Bengalis, no matter where they live, deserve the whole Bangladesh that was cheated out of them by Mountbatten, Nehru and Quaid-e-Azam Jinnah. But if history is any indicator, Bengalis will have their entire country someday without the artificial Radcliffe line dividing them. We have given rivers of blood in 1757, 1857, 1947, and 1971. We are willing to give more. The people who smashed PAkistan`s army can do the same to India`s when it comes to it.

OMAR1974 needs to be careful in protecting Brig. Khan because in the process he is alienating him from his colleagues working with him during 1971 occupation of Bangladesh. Brig. Khan may end up having neither any Pakistani nor any Bangladeshi to uphold his antecedents.

One must understand the power of Internet which may become tool for trying war criminals in the next millennium.

OMAR1974`s POINT BY POINT REBUTTAL OF ALL misleading comments on Z.A Khan continues with an open challenge to all to participate.

This discussion is I hope, only a beginning. We
as Pakistanis and Bangladeshis need to interact
more to JOINTLY get to the bottom of this very
bloody mess. And if we get too emotional at this
stage then we will have to wait for another
generation to even get close to the truth.

And Between Omar1974`s ``Ghaddar`` and Jamal Hasan`s ``War Criminals`` lies this truth.

First I must say loud and clear, I do support
Muneezae Khan`s right to defend her father. And
I do find it difficult to deny the fact that ``War
Criminals`` especially from a losing side of a war
rarely write books to detail their activities.
So I will ask my Bangladeshi friends to quit targeting a daughter`s loyalty to her father.

So could we please not write stuff like:

``The same two year old daughter is probably the writer aho is threatening Jamal Hasan, right? The
same girl, who was then two years old. The same girl who lived because the baby food of many
Bengali kids were snatched, the same girl who lives now on looted property, the same girl who lives now by being saved by provisions, which was obtained by killing Bengali kids and the parents of Bengali kids and looting Bengali properties.``

Such writing makes very counterproductive resentment amongst the present generation in Pakistan that had absolutely no part in the events of 1971. So let us resist high drama and get on
with some serious soul searching and reflection.

Personally, I preferred Samina`s reply which included an apology YET GOT NO RESPONSE from the
Bangladeshi contributors or media. She too
is from a military family and blames Bhutto (but
I am not convinced on that yet). But let us please
refer back to her reply instead of generating
``baby food out of the mouths of..``.

I support Jamal Hasan for pursuing this topic over
the years because I believe that he is helping Pakistanis too who need to know the HOW and the WHY of the events of 1971. And this is the game
plan that I would hope Pakistanis help to pursue.
Only then can we come close to any type of ``War
Crimes``. Because to me it seems that neither
the victims in Bangladesh nor the Pakistanis
have much information to share on HOW this all happened.
So let us resist sensationalism and talk turkey.

Ras

Reg sigalph235 (Reply#76):

I`m the person who praised India for not trying to absorb Bangladesh in 1971. I never said it was act of ``generosity``, that was your own twisted interpretation. I said it was a good recognition of the facts on the ground and that the Bangladeshis were not ready for it. There is no generosity when you can see reality for what it is - but there is a little bit of wisdom or practicality.

As regards ``India`` handing back W. Bengal, you are now indulging in complete lack of reality (something India avoided in 1971).

Indian Bengal is ruled by Bengalis. They are confident in their Bangla identity and their Indian identity. Dont hold your breath waiting for them to join you. You will turn blue.

News From Bangladesh

April 18, 1999

Readers’ Opinion

A PAKISTANI ADMITS 1971 ATROCITY

Khaled S. Ahmed

Respond to Mr. OMAR1974 on his posting in www.chowk.com on April 16, 1999:

honestly appreciate OMAR1974`s efforts to protect Brig. (Retd) Z. A. Khan from possible indictment as war criminal and in the process like to thank him for admitting that crime was committed. But according to him Brig. Khan was innocent observer whose participation can not be legally established.

It also appears that OMAR1974 did not read the original posting of Brig. Khan where he wrote ``when I went to brigade headquarters I found the commanding officers of 20 Baluch and 24 FF there and was informed by the brigade major, Major Anees, Corps of Engineers, that the brigade commander had locked himself in his room in the Circuit House and was not coming out. I knocked on the door, identified myself and asked him to open the door. I went in and asked him if he was unwell, when he said he was all right, I asked him why he was not coming out, he said that if he gave any orders and something went wrong he would be sacked.``

I am quoting the following from an article recently published by Prof. Enayetur Rahim and Joyce L Rahim as information are now available from US State Department - ``The following night the Pakistan Air Force dropped bombs again on a Dhaka bustee area and again blamed India. The Pakistani military was more valiant in taking on civilian targets than in confronting a fighting force. The Pakistani authorities claimed that the Indian raid which was originally directed against the airport and the railroad station, missed its targets, and made a direct hit on the brick and concrete structure of the Islamic Mission Orphanage where 400 of its residents were asleep, killing an estimated number of 300 orphans`` and request OMAR1974 to visit the site to know the cowardice behaviors of Pakistani General`s in 1971.`` If OMAR1974 wants to justify any one killed in Bangladesh by Pakistani occupation army were violating law of the land then what about those orphans?

I would also like to thank OMAR1974 again for admitting that killing of prisoners of war was a violation of Geneva Convention but he believes Brig. Khan was a silent observer and there is no proof of his participation in shooting them and he only knew those facts and narrated in his book.

Perhaps you are trying to tell that Bangladesh should consider him as prosecution witness rather than trying to indict him as war criminal!!!

Those Pakistanis who are calling Sheikh Mujib a GADDAR need to understand in the historical context that they are wrong. Pakistan Government did allege but could not try him as GADDAR during the time he was in their custody for 9 months in 1971. And neither Pakistan could arrest him when he made a trip to Lahore in 1973 as Prime Minister of Bangladesh. People like OMAR1974 must understand that if he or she calls any one GADDAR when their Government extends red carpet to the person they are calling GADDAR as national hero from another country, their action tantamount to GADDARI with their own country.

I do not know Brig. Khan personally neither I know OMAR1974 but for both of you I can repeat what I have written earlier - `Whatever ``way`` one attempts to describe the 1971 events of Bangladesh, those who fought for democracy and freedom shall be glorified and those who perpetrated the Genocide shall be cursed. Perhaps you would do a great service to Bangladesh if you can take it to the court.

I would expect the rational people to ``understand the world, not through religion or by accepting authority but through the use of reason.`` And quote Empedocles who once said ``Each man believes only his experience`` and so does OMAR1974 and perhaps also Brig. Khan.

News From Bangladesh

April 18, 1999

Commentary

Saber rattling by the friends of Brigadier Z.A. Khan

By A.H. Jaffor Ullah

[Editor`s Note: Ever since NFB had published Jamal Hasan`s article ``Balkan Tragedy: A Re-enactment of the 1971 Genocide & Ethnic Cleansing in Bangladesh`` a controversy had brewed in Pakistani Internet forum CHOWK (http://www.chowk.com). Brigadier Z.A. Khan`s daughter Muneezae Khan and a friend, Mr. Omar, asked Jamal Hasan to withdraw the charge that Brigadier Z.A. Khan fits the profile of a perpetrator of Bangladesh Genocide or else he (Jamal Hasan) faces the legal consequences. Quite a few Bengalis have visited the Chowk forum and defended Jamal Hasan`s assertion. This article is one of the latest in this series to explain why the charges against a person alleged to have committed genocide should be treated differently than a person who is alleged to have killed one person out of rage or for other ulterior motives.]

I`m appalled and awestricken by Mr. Omar`s insensitivity and inane writing regarding the events of 1971 in occupied Bangladesh. His perspective of the entire bloody episode of 1971 is very different from most people that I know of. And it is very odd one too! In one instance, Mr. Omar was most willingly giving Brigadier Z.A. Khan a clean bill of health` without being in occupied Bangladesh in 1971, but then he was admitting that other officers of Pakistani army may have committed crime against humanity. Isn`t that what is called a double standard, Mr. Omar? Mr. Omar was in essence saying that some Pakistani generals and officers stationed in occupied Bangladesh during 1971 may have committed the crime against humanity, but Brigadier Z.A. Khan was a ``clean`` man.

Let me explain one aspect of the crime against humanity charge against any military or civilian person. In the court no one has to prove that the then Lt. Col. Z.A. Khan pulled the trigger to kill innocent Bengalis. Gen. Augusto Pinochet never did go to the killing fields in Chile to kill any of his countrymen or sympathetic foreigners to deposed President Alliande. He engineered the Chilean Genocide while holding the high office of Military dictator. He ordered the killing and now he is being held in Great Britain waiting to be extradited to Spain. Some Spanish citizens lodged a complain in Spanish court because Pinochet`s soldiers exterminated quite a few visiting left-leaning Spanish students.

We all know that Lt. Col. Z.A. Khan was not the planner of Bangladesh Genocide. I didn`t hear anyone say that. However, he truly was an executioner. One could be an executioner without having to fire a single bullet in the heads and vital organs of a victim. All Lt. Col. Khan had to do -- like a good soldier -- follow the order of his boss be it Lt. Gen. Tikka Khan or Maj. Gen. Mitha or any lowly Brigadier who was higher in the chain of commands. Mind you in his admission he was the Commander of a commando battalion that was involved in all sorts of gruesome killing in eastern sector of occupied Bangladesh. He simply accepted the orders from higher up officers. In no place in his book did he mention that he valiantly defied the order of superiors.

We have heard too many cases where Nazi war criminals have been sentenced heavily for only being a lowly prison guard or aiding in rounding up of the Jews. In some instances, the guard never had a chance to shoot a single fire in the line of duty. Nevertheless, the prison guard or informants were part of a web that was responsible for the death of six million Jews. In the case of Bangladesh Genocide, the prosecutor has to prove that Lt. Col. Z.A. Khan was commanding a unit that inflicted casualties on civilians. Nothing more, nothing less! His subordinates must have taken orders from him directly to cause the loss of lives. This trial of Brigadier (Retired) Z.A. Khan will never be a criminal trial; the rules for criminal trial are very different from the rules for crime against humanity. Remember that I enumerated earlier that Gen. Pinochet never fired a single bullet himself! Nevertheless, look at his present predicaments.

The author Mr. Jamal Hasan or I, who made the incomplete list of Pakistani Officers involved in Bangladesh Genocide, is not pointing finger at Z.A. Khan and saying that Mr. Khan shot one particular person out of rage or taking a revenge. Mr. Khan was part of a genocidal army who most willingly executed a well-designed plan to exterminate an outrageously large number of civilians. He openly admitted in his memoir that he flawlessly executed the order. If Pakistani army committed a crime against humanity during 1971 in occupied Bangladesh, then, so did the then Lt. Col. Z.A. Khan. Let the International Jurists decide whether Bengalis were ``rebel`` or a patriot, Mr. Omar.

If Jamal Hasan or I defamed the good name of Brigadier Z.A. Khan, then let him come out of Pakistan. We are most willing to meet him in the International Court of Justice in The Hague, The Netherlands. This saber rattling by Khan`s daughter Muneezae Khan or Mr. Omar won`t work here. If my hunch is right then, no one, and that includes Brigadier Z.A. Khan, will have the courage and intrepidness to face up the challenge of Bengalis in the International Court of Justice in The Hague.

Mr. Omar or Ms. Muneezae Khan should be mindful that theirs past activities are not in question here. Brigadier Z.A. Khan penned a vast amount of incriminatory write-ups conveniently placing him in all sorts of killing grounds in occupied Bangladesh. He gleefully performed his tasks without ever asking his bosses a single question. His write-ups, he thought, were designed to ridicule his bosses -- the armchair generals of Dhaka. Little did he realize that those vivid descriptions of gratuitous killings could be played against him to implicate him in the high crime of crime against humanity.

Mr. Omar has characterized Bengali leader Sheikh Mujib as a ``Ghaddar`` (Traitor) in his rebuttal to Khaled S. Ahmed`s write-up entitled ``The Way It Was` -- Reading Between The Lines`` (appeared in NFB`s Readers` Opinion page on March 22). This tells me quite clearly the mindset of Mr. Omar. I am hoping some readers will take up the issue and give Mr. Omar a befitting answer.

In summary, the Bengalis will be most willing to take Brigadier Z.A. Khan or any officers of Pakistani army to International Court of Justice who served in occupied Bangladesh from March 26, 1971, through December 16, 1971, and participated in an organized campaign to annihilate freedom loving Bengalis.

Gruesome killing in 1971 is a naked testament that an well-orchestrated genocide was carried out in occupied Bangladesh and that campaign of terror and destruction had netted an estimated three millions lives. If Bengalis would have perpetrated a crime of this magnitude in Punjab, and Pashtun land, how would Ms. Muneezae Khan (daughter of Brig. Z.A. Khan) and Mr. Omar feel?

______________

A.H. Jaffor Ullah writes from New Orleans, Louisiana, USA. His e-mail address: jhankar@bellsouth.net

I am no fan of Sheikh Mujib; by the way he usurped democracy, and foisted a one party dictatorship in Bangladesh, he ought to be tried posthumously in Dhaka for violating the Bangladesh Constituion. It is sickening how his old pals and daughter go about bandying his ``love of democracy`` ad nauseam. Accountability is must for old wounds to heal. By the same token, there needs to be a limited trial of the principal leaders of the Pakistan military accused of the 1971 atrocities. Mind you, I say accused not guilty. Let Pakistan show its goodwill by reaching some kind of agreement to have trial at a neutral place like the Hague.

As for Ms. Khan, the brigadier`s daughter, I do appreciate your pain at having fingers pointed at your father. Whether he is guilty of war crimes against my countrymen is only for a court to decide.

To the gentleman who pointed out India`s ``generosity`` in not absorping Bangladesh in the aftermath of the Independence War, I say, thank your stars. Bangladesh is not Hyderabad, Kashmir, Junagadh, Jodhpur, Manvadar, Babriwar, Sikkim, or Bhutan. We would have made it India`s ``Afghanistan``. After we got our independence in nine short months of battling the reputedly ``finest`` army in the world. If anything, India should consider turning over the half of the Bengali heartland that it has ruled for the last half century.