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

Lest anyone begin to rejoice at `winning` this debate, let me remind those who may have temporarily lost their senses that there are no winners in a CIVIL WAR. We were all losers. We killed, raped, mutilated, and massacred our own countrymen, on both sides. There can be therefore no victor in this conflict. As I said before, it is hard indeed to tell the difference between being bayoneted, raped or shot by either side, if the result is the same, an early grave or life long disfigurement (physical or emotional). Both sides are morally culpable. If you want trials you must accept this truth and ask whether you will proceed nevertheless.

I shall therefore, and I urge all Pakistanis to do likewise, since we should reciprocate the Bengalis in this matter, for we are blood brothers who had a blood feud, to soon petition the governments of both Bangladesh and Pakistan to bring to book the notorious `freedom fighters` and `heroes` of Bangladeshi independence. Their crimes against humanity no longer allow our souls to rest freely. The Biharis must be brought to Pakistan without further delay as eye witnesses to genocide attempted against them, and then this matter pursed without any more hesitancy. Or, sleeping dogs can lie. I think the smart ones know precisely what would happen if the International War Crimes Tribunal at the Hague opened up an Impartial inquiry into the events of 1971 and started assigning blame without any partisan sense of who was `right` and who was `wrong` to commit crimes against humanity. Jamal Hasan knows this only too well, as do other Bengali intellectuals. Few of Bangladesh`s national heroes would survive this type of impartial judicial scrutiny. Like the monuments built to Lenin, their images would crumble into dust as the Berlin wall of Silence on the deeds of the 1971 conflict fell. Once the Can is reopened, one should not be surprised if after decomposing and decaying for 28 years, that maggots crawl out of it. Do maggots have a particular nationality? Can one tell the difference between which uniforms the maggots wore? Or if maggots without Uniforms are somehow, less maggots in nature, and more resemble dinner guests one would like to invite over.

`The smell of Roman [Pakistani] dead [burning] is just as black.

It was Pompey [Mujib] that wanted it so, not I.`

Yahya attempting a Caesar actually lost that battle, and died a broken man. But can you imagine if Caesar had lost that battle against Pompey? There would have been no movie made at all! We would all been deprived of that magnificent performance by Elizabeth Taylor!

Of course I need hardly point out the irony of Pompey`s end. When Caesar came to Egypt he was greeted by Pompey`s head in a large receptacle that usually contained edible oils and wines. Such too was the fate that befell Bangabandhu and his family. Caesar`s (Yahya Khan) end also, was sudden to say the least, as Bhutto took power and he, Yahya, found himself under house arrest.

It is funny that in the same breath that one of the gentlemen ask me to respect ``Bangabandhu`` more, he also calls the Gen Ziaur Rahman as agent of the ISI and other similar nonsense. There is no proof that Ziayr Rahman was an agent of ISI; there is history for all to see that Sheikh Mujib spent time in W Pakistan while Zia and the Bangladesh Army bled on the battlefield; there is history to show how Mujib hijacked the newest democracy on earth in 1975 and created a one party state like his masters in Moscow. Now that we are ready to try the alleged perpetrators of rape in 1971, how about trying Mujib`s sons for visiting humiliation on many a Dhaka University coed because they wouldn`t dally with these ``princes``? No doubt that Mujib was a patriotic leader in 1971; he was the first President of the Republic. But by 1975 he had disgraced the hopes of freedom enough to deserve nothing more than shame and humiliation. Whether India, Pakistan, or the planet of Jupiter liked him or disliked him is irrelevant: he broke the sacred trust of his people. What difference does it make that he wanted Bangladesh to be ruled by an Awami League elite unanswerable to anybody and the PAkistan Army generals wanted it ruled by a Punjabi clique answerable to nobody? Bengalis are a very easy going and tolerant people; but when their infinite patience runs out, sir, they will avenge the wrongs with all means necessary. They did it with the Pakistan Army in 1971 and with Mujib and the Rakhibahini in 1975. No amount of re-naming of everything after Mujib will erase the memory of his betrayal of the dream of freedom.

As for the comment ``likes of sigalphs``, let me assure you that I represent the sixty five percent of the voters of Bangladesh who voted against the Awami League in 1996. My grandfather was a freedom fighter BOTH in 1947 and in 1971 and my parents were prisoners of war in W. Pakistan. We didn`t sacrifice so much to trade Punjabi tyranny with Indian or Awami dictatorship. The terror of Rakhibahini is as vivid in the minds of my parents` generation as that of the PAkistan Occupation Forces.

I am an avid opponent of Begum Khaleda Zia and the BNP and Jamaat. No namecalling by Mr Nawaz Khan or Omar Mirza takes away from the fact that the late Gen Ziaur Rahman was something that this ``Bangabandhu`` or Tajuddin Ahmed never were: a genuine freedom fighter. History is well aware that while the Awami leadership wined and dined in posh Calcutta suburbs, it was the nascent Bangladesh Army with men like Ziaur Rahman, Khaled Musharraf, Shafiullah, Osmany, and Mir Shawkat which faced the brunt of battling the ``finest`` army in the world. That those brave men proved that the Pakistan Army was not the ``finest``, or that Gen. Niazi was a paper ``tiger``, is no thanks to the politicians in Calcutta.

MY RESPONSE # 6

[The following article is posted in response to post # 287 in which unsubstantiated and demeaning remarks have been made about Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, the Founding Father of today`s Bangladesh. We were discussing about Pakistani military atrocities and genocide of 1971. Aimed at diverting our attention from our discussion on war crimes and war criminals, blatatant falsehoods and politically motivated opinions about Bangabandhu SMR have been injected in the debate by the poster of message #287. Those comments on Bangabandhu were irrelevant to our thread.

However, I don`t think Bangabandhu SMR was or is above critical assessment. In his rumblings, Omar Mirza or Mirza Omar had threw up some useless references to Bangabandu`s name. I hope there is a concensus among the readers of the thread on war criminals that Omar Mirza sb. is not rightfully qualified to make an objective appraisal of Bangabandhu or any Bangalee for that matter.Yet, this was not the appropiate thread for initiating a discussion on the Founding Father of Bangladesh as a nation-state. Thanks for reading this article on Bangabandhu SMR. Sincerely, M. Waheeduzzaman Manik]:

BANGABANDHU SHEIKH MUJIBUR RAHMAN: THE EMANCIPATOR OF BANGALEES FROM THE IGNOMINIOUS RULE OF PAKISTANI MILITARY JUNTA

M. Waheeduzzaman

Although Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman [Bangabandhu SMR]was ruthlessly murdered on August 15, 1975 – twenty three long years ago, we have thus far officially observed only third National Mourning Day. To the chagrin of Bangabandhu-bashers and fear-mongers, the present Government of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh has demonstrated the willingness to observe the death anniversary of the Founding Father of the Nation. In defiance of the virulent critics of Bangabandhu, the present Government of the Republic has boldly taken some admirable steps to re-designate some of the educational institutions after Bangabandhu’s name. The much publicized Jamuna Bridge has rightfully been named after the the Father of the Nation. These are the bare minimum what we can do to show due respect to the memory of the departed soul to whom Bangladesh as a nation-state owes its birth.

Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, a true friend of his people and an extraordinary political leader who had spent more than twelve years of his adult life in various jails for relentlessly articulating the legitimate grievances of Bangalees against the then Pakistani ruling elite had become a victim of the brutal and deliberate massacre of August 15, 1975. Bangabandhu, a courageous man who did not deviate a period (full stop) or a coma from his famous Six-Point Program even under combined pressure of brute Pakistani Military Junta and conniving Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto was mercilessly murdered along with his wife, three sons and other family members in independent Bangladesh. At the behest of the murderers of Bangabandhu, the bullet-ridden dead body of the sitting President of the Republic was most dishonorably buried at Tongipara, far away from the capital city. The dead bodies of Bangabandhu’s wife, three sons, two newly wed daughters-in-law, and other close relatives were disrespectfully buried without any Dafan-Kafan and Janaja in the unmarked graves at Banani Graveyard. Although our nation’s indebtedness to Bangabandhu was sanguine like a birth mark, his name was officially proscribed for more than twenty one years. It is a national disgrace that Bangabandhu became an object of a systematic vilification and disinformation campaign for over more than twenty three years. Bangabandhu was the long-awaited savior of Bangalees of the then East Pakistan. Yet this extraordinary Bangalee statesman fell as a victim in the hands of those reactionary and mercenary forces who had never wholeheartedly accepted Bangabandhu’s clarion call for independence on March 7, 1971: “The struggle of this time is the struggle for our emancipation. The struggle of this time is the struggle of Independence.”

The readers of various Internet discussion groups, especially Soc.Culture.Bangladesh (SCB) may be aware of the fact that I have thus far posted a number of write-ups on the Founding Father of today’s People’s Republic of Bangaladesh. I have posted one article on Bangabandhu in Global Amitech’s News From Bangladesh (NFB, August 17, 1998). The Independent, one of the leading dailies of Bangladesh has also recently carried my article on the Father of the Nation (August 20 & 21, 1998). To the best of my abilities, I have expressed my views clearly and boldly. However, I have no fantasy that my contentions about Bangabandhu will be universally supported. Given the fact that the Founder of Bangladesh as a nation-state does not need my promoting, I have no problem if someone disagrees with my observations. Having no personal affiliation with the now-defunct BAKSAL or the present Awami League Government, I feel duty bound to dispel some of the baseless accusations against Bangabandhu, a genuine Bangalee statesman who had bequeathed a sovereign nation-state for his people. Notwithstanding the hollowness, irrelevance and uselessness of such unsubstantiated contentions and motivated characterizations, the chief purpose of this paper is to refute some of those misleading views and global generalizations about Bangabndhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, one of the greatest statesmen of this century.

There are SCB readers who have said that somebody else had written or prompted Bangabandhu’s historical March 7, 1971 Speech! Some Pakistani SCB netters have even claimed that the Bangalee freedom fighters had committed genocide on Bangalees in 1971! There are also Bihari sympathizers who have been claiming that Bangalee freedom fighters had killed 1 million Biharis during our liberation war. There are Pakistani minded Bangladeshis who would love to squarely blame Bangabandhu for the break-up of Pakistan. There are those Bangladeshis who will say that Bangabandhu had no plan for independent Bangladesh. Some anti-Bangalee renegades would not hesitate even for a moment to characterize the Founding Father of Bangladesh as pro-Pakistani. Some critics have mis-characterized Bangabandhu’s arrest on the night of March 25, 1971 as pre-arranged “surrender” to the Pakistani army. Some of them even suggested that Bangabandhu was having a good time in Pakistani Jail during our liberation war! Some of the NFB readers have already alleged that Bangabandhu was not the Father of the Nation. It is also alleged by the critics that the undisputed leader of all Bangalees of the then East Pakistan was not a statesman. According to one observer, Bangabandhu was no more than a “village leader.” One of the regular NFB contributors, who is known for his virulence against the Father of the Nation has claimed to be “amused” with my assertion that Bangabandhu was a great “statesman.”

I don’t think that Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman was beyond or above genuine criticisms. As a pragmatic political leader, he was not a holy saint. History will ultimately cast judgment on Bangabandhu’s life-long accomplishments. Unfortunately, most of the criticisms about the Founder of Bangladesh as a nation-state are nothing but vilification. Having no credibility, this kind of name-calling is filled with hatred and antagonizing characterizations. Although such vicious attacks and falsehoods are manifestations of hatred and ignorance of the slanderers and character assassins, some of the NFB readers have eloquently refuted the absurd allegations against the Father of the Nation. In my humble assessment, most of these criticisms are false, baseless, slanderous, patronizing, demeaning, self-serving and contradictory. It is indeed difficult to comment on the falsehoods which are full of redundant concoctions and useless generalizations. We know who are the virulent critics of Bangabandhu. Unfortunately, many of their politically motivated observations are full of malicious conjectures. Only the confused or motivated individuals filled with personal vendetta can disseminate such tantalizing fabrications and blatant distortions about the Founding Father of Bangladesh.

It is alleged by some motivated critics that Bangabandhu had no plan for having an independent Bangladesh. They also claim that the creation of Bangladesh was the direct result of a series of blunders, mistakes and wrong decisions made by advisors of the then dictator Jallad Yahya Khan and power greedy Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto. Rather, the truth of the matter was just the opposite. The emergence of Bangladesh as a nation-state was the direct result of Bangalees’ determination for carving out an independent country out of Pakistan. Bangladesh was the outcome of Bangalees’ willingness to fight for freedom and independence. It needs to be clearly stressed that our struggle for freedom and independence was not a “leaderless” fight. It is a documented fact that Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman provided the much needed charismatic leadership for our glorious struggle for emancipation and independence. Neither the freedom-loving Bangalees nor Bangabandhu, the relentless champion of their legitimate right for self-determination would have settled for less than total emancipation.

It remains a “historical” fact that Bangabandhu’s name is synonymous with Bangalees’ struggle for independence. Even a quisling of Ghulam Azam’s stature can not question Bangabandhu’s pivotal contribution towards Bangladesh’s independence. “The White Paper on East Pakistan Crisis,” which was prepared by Pakistani Military regime during the Pakistani Genocidal War in 1971 clearly noted that Bangabandhu refused to compromise on the Six-Point Program, the magna carta of Bangalee rights. In his book (The Last Days of United Pakistan), late Professor G.W. Choudhury, a die-hard exponent of pre-1971 Pakistan, verified that Bangabandhu consistently refused to compromise his demands for full autonomy based on Six-Point program.

Just a quick quote from the introduction of G.W. Choudhury`s book will indicate how Bangabandhu SMR was made responsible for the disintegration of Pakistan: “The disintegration of Pakistan and the emergence of Bangladesh in 1971 is a sad story of the Pakistan Army generals’ misconceptions about their roles as the `guardians of national interests’ and of the dubious roles of two unscrupulous and inordinately ambitious politicians—- Mujibur Rahman of Bangladesh and Z.A. Bhutto of ‘New’ Pakistan. The crisis in Pakistan in 1971 was also a case of ‘foreign-linked factionalism’ where there are ‘linkages between internal political factors and the international environment’.” [p. xi].

The recently published books written by some Pakistani scholars and Civil Servants of Pakistan clearly recognize that it was Bangabandhu SMR who had adamantly refused to compromise his Six-Point program. In their published books, the accused Pakistani War Criminals like A. A.K. Niazi (The Betrayal of East Pakistan)and Rao Forman Ali (Why Pakistan Got Divided?)have seethingly criticized Bangabandhu SMR for his uncompromising stand on Six-point program.

Outstanding British and American scholars and reputed journalists have fully recognized the sanguine and pivotal role of Bangabandhu’s charismatic leadership in the making of Bangladesh’s struggle for freedom and independence. Although some of the celebrated Bangladeshi political scientists are very critical about Bangabandhu’s performance as the head of the Government in independent Bangladesh, there is almost a consensus among those scholars about Bangabandhu’s monumental role in uniting all Bangalees at a critical juncture of our history for waging an armed liberation struggle. The malicious propaganda against Bangabandhu and selective distortions of our political history are at sharp variance with most of the universally accepted facts. Bangabandhu is not only part and parcel of our political history but he was also the creator of that glorious and robust history. No amount of selective amnesia of the Bangabandh-bashers can erase Bangabandhu’s pivotal contribution toward Bangalees’ struggle for freedom and independence.

Some of the so-called critics of Bangabandhu floated the idea that the undisputed leader of Bangalees did not care to ascertain what was going on in the then East Pakistan before Pakistani military junta had unleashed gruesome genocide on the night of Marh 25, 1971. This brand of critics also claims that Bangabandhu never wanted independence for Bangladesh. Therefore, Bangabandhu never declared independence. These critics maintain that neither the Awami League nor Bangabandhu was pivotal in leading Bangalees towards independence.

It is preposterous to claim that Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman did not know what was going on in the then East Pakistan before and during March 1971. Who were those leaders who knew what was going on in the then East Pakistan ? It seems to me that some of these Bangabandhu-haters want to say that Jamaat leader Ghulam Azam, Pakistan Democratic Party (PDP) leaders like Nurul Amin, Hamidul Hoque Chowdhury and Mahmud Ali and Muslim League leaders like Sabur Khan, Khwaja Khairuddin and Fazlul Quader Chowdhury were the defenders of Bangalees’ legitimate rights in 1971! Those certified pro-Pakistani quislings had systematically tormented the Bangalees during nine months of liberation movement. Yet some of the anti-liberation forces have started to claim that those renegades were the real statesmen and the Founding Fathers of today’s Bangladesh ! Some of the certified critics of Bangabandhu are in search of a new founding father of Bangladesh. Some of those “nobba” (new) Razakars with the reactionary background and an opportunistic orientation would like to rehabilitate the deceased President Ziaur Rahman, the Founder of military autocracy in Bangladesh as the Founding Father of the Nation!

What was the actual role of the rightist political parties before, during and after Bangladesh’s liberation war? The citizens of the people’s Republic of Bangladesh are intimately familiar with the ignominious role of the rightist political parties. All of the rightist parties especially Jamaat-e-Islam, Muslim League and Pakistan Democratic Party (PDP) were on the Pakistani side during our war of liberation. Those quislings were willing partners of Pakistani genocidal army before and during our liberation war. They were the creators and sponsors of Peace Committees, Razakars, Al-Badars and Al-Shams. In view of this, no pro-Jamaati elements of Bangladesh or Pakistani collaborators or sympathizers of Pakistani war criminals are in a position to verify who had supported or fought for our liberation. Or for that matter, the admirers of military dictators or certified supporters of Jamaat or other rightist parties are not the relevant persons to attest the role of Awami League or Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman in the making and emergence of Bangladesh as an independent nation.

No one has to be a “new” historian to tell the truth about the birth of Bangladesh as an independent nation-state. The struggle for our freedom did not start all on a sudden on the black night of March 25, 1971. It is totally false to allude that the Bangalees of the then East Pakistan were waiting for a call from an unknown Bangalee Mjor of Pakistan Army for waging our war of independence. It is a travesty of truth even to suggest that our liberation war was fought after we heard Ziaur Rahman`s voice from radio on March 27, 1971. It is a well recorded fact that actual fighting for our liberation started in many places of Bangladesh immediately after Pakistani brute military animals started genocide on the night of March 25, 1971. Indeed, Bangladesh’s struggle for freedom and independence was in the making for a long time. They heard what Bangabandhu had to say in his Historic Speech on tumultuous Seventh Day of March Nineteen Hundred Seventy One. The emergence of Bangladesh on December 16, 1971 was the culmination of a long struggle of Bangalees for gaining full independence from the colonial rulers of Pakistan.

It is presumptuous to claim that Awami League was the “only” party which had asked for Bangladesh’s independence. Doubtless, there were other patriotic leaders and political parties which also had fought or supported for greater autonomy for the then East Pakistan. Specifically, Maulana Bhashani and other leftist leaders with few exceptions had demanded for Bangladesh’s autonomy and independence. However, it is a well recognized fact that due to predominant role of the Awami League, the leftist parties could play only a secondary role in the management of our Muktijuddha. In fact, the Indian Government had mobilized its support and logistics through the Awami League-led Bangladesh Government-in-exile. What was the impact of this arrangement? According to Talukder Maniruzzaman: “The result was that the leftist party leaders and cadres who sought shelter in India could play only a secondary role in the liberation war.” There is no denying the fact that all of the leftist parties especially Bhashani NAP and its Student Unions, Pro-Moscow NAP and its Student Union, Communist Party of Bangladesh, Krishak Samity and Trade Union Center had taken part in our liberation war (reference: Talukder Maniruzzamn, The Bangladesh Revolution and Its Aftermath, UPL, 1988, see pp.141-153 for Role of the Left in Bangladesh’s Liberation War ).

It was the Awami League and its front organizations which had consciously spearheaded Bangalees’ quest for emancipation and independence. No one has to suffer from “amnesia” for telling the truth that the dynamic and charismatic leadership of Bangabandhu led us through the historical 1966 Six-Point Movement. The Awami League was the INSTRUMENT and EXPRESSION of articulating the demands of Bangalee rights. It was the Awami League under the inspiring leadership of Bangabandhu which had earned the electoral mandate in 1970 general elections from an extraordinary majority of Bangalees of the then East Pakistan. It was the Awami League which had emerged as the ONLY legitimate party to represent Bangalee interest in 1971. Bangabandhu was the undisputed and legitimate spokesman of Bangalees of the then East Pakistan. It was Bangabandhu at whose clarion call the Bangalees had valiantly fought for liberating their motherland from the Pakistani occupation forces.

There is, however, no credence to the fraudulent and partisan claims of some enthusiastic Awami Leaguers that our liberation war was fought “only” by the Awami Leaguers. With the exception of pro-Pakistani quislings, Bangladesh’s liberation war was fought or supported by all Bangalees without any regard to political affiliations or orientations. In fact, after December 1970 General Elections, especially after March 1, 1971, Bangabandhu had undeniably symbolized the entire Bangalee nation even though he was the President of Awami League.

Although liberation war was a peoples’ war by any definition, the Awami League led our Muktijuddha. For better or worse, the Awami League dominated all phases of our liberation war. It was also the Awami Leaguers and their supporters who were specifically hounded by the two-legged Pakistani military animals during the nine months of liberation war. It was the top Awami League leadership which had legitimately formed the Bangladesh Government-in-Exile. It was Bangabandhu who was made the President of the Republic even though he remained imprisoned in Pakistani jail. Our Liberation War was fought in Bangabandhu’s name. One of the patriotic songs was “Ekti Phool Ke Bachaboo Bole Aamra Juddho Kari.” (“We continue to fight for saving one flower”) -- this liberation war song is not yet erased from the memories of our freedom fighters and other patriotic Bangalees. In the absence of Bangabandhu, it was Tajuddin Ahmed, the dynamic Prime Minister of the Bangladesh Government-in-exile who had successfully led our Muktijuddha. It was Bangabandhu’s inspiration and Tajuddin Ahmed’s competent leadership which led us to our decisive victory on December 16, 1971.

These are independently verified and fully validated historical facts. Some amount of tinkering or twisting of Bangladesh’s true history here and there can not blot these historical facts. No amount of distortions can change the fundamental fact that it was Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman who had first formally declared independence for Bangladesh on March 26 (immediately after midnight of March 25, 1971). The Constitution of the Republic and all other relevant documents have affirmed that Declaration of Independence. Doubtless, there were very capable leaders in the caliber of Tajuddin Ahmed and Dr. Kamal Hossain in the then Awami League. Yet, it was Bangabandhu who was the unifier and undisputed leader of all Bangalees of the then East Pakistan. It was Bangandhu alone who was the sole spokesman of the entire Bangalee people of the then East Pakistan. It was dauntless Bangabandhu who had employed his historical March 7, 1971 speech for lighting the torch to cause a revolution toward Bangalees’ complete emancipation and independence from the oppressive and suppressive occupation forces of Pakistan.

The fraudulent and dramatic coup d-etat of August 15, 1975 in which Bangabandhu was brutally murdered and his elected government overthrown along with the subsequent political developments in Bangladesh were not so surprising as they seemed to the outside world. The assassination of the Founding Father of the Nation along with his family members was one of the cruelest political murders in human history. This ghastly killing and its aftermath littered with illegal seizures of state powers through coups, blackmails and counter-coups have been characterized by some heartless observers as the direct result of the manner in which politics and administration of the new nation were managed under the leadership of Bangabandhu. The alleged failure of his leadership in the post-liberation period has been linked to numerous causal factors. We are often allured that Bangabandhu “lost out” partly because the situation in the early years of independent Bangladesh was so desperate but mainly because he failed to translate his charisma and tremendous popularity into an efficient and effective government. Yet Bangabandhu’s accomplishments as the head of the government of a newly established country were of monumental proportions.

Despite the seething criticisms of his elected regime of only three and a half years, Bangabandhu has remained synonymous with Bangalees’ relentless struggle for freedom and independence. Aimed at banishing the Founding Father from the pages of our history and the memories of our people, deliberate attempts were made by various regimes (Mustaque-Zia-Ershad-Khaleda) during post-1975 era. Yet Bangabandhu’s pivotal role in the emergence of Bangladesh as a sovereign nation-state couldn’t be washed away from the memories of his people. Notwithstanding the alleged mismanagement of the economy and administrative machinery in early years of our independence, the sanguine role of Bangabandhu in the making and igniting our struggle for freedom and independence can never be marginalized. In spite of relentless vilification campaign against the Founder of the Nation for more than twenty three years, Bangabandhu’s name has remained enshrined and engraved in the minds of our people as the emancipator and savior of Bangalees from the ignominies of brute Pakistani rulers. The immortal name of Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman and the legacies of his extraordinary accomplishments will live through ages. Let me conclude this note on the Father of the Nation with the widely quoted lines from Annada Shankar Roy’s poem:

“Jatoo Kaal Robe Padma-Meghna-Gouree-Jamuna Bahamaan,

Tatakaal Robe Keerti Toomar Sheikh Mujibur Rahman.”

The accomplishments of Sheikh Mujibur Rahman will survive as long as Padma, Meghna, Gouree and Jamuna will keep on flowing.”

An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth, and the whole world will be both blind and toothless.

At the beginning of this debate, i was of the view that any `atrocities` committed by the Pakistan army, if at all, were ALL JUSTIFIABLE. However I have reached the conclusion that i too have no desire to do a specialized study in `comparitive genocides.` Nor do i think that revenge is an appropriate reason for killing otherwise innocent people whose only crime may have been that they were members of one ethnic group or the other.

Some one praised the cold blooded murderer Zia

Ur Rehman, do you really want me to repost the account of how he dealt with Lt.Col Janjua again?

I have posted it twice already at least. I have no desire to repost it, but when murderers and mutineers are repeatedly praised their deeds and villanies, they must be exposed. No matter what side they were on.

OMAR MIRZA

I can only say how incredibly sorry i am, at having to be forced to reenter what i thought was a discussion that had been discussed to death already. Unfortunately, my wise counself `let sleeping dogs lie`, and that both sides are equally culpable of crimes against humanity has gone unnoticed. One side continues to propagate its one sided views. Therefore is it necessary to remind that side and the world that when i said there are 2 sides to every coin, i did speak out without thinking, or a very clear understanding of history. I have yet to meet a professor in this lifetime of either history or politics or law for that matter, having been privilidged to attend some of the finest educational institutions in the world, whom i was unable to successfully contradict through the use of reason alone when i disagreed with his views or analysis. If necessary, even to the extent of making that professor`s views a complete laughing stock in front of a 100+ of his students. It is an art. And mr.Mnkhan58 and others are bent on forcing my hand it seems. Very well. CRINGE therefore in revulsion as I do.



NOW, SPEAKING OF RAPES and the parading of naked womyn in the streets;

`March 25-April 11

At Santakar, in Bogra district, more than 15,000,

non-Bengalis were rounded up and murdered, and their womenfolk paraded naked through the streets.

In the Sankipura area of Mymensingh, the men of 2,000 non-Bengali families were taken out and murdered and their womynfolk were forced to dig their graves.`

It would seem from the above acount that Bengalis are also just as `human` as Pakistani soldiers may have been. Both are capable of inflicting inhuman cruelty upon each other, and did so.

An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, gentlemen. I warn you. Keeping revisting 28 year old corpses and you will finally find yourselves forced to exhume not only your own sordid and bloody national history of `liberation`, but also all these very graves. Then the question will indeed be if a neutral observer can tell the difference between an EPR/Mukti Bahini bullet, or a Pakistani army bullet after a corpse has lain in the ground for 28 years. Heed what i am saying well, and desist from this insanity!



OMAR MIRZA

P.S CHOWK STAFF

All posts including mine (the earlier versions in chronological order that are posted repeatedly should be removed)

I can only say how incredibly sorry i am, at having to be forced to reenter what i thought was a discussion that had been discussed to death already. Unfortunately, my wise counself `let sleeping dogs lie`, and that both sides are equally culpable of crimes against humanity has not gone unnoticed. One side continues to propagate its one sided views. Therefore is it necessary to remind that side and the world that when i said there are 2 sides to every coin, i did speak out without thinking, or a very clear understanding of history. I have yet to meet a professor in this lifetime of either history or politics or law for that matter, having been privilidged to attend some of the finest educational institutions in the world, whom i was unable to successfully contradict through the use of reason alone when i disagreed with his views or analysis. If necessary, even to the extent of making that professor`s views a complete laughing stock in front of a 100+ of his students. It is an art. And mr.Mnkhan58 and others are bent on forcing my hand it seems. Very well. CRINGE therefore in revulsion as I do.

NOW, SPEAKING OF RAPES and the parading of naked womyn in the streets;

`March 25-April 11

At Santakar, in Bogra district, more than 15,000,

non-Bengalis were rounded up and murdered, and their womenfolk paraded naked through the streets.

In the Sankipura area of Mymensingh, the men of 2,000 non-Bengali families were taken out and murdered and their womynfolk were forced to dig their graves.`

It would seem from the above acount that Bengalis are also just as `human` as Pakistani soldiers may have been. Both are capable of inflicting inhuman cruelty upon each other, and did so.

An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, gentlemen. I warn you. Keeping revisting 28 year old corpses and you will finally find yourselves forced to exhume not only your own sordid and bloody national history of `liberation`, but also all these very graves. Then the question will indeed be if a neutral observer can tell the difference between an EPR/Mukti Bahini bullet, or a Pakistani army bullet after a corpse has lain in the ground for 28 years. Heed what i am saying well, and desist from this insanity!

OMAR MIRZA

P.S CHOWK STAFF

All posts including mine (the earlier versions in chronological order that are posted repeatedly should be removed)

Response to reply # 266 from FerozK:

I have explained in earlier posts that, contrary to FerozK`s assumption, there has not been any lack of demand for war crime trials in Bangladesh. Everytime a Pakistani Prime Minister visits Bangladesh, he is reminded anew of the demands. If the war crimes haven`t taken place yet, it is not because of apathy or lack of outrage. It is for other reasons. In fact Bangladesh hasn`t been able to resolve issues like equitable apportioning of assets or repatriation of ``Biharis`` either. The ruling elite in Pakistan has remained powerful enough and influential enough to stand in the way.

Firstly, I would like FerozK to revisit the lines of John Dunne that he had posted earlier: ``No man is an island, entire of itself; every man is a piece of the continenet, a part of the main; if a clod be washed away by the sea, Europe is the less, as well as if a promonotory were, as well as if a manor of thy friends or of thine own were; any man`s death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind; and therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee``

It is noteworthy that Tikka Khan had no difficulty to transform himself from ``Butcher of Dhaka`` in Yahya Khan`s Pakistan to ``Butcher of Balochistan`` in Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto`s Pakistan. Nawaz Sharif`s Pakistan isn`t any safer for the ordinary citizens as long as these war criminals go unpunished.

I read recently of the death of veteran journalist Z.A.Suleri whose daughter, Sarah, is herself a writer of some repute. It reminded me of Z.A.Suleri`s observation on the ``banality of crimes`` in East Pakistan. Z.A.Suleri recalled how shocked he was in June of 1971 to hear Pakistani

army officers joking nonchalantly of the rapes in East Pakistan as a service to the nation to improve the genes of Bengalis!

It will be to Pakistan`s interest that the war criminals who had indulged in such savagery are made to finally pay for their crimes. Otherwise some day, it will be the turn of the Sindhis, Mohajirs and the Balochs, the Shias, Christians, Ahmadiyyas and the Zikris to be subjects of gene improvement experiments at the hands of army officers of Pakistan`s ``martial races.``

Several points have been raised here on this issue that merit a response (along with many that do not). And it appears that there are many people in Pakistan and possibly some in Bangladesh that do NOT want the truth to come out.
I have had an opportunity to interact with almost all the Bangladeshi writers that have posted here over the years mostly to defend Pakistan and admit that my efforts on the Bangladesh newsgroup have been difficult. Some writers (Khokan?) have used other names before on soc.culture.bangladesh because the content that has been expressed here has been identical to that of the past (nkdatta###?).
Anyway one welcomes Jamal Hasan and others here because Pakistanis need to know how the people of the former ``Eastern Wing`` still feel about 1971 (with very valid reasons). But some questions remain in mind because a large number of people were killed. Here are a few:
1)After 28 years none of us really know of the accurate number of casualties (300 thousand versus 3 million although even 300 thousand is a LARGE number especially for those affected as family members). It appears that Pakistanis do not have a grip on the impact of 1971 in human terms (beyond the splitting of the country). But let me be honest here to Add that it was not only the Bengalis that died. West Pakistani families and the so called ``Biharis`` also suffered significant casualties as a percentage of their numbers present. Why can`t we get more accurate information and where do we turn for it?
2)Why did the Killings in Bangladesh last till 1975 till Sk. Mujib`s assassination (and beyond) and why was the JSD (Left leaning) the main target? What was this Rakhi Bahini under the Awami League government?

3) Why did India/Indira who held all the cards at Simla suddenly fold the deck and could
not even get a substantial concession on Kashmir? We know what a ``generous``
personality Indira was. Was it ``mission accomplished`` for now?

4) Why was Sk. Mujib so violently eliminated as was Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto, both made ``horrible examples`` of? Indira herself did not fare much better.

5) Where would the NaxalBari (Naxalite Communists) be today if Bangladesh had not happened?

6)And for some of us who need an education: Why does an army go to war against it`s own MAJORITY? I am in a way glad that Omar and Muneezae were able to respond here. What prevents individuals like these to label me a ``Ghaddar`` (Traitor) and launch an offensive on my mythical community in a similar fashion as was done in former East Pakistan? To find an answer to such a question one has to delve into one`s upbringing. It is there that such feelings germinate. It is there that nations either are born or fail. And within such ideas is fascism born. These ``short`` and ``dark`` Bengalis are taller and fairer in complexion then some people in Punjab. These Martial races are a perpetuated myth. So are some of our ideas about Hindus as theirs about us.
To some of us Pakistanis of today, the Bangladeshis before 1971 were Pakistanis. If the ruled elite of Pakistan of the time wanted to part ways with them then there were other
respectable ways of doing this split. Why not that recourse? Why this ``ideological cleansing`` of a possibly genuine liberation movement? Was this an unfinished revolution which was turned over to Sk. Mujib after it had been crushed?

Anyway just some questions from the ``Conspiracy Theorists``. And India`s ``Liberator``
role stays suspect too as does the Trojan Horse of the Naxalite Movement which Indira
possibly used to fan the fears of a Marxist takeover in all of Bengal in the eyes of the
Western World?
Whatever the reasons, Pakistanis need to learn NEVER AGAIN!!!!
And let Pakistan start with an official apology to Bangladesh for 1971 and by taking responsibility of the Stranded Pakistanis in Bangladesh known as ``Biharis``. It can only make Pakistan stronger.
For Jamal Hasan and countless others this was a personal tragedy of immense proportions. It was one for my family as well on a much smaller scale. And to some families of Bengalis and West Pakistanis who believed in Pakistan and had intermarried,
1971 was and is a true disaster. And finally, the surviving families of the now departed human beings who faced the bullet, the bayonet and the living victims of rape this catastrophe demands some kind of answer.
The truth and an apology would be an ideal healing potion for all sides now.

Ras

PS: It would not hurt to check the archives regarding this subject in Washington and Moscow,
when and if they become available.

Re: Sigalph Post #287

I have some reservation about seglaph`s analysis

of Sheikh Mujibur Rahman. Being a Bengali he must have known that during 1971 it was Sheikh Mujibur who was the constant inspiration of millions of Bengali freedom fighters. His persona was the unifying factor of diversified fighting groups. At the time he was rotting Pakistani jail.

Some critics may opine that Mujib had good opportunity to declare independence on the 7th of March, 1971. He could have done so and ask the Indian govt. to recognize Bangladesh. He could have negotiated with the US consul. If millions of people in Dhaka city would overwhelmed the weak Dhaka cantt. and if Indian army after recognizing Bangladesh would enter into the territory to support the nascent Bangladesh govt., probably the black night of 25th March could have been averted. But Mujib did not want to come to the lap of India. Also when he attended the Islamic conference in Lahore, Indian govt. was not too happy.

But needless to say, Mujib failed miserably in the chess game laid down by Bhutto and Punjabi coterie. He was naive enough to surrender to Pak army on the night of 25th March thinking that capturing him Pak army would be ``gentle`` enough not killing innocent civilians. The history proved how wrong Mujib was. Mujib was the only leader at that time of Bengali history, there was no better alternative. In independent Bangladesh he came out to be worst administrator. But that role should not eclipse his 20 years of sacrifice, that should even dissolve the motivational aspect of freedom fighters. He paid dearly for his failure. How much more he has to pay to get a little bit more recognition from likes of Sigalph?

Ziaur Rahman proved to be an egotistical power hungry cold blooded murderer. His role in 1971 is praiseworthy, but his role after 1975 is definitely disgusting. Many of Yahya`s soldiers kept Bengali women naked in bunkers for month after month. Immediately after liberation in Tripura border only a few dozen naked women were found in a bunker. Zia`s wife, the current opposition leader Khaleda Zia was interned in Dacca Cantt. area most of the nine months of 1971. But freedom fighter Zia after attaining state power suddenly became a footsoldier of ISI. His action proved he would rather work for the Pakistani Punjab dominated army bureaucratic coterie. Suddnely his contribution in 1971 became meaningless as he slowly changed the secular modernistic politics of Bangladesh to a Ayub era Pakistan pattern. His policy basically dishonored the 1971`s sacrifice of Bengali men and women. While Mujib may be accused of excesses done by his pet Rakkhi Bahini, Ziaur Rahman`s cold blooded killing of hundreds of thousands of Bengali soldiers reminded us of a dictator who have no mercy. It is very possible Zia might have known about the plot to kill Sheikh Mujib. But he was one of the greatest sycophants of Mujib during BKSAL time. Like any opportunist power hungry man he hurriedly joined BKSAL. General M.A.G. Osmany not only criticised but declined to join that one party entity.

In many ways Ziaur Rahman of Bangladesh and Ziaul Huq of Pakistan are identical. Were they soul mates? Ziaul Huq did not have the second thought hanging a person who gave him the greater opportunity, Z.A. Bhutto. Ziaur Rahman mercilessly hanged Col. Taher without whose support he might not come to power even. By the grace of Allah both Zias died in a violent death. Other wise Pakistan and Bangladesh would still be ruled by two Zias under pseudo democracy where army of both the countries would have final say in every details of state governence.

Mohammad Nawaz Khan

Response to reply # 266 from FerozK:

I have explained in earlier posts that, conntrary to FerozK`s assumption, there has not been any lack of demand for war crime trials in Bangladesh. Everytime a Pakistani Prime Minister visits, he is reminded anew of the demands. If the war crimes haven`t taken place yet, it is not because of apathy or lack of outrage. It is for other reasons. In fact Bangladesh hasn`t been able to resolve issues like equitable apportioning of assets or repatriation of ``Biharis`` either. The ruling elite in Pakistan has remained powerful enough and influential enough to stand in the way.

FerozK was unduly harsh in condemning Bangladesh and Bangladeshis alike in this matter.

While FerozK`s observation that it is Bangladesh that must take the initiative for war crime trials, I strongly disagree with his observation that Pakistan has no responsibility to bring the war criminals to justice.

Firstly, I would like FerozK to revisit the lines of John Dunne that he had posted earlier: ``No man is an island, entire of itself; every man is a piece of the continenet, a part of the main; if a clod be washed away by the sea, Europe is the less, as well as if a promonotory were, as well as if a manor of thy friends or of thine own were; any man`s death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind; and therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee``

He`ll realize that it does matter to Pakistanis whether the alleged war criminals can continue to regard Pakistan as their haven from facing justice.

Furthermore, it is to Pakistan`s self-interest to make sure that these criminals do not go unpunished. The very men who discovered ``descendants of Mirjafar,`` ``ghaddars`` and ``untrustworthiness`` among Bengalis, can just as easily do the same among the Sindhis and Balochs, Shias and Christians, Ahmadiyyas and Zikris. It is noteworthy that Tikka Khan had no difficulty to transform himself from ``Butcher of Dhaka`` in Yahya Khan`s Pakistan to ``Butcher of Balochistan`` in Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto`s Pakistan. Nawaz Sharif`s Pakistan isn`t any safer for the ordinary citizens as long as these war criminals go unfinished.

It is to Pakistan`s detriment that men like Lt. Colonel Z.A.Khan continue to brag about their murderous spree in East Pakistan not only in private to their daughters and nephew but even in public through their published works.

The 28 years since the genocide, have given these war criminals a feeling of security that they`ll never be brought to justice. And they are busy teaching their daughters and nephews that there is nothing to be ashamed about the rapes and genocide in 1971. This can only be to the detriment of Pakistan.

I read recently of the death of veteran journalist Z.A.Suleri whose daughter, Sarah, is herself a writer of some repute. It reminded me of Z.A.Suleri`s observation on the ``banality of crimes`` in East Pakistan. Z.A.Suleri recalled how shocked he was in June of 1971 to hear Pakistani army officers joking nonchalantly of the rapes in East Pakistan as a service to the nation to improve the genes of Bengalis!

It will be to Pakistan`s interest that the war criminals who had indulged in such savagery are made to finally pay for their crimes. Otherwise some day, it will be the turn of the Sindhis and the Balochs, the Shias and the Christians, the Ahmadiyyas and the Zikris to be subjects of gene improvement experiments at the hands of army officers of Pakistan`s ``martial races.``

In Reply to FerozK: (post # 266):

The war criminals haven`t yet been brought to trial, but not because of ``apathy`` or lack of effort. During the cold war, Pakistan`s ruling elite had managed to protect itself by promising to be useful to others. The end of the cold war, may have finally eroded the ability of Pakistan`s ruling elite to count on protection of the powerful from abroad.

General Pinochet`s predicament is at once an indicator of the difficulty as well as of the possibility of success in finally prosecuting the war criminals.

FerozK is wrong to assume that Bangladesh has not made any effort to bring the war criminals to trial. It has been doing so right since its independence. But the end of the Cold War and the predicament of General Pinochet have made it possible to hope that the day is not far off when war criminals like the ones mentioned in Mr. Jamal Hasan`s article will finally be forced to answer for their crimes in 1971.

I am surprised that FerozK is unaware of Bangladesh`s efforts to bring the criminals to justice - even the Pakistan media has not shied away from reporting on it. Here`s a news report that was published just 2 months ago in a Pakistani newspaper:

The News, Pakistan

1st March, 1999

Nawaz to face demands of apology for 1971 actions

DHAKA: Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif will face protests during his visit to Dhaka over the actions of Pakistani troops during Bangladesh`s 1971 independence war. Nawaz Sharif may not encounter protesters personally because of tight security. But two movements are set to demonstrate over different issues. They plan to stage a demonstration at the Dhaka University campus today, close to the Sheraton Hotel summit venue. ``Japan has apologised for its misdeeds

during World War II and is compensating the women victims. Why can`t Pakistan apologise for its misdeeds?`` said one protest leader, Kazi Mukul. ``Both Pakistan and Bangladesh are Muslim countries and are no more at war, and after 27 years of independence, an apology is not asking for the moon,`` Kazi said.

Reply to FerozK:

Pakistan`s ruling elite has always tried to portray the 1971 tragedy as a war between East and West Pakistan. Today, even newer generation Pakistanis like Mr. Omar Mirza and Ms. Muneezae Alam Khan are trying to enlist the support of the unholy cause of 1971 by appealing to their compatriots in the name of patriotism toward West Pakistan.

However, thoughtful Pakistanis have not been fooled. They understand that it is in the interest of Pakistan to force an accounting from Pakistan`s ruling elite and to prosecute the war criminals even after a lapse of 28 years. Here`s a letter from a thoughtful Pakistani:

News From Bangladesh

Daily Internet Edition

Readers` Opinion Column

22nd March, 1999

http://www.bangladesh-web.com

Pakistani Army Men Guilty of Crimes Against Humanity

Date: Fri, 19 Mar 1999

Nadeem Jamali

jamali@cs.uiuc.edu

I have received a message containing a partial list of Pakistani army men guilty of crimes against humanity. That was forwarded to me by a Bangladeshi friend. Part of the reason why Pakistan`s Punjabi establishment dares to

threaten Sindh with a Bangladesh-style carnage is that none of the butchers responsible for the 1971 massacre have ever faced justice. Today, most of the senior officers involved in the crimes against Bengalis are old enough and probably rich enough to be travelling abroad for medical treatment. Many have amassed enough wealth to be able to comfortably settle down in western countries. In whatever ways possible, we should help Bangladeshis track down these murderers and rapists. If we can provide information to Bangladesh government about such people who may be settled in or visiting western countries, they can attempt to have them extradited to Bangladesh to face trial.

Mr. Nadeem Jamali is a Sindhi-Pakistani.

He is currentlly with the computer science department at University of Illinois at Urbana

Multipersonality in Reply # 280 wrote:

``There is the infamous story of the hijacked plane in 1971 that was used by India as a pretext to stop over flights between the 2 Wings of Pakistan in violation of solemn international covenants. This plane was hijacked to Pakistan by individuals alleging themselves to be ‘Kashmiri freedom fighters’ (another blood thirty (sic)cause, it seems there is no shortage of them in the world). It was later confirmed by Indian Newspapers that these men, who blew up the plane after the passengers were safely off, were in fact Indian Intelligence agents. 3 Individuals who were identified by name as Indian Agents saw them off at the Airport in India before the ‘hijacking’ occurred. The refusal of Pakistan to pay compensation for the destruction of the plane gave India the pretext it needed to make communications between the 2 wings of Pakistan extremely difficult and the 3 hour flights transformed into 7 hour flights.``

RESPONSE: Pakistan`s ruling elite conjured up many a ``Conspircay Theory`` to absove itself of any responsibility of the events of 1971. Mr./Ms.

Multipersonality`s story on the hijacking seems to be part of the myth making to bolster the Conspiracy Theories. Would Mr./Ms. Multipersonality care to give his/her source for the statement, ``It was later confirmed by Indian

Newspapers that these men, who blew up the plane after the passengers were safely off, were in fact Indian Intelligence agents. 3 Individuals who were identified by name as Indian Agents saw them off at the Airport in India before the ‘hijacking’ occurred.`` Can he/she cite the name of the Indian newspapers and the date of publication? If the hijackers were indeed Indian

intelligence agents, why would that be exposed by Indian newspapers? And why would Indian intelligence agents agree to such a suicide mission in which they have no chance of escaping the consequences?

As far as I remember, this was happening when the political situation in India was itself very fluid. The Congress had split. Indira Gandhi had called midterm elections. And no one quite knew which way the wind would blow in the March elections.

Zulfiqar Ali had fought the 1970 elections on a plank which was the very antithesis of the Awami League plank. Bhutto wanted a strong center. He

wanted increased defence spending to fight a ``thousand year war`` with India. To his dismay, he came out 2nd best in the elections. Worse still, it was extremely galling for him to play the 2nd fiddle to Mujibur Rahman, and in fact, to any other Pakistani politician. To Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto, the hijacking was a God-sent opportunity to catch the attention of the nation even as the

leader of a party that had won only half the number of seats as the Awami League.

Bhutto was determined to put on display how tough he could be with India. He rushed to the airport and persuaded the Kashmir hijackers to blow up the plane before surrendering to Pakistani authorities. Needless to say, India wasn`t amused. It immediately banned the overflight of all Pakistani planes over India - not an unreaosonable response to Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto`s

irresponsible conduct.

It was at this point that Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto`s supporters conjured up the ``Indian Agent`` theory to cover for their leader`s discomfiture. And later on the theory proved to be just one more strand to weave a story for the ``Conspiracy Theorists`` in Pakistan.

I do have some advice for Mr/Ms Multipersonality and all other ``Conspiracy Theorists`` in Pakistan. If they really want to find out the real reasons

behind the 1971 tragedy, they should seek them within Pakistan instead of trying to blame it on CIA/KGB/RAW and what not.

The principal cause for the genocide was undoubtedly the bigotry and racism of Pakistan`s ruling elite in general and of the officer class from the ``martial races`` in particular. The Bengalis were bad Muslims and in fact subhuman to these members of Pakistan`s ruling elite. That is why they could perpetrate the genocide in East Pakistan. The Iranian army could have never done this in Iran.

A ``Conspiracy Theorist`` might carry conviction if he claims that CIA was responsible for the overthrow of Mohammed Mossadeq in Iran or for installing Reza Shah on the Peacock throne. But he will never carry conviction if he tries to preach that the CIA is so powerful and so omnipotent that it is capable of instigating the Iranian soldiers to murder three million of their

kith and kin to preserve the power of the Shah of Iran.

The Pakistan army did not need any goading by the CIA to commit the crimes against humanity in 1971. It was predisposed to it. The racist officers had brainwashed the Pakistani soldiers into believing that East Pakistanis were racially inferior and that it was perfectly all right to kill them because the East Pakistanis were ``descendants of Mir Jafar`` and ``ghaddars.`` In other words, Pakistan`s ruling elite, like Nazi Germany`s ruling elite, was motivated by racial contempt and bigotry to victimize people of other races and religions even if they were compatriots.

Multipersonality in Reply # 280 wrote:

``There is the infamous story of the hijacked plane in 1971 that was used by India as a pretext to stop over flights between the 2 Wings of Pakistan in violation of solemn international covenants. This plane was hijacked to Pakistan by individuals alleging themselves to be ŒKashmiri freedom fighters¹ (another blood thirty cause, it seems there is no shortage of them in the world). It was later confirmed by Indian Newspapers that these men, who blew up the plane after the passengers

were safely off, were in fact Indian Intelligence agents. 3 Individuals who were identified by name as Indian Agents saw them off at the Airport in India before the Œhijacking¹ occurred. The refusal of Pakistan to pay compensation for the destruction of the plane gave India the pretext it

needed to make communications between the 2 wings of Pakistan extremely difficult and the 3 hour flights transformed into 7 hour flights.``

RESPONSE: Pakistan`s ruling elite conjured up many a ``Conspircay Theory`` to absove itself of any responsibility of the events of 1971. Mr./Ms. Multipersonality`s story on the hijacking seems to be part of the myth making to bolster the Conspiracy Theories. Would Mr./Ms. Multipersonality care to give his/her source for the statement, ``It was later confirmed by Indian Newspapers that these men, who blew up the plane after the passengers were safely off, were in fact Indian Intelligence agents. 3 Individuals who were identified by name as Indian Agents saw them off at the Airport in India before the Œhijacking¹ occurred.`` Can he/she cite the name of the Indian newspapers and the date of publication? If the hijackers were indeed Indian intelligence agents, why would that be exposed by Indian newspapers? And why would Indian intelligence agents agree to such a suicide mission in which they have no chance of escaping the consequences?

As far as I remember, this was happening when the political situation in India was itself very fluid. The Congress had split. Indira Gandhi had called midterm elections. And no one quite knew which way the wind would blow in the March elections.

Zulfiqar Ali had fought the 1970 elections on a plank which was the very antithesis of the Awami League plank. Bhutto wanted a strong center. He wanted increased defence spending to fight a ``thousand year war`` with India. To his dismay, he came out 2nd best in the elections. Worse still, it was extremely galling for him to play the 2nd fiddle to Mujibur Rahman, and in fact, to any Pakistani politician. To Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto, he hijacking was a God-sent opportunity to catch the attention of the nation even as the leader of a party that had won only half the number of seats as the Awami League.

Bhutto was determined to put on display how tough he could be with India. He rushed to the airport and persuaded the Kashmir hijackers to blow up the plane before surrendering to Pakistani authorities. Needless to say, India wasn`t amused. It immediately banned the overflight of all Pakistani planes over India - not an unreaosonable response to Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto`s irresponsible conduct.

It was at this point that Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto`s supporters conjured up the ``Indian Agent`` theory to cover for their leader`s discomfiture. And later on the theory proved to be just one more strand to weave a story for the ``Conspiracy Theorists`` in Pakistan.

I do have some advice for Mr/Ms Multipersonality and all other ``Conspiracy Theorists`` in Pakistan. If they really want to find out the real reasons behind the 1971 tragedy, they should seek them within Pakistan instead of trying to blame it on CIA/KGB/RAW and what not.

The principal cause for the genocide was undoubtedly the racism of Pakistan`s ruling elite in general and of the officer class from the ``martial races`` in particular. The Bengalis were bad Muslims and in fact subhuman to these members of Pakistan`s ruling elite. That is why they could perpetrate the genocide in East Pakistan. The Iranian army could have never done this in Iran.

A ``Conspiracy Theorist`` might carry conviction if he claims that CIA was responsible for the overthrow of Mohammed Mossadeq in Iran or for installing Reza Shah on the Peacock throne. But he will never carry conviction if he tries to preach that the CIA is so powerful and so omnipotent that it is capable of instigating the Iranian soldiers to murder three million of their kith and kin to preserve the power of the Shah of Iran.

The Pakistan army did not need any goading by the CIA to commit the crimes against humanity in 1971. It was predisposed to it. The racist officers had brainwashed the Pakistani soldiers into believing that East Pakistanis were racially inferior and that it was perfectly all right to kill them because the East Pakistanis were ``descendants of Mir Jafar`` and ``ghaddars.`` In other words, Pakistan`s ruling elite, like Nazi Germany`s ruling elite, was motivated by racial contempt to victimize people of other races and religions even if they were compatriots.

Multipersonality in Reply # 280 wrote:

``There is the infamous story of the hijacked plane in 1971 that was used by India as a pretext to stop over flights between the 2 Wings of Pakistan in violation of solemn international covenants. This plane was hijacked to Pakistan by individuals alleging themselves to be ŒKashmiri freedom fighters¹ (another blood thirty cause, it seems there is no shortage of them in the world). It was later confirmed by Indian Newspapers that these men, who blew up the plane after the passengers

were safely off, were in fact Indian Intelligence agents. 3 Individuals who were identified by name as Indian Agents saw them off at the Airport in India before the Œhijacking¹ occurred. The refusal of Pakistan to pay compensation for the destruction of the plane gave India the pretext it

needed to make communications between the 2 wings of Pakistan extremely difficult and the 3 hour flights transformed into 7 hour flights.``

RESPONSE: Pakistan`s ruling elite conjured up many a ``Conspircay Theory`` to absove itself of any responsibility of the events of 1971. Mr./Ms. Multipersonality`s story on the hijacking seems to be part of the myth making to bolster the Conspiracy Theories. Would Mr./Ms. Multipersonality care to give his/her source for the statement, ``It was later confirmed by Indian Newspapers that these men, who blew up the plane after the passengers were safely off, were in fact Indian Intelligence agents. 3 Individuals who were identified by name as Indian Agents saw them off at the Airport in India before the Œhijacking¹ occurred.`` Can he/she cite the name of the Indian newspapers and the date of publication? If the hijackers were indeed Indian intelligence agents, why would that be exposed by Indian newspapers? And why would Indian intelligence agents agree to such a suicide mission in which they have no chance of escaping the consequences?

As far as I remember, this was happening when the political situation in India was itself very fluid. The Congress had split. Indira Gandhi had called midterm elections. And no one quite knew which way the wind would blow in the March elections.

Zulfiqar Ali had fought the 1970 elections on a plank which was the very antithesis of the Awami League plank. Bhutto wanted a strong center. He wanted increased defence spending to fight a ``thousand year war`` with India. To his dismay, he came out 2nd best in the elections. Worse still, it was extremely galling for him to play the 2nd fiddle to Mujibur Rahman, and in fact, to any Pakistani politician. To Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto, he hijacking was a God-sent opportunity to catch the attention of the nation even as the leader of a party that had won only half the number of seats as the Awami League.

Reply to OMAR1974`s Reply # 256: