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

More on the 10 million refugees and 3 million dead Bengalis

We all know that India took approximately 90,000

Pakistan Army personnel as POW`s. Lets do the math. That means that Bengalis truly believe that on average each and every Pakistani soldier stationed in West Pakistan was responsible for killing 33 natives, er Bengalis, and dehoused 99 each! Do you really expect us to swallow these numbers without serious debate and proof knowing India`s role in generating them? You people need to do some serious historical revision and realize that this is just not possible. Bengalis have been blinded by Indian and their own propaganda about the tragedy so much that they have started believing it! (Hook, line and Sinker)

If a LIE like the 3 million dead, 10 million displaced is repeated often enough, it acquires a

life of its own. And then is cited and recited with references from one preceeding scholarly work after another without any examination of the basis for where the `hard numbers` actually were derived from.

The truth is the numbers just don`t match up.

I am saddened and hurt to see the rhetoric of Ms. Khan, the Brigadier`s daughter. While I cannot speak for others, I for one have been very respectful towards her father who only did his duty. As a child of POWs who were interned for three years in Karachi, I think that is quite a bit of generosity. As for the reference to Mir Jafar, Ms. Khan, I am a descendant of Sirajjodowla who was betrayed by the Bihari Mir Jafar. And please do not forget that ``do not trust`` Bengalis defended Lahore in 1965 when jawan after jawan of 1st and 2nd East Bengal Regiment blew himself up to knock out Indian tanks. The only constitutional rebel and traitor in the whole scenario is the late Yahya Khan who raped the constituion of Pakistan when he refused to obey the wishes of the majority of the Pakistani people as expressed thru the ballot in 1970. Let us never forget that Bengal was the only province where the Pakistan resolution was approved by the legislature; at the same time the Punjabi lawmakers were in cahoots with Hindu nationalists.

History aside, there is two things people like myself and Ms Khan (I am of the very same generation) can do: either pass on the bitterness to our children or create a new tomorrow of bilateral ties between two great people. I am for the latter. Where does she stand?

Re Post #101

Dear Sir,

I am a Bengali whose antecedents in Bengal go back to the last martyred Nawab Sirajuddowla. I will be the first one to accept the fact that Bengali freedom fighters did commit atrocities during the 1971 Independence War. There is no excuse for such conduct. Nonetheless, these atrocities are analogous to the same committed by the Kashmiri freedom fighters and the defenders of Bosnia in this very decade. I, for one, will be more than happy to see a war crimes tribunal ready to investigate, prosecute, and if necessary, convict all those responsible for atrocities of 1971 regardless of the ``colour of their national shroud``. I suspect that the reason that a disproportionate share of the responsibility rests on the occupation forces in 1971 is the fact that it was a regular army, commanded by regular officers, and presided over by a government which was in de facto control of the territory and a signatory to the Geneva Conventions. As for the humiliation of Gen Niazi at Dhaka Racecourse, it was his Indian chums since these Indians didn`t allow Bangladeshi commanders to be there at the surrender ceremony. Nonetheless, it is a violation of accepted practice.

Why have these charges not been brought to the light after 28 years? The reason is the same as why the Hamoodur RAhman report is still buried. Someone doesn`t want the truth to come out. Specifics of the case of atrocities are all too easy to find in any Bangladesh media; but the problem is to sift and collate hardcore evidence as against propaganda.

Like the author himself, I want all this behind us. Born in Karachi, I love the city more than any in the world. Bangladesh and Pakistan have a lot to benefit from each other if these ugly antecedents of the past were taken care of in a just manner. If England and America can be the best of friends, so can Pakistan and Bangladesh.

OMAR1974 need to understand difference between tragic history of real people of Bangladesh and characters in Shakespearean tragedy. Mujib was elected leader of a political party of Pakistan and have had absolute majority in the national assembly to become Prime Minister of the country. A person already elected to be Prime Minister by the people need not to be greedy for power. Yahya was a paid solder to guard the sovrinighty of the country and Bhutto was suppose to be leader of the opposition. When solders like Yahya becomes greedy, finds sycophant like Bhutto and subordinate like Brig. Z. A. Khan results are the tragic consequence of Pakistani genocide in Bangladesh.

Memories of the Bangladesh Independence Struggle

By Shamsul Haque

The article entitled `Reminiscing March 26, 1971` written by Dr. Jaffor Ullah (The Daily Star, March 26, 1999) has uncovered a number of thoughts regarding our glorious Independence Struggle. In his article Dr. Ullah recalled and reported a series of amazingly detailed and lucid accounts of his personal memories of 1971. During the Liberation War (LW), Dr. Ullah was studying in America, and did not witness all those dramatic events happening in the then East Pakistan. However, it seems quite clear that Dr. Ullah had a strong mental attachment with the events that were taking place during and immediately prior to the commencement of the LW. He was equally influenced by the independence movement like the whole Bangalee nation living in the then East Pakistan.

The most interesting point raised in the article is whether the spirit of the LW has influenced the behaviour of our political leaders and been used to the nation building activities during 28 years of independence. This is the very basic question as far as Bangladesh is concerned. In my opinion, it would be worthwhile to carry out exclusive research to examine whether personal memories influence people in their efforts to build up the structure of a society whatsoever.

Background information and methodology

There have been few attempts to examine the memory of Bangladeshi people, and in particular the memories of the independence struggle, to explore its impact on various socio-political activities undertaken to build up the nation. However, some academic works have been carried out to investigate personal memories of younger and older Bangladeshi people in the recent years (see Conway & Haque, 1999). Unlike the younger generation, older people have directly experienced the independence struggle of 1971, and were anyway part of the mass movement against Pakistani military dictators in late sixties.

I am going to briefly present the findings of the study conducted by Conway and Haque (1999) and try to relate them with the points made by Dr. Ullah in his article. Conway and Haque (1999) carried out an autobiographical memory research on 106 Bangladeshi volunteers, ranging in age from 20 to 86 years, in the Psychology Laboratory of Dhaka University.

Participants were presented with 15 cue words, one at a time, printed on cards, and instructed to bring to mind a memory of an experience of which each cue word reminded them. They were further instructed to recall a memory of an event which they had directly experienced and which lasted over a period of seconds, minutes, or hours, but no longer one 1 day. Participants were told to sample memories widely from across their life spans but not to recall memories less than one year old. Within these constraints, participants were to respond with the first memory to come to mind.

The 15 cue words used in the study comprised 5 categories: naming common locations (restaurant, market, park), general objects (chair, table, television), significant others (father, mother, friend), positive emotions (happy, joy, cheerful), and negative emotions (frustration, pain, sad). Conway and Haque accumulated 1,590 memories from the participants. They analysed 1,585 memories (five memories were omitted due to missing data) in terms of the age of the participant at the time of the event occurred, which ranged from 3 to 79 years. The participants were divided into two groups: a younger group (ages ranged from 20 to 46 years), and an older group (ages ranged from 47 to 86 years).

What did we learn from this study?

The researchers portrayed lifespan retrieval curves for the younger and older groups for portions of memories falling in each decade (e.g., 0-10, 11-20, 21-30, 31-40, 41-50, 51-60, 61-70, 71-80). The results revealed that the younger group recalled most of their memories from their age between 10 to 30 years. This period of increased remembering is known as the reminiscence bump in memory literature. However, the older group showed two bumps: the first bump occurred between 10 to 25 years of age, and the second bump between 40 to 50 years of age.

Although the first bump is one of the most robust findings in contemporary memory research, the second bump appeared to be an unusual phenomenon. In order to explain the second bump, the researchers carried out further analysis, and showed that the period of the second bump clearly corresponded to the period from 1962 to 1971 when a number of crucial national and political events occurred in the then East Pakistan.

The period from 1962 to 1969 witnessed an intense opposition by the Bangalee people that resulted in the downfall of the Pakistani military dictators. In 1970 there was a national Parliamentary election in Pakistan in which the Pakistan Awami League (the biggest political party for the Bangalee people) won a majority of the seats in Parliament. According to the constitution, the Awami League should then have formed the government. However, the Pakistani rulers refused to hand over power to the League.

A critical moment in the struggle for independence then occurred during a public meeting held on March 7, 1971, when, in the presence of about 100,000 people, the much respected Bangalee leader Sheikh Mujibur Rahman announced a policy of non-cooperation with the government. This announcement initiated an armed confrontation that lasted for approximately 9 months and resulted in the freeing of the Bangalee people from Pakistani rule and the establishment of the independent state of Bangladesh.

The findings of the study of Conway and Haque (1999) go in favour of the general observation of Dr. Ullah in which he mentioned that any Bangalees of Bangladesh who is 38 years and above would be able to clearly remember many of his or her personal experiences from the period of the independence struggle.

The question now is why the Bangalees of Bangladesh are so capable to recollect many of their experiences occurring during that specific period rather than the other life time periods? It is vital to investigate whether the personal and the social behaviour of Bangalees are at all influenced by those experiences. Is their any association between the spirit of the Liberation War and the memories of events taken place during those turmoil periods of 1971? Within the limited scope, we will only try to answer why Bangladeshi people retained all those struggle-related memories after all these years. To realise the point we have to look back a little further to the Language Movement of 1952.

Protracted Trauma of Bangalees for the period 1952-1971

In 1952 the Bangalee nation had to organise a massive counter-movement against the Pakistani colonial ruler to protect its own language: Bangla. Through this movement a powerful impetus grew for independence from Pakistan. The period of threat of destruction of the Bangalee language and culture virtually started just after the independence of Pakistan in 1948 when Jinnah announced that Urdu will be the only state language of Pakistan. The movement to protect the Bangalee language and culture gradually turned to the struggle for democracy and independence.

The threats by the Pakistani military dictators during this period and the counter-movements organised by the Bangalee people caused a protracted trauma for the entire Bangalee nation in the then East Pakistan. But it was on the highest level during the Liberation Struggle in 1971 when three million people were killed and ten million people were forced to leave the country. Hundreds of villages were burnt and thousands of women were raped.

Thus, the Bangalees` experiences of 1971 were often surprising in nature, highly personally significant, and associated with intense emotions, and these are the ideal materials for the formation of long lasting autobiographical memories (for further discussion on this point see Conway & Haque, 1999).

Now let us come to the central point of our discussion. It is empirically supported that the Bangalee people of Bangladesh have not forgotten their memories of 1971. However, it is usually claimed that the common people are little influenced by those experiences in their everyday activities. It is difficult to believe this point without any research evidence. If we consider the point as a truth for the sake of argument, what might be the reason behind it? It seems likely that our political leaders are mainly responsible for the whole issue.

Whatever happened to the spirit of 1971?

The people of Bangladesh were often been mislead, deceived, and bluffed by their politicians. People have been frustrated as none of the political pledges have been met during 28 years of independence. Therefore, it seems people are less inclined to be geared up again and work for a new and prosperous society according to the spirit of the Liberation War. It is our politicians who are on the front line and responsible for all the misdeeds going on in our society. They neither care about the spirit of the LW nor the expectations of the common people. Why has it happened like this?

Among other reasons, there was a sustained and organised move to demolish the achievements of our liberation war by some vested groups that started just after the emergence of the independent Bangladesh. They successfully created confusion among the people about different issues related to the independence struggle. People became easily divided when they saw that their leaders were split up into different groups concerning several fundamental points with high national significance.

For example, the issue of the declaration of the independence of Bangladesh, and the issue regarding our nationality. People were extremely frustrated when they saw that the post-liberation government failed to solve many of the burning problems. For example, law and order situation, and misery of public life.

The bottom line

In conclusion, older people of Bangladesh still remember their experiences of the LW with considerable respect. Their dream is to construct a modern and happy society free from poverty, illiteracy, child and women repression, human rights violation, and communalism. To make the dream a reality the people need a group of new leaders who are influenced by the spirit of our glorious liberation struggle and equipped with modern democratic traditions and values.

Additionally, there should be an all out effort to teach the younger generation about our history, culture and heritage. If the younger generation is properly educated in this way, the innocent people of Bangladesh might expect such a society in the near future which they actually like to see.

The author writes from Bristol, England. He is writing a Ph. D. dissertation in Experimental Psychology at the University of Bristol, Bristol, Great Britain.

Comments on the article by :

(Dr. A.H. Jaffor Ullah writes from New Orleans, Louisiana, USA)

In this article Jamal Hasan pointed out poignantly that some of the war criminals of 1971 is still alive and he mentioned the name of Brigadier Z.A. Khan among others who would fit the profile of killers of Bengalis during the nine month period in 1971.

Response: He (Jamal Hasan) did not say ‘would’ or use the term ‘may’ or even ‘alleged’. That seemingly slight difference is also part of the difference between a constitutionally protected expression of free speech and advocacy under the first Amendment in the U.S. I.E The difference between an unfounded and malicious statement of fact which has brought him into the ambit of a Civil suit, and a mere ‘opinion.’ He should really consult a lawyer, as should Chowk and any other internet publication based in the U.S, and subject to its laws, that publishes this or an other article that defames Z.A Khan.

Another person by the Name Mr. Omar, identifying him as a friend of the Z.A. Khan`s family, was even more adamant than the Brigadier`s daughter demanding an outright apology from Jamal Hasan for alleging Z.A. Khan to be part of the genocidal Pakistani army

Response: The fact that the Pakistan army in East Pakistan was ‘genocidal’ has never been proven in any competent court of law though you may be able to convince a court of it theoretically. It is however a constitutionally protected characterization of the Pakistani army’s conduct in 1971. BUT, you cannot accuse an individual member of that army as being prima facie guilt of committing ‘heinous crimes’, that amount to participation in genocide without some concrete proof of his actions. I hope Jamal Hasan has some proff of Z.A Khan’s ‘crimes and atrocities.’ I look forward to hearing more about them if any such proof exists whatsoever.

I reckon this is a very opportune time for Bengalis to write articles bringing back the sad memories of genocidal actions of Pakistani army and razakars into the fore.

Response: I’m afraid no amount of sad stories of repression at the hands of the Pakistani army in East Pakistan in 1971 will move me or any court to find Z.A Khan guilty or complicit in the crime of genocide unless it relates to his personal conduct, or that of troops directly under his command acting under his orders. Ditto for any Civil Court in the U.S.

Moreover, the gratuitous killings of `East Pakistanis` were a justifiable act for murderous Pakistani soldiers simply because the Bengalis were ``despicable rebels.``

Response: I never used the phrase ‘despicable rebels.’ I merely stated that those Bengali serving officers in the Pakistan army who committed mutiny are not gallant heroes. Nor does anyone have any cause to complain about their being summarily tried by the Pakistan army, court marshaled, and shot. I also stated that these particular individuals are not protected by the Geneva conventions because they were not the soldiers of an ‘enemy’ state at war with the state of Pakistan. I am legally correct, though it may pain you deeply.

Does the life of three million slaying Bengalis in the hands of murderous and recalcitrant Pakistani army in 1971 mean much to her?

Response: In my earlier posts I elaborated on how India manipulated the world media, and even visiting U.S Congressmen as to the actual numbers in the refugee camps. It also refused to allow those who wished to avail themselves of the Pakistan government’s Amnesty offer to return to East Pakistan because it was intent on using the crisis to achieve its own geopolitical aims, which were the dismemberment of United Pakistan. Furthermore India refused to allow the U.N to actually count the number of refugees in the camps. Also, a large number of impoverished citizens of India in West Bengal migrated into the camps because of the guaranteed free meals there provided by the Indian government. They too were counted as ‘refugees’, from East Pakistan. Being Bengalis, and impoverished, who could tell the difference. The LIE of 10 million refugees displaced from East Pakistan was spread by India which deliberately encouraged panic in East Pakistan with its radio broadcasts urging East Pakistanis to flee the Pakistani army to India. Similarly the so called 3 million dead Bengalis in the conflict is another myth spread by Indian propaganda, and repeated ad nauseaum by scholars and Bengalis without any serious critical examination. It has never been questioned, because like the ‘holocaust’ it has become a ‘sacred national truth’, which is accepted without question by all Bengalis.

Dear Mr. Nawaz Khan,

I am the daughter who supposedly grew up on the looted milk of innocent Bengali kids. What my father failed to mention in his book, being an honourable man was that my mother told Sepoy Aziz to immediately return the milk. She would rather have her daughter hungry than be fed on stolen milk.

Not that anyone of you people believe me so why not just go ahead and try me - as a two year old perpetrating genocide.

Many accusations have been hurled against the Pakistan Army. Yet no one has mentioned the scores of innocent non-Bengalis who were slaughtered. In Chittagong alone, which was under Zia ur Rahman`s control, the blood of non-Bengalis was collected in drums, there were similar acts all over. No one has admitted that these crimes were committed, Bengalis are only the aggrieved party. Maybe we should ask all those people who lost their loved ones how they would like to treat those butcheres who massacred their relatives.

Someone mentioned Havaldar Major Khan Wazir giving Mujib a resounding slap for his

follies; at least he was more merciful, his own people were less forgiving, not only did they kill him, they did not even spare his family. In fact all the heroes of the creation of Bangladesh met with the same fate. Murdered and executed as their selfish motives were discovered - SheikhMujib, Zia ur Rahman, Khalid Musharraf , to name a few.

Lets not forget East Pakistanis rebelled, they were a part of Pakistan (which they very conveniently forget), and hence were treated like rebels.

We the innocent girls of 28 years ago, are the wise women of Pakistan today. Aware of the fact, that East Pakistan was a part of Pakistan and not occupied by Pakistan. Bengalis, past and present, have always acted as the aggrieved party seeking justice after causing the initial trouble. After all what else can you expect from the descendents of Mir Jafer.

The Pakistani Generals were not joking, the 65 million Bengalis prostrated themselves and sold their souls to Indra Gandhi and the 600 million Indians for ever. Yet they blame West Pakistanis for all their woes.

The epitaph will read ``man sleeping comfortably in this place told the whole truth `never trust a Bengali```.

Muneezae Alam Khan.

An observation on the striking parallels in William Shakespeare`s `Hamlet,` and The Tragedie in East Pakistan in 1971.

United Pakistan being represented by both Hamlet`s murdered father`s ghost and by Ophelia

Mujib as earlier stated in the role of Laertes and Claudius

Yahya Khan in the role of Hamlet

The graveyard scene

Hamlet and Laertes jump into Ophelia`s grave struggling next to her body.

Interpretation: (Picture)Yahya Khan and Mujib jumping into United Pakistan`s grave, struggling next to United Pakistan`s body, in 1971.

This is the drama that unfolded.

Claudius`s incestous union with his dead brother`s wife lends itself to striking comparision with Mujib and the Awami League and the Mukti Bahini`s incestous embrace of India during 1971, and of course if we go back to the Agarthala conspiracy, even much earlier, though i hesitate to comment more on this side issue much further.

Re: ALL BENGALIS ON THE ISSUE OF 1971 GENOCIDE

For the record my position has already been stated on this issue in a prior post. I think that Pakistan owes an explanation, of the events of 1971, to the people of Bangladesh, and an apology for the same said events of 1971.

Having said that, I have three questions and one comment to make. I would appreciate if someone would take the trouble to answer them.

1) It has been claimed that three million Bengalis died in the events of 1971 over a period of nearly ten months. It is further said that these people died at the hands of the Pakistani Army. If so, could anyone please furnish a complete breakdown of the people killed and where they were killed and by which units of the Pakistan Army.

2) I raised this question earlier, but no one bothered to reply. So, I am asking this again. Why has there been a period of 28 years between the commission of the crime and the act of charging those responsible for committing those crimes.

3) Where is the documention listing these crimes?

Lastly my comment is simply this. The Bengali irregular forces are themselves responsible for committing war crimes and can be charged with such crimes. It is my understanding, open to correction, that Pakistani soldiers who were taken prisoners were routinely executed by these forces. This assertion has also been reported in the newspaper accounts, of western media, of the war.

Secondly, in the InterActs to this article, on Chowk, there appeared a post which detailed the dishonoring of a Pakistani general in a stadium watched by a crowd. It was said in the post that certain Bengladeshi officers tore off his insignias and publically humilated him, for his conduct during the war, after he had surundered.

If such actions had indeed taken place, and such actions were documented; were encourged sotto voce by elements of the Bangladeshi military or the irregulars fighting against the Pakistani armed forces, they would in fact be and could be held in violation of the Protocols of the Geneva Conventions on the Treatment of Prisoners of War. The Geneva Convention is quite explict on this matter; any public humilation, or degrading the dignity of a PoW or in any manner seeking a political or a propanganda advantage is construed to be a breech of the Protocols of the Geneva Convention and such is considered to be an act of a war crime.

The case of the Pakistani general, documented, being dishonored consitutes a classification of a war crime. As to the summary execution of Pakistani PoWs, the Geneva Convention is quite clear when it articulates that no form of retribution can be taken against the PoW, because a PoW is held in the same classification as an unarmed civilian. There is ample evidence to suggest that retribution was indeed meted out to Pakistani PoWs.

The above comments are not intended to absolve the Pakistani Armed Forces from any accountability nor does it proffer itself as an aplogia pro forma for the actions of the Pakistani Armed Forces, in what was former East Pakistan, during the year 1971.

Rather, the intent of this comment is to prove that, during the period of 1971, there was no one group which did not have blood on its hands. The Bengali irregular forces are as much guilty of alleged war crimes as various Pakistani officers and units are alleged to be. In a more specific manner, it is the intent of this comment to suggest that Bengalis and people of Bangladesh do not have the moral high ground to castigate Pakistani conduct, in 1971, while holding themselves and their conduct in that war to be beyond the pale of sin.

The period of 1971 was a dark and bloody chapter in the histories of both nations, Pakistan and Bangladesh, and is a wound which festers like an open sore and one which refuses to heal. In the interests of both nations, there has to be a concerted effort to root out the truth, however odious it shall be, and to hear the verdict of history, no matter how unpleasant it might be. This obligation of hearing the truth is not only a means to repay a debt of honor, owed to the victims regardless of the color of their national shourds, but also to lay the revanchist demons of our common past to rest so that our children would not have to suffer these guilt ridden nightmares of our national conscience.

Sincerely and respectfully.

This one just came out in Dhaka`s leading English daily `The New Nation.`



Unfolding Pinochet drama and lesson for Pakistani genocidal army officers

Dr. A.H. Jaffor Ullah

THE high drama of General Augusto Pinochet`s extradition hearings is about to end anytime soon in Great Britain. The news coming out of London these days does not bode well for the Chilean ex-despot. There is a good probability that he will be extradited to Spain where a full-blown trial will commence to prove that the General was responsible for the killings of some Spanish citizens in Chilean soil during the early days of purge orchestrated by his regime.

The British authority arrested General Pinochet on October 16, 1998, on a Spanish warrant alleging that his regime committed murder, torture, and genocide dating from 1973. Mr. Pinochet was visiting England as usual for some medical treatment. In the past, Gen. Pinochet had enjoyed free movement in Great Britain because the Conservative government of Margaret Thatcher and John Major were in good terms with the Chilean despot. But now things are little different and the worldview regarding genocide had changed for the better from the perspective of victims, of course. The government of Tony Blair (Labour Party) seems to be more sympathetic to the plights of Chilean victims and as such General Pinochet had fallen from the grace of British authorities.

All the high drama in England, the extradition hearings of General Pinochet, is a feast to the eyes of freedom loving people all across the globe. The news, I presume, has some special meaning to millions of Bengalis, who themselves were the victims of another genocide that took place some continents away in the southern hemisphere in Chile two years after Bangladesh Genocide. General Pinochet, the army strongman, overthrew democratically elected Marxist President Salvador Allende with the able help of a powerful foreign government. This happened at the time when cold war was at the zenith. The Bangladesh Genocide lasted barely nine months but the ferocity with which the Pakistani army killed three millions Bengalis is unparalleled in the annals of history of humankind. Sadly, the truth to the matter is that not many people throughout the world had so far realised that genocide of this humongous proportion had indeed taken place in 1971.

Who is to be blamed for this? The onus squarely falls on the government of Bangladesh for not publicising the enormity of this genocide. No doubt in 1972, the government of Sheikh Mujib inherited a war-ravaged country; the priorities those days were more of a nation building than chasing the marauding Pakistani soldiers who went under the fold of India. Mind you that after the brief war was over in mid December 1971 approximately 90,000 murderous Pakistani soldiers were taken to Indian soil in the name of POW leaving the Bengalis to grieve for the death of three million people of their own. Talk about justice in the world!

The other two governments that followed Sheikh Mujib, who was overthrown violently by some rogue junior army officers, did not do much to bring the issue of Bangladesh Genocide with the guilty party, the nation of Pakistan. The army generals who ruled (may be misrule is the right word) Bangladesh over the long fifteen year period were busier in taking the country into the fold of Islamic Nations rather than asking Pakistan, a Muslim Country, to hand over the culprits of Bangladesh Genocide to International Court. In 1991, democracy finally arrived in Bangladesh as the whirlwind of democracy was sweeping past our tiny nation being managed by a charlatan, corrupt, and lascivious person. But sadly, the democratically elected Prime Minister of Bangladesh, Mrs. Khaleda Zia, was more interested forging a good relationship with Pakistan to strengthen our Islamic-tie rather than asking them to settle our score over the issue of Bangladesh Genocide. Well, such were the vagaries of life!

Amidst all the chaos and consternation of eighties, the party that was responsible for unshackling the misrule of Pakistanis in 1971 was out of picture from the governance of the nation. Finally, they came into the power in 1996 after twenty-one years of long silence when they were declared victorious in a fair election. After they came into the power, we thought they would be on our side to revive the issue of Bangladesh Genocide. But how wrong was I. In 1997, Mrs. Hasina Wazed, the present Prime Minister of Bangladesh once raised the issue of 1971 war criminals as Mr. Nawaz Sharif had visited Dhaka. Mr. Sharif gave a superb lip service to unsuspecting Bangladesh Prime Minister telling her that something would be done about it. On his return to Islamabad, Mr. Sharif made a public announcement stating that the persons responsible for the wrongdoing during 1971 war in erstwhile East Pakistan should be punished. Later we heard in the news media that Pakistani army was dead against such a move by the Prime Minister. It has been two long years since then that we have not heard any new news about war criminals of 1971 both coming from the authorities of Bangladesh and Pakistan. Naturally, it seems to be a dead issue as far as the Prime Ministers of both the countries are concerned.

Fortunately, civic organisations and some writers had taken up the slack. The Internet forum of `News From Bangladesh` (NFB) had published scores of articles on Bangladesh Genocide within the last two years. These articles had made inroads into the minds and hearts of expatriate Bengalis. Some of the NFB articles on Bangladesh Genocide had found a second home in print journals published by expatriate Bengalis, which they publish to celebrate the Independence Day of Bangladesh. More and more, young generation Bengalis are now very much receptive to the issue of war crimes of 1971, and gone are the days of reticence.

An interesting revelation was made in the Internet in February 1999 as the world was showing much interest to the stories of Pinochet being in the hot water. A retired Brigadier from Pakistan army by the name Z.A. Khan published his memoir that graphically detailed the destruction, and wanton killing in occupied Bangladesh in the hands of marauding Pakistani soldiers in the first few months in 1971. In this memoir, entitled ``The way it was,`` Lieutenant Colonel (who later became Brigadier in Pakistan) Z.A. Khan described the unfolding events of 1971while he was in Comilla, Chittagong, and Chittagong Hill Tracts. The NFB immediately reprinted these excerpts in seven part series in March 1997. After reading the account of Z.A. Khan, which is replete with gory details of wanton killings and banishment of Bengalis, I prepared an incomplete list of Pakistani army officers responsible for the planning and execution of a full-scale ethnic cleansing in occupied Bangladesh. This list was circulated widely all over the globe through the courtesy of various newsgroups in the Internet.

In February and March 1999 as Serbian army of Slobodan Milosevic intensified theirs ethnic cleansing operation in Muslim dominated Kosovo province the entire world was becoming more tuned to the genocide issue. This happened only after the whole world viewed in graphic details the innocent Muslim Kosovar Albanian fleeing en masse to neighboring Macedonia and Albania to save their dear lives. The NATO-led bombing of Yugoslavia in late March and April heightened the awareness of Balkan Genocide even more and the world press was having a field day narrating the evils of Kosovar genocide of ethnic Albanians in which Yugoslav President Milosevic was negatively portrayed as classic megalomaniac.

In early April an article entitled ``Balkan Tragedy: A Re-enactment of the 1971 Genocide and Ethnic Cleansing in Bangladesh`` (authored by Jamal Hasan) appeared in NFB and later reappeared at a lightning speed in various Internet forums including the one call ``Chowk,`` managed by some Pakistani group. In this article Jamal Hasan pointed out poignantly that some of the war criminals of 1971 is still alive and he mentioned the name of Brigadier Z.A. Khan among others who would fit the profile of killers of Bengalis during the nine month period in 1971. A discussion forum ensued right away to further discuss the genocidal aspects of Jamal Hasan`s article. As the discussion was progressing in full steam, the daughter of Brigadier Z.A. Khan, Ms. Muneezae Khan, posted her remarks in which she threatened a law suit against the author Jamal Hasan unless he retracts part of his article where he labeled the Brigadier as one fitting the profile of a 1971 war criminal. Another person by the Name Mr. Omar, identifying him as a friend of the Z.A. Khan`s family, was even more adamant than the Brigadier`s daughter demanding an outright apology from Jamal Hasan for alleging Z.A. Khan to be part of the genocidal Pakistani army. At the time of this writing (April 17, 1999), the ``Chowk`` debate was intensifying on the hour, every hour, as Internet debaters with pro-`71 leaning were converging in ``Chowk`` website (http://www.chowk.com).

I reckon this is a very opportune time for Bengalis to write articles bringing back the sad memories of genocidal actions of Pakistani army and razakars into the fore. The Pinochet high drama and the plights of Kosovars Albanian fleeing their ancient homeland to get away from marauding Serb soldiers are providing an ideal backdrop for us to rekindle the spirit of seventy-one. The take home message from our brief encounter with the daughter and friend of alleged Pakistani war criminals of 1971 is that they still would like to portray the events of our struggle for independence as something as lowly as the action of some renegades who wanted eastern province to break away from mother Pakistan. To Mr. Omar and Ms. Muneezae, Sheikh Mujib is still a ``Ghaddar`` or traitor. What an obloquy! Moreover, the gratuitous killings of `East Pakistanis` were a justifiable act for murderous Pakistani soldiers simply because the Bengalis were ``despicable rebels.`` This is not words, folks! Some very educated Pakistanis are posting their messages in ``Chowk`` website.

Bangladesh`s Prime Minister Mrs. Hasina Wazed should take a note of this ``controversy`` that is brewing out there in the cyberspace. Her good office could help the cause of bringing the 1971 war criminals from Pakistan for prosecution. For this she has to happen she ought to request Pakistan`s Prime Minister Mr. Nawaz Sharif. I wonder whether Mrs. Hasina Wazed was keen on bringing the issue into the fore while Mr. Sharif visited Dhaka to attend the meeting of Muslim nations in February. We all know that the question of repatriation of 250,000 stranded ``Pakistanis`` in Bangladesh was a major issue that was being discussed by the Prime Ministers of both the countries. Mrs. Hasina Wazed again missed an excellent opportunity to raise the 1971 war crime issue to Pakistan`s Prime Minister who was not involved in any way with war crimes at the time. So, why this step-motherly attitude towards her people by Mrs. Hasina Wazed? Remember this was the same person who went an extra mile to get even with the killers of her father and other family members. Does the life of three million slaying Bengalis in the hands of murderous and recalcitrant Pakistani army in 1971 mean much to her?

Some expatriate Bengalis have taken the onerous task of challenging the killers of three million Bengalis; they want justice to be done so that the departed souls may find peace knowing some are actively pursuing the lost cause. The Prime Minister of Bangladesh may join her compatriots to assuage the pains of the sons and daughters, brothers and sisters, and mother and fathers of the departed ones. If she is not that receptive to the ideas of fair play, she may do her usual thing, i.e., run Bangladesh in a lackluster way. Nevertheless, rest assured our struggle to bring those killers would continue unabated. Even if it means there is one last killer somewhere in Multan, Faislabad, Peshawar, Muree, Lahore, or in some obscure part of a country they call it erroneously the ``Pure-Land.``

(Dr. A.H. Jaffor Ullah writes from New Orleans, Louisiana, USA)

Re ``Truth``

The ``Comedy Channel`` feed is already being provided by our latter day Shakespeare. As for me being called immoral for desiring to see Bengal united, well, that`s what many a patriot has been called over the ages. That every nation deserves a state is an axiom well grounded in political science. Neither will I rejoice nor regret the disunity of India; a united, sovereign Bengal is something I`ll truly rejoice at though. As the last prime minister of united Bengal said in 1946, Bengal is one nation, Raddcliffe line or not, and Calcutta is historic capital. I will never live to see a united Bengal. My grandchildren will only know Bengal which is united and faraway from the sectarian hooliganism so usual in India and Pakistan.

Observation: Both Bhutto and Mujib were Ambitious men, greedy for power just like Iago. And in the words of Clinton regarding Milosevic in 1999, which apply equally to their conduct in 1971, `more willing to rule over rubble than not rule at all.` This is the real parallel between Kosovo in 1999 and East Pakistan in 1971. Yahya was a simple, honest soldier, like Othello. Hen intended to do the best, but wound up a victim of his passion, doing the very worst i suppose. These are the real characters of the principals involved in the Tragedy of East Pakistan in 1971.

There is another interesting scene in Hamlet that lends itself to a parallel to the situation between Mujib & Yahya.

Hamlet is on his way to his mother’s room. He finds his Uncle father at prayer in a private chapel. Hamlet debates whether to kill him then and there or not, but, decides that the, ‘Smiling, damned villain’ (Mujib), who killed his father (Mujib Poisoned United Pakistan with his politics as Claudius poisoned Hamlet`s father, the rightful king of Pakistan whose ghost still walks the night even today, even here in cyberspace after 28 years, `condemned to walk a certain time in a place between heaven and hell`-- purgatory) and sent him to his reckoning without a chance for repentance (read for the Pakistan army’s poor performance after the cyclone of 1970 that influenced the elections drastically in East Pakistan in favor of the Awami League) and then married his queen and usurped his throne, deserves better punishment. For, if he killed him then, at prayer, Claudius would go to heaven. ‘A villain kills my father

and I for that his sole son do this same villain send to heaven.’ ‘Why, this was higher in salary, not revenge.’ No, I’ll wait till he is drunk, gambling, or in the incestuous pleasure of his bed (with India, and as dictator with unlimited power in Bangladesh), then I’ll send him to his audit ... that his heels may kick at heaven.

Hamlet Act III, scene 3

HAMLET

Now might I do it pat, now he is praying;

And now I`ll do`t. And so he goes to heaven;

And so am I revenged. That would be scann`d:

A villain kills my father; and for that,

I, his sole son, do this same villain send

To heaven.

O, this is hire and salary, not revenge.

He took my father grossly, full of bread;

With all his crimes broad blown, as flush as May;

And how his audit stands who knows save heaven?

But in our circumstance and course of thought,

`Tis heavy with him: and am I then revenged,

To take him in the purging of his soul,

When he is fit and season`d for his passage?

No!

Up, sword; and know thou a more horrid hent:

When he is drunk asleep, or in his rage,

Or in the incestuous pleasure of his bed;

At gaming, swearing, or about some act

That has no relish of salvation in`t;

Then trip him, that his heels may kick at heaven,

And that his soul may be as damn`d and black

As hell, whereto it goes. My mother stays:

This physic but prolongs thy sickly days.

Exit

Similarly, after Mujib was brought to West Pakistan, Yahya faced the choice of putting him on trial for treason immediately, and making a martyr out of him at that point for East Pakistanis of the Bengali race. He therefore chose not to slay him then, despite Bangabhadu’s heinous crimes against United Pakistan. Bengalis themselves devoured their own Bangabadhu a few short tyrannical years later in rather unceremonious fashion by slitting his throat.

OMAR1974’s PERSONAL OPINION (based on a good deal of personal study/research) and Analysis:

Yahya was a SIMPLE straight forward soldier who liked his scotch, and who was outwitted by the machinations of both Mujib and Bhutto’s cunning deceitfulness and lust for power. He was not a ‘black hearted villain’ as some Bengalis like to believe. He loved his country only too dearly. Mujib broke his heart with his double speak and double dealing over an extended period of time. Mujib was demanding nothing short of secession, couched in language that aimed to make East Pakistan an independent state over time, while lying constantly about his true intentions and threatening (BEFORE March 25th) that soon he and the Awami League, would have no choice but to act unilaterally due to public pressure. The question of course is who created the ‘public pressure’ that increasingly made Autonomy for East Pakistan unacceptable. Yahya was a plain speaker. To him, this talk bordered on treason. He was never comfortable with the wiles of 2-faced politicians doing what came to them naturally. Yahya’s solution was simple minded to say the least. He was a simple minded soldier who understood war, not the subtleties of politics. He was trained to kill the ‘enemy’, not make compromises on issues of national sovereignty. His language and response to Mujib’s pushing him too far can also therefore be characterized as the crude response of a simple soldier-patriot to a complex political situation. I think Yahya too shares much of the blame for what occurred, but neither Mujib, nor Bhutto, nor Indira Ghandi, nor the Mukti Bahini were angels. Lets face the truth shall we. Its far too easy to blame Yahya and the Pakistan army alone for what transpired. The Mukti Bahini and mutinous Bengalis serving in Pakistan’s army in East Pakistan are also responsible for quite a few massacres, including not only of their superior officers but also civilians. I demand that these people whose crimes are well documented stand trial for a systematic campaign of attempted genocide of a small, minority community of Biharis/Urdu and Punjabi etc speakers in East Pakistan. But actually, I don’t think that they necessarily need to be tried for ‘crimes against humanity’, just simple murder. Because that is what many of them were. Comparable in state to the situation of Khamer Rouge AFTER Vietnam invaded Cambodia and toppled their govt. They were not therefore state actors. On the other hand I can also plausibly argue and advance the theory that many of them were terrorist agents of the government of India since they were operating from camps within India where they received training in subversion and weapons, and that therefore the Indian govt is prima facie guilty of perpetrating genocide on the Biharis/non-Bangla speakers in East Pakistan in 1971 between March 26th-Dec 16th. Or alternatively as mentioned earlier, another theory of the prosecution could be that since these people were not state forces, but independent terrorist units like the Khamer Rouge AFTER the invasion of Cambodia by Vietnam, as I elaborated earlier, they can be subject to simple criminal prosecution as common murders. Many were therefore (especially those in the Pak army’s ranks) summarily tried, court marshaled and shot for simple treason. They were nothing more. And this is the legal justification which Bengalis will never accept in terms of its moral implications for these so-called ‘freedom-fighters’ a/k/a ‘ghaddars’. Both terms are politically loaded. In any event, there were far too many Bengalis in East Pakistan for the Pakistan army to ‘ethnically cleanse’, seriously or even make a serious attempt which could qualify as genocide. The Pakistan army never built any gas chambers or crematoriums in East Pakistan . The numbers of refugees created and those who died have always been greatly exaggerated courtesy of India which had a vested state interest in doing so. See my older posts for details on India’s role in manipulating the world media on this crisis and shaping international opinion in favor of its intervention in the sorry saga which it helped fuel, if not actually create.

My interpretation of Yahya Khan`s character is also based on first person, oral accounts of him.

Yahya/Hamlet: `I loved her (United Pakistan/Ophelia). Forty thousand Banglabandhu`s and Bhutto`s could not love her as much.`

Reg Sigalph235 (#85 and #87):

Well, sir! You apologize for getting carried away and then proceed to do it all over again. Your statements regarding rivers of blood flowing and action against the Indian army to achieve Bangla independence are pure hyperbole.

Unlike Kashmir, India lives in West Bengal not on the barrel of a gun but in the hearts and minds of the Bengali people. While your desires to unite Bengalis are unobjectionable and would be supported by 90% plus of all Indians, your desire to break the bonds that W. Bengalis have with other Indians be they Oriyas, Punjabis or Tamils are immoral and unsupportable. The only thing that stands in the way of Bengali unity are two East Bengali sentiments: first, the feeling of religious separatism brought about by the two nation theory or second, the desire of Bengalis such as you who desire not only Bengali unity but more insidiously Indian disunity.

Every nation does not need a state: every nation needs dignity and the ability to manage its own affairs. Every people do not need their own currency or their own army. Feel free to join us if you wish (your call) but your attempts to create a divorce between Bengalis and non-Bengalis are immoral.

If you want to try the Indian army for war crimes in 1971 for stealing industrial machinery, please make sure the hearings are broadcast live on the Comedy Channel. If thats the worst crime you can accuse the Indian army of, I think every Indian general and jawan can go to sleep with a relatively clear conscience (at least as far as 1971 is concerned).