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

While I think I have said all there is to be said, I will leave a final rebuttal for (ATTENTION) JAMAL HASAN by addressing quotes from his article. And for anyone else who still cares to propagate one sided views in the foolish hope that anyone of us will be left with either eyes or teeth. P.S: FerozK, you`re the one who is so against ‘comparing genocides’ or setting thresholds for them, now is the time to open your mouth and repeat those views.

Allow me to observe first that he, Jamal, has trivialized the brutal incidents of violence and killings against both non-Bengali property and people which occurred not only in a systematic manner in the period March 1-26, but also continued through much of April and later on as well in fact they increased in tempo and intensity to a fever pitch of blood-sucking Bengali genocidal mania.

Jamal says:

The Pakistani army systematically and ruthlessly eliminated Bengalis from ``Bihari`` majority enclaves like the one in Syedpur.

Response: You wanna know why, you one sided ass? Because Bengalis were the ones doing all the killings just a few days prior to that. If I had been there I would have insisted on no less. Who needs genocidal neighbors, you twisted man?

Jamal says:

Such state sponsored ethnic cleansing in East Pakistan was immoral in 1971. And it is just as immoral in Bosnia-Herzegovina today.

Response: Accepted in full. But lets not forget the Awami League was practically running a state out of Mujib’s house by early March. So Bengalis are equally vulnerable to prosecution on this count. I can prove this. It is also equally immoral to have killed Non-Bengalis prior to March 25th 1971, as it was to kill them after March 25th, 1971.

Jamal says:

There can be no crime worse than a deliberate attempt at ethnic cleansing perpetrated by the established government.

Response: Frankly, while I agree with you in principle, in fact I can do 2 things;

1) Demonstrate that the Awami League controlled East Pakistani mob violence from early March 1971 from Mujib’s house, which functioned as a de facto (in fact the real center of civil power) government headquarters of the self declared Bengali parallel government.

2) I have News for you, in the end, when you lose your loved ones, it doesn’t matter whether it was to a bloodthirsty mob or soldiers in Uniform. It comes down to the same thing. Your losses are not so ‘special’ Jamal.

Jamal says:

Perpetrators of such a heinous crime must be brought to justice at all costs.

Response: Absolutely Jamal, I’m with you all the way. And if that happens, I have stated exactly the level of reciprocity I shall expect in all fairness too, in my previous post. You cannot deny me my justice and have yours! That would not be just at all!

Jamal now quotes Robin Cook:

In a careful and sweeping warning to the Yugoslav commanders, British Foreign Secretary Robin Cook declared recently: ``Anyone who carried out atrocities against the civilian population, anyone who gives orders for them to carry it out, or is complicity in those orders being given, and anyone who fails to prevent such orders or to prevent those orders being carried out - anyone in those categories is liable to face indictment before the international war crimes tribunal``.

Then, Jamal proceeds to list ‘War Criminals’

Active members of the Pakistani military junta of 1971 like General A.M. Yahya Khan (posthumously), General Abdul Hamid Khan, Lt. General Gul Hassan Khan, Lt. General Tikka Khan, Lt. General A.O. Mitha, Lt. General A.A.K. Niazi, Major General Rao Farman Ali Khan, Major General Khadim Hussain Raja and Brigadier Z.A. Khan fit the profiles of war criminals. They should be brought to trial. We will not be forgiven by future generations if we fail to have them tried for their heinous crimes.

Response: Quite frankly Jamal, I have a list too, that perfectly fits Robin Cook’s criterion to a T. Bengali Political leaders who incited mob violence and genocidal killing, Active members of the Mukti Bahini, East Pakistan Rifles, and Bengali-Pakistan Army personnel, to say nothing of those who merely constituted ‘faceless Bengali mobs,’ whom I want dragged from the serenity of their old age and self delusions of `freedom fighting` in the old days of United Pakistan (I truly wonder what The Hague Tribunal would make of their freedom fighting days, especially since these very people constituted the government of Bangladesh). Mujib Ur Rehman (posthumously), Major Zia Ur Rehman, Khalid Musharraf and a very large number of others including persons still alive and living in the safety and comfort of Bangladesh today. They should be brought to trial. We will not forgiven by future generations if we fail to have them tried for their heinous crimes.

Now I tell you if any Bengali cares to state that these people do not ‘fit the profiles of war criminals,’ let him sue me as well. I can prove it in a court of law anywhere in the world if you like, on the bare facts I have put forth in my combined posts. Open invitation to all. To apply the rationale of a number of Bengalis logic to Z.A Khan, I too have clearly demonstrable prima facie proof of their guilt. The proof is in the pudding gentlemen. Those who live in glass houses Jamal like yourself and your countrymen, should be VERY CAREFUL not to throw stones.

While I think I have said all there is to be said, I will leave a final rebuttal for Jamal Hasan by addressing quotes from his article. And for anyone else who still cares to propagate one sided views in the foolish hope that anyone of us will be left with either eyes or teeth. P.S: FerozK, you`re the one who is so against ‘comparing genocides’ or setting thresholds for them, now is the time to open your mouth and repeat those views.

Allow me to observe first that he, Jamal, has trivialized the brutal incidents of violence and killings against both non-Bengali property and people which occurred not only in a systematic manner in the period March 1-26, but also continued through much of April and later on as well in fact they increased in tempo and intensity to a fever pitch of blood-sucking Bengali genocidal mania.

Jamal says:

The Pakistani army systematically and ruthlessly eliminated Bengalis from ``Bihari`` majority enclaves like the one in Syedpur.

Response: You wanna know why, you one sided ass? Because Bengalis were the ones doing all the killings just a few days prior to that. If I had been there I would have insisted on no less. Who needs genocidal neighbors, you twisted man?

Jamal says:

Such state sponsored ethnic cleansing in East Pakistan was immoral in 1971. And it is just as immoral in Bosnia-Herzegovina today.

Response: Accepted in full. But lets not forget the Awami League was practically running a state out of Mujib’s house by early March. So Bengalis are equally vulnerable to prosecution on this count. I can prove this. It is also equally immoral to have killed Non-Bengalis prior to March 25th 1971, as it was to kill them after March 25th, 1971.

Jamal says:

There can be no crime worse than a deliberate attempt at ethnic cleansing perpetrated by the established government.

Response: Frankly, while I agree with you in principle, in fact I can do 2 things;

1) Demonstrate that the Awami League controlled East Pakistani mob violence from early March 1971 from Mujib’s house, which functioned as a de facto (in fact the real center of civil power) government headquarters of the self declared Bengali parallel government.

2) I have News for you, in the end, when you lose your loved ones, it doesn’t matter whether it was to a bloodthirsty mob or soldiers in Uniform. It comes down to the same thing. Your losses are not so ‘special’ Jamal.

Jamal says:

Perpetrators of such a heinous crime must be brought to justice at all costs.

Response: Absolutely Jamal, I’m with you all the way. And if that happens, I have stated exactly the level of reciprocity I shall expect in all fairness too, in my previous post. You cannot deny me my justice and have yours! That would not be just at all!

Jamal now quotes Robin Cook:

In a careful and sweeping warning to the Yugoslav commanders, British Foreign Secretary Robin Cook declared recently: ``Anyone who carried out atrocities against the civilian population, anyone who gives orders for them to carry it out, or is complicity in those orders being given, and anyone who fails to prevent such orders or to prevent those orders being carried out - anyone in those categories is liable to face indictment before the international war crimes tribunal``.

Then, Jamal proceeds to list ‘War Criminals’

Active members of the Pakistani military junta of 1971 like General A.M. Yahya Khan (posthumously), General Abdul Hamid Khan, Lt. General Gul Hassan Khan, Lt. General Tikka Khan, Lt. General A.O. Mitha, Lt. General A.A.K. Niazi, Major General Rao Farman Ali Khan, Major General Khadim Hussain Raja and Brigadier Z.A. Khan fit the profiles of war criminals. They should be brought to trial. We will not be forgiven by future generations if we fail to have them tried for their heinous crimes.

Response: Quite frankly Jamal, I have a list too, that perfectly fits Robin Cook’s criterion to a T. Bengali Political leaders who incited mob violence and genocidal killing, Active members of the Mukti Bahini, East Pakistan Rifles, and Bengali-Pakistan Army personnel, to say nothing of those who merely constituted ‘faceless Bengali mobs,’ whom I want dragged from the serentity of their old age and self delusions of `freedom fighting` in the old days of United Pakistan. Mujib Ur Rehman (posthumously), Major Zia Ur Rehman, Khalid Musharraf and a very large number of others including persons still alive and living in the safety and comfort of Bangladesh today. They should be brought to trial. We will not forgiven by future generations if we fail to have them tried for their heinous crimes.

Now I tell you if any Bengali cares to state that these people do not ‘fit the profiles of war criminals,’ let him sue me as well. I can prove it in a court of law anywhere in the world if you like, on the bare facts I have put forth in my combined posts. Open invitation to all. To apply the rationale of a number of Bengalis logic to Z.A Khan, I too have clearly demonstrable prima facie proof of their guilt. The proof is in the pudding gentlemen. Those who live in glass houses Jamal like yourself and your countrymen, should be VERY CAREFUL not to throw stones.

Re: The 2 Bengali Khans posts and final Wrapup

(Ignore previous 2 versions posted)

Mr. M.N Khan and Mr. KoKhan have articulated a very appetizing view of history. Even I’m tempted to take a bite out of it. Smells good, bet it tastes even better. So, the freedom loving Bengalis of 1971 were actually fighting for democracy, and the demand for independence just sort of ‘happened’ along the way. The reason seems to be a disgust with military dictatorship from the Western Wing of the country onto the East. What the.Khans are in effect saying, is that if the dictatorship of Pakistan were led by East Pakistanis for long periods after independence, there would have been no call for independence/secession, just democracy and a bill of rights! How interesting. I suppose if the coin were flipped, you imagine that West Pakistanis would have supported independence from the East Wing of the country on this basis.

Bhutto’s statements are well documented, that is why I don’t view him as being guiltless in this saga. His ambition at the expense of the country is also well known.

Firstly I am no supporter at large of military rule; I don’t condone the Zia regime, the Ayub Khan regime, nor will I embrace the likes of Iskandar Mirza etc., in short the lot of them. Nor am I a fan of Gohar Ayub. These people plundered the country to line their own pockets at the expense of both East and West.

I have never generally been of the view that military rule was ever a positive good in itself, but unfortunately, the type of people who become involved in politics in the Subcontinent are also generally either rogues, scoundrels, bank defaulters, outright criminals or even traitors. I define treason personally as willingness to sell your country down the river for personal gain. In this sense Pakistan and Bangladesh have seen an awful lot of traitors come to power be it through the ballot box or by Coup. Their politics is a sham for the illiterate masses while they enrich their personal bank accounts. G-D alone knows if this is the curse of the British inherited parliamentary system. Couldn’t the sub-continent, if it had to be colonized have been colonized by the Americans! At least they might have left us with a better idea of what a written constitution should incorporate, and a system of Constitutional checks and balances far better than the crude improvisations of modified parliamentarianism tried thus far. Of course we’d be playing baseball, not cricket. Hmmm, would I trade that for a government for the people, by the people and of the people?

I think that while you’ll find that West Pakistanis would be willing to support peaceful protests in favor of democracy quite willingly, Mujib was interested in absolute power. That is one very believable version of the truth that can be and has been borne out by the facts. (Especially the period of his rule 1972-75).

President Yahya was I believe sincere about handing over power, but not as I have repeatedly stated at the cost of the breakup of the country, which it seemed Mujib was inclined to do. In a peculiar situation like that of United Pakistan, with each wing 1000 miles apart obviously some compromises had to be made to keep the country together. Mujib’s attitude hardened considerably by March 1971. Bhutto was threatening

not to attend the Convening of the National Assembly, and keep the rest of the elected representatives of the Western Wing from doing so as well. In this situation, obviously the country would have been divided, with only half represented. The other half, Mujib, who had an absolute majority in the Assembly could have done whatever he wished even if the Western Wing’s elected Representatives attended, and framed the constitution as he saw fit. All he really had to do was demonstrate a willingness to negotiate flexibly, but no, Mr.Mujib was bent on confrontation. Now the army was I agree stuck with its anti-democratic reputation and open to suspicion, but given the fact that the election of 1970 had indeed materialized, I think Mujib and Bengalis actions were mean spirited. And what they did was not confined to, ‘a student protest’, which is the impression your account attempts to convey. This was much more than that. It reached a point, where it became treason to United Pakistan in the name of ‘democracy’. How come there was no reaction in the West to the suspension of the Assembly, no protests, no public outcry? Do you think West Pakistanis loved democracy any less than you did? Me personally, I know exactly what virtues democracy has brought to the people of Pakistan and Bangladesh, so when it comes to making my choice I choose to stand for a United Country, even if that means choosing un-elected scoundrels over elected ones . Since, both Army Generals and Politicians are proven crooks. Now it’s a fine line in the circumstances, but with the progressive radicalization of the movement, which became a mass movement, coercion and intimidation became the norm, as did violence and murder. The people being attacked however, were not the representatives of ‘the Colonial Power,’ but ordinary non-Bengalis and those who did not support the Awami’s League’s Secret agenda to break up the country, which its rank and file supported. Perhaps you hoped for a better tomorrow. I don’t think Mujib gave it to you, if you drop the rhetoric of the sacred cow; ‘Banga Bandhu’, and look at reality. Wanton destruction of property and mob violence is not my idea of the struggle for democracy. I realize that revolution can be bloody. I ask you, do you justify it in terms of what it cost? I realize also that the fact of ‘independence’ to you today is probably worth those sacrifices. While the argument that you were against the continued military rule by Yahya Khan, and the West Pakistani clique of generals is plausible, and even receives sympathetic ears from many, I frankly think you people didn’t care whether it led to the breakup of the country or not. In fact you cheerfully welcomed it, with rivers of the blood of Non-Bengalis, which Bengalis bathed in. You also wanted a separate nation well before March 1971, democracy or no democracy, and were willing to seek Indian help to do it, which also amounts to treason in the eyes of ALL Pakistanis, in 1971 or 1999.

So pardon me for my lack of willingness to ‘right’ any historical ‘wrongs’ Bengalis may have suffered as a consequence of the Pakistan army’s actions. I said it before and I’ll say it again; Mujib Ur Rehman was both ‘a liberator’, and ‘a traitor.’ The Pakistan army was commanded by ‘animals’ and, ‘heroic defenders of the motherland.’ What was done leaves both sides morally culpable. If you want to start talking about ‘justice’, I too will start by not only putting all Bengali national ‘heroes’ on trial, but the entire nation of Bengalis for Treason, and crimes against humanity. Let sleeping dogs lie. This is my sincere advice to all Bengalis. Those who live in the glass houses of the subcontinent must learn not to throw stones if there is to be a future for us to live together. Justice is not available to either of us for historical ‘rights’ and ‘wrongs.’ Only fools dream of getting ‘justice’ under these circumstances. Take it from me. And that really is, ‘the way it was’. Jamal Hasan’s account shall remain just that, one account. As will almost all other accounts that attempt to attain universal acceptance by presenting the views of one side to a conflict. It shall never define any Universal historical truth much as the professor? would like it to. It is Uni-dimensional at best.

Sincerely,

Omar Mirza

Reply to OMAR1974`s Reply # 256:

Mr. Omar Mirza has conjured up the image of a certain Mr. M.N.Khan. Since O Mirza is a self-proclaimed history buff, he ought to have recognized that if he looks for such a figure during the 2nd world war, he might be able to find one among the resistance fighters in France or Holland or among the Jews during the anti-German uprising in the Warshaw ghettos. Whether Mr. O Mirza likes it or not, resistance fighters have never been thought of as war criminals by the world at large.

The war criminals of the Nazi era were more like Lt. Colonel Z.A.Khan who openly expressed racial contempt for the population they were trying to suppress and who taught their daughters and nephews that ``French are descendants of Mir Jafar,`` ``No Russian is to be trusted,`` and ``Jews are ghaddars.`` It is this racist mindset that was responsible for the holocaust in Europe as well as the holocaust in Bangladesh.

Yes, enough has been said on Chowk to show that Mr. Jamal Hasan had enough cause to allege that Lt. Colonel Z.A.Khan fits the profile of a war criminal. But like any other accused, he should be allowed his day in court. And he deserves to be acquitted in a criminal case if the case against him cannot be proven with absolute certainty. However, in a civil case, preponderance of evidence would be sufficient to convict him.

The question is, ``Will Lt. Colonel have the courage to face his accusers in a Court of Law?`` I doubt it. The Pakistani army officers in East Pakistan proved themselves brave only as long as they were fighting (an euphemism for slaughtering) unarmed civilians. Once they encountered regular troops, it didn`t take them long to waive the white flag. Lt. Colonel Z.A.Khan is unlikely to be any braver than his comrades-in-crime. He will be brave only from behind the skirts of his daughter/nephew. It is most unlikely that he has the stomach to confront his accusers in a court of law.

If Mr. O Mirza wants to know the truth, he should cross examine his uncle. Find out if he confesses to the murder of any project engineer of WAPDA. Mr. O Mirza should ask his uncle why the soldiers under him thought it fit to turn in the loot (tons of milk packets among other things) to their commanding officer. Doesn`t it suggest that the soldiers had embarked on a crime spree on the orders of their commanding officer?

And if Mr. O Mirza truly feels that Mr. Jamal Hasan has no cause to accuse Lt. Colonel of fitting the profile of a war criminal, then he can always do what he had threatened to do - drag Jamal Hasan and Chowk to a court of law with a quarter million dollar law suit, especially since neither Jamal Hasan nor Chowk has bothered to retract the accusation and issue an apology. Mr. Jamal Hasan and Chowk has thrown down thegauntlet. The ball is now in Brigadier Z.A.Khan`s court. Let`s see if the Brigadier bothers to return it either by himself or through his proxies like Mr. O Mirza and Ms Muneezae Alam Khan.

Re: Khokan #251

Thanks for the info.

If you say that charges were drawn up against 195 officers of Pakistan Army, then the onus to try them and get this issue, before a war crimes court, rests with the Bangadeshi government; not Pakistani, Chinese, American or any other government for that matter. If this is indeed the case, then I am sorely disappointed in the conduct of the Bangladeshi government towards its own citizens and consequently, I hold them equally responsible in the complicity of the events of 1971. What ever their rationales might be, they were in fact and deed aiding, abetting and hindering and obstructing justice.

As to Henry Kissenger, Kissenger was more interested in playing weltpolitik and along with Nixon, he was interested in seeking détenté with China. American policy, in 1971, was more tuned towards ending American involvment in Vietnam than it was in weeping over dead Bengalis. I think that Omar, in one of his posts, said that nations only act in their self-interests and this was a true reflection of the realpolitik being practiced during the Cold War. America is not going to apologise to the people of Bangladesh for its actions!

What did Pakistan gain by helping America seek rapproachement with China? Twenty eight years after the fact did it win us any special favors? No. It did not, because we too were used to further the American interests!

I hate to be so harsh, but the reality is that world is not going to try alleged Pakistani war crimes, because you and the people of Bangldesh were the victims. At that point in time and history, there was no international doctrine of humanitrian involvment as it is being argued for Kosovo. If justice is to done in this case, the effort must come from the government of Bangladesh and justice will not be attained, for the victims of 1971, by holding the governments of the world responsible. If as you suggest that everyone knows the fact and then why have the people of Bangladesh, since they fought the war of 1971 to have a democratic voice in their own affairs, have not petitioned their government to take up this matter? Do they not have that democratic right to ask their government for justice?

Who in Bangladesh is pressing for justice? Is it the so called Bengali intellectuals or the common people of Bangladesh? Is this an avent gardé movement which happens to en vouge amongsts educated intellectual or is it a manifestion of a national consensus?

You have cogently expressed the reasons why justice was delayed, but no where have you hinted what efforts the Bangladeshi government has undertaken to renew its quest to seek a verdict?
This issue mirrors life, because like everything else in life, if you want something you have to do it yourself; it certainly will not be handed to you on a silver platter! In this sense, ironically, the people of Bangladesh have a lot in common with the people of Pakistan. We are more than willing to blame others for our misfortune as an excuse to mask our own apathy!

I am sorry to say this, but the fault lies with the Bangladeshi government also and it is not without its share of guilt in this matter. You stated the reasons for its inaction and why it could not pursue this case, but that was twenty eight years ago! What have they done since then? You, your-self, are an intelligent person and you can argue cogently, as seen in your posts, why not undertake a grassroots campaign to do something about it yourself? What have you to lose? Nothing!!! You will get justice a lot sooner if you act on the matter instead of blaming others for causing grief. The choice is yours and you will get justice if you really want to get justice. Are you prepared to act and do what is necessary to get justice or this is nothing more than another stimulating discussion around a coffee table?!

The problem with South Asia is that we are so embedded in the past that we can not do anything in the future, because our future is our past! Living in the past will not prepare us to live in the future, because whether we like it or not, that is where we are headed!

Sincrely.

Re: The 2 Bengali Khans posts and my final wrapup

Mr. M.N Khan and Mr. KOKhan have articulated a very appetizing view of history. Even I’m tempted to take a bite out of it. Smells good, bet it tastes even better. So, the freedom loving Bengalis of 1971 were actually fighting for democracy, and the demand for independence just sort of ‘happened’ along the way. The reason seems to be a disgust with military dictatorship from the Western Wing of the country onto the East. What the.Khans are in effect saying, is that if the dictatorship of Pakistan were led by East Pakistanis for long periods after independence, there would have been no call for independence/secession, just democracy and a bill of rights! How interesting. I suppose if the coin were flipped, you imagine that West Pakistanis would have supported independence from the East Wing of the country on this basis.

Bhutto’s statements are well documented, that is why I don’t view him as being guiltless in this saga. His ambition at the expense of the country is also well known.

Firstly I am no supporter at large of military rule; I don’t condone the Zia regime, the Ayub Khan regime, nor will I embrace the likes of Iskandar Mirza etc., in short the lot of them. Nor am I a fan of Gohar Ayub. These people plundered the country to line their own pockets at the expense of both East and West.

I have never generally been of the view that military rule was ever a positive good in itself, but unfortunately, the type of people who become involved in politics in the Subcontinent are also generally either rogues, scoundrels, bank defaulters, outright criminals or even traitors. I define treason personally as willingness to sell your country down the river for personal gain. In this sense Pakistan and Bangladesh have seen an awful lot of traitors come to power be it through the ballot box or by Coup. Their politics is a sham for the illiterate masses while they enrich their personal bank accounts. G-D alone knows if this is the curse of the British inherited parliamentary system. Couldn’t the sub-continent, if it had to be colonized have been colonized by the Americans! At least they might have left us with a better idea of what a written constitution should incorporate, and a system of Constitutional checks and balances far better than the crude improvisations of modified parliamentarianism tried thus far. Of course we’d be playing baseball, not cricket. Hmmm, would I trade that for a government for the people, by the people and of the people?

I think that while you’ll find that West Pakistanis would be willing to support peaceful protests in favor of democracy quite willingly, Mujib was interested in absolute power. That is one very believable version of the truth that can be and has been borne out by the facts. (Especially the period of his rule 1972-75).

President Yahya was I believe sincere about handing over power, but not as I have repeatedly stated at the cost of the breakup of the country, which it seemed Mujib was inclined to do. In a peculiar situation like that of United Pakistan, with each wing 1000 miles apart obviously some compromises had to be made to keep the country together. Mujib’s attitude hardened considerably by March 1971. Bhutto was threatening

not to attend the Convening of the National Assembly, and keep the rest of the elected representatives of the Western Wing from doing so as well. In this situation, obviously the country would have been divided, with only half represented. The other half, Mujib, who had an absolute majority in the Assembly could have done whatever he wished even if the Western Wing’s elected Representatives attended, and framed the constitution as he saw fit. All he really had to do was demonstrate a willingness to negotiate flexibly, but no, Mr.Mujib was bent on confrontation. Now the army was I agree stuck with its anti-democratic reputation and open to suspicion, but given the fact that the election of 1970 had indeed materialized, I think Mujib and Bengalis actions were mean spirited. And what they did was not confined to, ‘a student protest’, which is the impression your account attempts to convey. This was much more than that. It reached a point, where it became treason to United Pakistan in the name of ‘democracy’. How come there was no reaction in the West to the suspension of the Assembly, no protests, no public outcry? Do you think West Pakistanis loved democracy any less than you did? Me personally, I know exactly what virtues democracy has brought to the people of Pakistan and Bangladesh, so when it comes to making my choice I choose to stand for a United Country, even if that means choosing un-elected scoundrels over elected ones . Since, both Army Generals and Politicians are proven crooks. Now it’s a fine line in the circumstances, but with the progressive radicalization of the movement, which became a mass movement, coercion and intimidation became the norm, as did violence and murder. The people being attacked however, were not the representatives of ‘the Colonial Power,’ but ordinary non-Bengalis and those who did not support the Awami’s League’s Secret agenda to break up the country, which its rank and file supported. Perhaps you hoped for a better tomorrow. I don’t think Mujib gave it to you, if you drop the rhetoric of the sacred cow; ‘Banga Bandhu’, and look at reality. Wanton destruction of property and mob violence is not my idea of the struggle for democracy. I realize that revolution can be bloody. I ask you, do you justify it in terms of what it cost? I realize also that the fact of ‘independence’ to you today is probably worth those sacrifices. While the argument that you were against the continued military rule by Yahya Khan, and the West Pakistani clique of generals is plausible, and even receives sympathetic ears from many, I frankly think you people didn’t care whether it led to the breakup of the country or not. In fact you cheerfully welcomed it, with rivers of the blood of Non-Bengalis, which Bengalis bathed in. You also wanted a separate nation well before March 1971, democracy or no democracy, and were willing to seek Indian help to do it, which also amounts to treason in the eyes of ALL Pakistanis, in 1971 or 1999.

So pardon me for my lack of willingness to ‘right’ any historical ‘wrongs’ Bengalis may have suffered as a consequence of the Pakistan army’s actions. I said it before and I’ll say it again; Mujib Ur Rehman was both ‘a liberator’, and ‘a traitor.’ The Pakistan army was commanded by ‘animals’ and, ‘heroic defenders of the motherland.’ What was done leaves both sides morally culpable. If you want to start talking about ‘justice’, I too will start by not only putting all Bengali national ‘heroes’ on trial, but the entire nation of Bengalis for Treason. Let sleeping dogs lie. This is my sincere advice to all Bengalis. Justice is not available to either of us for historical ‘rights’ and ‘wrongs.’ Only fools dream of getting ‘justice’ under these circumstances. Take it from me. And that really is, ‘the way it was’. Jamal Hasan’s account shall remain just that, one account as will almost all other accounts that attempt to aspire to universalism. It shall never define any Universal historical truth much as the professor? would like it to. It is Uni-dimensional at best.

Sincerely,

Omar Mirza

Mr. M.N Khan has articulated a very appetizing view of history. Even I’m tempted to take a bite out of it. Smells good, bet it tastes even better. So, the freedom loving Bengalis of 1971 were actually fighting for democracy, and the demand for independence just sort of ‘happened’ along the way. The reason seems to

be a disgust with military dictatorship from the Western Wing of the country onto the East. What Mr.Khan is in effect saying, is that if the dictatorship of Pakistan were led by East Pakistanis for long periods after independence, there would have been no call for independence/secession, just democracy and a bill of rights! How interesting. I suppose if the coin were flipped, you imagine that West Pakistanis would have supported independence from the East Wing of the country on this basis.

Bhutto’s statements are well documented, that is why I don’t view him as being guiltless in this saga. His ambition at the expense of the country is also well known.

Firstly I am no supporter at large of military rule; I don’t condone the Zia regime, the Ayub Khan regime, nor will I embrace the likes of Iskandar Mirza etc., in short the lot of them. Nor am I a fan of Gohar Ayub. These people plundered the country to line their own pockets at the expense of both East and West.

I have never generally been of the view that military rule was ever a positive good in itself, but unfortunately, the type of people who become involved in politics in the Subcontinent are also generally either rogues, scoundrels, bank defaulters, outright criminals or even traitors. I define treason personally as willingness to sell your country down the river for personal gain. In this sense Pakistan and Bangladesh have seen an awful lot of traitors come to power be it through the ballot box or by Coup. Their politics is a sham for the illiterate masses while they enrich their personal bank accounts. G-D alone knows if this is the curse of the British inherited parliamentary system. Couldn’t the sub-continent, if it had to be colonized have been colonized by the Americans! At least they might have left us with a better idea of what a written constitution should incorporate, and a system of Constitutional checks and balances far better than the crude improvisations of modified parliamentarianism tried thus far. Of course we’d be playing baseball, not cricket. Hmmm, would I trade that for a government for the people, by the people and of the people?

I think that while you’ll find that West Pakistanis would be willing to support peaceful protests in favor of democracy quite willingly, Mujib was interested in absolute power. That is one very believable version of the truth that can be and has been borne out by the facts. (Especially the period of his rule 1972-75).

President Yahya was I believe sincere about handing over power, but not as I have repeatedly stated at the cost of the breakup of the country, which it seemed Mujib was inclined to do. In a peculiar situation like that of United Pakistan, with each wing 1000 miles apart obviously some compromises had to be made to keep the country together. Mujib’s attitude hardened considerably by March 1971. Bhutto was threatening

not to attend the Convening of the National Assembly, and keep the rest of the elected representatives of the Western Wing from doing so as well. In this situation, obviously the country would have been divided,with only half represented. The other half, Mujib, who had an absolute majority in the Assembly could have done whatever he wished even if the Western Wing’s elected Representatives attended, and framed the constitution as he saw fit. All he really had to do was demonstrate a willingness to negotiate flexibly, but no, Mr.Mujib was bent on confrontation. Now the army was I agree stuck with its anti-democratic reputation and open to suspicion, but given the fact that the election of 1970 had indeed materialized, I think Mujib and Bengalis actions were mean spirited. And what they did was not confined to, ‘a student protest’, which is the impression your account attempts ton convey. This was much more than that. It reached a point, where it became treason to United Pakistan in the name of ‘democracy’. How come there was no reaction in the West to the suspension of the Assembly, no protests, no public outcry? Do you think West Pakistanis loved democracy any less than you did? Me personally, I know exactly what virtues democracy has brought to the people of Pakistan and Bangladesh, so when it comes to making my choice I choose to stand for a United Country, even if that means choosing un-elected scoundrels over elected ones . Since, both Army Generals and Politicians are proven crooks. Now it’s a fine line in the circumstances, but with the progressive radicalization of the movement, which became a mass movement, coercion and intimidation became the norm, as did violence and murder. The people being attacked however, were not the representatives of ‘the Colonial Power,’ but ordinary non-Bengalis and those who did not support the Awami’s League’s Secret agenda to break up the country, which its rank and file supported. Perhaps you hoped for a better tomorrow. I don’t think Mujib gave it to you, if you drop the rhetoric of the sacred cow; ‘Banga Bandhu’, and look at reality. Wanton destruction of property and mob violence is not my idea of the struggle for democracy. I realize that revolution can be bloody. I ask you, do you justify it in terms of what it cost? I realize also that the fact of ‘independence’ to you today is probably worth those sacrifices. While the argument that you were against the continued military rule by Yahya Khan, and the West Pakistani clique of generals is plausible, and even receives sympathetic ears from many, I frankly think you people didn’t care whether it led to the breakup of the country or not. In fact you cheerfully welcomed it, with rivers of the blood of Non-Bengalis, which Bengalis bathed in. You also wanted a separate nation well before March 1971, democracy or no democracy, an were willing to seek Indian help to do it, which also amounts to treason in the eyes of ALL Pakistanis, in 1971 or 1999.

So pardon me for my lack of willingness to ‘right’ any historical ‘wrongs’ Bengalis may have suffered as a consequence of the Pakistan army’s actions. I said it before and I’ll say it again; Mujib Ur Rehman was both ‘a liberator’, and ‘a traitor.’ The Pakistan army was commanded by ‘animals’ and, ‘heroic defenders of the motherland.’ What was done leaves both sides morally culpable. If you want to start talking about ‘justice’, I too will start by not only putting all Bengali national ‘heroes’ on trial, but the entire nation of Bengalis for Treason. Let sleeping dogs lie. This is my sincere advice to all Bengalis. Justice is not available to either of us for historical ‘rights’ and ‘wrongs.’ Only fools dream of getting ‘justice’ under these circumstances. Take it from me. And that really is, ‘the way it was’. Jamal Hasan’s account shall remain just that, one account as will almost all other accounts that attempt universalism. It shall never define any Universal historical truth much as the professor? would like it to. It is Uni-dimensional at best.

Sincerely,

Omar Mirza

Reply to OMAR1974`s Reply # 256:

Re: The 2 Bengali Khans posts and my final wrapup

Mr. M.N Khan and Mr. KOKhan have articulated a very appetizing view of history. Even I’m tempted to take a bite out of it. Smells good, bet it tastes even better. So, the freedom loving Bengalis of 1971 were actually fighting for democracy, and the demand for independence just sort of ‘happened’ along the way. The reason seems to be a disgust with military dictatorship from the Western Wing of the country onto the East. What the.Khans are in effect saying, is that if the dictatorship of Pakistan were led by East Pakistanis for long periods after independence, there would have been no call for independence/secession, just democracy and a bill of rights! How interesting. I suppose if the coin were flipped, you imagine that West Pakistanis would have supported independence from the East Wing of the country on this basis.

Bhutto’s statements are well documented, that is why I don’t view him as being guiltless in this saga. His ambition at the expense of the country is also well known.

Firstly I am no supporter at large of military rule; I don’t condone the Zia regime, the Ayub Khan regime, nor will I embrace the likes of Iskandar Mirza etc., in short the lot of them. Nor am I a fan of Gohar Ayub. These people plundered the country to line their own pockets at the expense of both East and West.

I have never generally been of the view that military rule was ever a positive good in itself, but unfortunately, the type of people who become involved in politics in the Subcontinent are also generally either rogues, scoundrels, bank defaulters, outright criminals or even traitors. I define treason personally as willingness to sell your country down the river for personal gain. In this sense Pakistan and Bangladesh have seen an awful lot of traitors come to power be it through the ballot box or by Coup. Their politics is a sham for the illiterate masses while they enrich their personal bank accounts. G-D alone knows if this is the curse of the British inherited parliamentary system. Couldn’t the sub-continent, if it had to be colonized have been colonized by the Americans! At least they might have left us with a better idea of what a written constitution should incorporate, and a system of Constitutional checks and balances far better than the crude improvisations of modified parliamentarianism tried thus far. Of course we’d be playing baseball, not cricket. Hmmm, would I trade that for a government for the people, by the people and of the people?

I think that while you’ll find that West Pakistanis would be willing to support peaceful protests in favor of democracy quite willingly, Mujib was interested in absolute power. That is one very believable version of the truth that can be and has been borne out by the facts. (Especially the period of his rule 1972-75).

President Yahya was I believe sincere about handing over power, but not as I have repeatedly stated at the cost of the breakup of the country, which it seemed Mujib was inclined to do. In a peculiar situation like that of United Pakistan, with each wing 1000 miles apart obviously some compromises had to be made to keep the country together. Mujib’s attitude hardened considerably by March 1971. Bhutto was threatening

not to attend the Convening of the National Assembly, and keep the rest of the elected representatives of the Western Wing from doing so as well. In this situation, obviously the country would have been divided, with only half represented. The other half, Mujib, who had an absolute majority in the Assembly could have done whatever he wished even if the Western Wing’s elected Representatives attended, and framed the constitution as he saw fit. All he really had to do was demonstrate a willingness to negotiate flexibly, but no, Mr.Mujib was bent on confrontation. Now the army was I agree stuck with its anti-democratic reputation and open to suspicion, but given the fact that the election of 1970 had indeed materialized, I think Mujib and Bengalis actions were mean spirited. And what they did was not confined to, ‘a student protest’, which is the impression your account attempts to convey. This was much more than that. It reached a point, where it became treason to United Pakistan in the name of ‘democracy’. How come there was no reaction in the West to the suspension of the Assembly, no protests, no public outcry? Do you think West Pakistanis loved democracy any less than you did? Me personally, I know exactly what virtues democracy has brought to the people of Pakistan and Bangladesh, so when it comes to making my choice I choose to stand for a United Country, even if that means choosing un-elected scoundrels over elected ones . Since, both Army Generals and Politicians are proven crooks. Now it’s a fine line in the circumstances, but with the progressive radicalization of the movement, which became a mass movement, coercion and intimidation became the norm, as did violence and murder. The people being attacked however, were not the representatives of ‘the Colonial Power,’ but ordinary non-Bengalis and those who did not support the Awami’s League’s Secret agenda to break up the country, which its rank and file supported. Perhaps you hoped for a better tomorrow. I don’t think Mujib gave it to you, if you drop the rhetoric of the sacred cow; ‘Banga Bandhu’, and look at reality. Wanton destruction of property and mob violence is not my idea of the struggle for democracy. I realize that revolution can be bloody. I ask you, do you justify it in terms of what it cost? I realize also that the fact of ‘independence’ to you today is probably worth those sacrifices. While the argument that you were against the continued military rule by Yahya Khan, and the West Pakistani clique of generals is plausible, and even receives sympathetic ears from many, I frankly think you people didn’t care whether it led to the breakup of the country or not. In fact you cheerfully welcomed it, with rivers of the blood of Non-Bengalis, which Bengalis bathed in. You also wanted a separate nation well before March 1971, democracy or no democracy, and were willing to seek Indian help to do it, which also amounts to treason in the eyes of ALL Pakistanis, in 1971 or 1999.

So pardon me for my lack of willingness to ‘right’ any historical ‘wrongs’ Bengalis may have suffered as a consequence of the Pakistan army’s actions. I said it before and I’ll say it again; Mujib Ur Rehman was both ‘a liberator’, and ‘a traitor.’ The Pakistan army was commanded by ‘animals’ and, ‘heroic defenders of the motherland.’ What was done leaves both sides morally culpable. If you want to start talking about ‘justice’, I too will start by not only putting all Bengali national ‘heroes’ on trial, but the entire nation of Bengalis for Treason. Let sleeping dogs lie. This is my sincere advice to all Bengalis. Justice is not available to either of us for historical ‘rights’ and ‘wrongs.’ Only fools dream of getting ‘justice’ under these circumstances. Take it from me. And that really is, ‘the way it was’. Jamal Hasan’s account shall remain just that, one account as will almost all other accounts that attempt to aspire to universalism. It shall never define any Universal historical truth much as the professor? would like it to. It is Uni-dimensional at best.

Sincerely,

Omar Mirza

Mr. M.N Khan has articulated a very appetizing view of history. Even I’m tempted to take a bite out of it. Smells good, bet it tastes even better. So, the freedom loving Bengalis of 1971 were actually fighting for democracy, and the demand for independence just sort of ‘happened’ along the way. The reason seems to

be a disgust with military dictatorship from the Western Wing of the country onto the East. What Mr.Khan is in effect saying, is that if the dictatorship of Pakistan were led by East Pakistanis for long periods after independence, there would have been no call for independence/secession, just democracy and a bill of rights! How interesting. I suppose if the coin were flipped, you imagine that West Pakistanis would have supported independence from the East Wing of the country on this basis.

Bhutto’s statements are well documented, that is why I don’t view him as being guiltless in this saga. His ambition at the expense of the country is also well known.

Firstly I am no supporter at large of military rule; I don’t condone the Zia regime, the Ayub Khan regime, nor will I embrace the likes of Iskandar Mirza etc., in short the lot of them. Nor am I a fan of Gohar Ayub. These people plundered the country to line their own pockets at the expense of both East and West.

I have never generally been of the view that military rule was ever a positive good in itself, but unfortunately, the type of people who become involved in politics in the Subcontinent are also generally either rogues, scoundrels, bank defaulters, outright criminals or even traitors. I define treason personally as willingness to sell your country down the river for personal gain. In this sense Pakistan and Bangladesh have seen an awful lot of traitors come to power be it through the ballot box or by Coup. Their politics is a sham for the illiterate masses while they enrich their personal bank accounts. G-D alone knows if this is the curse of the British inherited parliamentary system. Couldn’t the sub-continent, if it had to be colonized have been colonized by the Americans! At least they might have left us with a better idea of what a written constitution should incorporate, and a system of Constitutional checks and balances far better than the crude improvisations of modified parliamentarianism tried thus far. Of course we’d be playing baseball, not cricket. Hmmm, would I trade that for a government for the people, by the people and of the people?

I think that while you’ll find that West Pakistanis would be willing to support peaceful protests in favor of democracy quite willingly, Mujib was interested in absolute power. That is one very believable version of the truth that can be and has been borne out by the facts. (Especially the period of his rule 1972-75).

President Yahya was I believe sincere about handing over power, but not as I have repeatedly stated at the cost of the breakup of the country, which it seemed Mujib was inclined to do. In a peculiar situation like that of United Pakistan, with each wing 1000 miles apart obviously some compromises had to be made to keep the country together. Mujib’s attitude hardened considerably by March 1971. Bhutto was threatening

not to attend the Convening of the National Assembly, and keep the rest of the elected representatives of the Western Wing from doing so as well. In this situation, obviously the country would have been divided,with only half represented. The other half, Mujib, who had an absolute majority in the Assembly could have done whatever he wished even if the Western Wing’s elected Representatives attended, and framed the constitution as he saw fit. All he really had to do was demonstrate a willingness to negotiate flexibly, but no, Mr.Mujib was bent on confrontation. Now the army was I agree stuck with its anti-democratic reputation and open to suspicion, but given the fact that the election of 1970 had indeed materialized, I think Mujib and Bengalis actions were mean spirited. And what they did was not confined to, ‘a student protest’, which is the impression your account attempts ton convey. This was much more than that. It reached a point, where it became treason to United Pakistan in the name of ‘democracy’. How come there was no reaction in the West to the suspension of the Assembly, no protests, no public outcry? Do you think West Pakistanis loved democracy any less than you did? Me personally, I know exactly what virtues democracy has brought to the people of Pakistan and Bangladesh, so when it comes to making my choice I choose to stand for a United Country, even if that means choosing un-elected scoundrels over elected ones . Since, both Army Generals and Politicians are proven crooks. Now it’s a fine line in the circumstances, but with the progressive radicalization of the movement, which became a mass movement, coercion and intimidation became the norm, as did violence and murder. The people being attacked however, were not the representatives of ‘the Colonial Power,’ but ordinary non-Bengalis and those who did not support the Awami’s League’s Secret agenda to break up the country, which its rank and file supported. Perhaps you hoped for a better tomorrow. I don’t think Mujib gave it to you, if you drop the rhetoric of the sacred cow; ‘Banga Bandhu’, and look at reality. Wanton destruction of property and mob violence is not my idea of the struggle for democracy. I realize that revolution can be bloody. I ask you, do you justify it in terms of what it cost? I realize also that the fact of ‘independence’ to you today is probably worth those sacrifices. While the argument that you were against the continued military rule by Yahya Khan, and the West Pakistani clique of generals is plausible, and even receives sympathetic ears from many, I frankly think you people didn’t care whether it led to the breakup of the country or not. In fact you cheerfully welcomed it, with rivers of the blood of Non-Bengalis, which Bengalis bathed in. You also wanted a separate nation well before March 1971, democracy or no democracy, an were willing to seek Indian help to do it, which also amounts to treason in the eyes of ALL Pakistanis, in 1971 or 1999.

So pardon me for my lack of willingness to ‘right’ any historical ‘wrongs’ Bengalis may have suffered as a consequence of the Pakistan army’s actions. I said it before and I’ll say it again; Mujib Ur Rehman was both ‘a liberator’, and ‘a traitor.’ The Pakistan army was commanded by ‘animals’ and, ‘heroic defenders of the motherland.’ What was done leaves both sides morally culpable. If you want to start talking about ‘justice’, I too will start by not only putting all Bengali national ‘heroes’ on trial, but the entire nation of Bengalis for Treason. Let sleeping dogs lie. This is my sincere advice to all Bengalis. Justice is not available to either of us for historical ‘rights’ and ‘wrongs.’ Only fools dream of getting ‘justice’ under these circumstances. Take it from me. And that really is, ‘the way it was’. Jamal Hasan’s account shall remain just that, one account as will almost all other accounts that attempt universalism. It shall never define any Universal historical truth much as the professor? would like it to. It is Uni-dimensional at best.

Sincerely,

Omar Mirza

Re: The 2 Bengali Khans posts and my final wrapup

Mr. M.N Khan and Mr. KOKhan have articulated a very appetizing view of history. Even I’m tempted to take a bite out of it. Smells good, bet it tastes even better. So, the freedom loving Bengalis of 1971 were actually fighting for democracy, and the demand for independence just sort of ‘happened’ along the way. The reason seems to be a disgust with military dictatorship from the Western Wing of the country onto the East. What the.Khans are in effect saying, is that if the dictatorship of Pakistan were led by East Pakistanis for long periods after independence, there would have been no call for independence/secession, just democracy and a bill of rights! How interesting. I suppose if the coin were flipped, you imagine that West Pakistanis would have supported independence from the East Wing of the country on this basis.

Bhutto’s statements are well documented, that is why I don’t view him as being guiltless in this saga. His ambition at the expense of the country is also well known.

Firstly I am no supporter at large of military rule; I don’t condone the Zia regime, the Ayub Khan regime, nor will I embrace the likes of Iskandar Mirza etc., in short the lot of them. Nor am I a fan of Gohar Ayub. These people plundered the country to line their own pockets at the expense of both East and West.

I have never generally been of the view that military rule was ever a positive good in itself, but unfortunately, the type of people who become involved in politics in the Subcontinent are also generally either rogues, scoundrels, bank defaulters, outright criminals or even traitors. I define treason personally as willingness to sell your country down the river for personal gain. In this sense Pakistan and Bangladesh have seen an awful lot of traitors come to power be it through the ballot box or by Coup. Their politics is a sham for the illiterate masses while they enrich their personal bank accounts. G-D alone knows if this is the curse of the British inherited parliamentary system. Couldn’t the sub-continent, if it had to be colonized have been colonized by the Americans! At least they might have left us with a better idea of what a written constitution should incorporate, and a system of Constitutional checks and balances far better than the crude improvisations of modified parliamentarianism tried thus far. Of course we’d be playing baseball, not cricket. Hmmm, would I trade that for a government for the people, by the people and of the people?

I think that while you’ll find that West Pakistanis would be willing to support peaceful protests in favor of democracy quite willingly, Mujib was interested in absolute power. That is one very believable version of the truth that can be and has been borne out by the facts. (Especially the period of his rule 1972-75).

President Yahya was I believe sincere about handing over power, but not as I have repeatedly stated at the cost of the breakup of the country, which it seemed Mujib was inclined to do. In a peculiar situation like that of United Pakistan, with each wing 1000 miles apart obviously some compromises had to be made to keep the country together. Mujib’s attitude hardened considerably by March 1971. Bhutto was threatening

not to attend the Convening of the National Assembly, and keep the rest of the elected representatives of the Western Wing from doing so as well. In this situation, obviously the country would have been divided, with only half represented. The other half, Mujib, who had an absolute majority in the Assembly could have done whatever he wished even if the Western Wing’s elected Representatives attended, and framed the constitution as he saw fit. All he really had to do was demonstrate a willingness to negotiate flexibly, but no, Mr.Mujib was bent on confrontation. Now the army was I agree stuck with its anti-democratic reputation and open to suspicion, but given the fact that the election of 1970 had indeed materialized, I think Mujib and Bengalis actions were mean spirited. And what they did was not confined to, ‘a student protest’, which is the impression your account attempts to convey. This was much more than that. It reached a point, where it became treason to United Pakistan in the name of ‘democracy’. How come there was no reaction in the West to the suspension of the Assembly, no protests, no public outcry? Do you think West Pakistanis loved democracy any less than you did? Me personally, I know exactly what virtues democracy has brought to the people of Pakistan and Bangladesh, so when it comes to making my choice I choose to stand for a United Country, even if that means choosing un-elected scoundrels over elected ones . Since, both Army Generals and Politicians are proven crooks. Now it’s a fine line in the circumstances, but with the progressive radicalization of the movement, which became a mass movement, coercion and intimidation became the norm, as did violence and murder. The people being attacked however, were not the representatives of ‘the Colonial Power,’ but ordinary non-Bengalis and those who did not support the Awami’s League’s Secret agenda to break up the country, which its rank and file supported. Perhaps you hoped for a better tomorrow. I don’t think Mujib gave it to you, if you drop the rhetoric of the sacred cow; ‘Banga Bandhu’, and look at reality. Wanton destruction of property and mob violence is not my idea of the struggle for democracy. I realize that revolution can be bloody. I ask you, do you justify it in terms of what it cost? I realize also that the fact of ‘independence’ to you today is probably worth those sacrifices. While the argument that you were against the continued military rule by Yahya Khan, and the West Pakistani clique of generals is plausible, and even receives sympathetic ears from many, I frankly think you people didn’t care whether it led to the breakup of the country or not. In fact you cheerfully welcomed it, with rivers of the blood of Non-Bengalis, which Bengalis bathed in. You also wanted a separate nation well before March 1971, democracy or no democracy, and were willing to seek Indian help to do it, which also amounts to treason in the eyes of ALL Pakistanis, in 1971 or 1999.

So pardon me for my lack of willingness to ‘right’ any historical ‘wrongs’ Bengalis may have suffered as a consequence of the Pakistan army’s actions. I said it before and I’ll say it again; Mujib Ur Rehman was both ‘a liberator’, and ‘a traitor.’ The Pakistan army was commanded by ‘animals’ and, ‘heroic defenders of the motherland.’ What was done leaves both sides morally culpable. If you want to start talking about ‘justice’, I too will start by not only putting all Bengali national ‘heroes’ on trial, but the entire nation of Bengalis for Treason. Let sleeping dogs lie. This is my sincere advice to all Bengalis. Justice is not available to either of us for historical ‘rights’ and ‘wrongs.’ Only fools dream of getting ‘justice’ under these circumstances. Take it from me. And that really is, ‘the way it was’. Jamal Hasan’s account shall remain just that, one account as will almost all other accounts that attempt to aspire to universalism. It shall never define any Universal historical truth much as the professor? would like it to. It is Uni-dimensional at best.

Sincerely,

Omar Mirza

Mr. M.N Khan has articulated a very appetizing view of history. Even I’m tempted to take a bite out of it. Smells good, bet it tastes even better. So, the freedom loving Bengalis of 1971 were actually fighting for democracy, and the demand for independence just sort of ‘happened’ along the way. The reason seems to

be a disgust with military dictatorship from the Western Wing of the country onto the East. What Mr.Khan is in effect saying, is that if the dictatorship of Pakistan were led by East Pakistanis for long periods after independence, there would have been no call for independence/secession, just democracy and a bill of rights! How interesting. I suppose if the coin were flipped, you imagine that West Pakistanis would have supported independence from the East Wing of the country on this basis.

Bhutto’s statements are well documented, that is why I don’t view him as being guiltless in this saga. His ambition at the expense of the country is also well known.

Firstly I am no supporter at large of military rule; I don’t condone the Zia regime, the Ayub Khan regime, nor will I embrace the likes of Iskandar Mirza etc., in short the lot of them. Nor am I a fan of Gohar Ayub. These people plundered the country to line their own pockets at the expense of both East and West.

I have never generally been of the view that military rule was ever a positive good in itself, but unfortunately, the type of people who become involved in politics in the Subcontinent are also generally either rogues, scoundrels, bank defaulters, outright criminals or even traitors. I define treason personally as willingness to sell your country down the river for personal gain. In this sense Pakistan and Bangladesh have seen an awful lot of traitors come to power be it through the ballot box or by Coup. Their politics is a sham for the illiterate masses while they enrich their personal bank accounts. G-D alone knows if this is the curse of the British inherited parliamentary system. Couldn’t the sub-continent, if it had to be colonized have been colonized by the Americans! At least they might have left us with a better idea of what a written constitution should incorporate, and a system of Constitutional checks and balances far better than the crude improvisations of modified parliamentarianism tried thus far. Of course we’d be playing baseball, not cricket. Hmmm, would I trade that for a government for the people, by the people and of the people?

I think that while you’ll find that West Pakistanis would be willing to support peaceful protests in favor of democracy quite willingly, Mujib was interested in absolute power. That is one very believable version of the truth that can be and has been borne out by the facts. (Especially the period of his rule 1972-75).

President Yahya was I believe sincere about handing over power, but not as I have repeatedly stated at the cost of the breakup of the country, which it seemed Mujib was inclined to do. In a peculiar situation like that of United Pakistan, with each wing 1000 miles apart obviously some compromises had to be made to keep the country together. Mujib’s attitude hardened considerably by March 1971. Bhutto was threatening

not to attend the Convening of the National Assembly, and keep the rest of the elected representatives of the Western Wing from doing so as well. In this situation, obviously the country would have been divided,with only half represented. The other half, Mujib, who had an absolute majority in the Assembly could have done whatever he wished even if the Western Wing’s elected Representatives attended, and framed the constitution as he saw fit. All he really had to do was demonstrate a willingness to negotiate flexibly, but no, Mr.Mujib was bent on confrontation. Now the army was I agree stuck with its anti-democratic reputation and open to suspicion, but given the fact that the election of 1970 had indeed materialized, I think Mujib and Bengalis actions were mean spirited. And what they did was not confined to, ‘a student protest’, which is the impression your account attempts ton convey. This was much more than that. It reached a point, where it became treason to United Pakistan in the name of ‘democracy’. How come there was no reaction in the West to the suspension of the Assembly, no protests, no public outcry? Do you think West Pakistanis loved democracy any less than you did? Me personally, I know exactly what virtues democracy has brought to the people of Pakistan and Bangladesh, so when it comes to making my choice I choose to stand for a United Country, even if that means choosing un-elected scoundrels over elected ones . Since, both Army Generals and Politicians are proven crooks. Now it’s a fine line in the circumstances, but with the progressive radicalization of the movement, which became a mass movement, coercion and intimidation became the norm, as did violence and murder. The people being attacked however, were not the representatives of ‘the Colonial Power,’ but ordinary non-Bengalis and those who did not support the Awami’s League’s Secret agenda to break up the country, which its rank and file supported. Perhaps you hoped for a better tomorrow. I don’t think Mujib gave it to you, if you drop the rhetoric of the sacred cow; ‘Banga Bandhu’, and look at reality. Wanton destruction of property and mob violence is not my idea of the struggle for democracy. I realize that revolution can be bloody. I ask you, do you justify it in terms of what it cost? I realize also that the fact of ‘independence’ to you today is probably worth those sacrifices. While the argument that you were against the continued military rule by Yahya Khan, and the West Pakistani clique of generals is plausible, and even receives sympathetic ears from many, I frankly think you people didn’t care whether it led to the breakup of the country or not. In fact you cheerfully welcomed it, with rivers of the blood of Non-Bengalis, which Bengalis bathed in. You also wanted a separate nation well before March 1971, democracy or no democracy, an were willing to seek Indian help to do it, which also amounts to treason in the eyes of ALL Pakistanis, in 1971 or 1999.

So pardon me for my lack of willingness to ‘right’ any historical ‘wrongs’ Bengalis may have suffered as a consequence of the Pakistan army’s actions. I said it before and I’ll say it again; Mujib Ur Rehman was both ‘a liberator’, and ‘a traitor.’ The Pakistan army was commanded by ‘animals’ and, ‘heroic defenders of the motherland.’ What was done leaves both sides morally culpable. If you want to start talking about ‘justice’, I too will start by not only putting all Bengali national ‘heroes’ on trial, but the entire nation of Bengalis for Treason. Let sleeping dogs lie. This is my sincere advice to all Bengalis. Justice is not available to either of us for historical ‘rights’ and ‘wrongs.’ Only fools dream of getting ‘justice’ under these circumstances. Take it from me. And that really is, ‘the way it was’. Jamal Hasan’s account shall remain just that, one account as will almost all other accounts that attempt universalism. It shall never define any Universal historical truth much as the professor? would like it to. It is Uni-dimensional at best.

Sincerely,

Omar Mirza

You know what, I think NATO pilots and the political leadership of these countries should be tried for warcrimes against the peaceful, `freedom loving Serbs of 1999.` Then let us try the PAF for warcrimes against `Bangla Desh,` it makes just as much sense! Both bombed enemy targets, missed, and killed civilans. Yes, NATO pilots SHOULD be brought before the Hague War Crimes Tribunals, as should their Commanding Officers.

Also add these ‘facts’ to my previous post’s hypothetical in context after reading it carefully:

Also, Mr. M.N Khan incidentally conveniently happens to be the one who captured the leader of the ‘anti-people’ Group in 1971. And the ‘anti-people group’ resisting ‘liberation,’ also killed some of those who attempted to ‘liberate’ them of lives and property in the process of the ‘liberation struggle’. The ‘anti people,’ coincidentally also happened to be economically better off than the ‘liberation party.’

Rebuttal to FerozK and the other person’s views on Z.A Khan being someone who now, ‘apparently or convincingly,’ fits the ‘profile of a war criminal,’ as well as the ridiculous suggestion that the internet be made a ‘tool’ for ‘trying war criminals,’ earlier by a certain individual.

Here is a hypothetical situation which in no way should be take as either a personal insult, or allegation against any individual whatsoever.

I will use Mr. M.N Khan as a subject to demonstrate an example of a hypothetical situation, without any intention or personal malice whatsoever, of creating any implication as to the life and times of the actual Mr M.N Khan. I really know nothing about this gentleman beyond the fact that he claims to have witnessed some of the events that occurred, I use him only because we are engaged in ‘a bitter internet debate.’

Let us say for example, that Mr.M.N Khan, a self proclaimed ‘survivor’ of the occupation of ‘Bangla Desh,’ by West Pakistani Colonial forces decided to write a book about his ENTIRE life, in vivid detail, leaving out nothing, well I’ll be generous, he left out no incident which seemed of particular importance to him personally. Let us also say, for argument’s sake that Mr.M.N Khan was in fact deeply involved in the ‘political events’ of 1971, as a hard-core Awami League supporter and member, who was bound to unquestioningly follow the dictates, whims and directions of the ‘leader,’ of a movement for independence for East Pakistan. He was ordered into the streets to ‘protest.’ In the course of said protest, being a member of an ‘army’ of protestors these ‘peaceable’ protestors undertook to deprive certain elements of the population at large known to be hostile or indifferent to their self proclaimed nationalist ideology of both life and property. Let us say, also for argument’s sake that while M.N.Khan was indeed an active ‘participant’ in these ‘peaceable’ ‘political protests’, he saw much, but not everything, since the crowds were very large and the pace of the ‘protest’ fast moving. As a senior member of the ideological following of this ‘leader’ of the ‘revolution,’ he commanded authority, and his orders in turn were followed by the ‘largely peaceful, freedom loving, oppressed PARTIZANS of Bangla Desh,’ in the streets of Dacca. Some of these elements may have, while subject to his orders killed, looted, plunder, possibly raped. The ‘freedom movement’ also has/had a definite structure parallel to a military force. In fact, it considered itself and the territory it resided in to be ‘independent’, and demanded foreign diplomatic recognition on March 7th. This was granted, by a number of sympathetic states. Hence, it now claimed sovereignty, and all the attributes of a state, including its responsibilities in terms of international law. It also collected custom excise taxes and the like in terms of revenue from the population.

Now, would you suppose that three decades after the event, and my reading his biography, I, as a former citizen of a defeated power would not be morally outraged at his clams to have fought a ‘liberation war’, or to have suppressed ‘anti-people’ forces in the course of ‘liberation.’ Naturally I should be deeply outraged at the variety of murders, looting etc conducted by the ‘warriors of liberation under the banner of Bangla Desh’, under his command. You know what, I wouldn’t be alone. Let us also say his book was made freely available on the internet. Let us then say that I chose to dig up the skeletons from 30 year old closets and present my biased account of what happened, presenting myself and my compatriot non-Bengalis as victims of a ‘genocide’ committed by the nation of ‘Bangla Desh’ upon me. I then find a publisher interested in Commercial gain such as Chowk. They publish the piece wherein I name Mr. M.N.Khan

as someone who, ‘fits the profile of a war criminal.’ Why? Because as a lieutenant of the ‘liberation party,’who has recently told his tale, I hold him responsible for all actions that occurred under his command. A debate ensues, and I find like minded oppressed victims of ‘Bangla Desh’ coming out of the woodwork.

These people too accuse Mr.M.N Khan of someone who, ‘fits the profile of a war criminal,’ finally, because his life is well documented one of these people pipes up about an event he described in his book, giving the time and place of a certain ‘street protest,’ he led during the tumult. This person has his version to tell too from his particular memories. This person knows people were killed during this particular, ‘street protest.’ So, he says now, I would like to ask him (Mr.M.N Khan) about such and such deaths by the crowds you claim to have led. Such and Such people can now place you there. This person being one who considers himself a ‘victim’ of the ‘liberators’ of ‘Bangla Desh,’ also has the prior belief which he personally feels morally justified in, that ALL those who were there were guilty of ‘crimes against humanity.’ He dos not feel it necessary to justify their conviction on any actual, substantive proof, but is most eager that they should be able to be variously described by other survivors of this ‘holocaust’ as persons fitting the bill of particulars of ‘war criminals.’ They are all guilty anyhow. Whats the big deal. Then certain other anonymous people pipe up on the internet and they say, NOW, the charges are substantiated sufficiently that one may bring such accusations without any further fear! Meanwhile, I, deeply motivated by the wrongs committed by the ‘liberators’ of Bangla Desh scour the non-Bengali survivors with book in hand and find someone, even dozens of embittered people who were the ‘ant-people’ elements attacked in 1971. Its not difficult at all to convince them of the moral worth of my cause. In fact, I don’t even have to do it personally. We all feel exactly the same way. They want revenge for their lost loved ones after all, and one ‘liberator’s hide’ is as good as anothers. So, on this basis I the author of what on its face is in fact a defamatory piece herald these people before a civil judge when sued for defamation, and these people testify t my ‘crimes’, real or fictitious. Best of all, they do so with clear consciences. To make them credible, I pull out otherwise upstanding members of the community such as professors, doctors, and other professionals. They read the book, they know what to say. We all also share a common national myth now.

Yes, you are right ... On this basis alone, anyone, even an otherwise honorable man can probably be defamed. Yes, the internet should indeed become the forum for trying ‘war criminals’, or at least establishing their prima facie culpability. This is the wave of the future indeed...

Re: Post #252

Mr. Omar Mirza:

Do not kid yourself. I suppose you were not born in 1971.

I saw it all. Let me go to the background of the so-called East Pakistan debacle(many Pakistanis love to call it that way)

I am sure you read Pakistan`s history. I do not know like in Bangladesh, the history of Pakistan changes as a new regime comes to power. But I am sure you are aware of Gen. Iskander Mirza and self-styled Field Marshall Ayub Khan. Since 1958 the prospect of keeping eastern wing died. Why? The coterie of Punjab dominated military and civilian bureaucrats did not want democracy to flourish in Pakistan. Why? Because their racist agenda did not allow Bengalis, Sindhis, Balochs, and Pashtuns to have rights for self determination.

The eleven point movement in 1969 was a combined effort of students of both the wings of Pakistan. Ayub Khan was toppled. Who came to power? Agha Muhammad Yahya Khan. It was probably 25th March of 1969. I still recall the left leaning student leader Tariq Ali, in a BBC interview said, ``The East Pakistanis would start a movement for secession, because they do not trust the Pakistani army``. You may have access to a library; please try to get Tariq Ali`s ``Pakistan:

Military rule or people`s power``. I am not sure if the book is still banned in Pakistan.

Bengalis saw one iron man goes, another one comes. Even then they trusted Yahya as he gave the election. Yahya probably imagine that the Bengalisn would overwhemly vote for Awami

League in 1970. Any way all on a sudden the postponement of national assembly`s session was the last straw that broke the camel`s back.

From Bengali point of view, they were sick and tired. They could hardly believe any of the iron man from the far west. After 1969 students achieved tremendous political power in East Pakistan. As far as I know students in both the wings in 1969-1970 enjoyed such privileges as

student concession in bus services, cinema etc.

The postponement of assembly session was like a bomb shell in East Pakistan. Students came down the street with one demand - total independence. The primary anger was not directed towards the entity called Pakistan, rather the to the main villain called Pakistann army. Sheikh Mujib was hesitant, his 6-point demand was the main objective. It was not far from the original Lahore Resolution. Anyway, the Sheikh was under tremendous pressure from the student fronts. During this time the chess game with the vested interest, i.e, the coterie was starting.

Mujib was not a revolutionary. His political career was always encircling around democratic movement. He passed many precious years behind bar. In fact, Ayub Khan did not allow him to be out of prison more than a year.

The March of 1971 was a month of agitation. Students were getting trained to confront the ``future attacks`` from Pak army. Mujib was naive enough to trust Yahya and Bhutto. When the negotiation was going on, the coterie in the western wing were sending troops. Mujib knew everything. He was cautioned many times. Nonetheless, the talks went on. Some of the students were getting training with dummy rifles.

Ironically, they were doing the training on an open field in the university. Pak army jeeps were crossing and the officers or soldiers could easily watch the ``progress in training``. If somebody said the students were armed to teeth, would be an extraordinary exaggeration. They did not have

any LMG, Heavy machine gun. Neither they had mortars or grenades. Some of them might have home made molotov cocktails. There could be some 303 or pistols.

On the night when the Pak army attacked Jagannath Hall and Iqbal Hall, some of the less cautious students were still staying there. The army did not have much difficulty in combing the student dormitories. As a gesture of humor the dummy rifles were laid by the dead bodies of the students. This incident is well witnessed and documented.

mnk