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

OMAR1974 quotes L.Rshbrook Williams in The East Pakistan Tragedy, ``Yet the world had been made to believe that it was the Army, not the Bengali mobs, that was guilty of genocide.`` Rushbrook, if he hasn`t changed his mind since then, will have the same complaint even today about world versus L.Rushbrook Williams on ``East Pakistan.`` Pak army officers indeed have a vested interest to embrace this version of events in ``East Pakistan`` even if it is in conflict with that in the rest of the world.

Re: Post #222

Although Omar Mirza and I are engaging in a bitter

Internet debate, I uphold his right to free speech.

The sudden meddling of a PPP functionary is uncalled for. This is a big brotherly nuisance. When Omar called Sheikh Mujib a ``Ghaddar`` no Awami

League functionary got involved.

The PPP functionary needs to see some Clinton jokes on the Internet. Or watch an episode of Saturday Night Live.

Also, the way the PPP person posted, it seems to be nothing less than a threat.

---Mohammad Nawaz Khan

From Omar?s response #243

Excerpt from `The East Pakistan Tragedy` by L. Rushbrook Williams

``That the troops were confined to the barracks by the orders of the Governor, mobs armed with firearms, staves and iron bars raided business premises in Jinnah Avenue and Baitul Mukarram. The Shalimar Hotel and the Gulistan Cinema were set on fire .... On March 3, mob violence spread to other parts of Dacca, particularly Islampur, Patnakhali Bazar and Nawabpur. Shops, private houses belonging to non-supporters``



M. Nawaz Khan?s reply

April 30, 1999

Well done, Mr. Omar! Finally you?ve found some printed materials to defend your uncle. You do not have to be a ?Rocket Scientist? to figure it out that the book was written ?vilainizing? the Bengalis. Was the author present in Dhaka at the time? Or was it written purely based on personal accounts of some razakar Biharis?

I am personally satisfied to know that the Bengalis burned down Hotel Shalamar. Ask your uncle how many times he wined (I mean it literally!) and dined in that joint. Outside Hotel Shalamar was located a Kebab House by the name ?Dar-Ul Kabab.? This eatery used to be frequented by Pakistani army officers. In the late sixties the army officers from Kurmitola cantonment used to come there in the early evening with their family members for gastronomic extravaganza. Local Bengalis were persona non grata in this eatery. Punjabi and Urdu were the major vernaculars spoken in this Xanadu. The footpath adjoining this Kabab House used to be a popular hangout for Bengali street urchins. These kids would run errands for the Khan Shahibs, clean their automobiles, etc. etc. The Khans? would in return toss the leftover Kababs to these kids. Quite a ghastly sight, I might say. The colonial charades used to go on and on day-in-day-out in front of Dar-Ul Kabab. The educated middle class Bengali in Tejgaon area, where Dar-Ul Kabab and Hotel Shalamar was located, used to look at this ``colonial masters`` with nothing but disdains. I am not surprised a bit that when push came to shove the freedom loving Bengalis did the right thing, i.e., they burned down the symbol of colonialism in the heartland of Dhaka.

The author Rushbrook Williams, a paid agent of Pakistan, should have interviewed Bengalis to know a little bit of history of those infamous places in Dhaka.

Mr. Omar, find the works of some credible writers of Bangladesh Independence Struggle -- they are plentiful -- and then post relevant excerpts in this forum.

The readers may be witnessing a sea change here. I feel sorry for Mr. Omar Mirza; he is running out of ideas. So, he is now unearthing C grade chronicler of Bangladesh?s glorious freedom fight.

Well, for us the Bengalis, the discussion has just begun. Mr. Omar, you ain?t seen nothin? yet. Please fasten your seat belt. The ride is gonna be a wild one!

OMAR1974 in reply #235 claimed:

``I strongly feel that mere unsubstantiated accounts and information posted anonymously on the internet does NOT constitute grounds for calling someone a `war criminal`...``

RESPONSE: It was not an anonymous posting that pointed to the murderer of Mr. Samsuddin, the project engineer of Wapda. The information came from Dr. Saleh Tanveer who is with the mathematics

department at Ohio State University.

Furthermore, Brigadier Z.A.Khan is not particularly bright. He has managed to incriminate not only his colleagues but even himself. For example, at any war crime trial he`ll have to answer why he took no action against soldiers under his command who had looted and destroyed a shop (owned by a retired Bengali subedar in the cantonment area) even though he was aware of the crime at the time it was committed or shortly after.

Mr.Nawaz Khan,

Do not flatter yourself with believing that this is in any way about Z.A Khan’s actions anymore. This is about exposing the utter Moral Bankruptcy and duplicity of the ahistorical ‘truth’ propagated by Bengali nationalists. The world has swallowed the myths and tall tales propagated by Bengalis long enough, while as I indicated at laborious length earlier, it has been conveniently forgotten that the Bengalis were in fact responsible for starting a genocidal nightmare. The time line is very critical. Who were the looting mobs who rampaged from March 1 onwards? Were the residents of Jagannath Hall really ‘unarmed civilians’ etc? I think Bengalis have long propagated a self serving version of truth that as I have stated in my thesis in Chowk through numerous post prior to L.Rushbrook Williams Excerpts being posted, is a creation of Bengali national myth-identity and mass hysteria, as well as justificatory VERSIONs of history as narrated by a PARTISAN side in the conflict which has every interest in seeing it half wit version propagated and giving false testimony to visiting foreign journalists to bolster its standing. This has gone on for too long.

As for your comments about prof. Rushbrook, being a ‘paid agent’ of Pakistan, well sort of criticism was entirely forseeable move by you, therefore like a good lawyer I had also posted Rushbrook’s impressive academic credentials. They speak for themselves.

I also note that you actually justify the indiscriminate burning down of both public and private property in early March by bloodthirsty lawless Bengali mobs in the face of the utmost restraint shown by Pakistan’s army. Quite frankly I am amazed after your bloodthirsty, and biased remarks (couched in `liberation` rhetoric) that Bengalis have the absolute GALL to ask for Apologies and WAR CRIMES TRIALS! Just like my family’s personal story of tragedy in 1947, which itself read alone is not indicative of Muslim outrages against largely innocent Hindus in Lahore etc, your accounts are also equally one sided read alone. Considering the carnage Bengalis wrought in 1971, it is highly hypocritical for them to assume a self serving version of events and omissions in which they are portrayed solely as victims, ‘freedom lovers’ (I say murderous freedom lovers) and demand trials of those, who restored some semblance of order. But I note, they are quick to call for ‘justice’, being winners as far as being on the ‘right side’ of history, counting on liberal Western sympathies for their nationalist movement fighting against an ‘ obviously oppressive dictatorial regime’. The real story is not so clear, the generals were willing to hand over power, but not at the price of the break up of the country, which is what Mujib wanted from the start, and made clear in those fateful days in March. Mujib wanted to impose his absolute will without any desire for flexible political compromise. He even clearly stated that the ‘6 point plan’ was no longer a subject for negotiation or any flexibility. Let us not forget he demanded Pakistan become a ‘Confederation’, which implies the right of succession. As for the West Pakistan political parties participation in drawing up a constitution, they could go hang themselves. It is because President of United Pakistan Yahya Khan (a tragic figure indeed) did not want a hung assembly and a divided parliament that the convening of the National Assembly was postponed initially till March 3rd. Bengali riots had started by March 1st. Their lack of good faith is obvious. The planning for the takeover of East Pakistan in conjunction with Indian support had been going on long before March 25/26th. This story should be read by those Pakistanis who have any ‘guilt-complex’ whatsoever about ‘what the Pakistan army may have done’ in 1971 in East Pakistan.

OMAR MIRZA

(Scourge of those [any] who assume a holier than thou, simple minded attitude about complex political-historical events).

To FerozK (Reply # 248):

The Pakistani army did leave a paper trail. Furthermore, even today, some 27 years after the genocide, there are enough eye witnesses left.

A good example is the wholesale and systematic murder of the Bengali intellectuals. General Rao Farman Ali had personally drawn up the list of intellectuals earmarked for ``elimination``. The list was recovered and would have been part of the evidence in a war crime trial if it had taken place.

I don`t know whether FeorzK is aware that specific charges were drawn up against 195 military officers who were among the 90,000 that surrendered on 16th December, 1992. But the war crime trial could never take place. Here are the two main reasons for it:

(1) Geopolitical compulsions had allied Communist China and Democratic America firmly on the side of Yahya Khan`s military regime. It is a wonder that Bangladesh could be liberated in spite of the Pindi-Peking-Washington axis. Even after 16th December, administrations in China, America and most of the Muslim majority nations remained solidly against Bangladesh - none of them would brook of war crime trials that would see the prosecution of anyone who had committed crimes for the Yahya Khan regime.

(2) Taking into account the geopolitical compulsions of China and America, Bhutto played his cards very skillfully:

(2a) Bhutto had the Hamoodur Rehman Commission report suppressed to protect the military leaders and himself from any charge of wrongdoing. To this day, this report has not been released to the Pakistani public. The ruling elite in Pakistan has closed its ranks to keep the report suppressed for ever.

(2b) Bhutto resorted to sheer blackmail to scuttle the war crimes trials. He threatened that Bengalis stranded in West Pakistani, especially those in the military and in the civil service, will be put on trial for treason if Bangladesh goes ahead with the war crime trials of the 195 officers. He also declared that the stranded Bengalis will not be allowed to return to their homeland unless everyone of the the 90,000 POWs are returned to Pakistan.

Reason 2b was probably the principal reason why the Bangladesh government had to capitulate. There wasn`t an official in the Bangladesh government who didn`t have a relative or friend stranded in West Pakistan. They couldn`t push for justice without endangering their near and dear ones. Bangladeshi officials also realized, to their dismay, that China and America, in gratitude for Yahya Khan`s role in Pindi-Washington rapproachment, will do their best to punish Bangladesh for daring to go ahead with the war crime trials.

Kissinger was particularly cynical. It is indeed astonishing how a survivor of the holocaust in Germany could be so cynical. Leaked out transcripts from first week of December, 1971 show how he was determined to tilt toward Pakistan at any cost. At one point, he tells his aides that once the Pakistan army surrenders, there`s bound to be reprisals. He ordered that he be informed immediately of any act of reprisal so that he can immediately lodge a protest. And this from the man who had decided to turn a blind eye to the murder of 3 million civilians for the last 9 months!

It is indeed ironic that while Bangladesh had to agree to abandon the war crime trials (at least for the time being) to enable the Bengalis stranded in Pakistan to return to their homeland, Pakistan`s ruling elite cared only for its members. It was happy to bring back the 90,000 POWs but, to this day, it doesn`t care a damn that a quarter million ``Biharis`` have had their lives on hold for the last 27 years in UN-run refugee camps. Pakistan feigns lack of funds to do the needful. It has enough money to run proxy wars in Afghanistan and in Kashmir, but it has not a penny to spare for the repatriation of the ``Biharis.``

Pakistan`s ruling elite had used the ``Biharis`` as its cat`s paw to do its dirty work. But the ``Biharis`` were of no use to the ruling elite after the surrender of Pakistan`s army on 16th December, 1971. The ``Biharis`` were quickly abanodned to their fate like the rind of a squeezed lemon.

Although I do not claim to be a philosopher I do have an observation to make:

TRUTH, like many other things in life, is in the EYE OF THE BEHOLDER.

Everyone wants to play the victim, as i have stated repeatedly, personal tragedies are just that, personal tragedies, including my own family`s. If you are innundated by too many acounts of them you begin to develop simplistic, wider, all encompasing theories of a conflict between good and evil men. Many parties have a vested interest in presenting their personal tragedies in the best possible light, see for example the personal, heart rending account written by a Bengali professor (posted by some one earlier in this discussion) about the events of March 25/26. Now examine carefully the deeply emotional, rhetorical language used to sway the reader into completely ignoring the events preceeding, the ommissions about these peaceable students being armed to the teeth, and the readers into be left believing that Bengalis were nothing more than innocent victims of genocide. I challenge all such narrow, biased accounts of a human tragedy if they are to be used as a tool of an all encompassing theory which requires far more careful scrutiny. They are one-sided to say the least. And this has been going on for nearly 3 decades. Just because Pakistanis and the world have been deluged by such a barrage of these accounts, told and retold by the vested interests of one side of PARTISANS, and repeated by a variety of humanitarianly inclined foreign reporters who viewed the conflict in strict moral terms as one between `the freedom loving people of Bangla Desh` Vs. the `Colonial dictatorship` of West Pakistan, when these tales, an admixture of outright lies, ommissions and half truths were repeated to them (were recorded and spread), in a bitter civil war does not mean that they should be allowed to go unchallenged entirely in shaping our view of ALL the events of 1970-71 by any means.

OMAR MIRZA

Re: OMAR1974 # 235

You wrote: ``I strongly feel that mere unsubstantiated accounts and information posted anonymously on the internet does NOT constitute grounds for calling someone a `war criminal```

Let me be absolutely clear about this issue and hopefully my reasons, for stating what I did, will appeal to you as an attorney. You are absolutely right in stating that such unsubtantiated evidence on any forum does not consitute war crimes. At the present these statements are at best mere allegations confirming the existence of a said crime. Given that fact, there is enough prima facie evidence, circumtancial at best, to suggest a commission of a crime. That is the extant of what has been established, through these InterActs and nothing more.

Now as a future attorney you should be aware of the distictions in alleging a crime and proving that a crime has occured. There is enough prima facie evidence to suggest a crime and if these allegations can be confirmed, by a netural third party, there will exist a reasonable assumption to issue an indictment. This is where the process gets rather opaque. First of all, you have to identify the person(s) to be charged with the indictment of a specfic crime and not on the basis of a generalized conception of what was the crime. Furthermore, indicting someone and charging them with war crimes does not consitute an automatic conviction for those said crimes. To find someone guilty of a war crime, you have to secure their conviction and you, as prosecutor, do not indict a charge of war crimes unless you can make that indictment result in a conviction.

To get that conviction, you have to establish that the person, charged, was responsible for committing those crimes. In the case of the Germans at Nurnberg, it was relatively easy, because the Germans had documented what they were doing. It is highly doubtful that the Pakistani Army kept a ``paper trial`` of what it was doing and hence, it is difficult if not impossible to secure convictions against them. You can issue an indictment against the Pakistani army personnel, but as Rishi has stated, you have to meet the burden of proof and show that specfic persons were responsible; you have to establish a direct link between them and the commission of the crime.

So far, there is enough prima facie evidence which alleges that a crime was committed. It is circumtancial enough to issue an indictment, but there is no concrete prove or evidence so far presented, which could result in the conviction of those said persons. You can issue all the indictments you want against the Pakistani Army officers, but it does not matter a whit if you can not secure a conviction! Indicting a person is meaningless unless you can turn that indictment into a conviction proving that they were quilty.

Re: Khokan #229

It was never my intention to compare, directly or indirectly, the events which happened in Bangladesh with those occuring in Kosovo. I do not need to compare genocides to be abhored by the levels of their beastiality and sheer barbarity of the evil which they portray. Neither did I ever suggest that the author was diminishing Kosovar sufferings.

As to my ``acknowledging`` the existence of the Shoah and the crimes of Hitler, I was rather amused to read that sentence. Second World War is a hobby of mine and has consumed most of my life. I personally know soldiers who liberated the concentration camps during the Second World War and I know persons who survived the Shoah. My friend, that is the reason why I responded with such dismay to your post. I take it as a personal offence when people suggest that I am denying or that I am incapable of understanding the crime of Shoah!

The Pakistan army’s presence in East Pakistan can only be compared if there is a parallel to be made at all, between Kosovo and East Pakistan 1970-71, to a NATO ‘occupying force’s’ proposed presence in Kosovo. The Bengalis were willing to resist this by early 1971 just as the Serbs resist a U.N force to bring order to terror striken Kosovo. The only real difference is that the Bengali majority Vs. the Serbs minority perpetrated `ethnic cleansing.` Pakistanis have indeed lost interest in the historical details of the conflict so much that the real parallels of history have been obfuscated by ‘INTELLECTUAL PARTIZANS’ determined to impose a ‘guilt complex’ on the Pakistani nation. The fact is that genocide was indeed committed; by the Bengali race on all non-Bengalis and non or lukewarm supporters of the Awami League. It was carried out methodically under the central directions of Mujib ur Rehman, who is comparable to Milosevic. His version of ‘ethnic cleansing’ of East Pakistan was effected by the Bengali majority and 176,000 Bengalis in Uniform present in East Pakistan. A small, determined, professional army of West Pakistani soldiers defeated this plan (despite massive treason in the ranks) which Mujib put into action on or about March 1, and eventually overcame lawlessness, disorder and the ethnic cleansing of East Pakistan by Bengalis. The tales of widespread ‘massacres’ are actually in fact tales of PARTIZANS in the conflict, who were in many cases well armed to perpetrate/or had perpetrated genocide. They miscalculated by underestimating the Pakistani army’s professionalism, and ability to defeat their amateur, ill led, ambitious forces greedy for plunder, that were, while well equipped by India and from the Pakistan Army’s own stockpiles, and looting of arms, in East Pakistan, in the end unable to hold ground against thorough professionals like Lt.Col. Z.A Khan . Naturally, these bitter defeats and the fear of the full exposure of their bloody deeds internationally caused the Bengalis to spread their own propaganda, which many found more palatable than any other version of truth. Mujib did not leave Dhaka not because he was ‘fearless,’ but because he was overconfident of the success of his plans. There were a few good men in East Pakistan in 1971, they were the Pakistani soldiers loyal to the motherland who were confronted by atrocity after atrocity, all of which are also well documented. Further, Mujib had earlier laid plans and gained plentiful access to Indian supplies prior to any action by the Pakistan army to stem the rot of treason. For this, Mujib will be remembered by History as a traitor, even if we accept Bengalis claim to ‘independence’ on March 26, 1971, which was incidently on the eve of an armed conspiracy which the Pakistan army pre-empted by hours or a day at most. Neither will I nor my countrymen, nor our forefathers, offer a single apology to those bent on rewriting history from their own twisted perspective. The best that the Bengalis can ever claim is that they were beaten by a superior army. They may indeed take various incidents and narrate them in grotesque detail, but even if, the entire validity of these incidents sure to come forth is accepted unquestioningly, a neutral observer can only concede moral equivalence, and that too with severe prejudice to the honest efforts of West Pakistanis to accommodate East Pakistanis demands to participate in the formulation of joint constitution and keep Pakistan United. It is quite clear that Mujib never wanted a United Pakistan, in view of which even the convening of the National Assembly would have been nothing more than a sham under which East Pakistanis who had VOTED for AUTONOMY AND A UNITED PAKISTAN were to dragged through a process leading to the breakup of the country. Even on the question of moral equivalence, one must ignore historical evidence of Mujib’s actions and assume his character and intention to be the most benign

possible towards United Pakistan if (moral equivalence) is to be accepted between West Pakistan and East Pakistan represented by the duplicitous mendacity of the Awami League and Mujib Ur Rehman.

The Bengali view of their history as a linear progressive Colonial exploitation will undoubtedly be put forth by show us various pie-charts demonstrating investment trends etc in the 2 Wings since 1947, as they attempt to prove their colonial status and oppression leading eventually to their ‘liberation’ struggle. I have news for them, countries are not held together by brute force alone over a period of 25 years. Nor do people who love their country operate under the influence of self serving pie-charts. These are intellectual justifications written AFTER the fact. Bengalis participated in all aspects of the national life of United Pakistan. As a student of history, a future (full) lawyer, a loyal citizen at heart of Pakistan, and a student of Political Science, I can no longer stand by and watch this one sided spectacle of Bengali propaganda. The craven silence of the Pakistan nation has ended! We will no longer quietly concede the moral high ground in this national tragedy to the Bengalis! Pakistan Zindabad!

OMAR1974 wrote (reply # 234):

``Therefore I say Bangladeshis were not victims, but PARTISANS in a conflict. PARTISANS who wish to impose a Victor`s peace want history to record their judgement against a defeated foe. The Nuremberg trials are a classic example. I think its safe to say that THE GERMAN PEOPLE SUPPORTED THE WAR. And, it is equally safe to say that in EAST PAKISTAN IN 1971 by their valient army against who intended to divvy the nation, place themselves atop the new hierarchy of power and enjoy the spoils. The Pak army represented THE WILL OF THE NATION. Pakistanis and Germans viewpoints today``

RESPONSE: No, the Pakistan army did not represent the ordinary citizens of Pakistan. Mr. O Mirza is being unfair to his disinherited compatriots by echoing the claims of the ruling elite by claiming, ``THE PAKISTANI PEOPLE SUPPORTED ALL ACTIONS TAKEN TO SUPPRESS THE INSURRECTION or that the Pak army represented ``THE WILL OF THE NATION.`` The nation had been hijacked by the self-serving army officers for too long. ``Field Marshall`` Ayub Khan had to quit within months after oficially celebrating his ``decade of prosperity.`` The Pakistanis of both wings were unimpressed by the ``Field Marshall`s`` claim. They had seen how the nation was being looted. Captain Gohar Ayub Khan had managed to become a billionaire. Only a select coterie was privy to the prosperity that the ``Field Marshall`` was boasting of. All important positions in the government were going to military people. Reclaimed lands in Sindh were being allotted to officers from ``martial races.`` People were sick of the army`s thievery. That is why Ayub Khan had to quit in 1969. It was the people`s wrath that forced his hand.

Ayub Khan, even as he ``retired,`` did his best to maintain the status quo for his fellow officers. The army was like a guild and Ayub Khan wasn`t about to compromise its interests. Yahya Khan became the martial law administrator. He arranged for the election in the fond hope that the politically fragmented politicains would fail to run the administration without the support and approval of the military. Yahya Khan had been assured by ``pundits`` that no party will win enough seats to pose a threat to the establishment.

The election results came as a shock. The Awami League was able to win a majority in the National Assembly on its own. And with an understanding with parties like NAP, Awami League was in a position to draw up the constitution in accordance with its election pledges. Mr. O Mirza is wrong, there was no possibility of a ``hung Parliament.`` And the army generals were only too aware of it. They didn`t want the rise to power of a party that would refuse to hand over a blank check for the army.

It was at this point that the generals came to an understanding with Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto whose party, the PPP, had won about a quarter of the seats in the National Assembly, mostly from Punjab. Bhutto declared that ``Punjab is the bastion of power,`` a very sinister thing to say for a civilian leader who should be aspiring to power through elections. Bhutto went on to threaten to break the leg of any memeber of the National Assembly from West Pakistan who would dare to attend its session without his approval. He was intimidating elected members from parties like NAP from cooperating with the Awami League. Then, as if on cue, Yahya Khan postponed the convening of the National Assembly.

Mr. O Mirza is dishonest in saying that the army represented the will of the people. It represented only its officers. It roped in Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto by appealing to his fear of playing the second fiddle to Mujibur Rahman. It intimidated the elected representatives of NWFP and Baluchistan (Wali Khan, for example)from cooperating with Awami League. It did everything it could to recoup from the ``disaster`` that had seen Awami League holding a majority of the seats in the National Assembly.

It is symptotic of the situation that Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto suppressed the publication Hamoodur Rehman Commission report. The report would have compromised the army generals and the PPP chairman by holding them culpable for the 1971 tragedy. To this day, the Hamoodur Rehman Commission Report hasn`t seen the light of day. The ruling elite has closed ranks to protect its members.

Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto succeeded in becoming the ``leader`` of a truncated Pakistan with the army`s backing. He had ridden the tiger in his ascent to power. Needless to say, he soon found out that he who rides a tiger....... He would come to curse the day he was enlisted by the army generals to thwart the election results of 1970. But that would come seven years later when the army chief used a Supreme Court packed with his own nominees to send the hapless Bhutto to the gallows.

The ordinary people of Pakistan are not the fools that Mr. O Mizrza is taking them to be. They have stoically suffered through the kleptocracies of Ayub Khan, Yahya Khan and Ziaul Haq. They know where the real power lies. Mr. O Mirza insults the ordinary citizens of Pakistan when he claims, ``THE PAKISTANI PEOPLE SUPPORTED ALL ACTIONS TAKEN TO SUPPRESS THE INSURRECTION.`` He insults them again when he claims, ``The Pak army represented THE WILL OF THE NATION.``

Mr. Omar Mirza was born in 1974, two to three years after the tragedy. Ms. Muneezae Alam Khan was a two year old baby during the 1971 genocide. They could have easily made a clean break with the mindset that was responsible for the genocide. But I am surprised that they have chosen to inherit the racist ideology of Pakistan`s ruling elite that was responsible for the 1971 tragedy in the first place.

Those that teach their daughters and nephews that ``Bengalis are descendants of Mir Jafar,`` ``No Bengali is to be trusted,`` and that ``Bengalis are ghaddars`` are not reliable sources of history.

The nephews and daughters of officers from the martial races of Pakistan need to make a break from the past. They are doing their nation no good by designating the interests of the army officers to be the same as that of the country. The daughters and the nephews will do better if they try to find out how the common citizens of Pakistan have been abused and bled to enrich the successive kleptocracies of their hapless country.

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

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...

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.’

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.

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