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

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

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

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

At the risk of repeating myself:

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

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

So could we please not write stuff like:

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

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

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

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

Ras H. Siddiqui

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comments?

Shakespeare and the Great Tragedy of 1971 Cont`d



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

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

MORE Shakespeare and the great tragedy of 1971

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

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

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

MORE Shakespeare and the great tragedy of 1971

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

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

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

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

United Pakistan: Appearing as Ophelia and Desdemona

Yahya Khan: Appearing as Hamlet & Othello

Indira Gandhi: Playing Iagette

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

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

Henry Kissinger: Horatio

Nixon: Horatio

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

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

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



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

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

Reg Sigalph235 (#85 and #87):

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hamlet Act III, scene 3

HAMLET

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

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

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

A villain kills my father; and for that,

I, his sole son, do this same villain send

To heaven.

O, this is hire and salary, not revenge.

He took my father grossly, full of bread;

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

And how his audit stands who knows save heaven?

But in our circumstance and course of thought,

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

To take him in the purging of his soul,

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

No!

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

When he is drunk asleep, or in his rage,

Or in the incestuous pleasure of his bed;

At gaming, swearing, or about some act

That has no relish of salvation in`t;

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

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

As hell, whereto it goes. My mother stays:

This physic but prolongs thy sickly days.

Exit

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

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

Re ``Truth``

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