Pakistani revision of Bangladesh genocide (and a conversation)

Discussion in 'Central & South Asia' started by Indx-techs, Mar 12, 2017.

Share This Page

  1. Indx-techs

    Indx-techs Captain

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2016
    Messages:
    471
    Likes Received:
    363
    Location:
    India
    Hobby:
    Defence enthusiasm
    Before the thread, don't blame me anyone, the content has actually been posted by a Bangladeshi.
    I know that posting from other forums may be a violation but I've made sure that name of that forum doesn't display, so it must be okay now.
    IMG_20170312_144136_193.JPG
    @YarS @Bharwana @Falcon
    Let's start.
    A Pakistani ‘scholar’, his book and unadulterated insanity
    [​IMG]

    After the fiction-peddling Pakistan apologist Sarmila Bose, we have a new myth-maker in our midst. Junaid Ahmad sets out on a mission to explode ‘myths’ behind the creation of Bangladesh. Ironically, he ends up being a maker of myths. And that is not all. His fiction, a result of a fervid imagination at work, begins to implode right at the beginning. The implosion runs its full course, all the way to the end of a work which is clearly trapped in a time warp dating back to the 1960s and early 1970s. The jacket of the book, ‘Creation of Bangladesh: Myths Exploded’, highlights the writer’s ‘accomplishments’ as an academician, researcher and management consultant in Pakistan. As you go through this fiction of what he would like to see presented as history, you realize that there is nothing of an academic nature about the work and certainly the research is but another term for propaganda. As for the management bit, this writer with a background in consultancy should never have ventured into the expansive field of history, a subject certainly not his forte. But, wait. He is also said to have been a student at Concordia University and then McGill University in Canada in the mid 1970s. The education appears to have been flawed, a waste, for such prestigious universities hardly ever produce scholars of the kind which Ahmad has made himself out to be.

    So what is Junaid Ahmad’s sin? Fundamentally it is one of profound ignorance. The ignorance is founded on the premise, his premise, of anger at the brutal manner in which the state of Pakistan was dismembered in 1971. East Pakistan, after the murder of three million Bengalis at the hands of the Pakistan occupation army, simply ceased to exist. Junaid Ahmad’s anger has its roots in the transformation of Islamic Pakistan’s eastern province into the secular People’s Republic of Bangladesh. Could the two wings of Pakistan, with a thousand miles of Indian territory between them and despite all the bloodletting caused by the army, have remained a single country? For an answer, observe Ahmad’s disquiet about the role Zulfikar Ali Bhutto did not or would not play following the surrender of his nation’s army in Dhaka. Bhutto could not influence a yet imprisoned Sheikh Mujibur Rahman to agree to some arrangements to keep Pakistan united. Ahmad’s naivete goes up by leaps and bounds. If Bhutto could not bind Mujib to a deal before letting him go free, he could at least have stayed his hand in the matter of Pakistan’s recognition of Bangladesh as a sovereign state on the eve of the summit of Islamic nations in Lahore in 1974, couldn’t he?

    How much more ignorant can a ‘scholar’ get to be? The war is over, East Pakistan is dead and gone, the world has begun conducting business with a free Bangladesh, but Junaid Ahmad sulks. Had his comprehension of the history of 1971 been of the informed kind, his sulking would not be overly worrying. But, then, throughout this tome of a work which the Pakistan authorities seem cheerfully to have gone around distributing to the outside world, Ahmad spews the kind of lies that would put any student of history, even in Pakistan, to shame. During the war, if Ahmad is to be believed, the Pakistan army was a bunch of decent, polite soldiers whose business was saving East Pakistan from the Mukti Bahini. The Mukti Bahini started it all, says he. It was in place even before it took shape in the course of the war. The myth-making goes on, at an increasingly faster pace. The villains were all in the Awami League, particularly Sheikh Mujibur Rahman. There were other villains, and they were the Hindus of India. That is Junaid Ahmad’s take on history.

    There is something psychologically wrong about this ‘scholar’. For him the trauma associated with 1971 has nothing to do with the genocide the Yahya-Tikka junta initiated in March. Nothing was wrong with Bhutto’s decision to stay away from the National Assembly session called for early March. The problem was the ‘Awami League and its fascist political policies, the terrorist group of Mukti Bahini, the propaganda campaign of the Indians and some global media outlets . . .’ In essence, what you have here is nonsense elbowing out history. The Bengalis, says this ‘scholar’, murdered thousands of people, especially Urdu-speaking Biharis throughout the war. That is pretty intriguing a proposition. It boils down to a shamelessly revisionist version of history the world has so far not been made familiar with. The writer, in his time warp of course, blatantly papers over the realities of the conflict, one created by his own country, as they were observed and have been recorded by history. He does not speak of the massacres committed by the Pakistan army through Operation Searchlight, but goes into a rant about the ‘armed resistance’ the soldiers met at the residential halls of Dhaka University on the night between 25-26 March. The responsibility then devolved on the soldiers, didn’t it, to sort out the mess and restore order? Ahmad says not a word about the sorting out being the organized murder of sleeping students at the university.

    This work is carefully but crudely orchestrated anti-history, certainly condoned if not actively supported by the establishment in present-day Pakistan. In a very large way, it is one more hint of why successive governments in Pakistan, along with those rabid elements which have kept their eyes shut to the atrocities committed by their soldiers in Bangladesh, have stayed away from taking a rational view of history. Junaid Ahmad cheers the military crackdown of 25 March, after the Awami League had engaged in ‘loot, plunder, and massacre of the people loyal to Pakistan’. Not a word is there in this account from this faux historian of the gruesome killings of teachers of Dhaka University in the initial stages of the genocide. Not a whisper is there on the killings of the revered Jyotirmoy Guhathakurta and Gobindo Chandra Dev. Should we be surprised? Not if we have already been exposed to Ahmad’s hate directed at Hindus and, of course, at the secular nation of Bengalis. Everything that went wrong for Pakistan in 1971 had to do with India, with its Hindu mentality, with the secret workings of Delhi’s Research and Analysis Wing. Racism drips from every word Junaid Ahmad writes.

    This work is a study in unadulterated insanity. Junaid Ahmad stumbles on ‘discoveries’ relating to India-Bangladesh ties the world remains ignorant of. And how does that happen to be? The writer thinks that in October 1971, the Bangladesh government-in-exile and the Indian government arrived at a deal that would, post-war, ensure an Indian military and administrative presence in Bangladesh. There would be no armed forces formed by Bangladesh since a required number of Indian soldiers would stay on in the new country. Vacant posts in Bangladesh’s civil service would be filled by Indian civil servants. Ignorance, you see, plumbs newer depths at every point. And the ten million Bengali refugees who found sanctuary in India? Ahmad comes forth with a new ‘discovery’: they were largely Hindus and they were terrorists in the guise of refugees. And the young Bengalis who joined the Mukti Bahini? To Ahmad, they were ‘brainwashed Bengali students.’ And did you know that even Indian military officers were part of the Mukti Bahini? You bet you didn’t know that, but it appears that Junaid Ahmad’s excessive patriotism as a Pakistan leaves him maimed as a teller of history.

    Junaid Ahmad’s interpretation of history as it was shaped in the course of Bangladesh’s War of Liberation ends up shaming him. Scholars through the ages have never been peddlers of falsehood. Ahmad peddles lies and therefore cannot be treated as a scholar. For him, the Pakistan occupation army was a body of innocent, professional men serving their country. Ahmad does not speak of the killings and rape and pillage these soldiers abnormally driven by religious and racist hate committed day after day in the occupied country. Hindus are an obsession with him. He moves to the Ziaur Rahman era in Bangladesh in order to find validity in his attitude toward Hindus. Observe his encomium to Bangladesh’s first military dictator:

    ‘He weeded out the Hindus from public services, police, and army. These Hindus after their termination went to India and sought asylum. This also clearly proves that the Indians were present in large numbers in the civil and military establishment of Bangladesh since her creation.’

    Junaid Ahmad’s work should be read for the amusement it typifies, for the tragicomedy it seems to be propagating. Once that is done, it should either be flung out the window or relegated to a dark corner where no human hands endeavour to reach. The book does not deserve respect and neither does its author. Pakistanis would do well to steer clear of this pamphleteer masquerading as historian.

    Syed Badrul Ahsanis a bdnews24.com columnist.


    http://opinion.bdnews24.com/2017/03/01/a-pakistani-scholar-his-book-and-unadulterated-insanity/
     
  2. Indx-techs

    Indx-techs Captain

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2016
    Messages:
    471
    Likes Received:
    363
    Location:
    India
    Hobby:
    Defence enthusiasm
    A comment from a poster on the original webpage which contains the article:


    Sumit Mazumdar


    Unfortunately, Junaid Ahmad is not the only myth-maker on this subject. As regular readers of the otherwise respectable Pakistani newspaper The Dawn will attest, there are many other such ‘scholars’ in Pakistan. Samson Simon Sharaf is one of them. Sharaf goes so far as to claim that Tibetan guerillas, trained by the Indian military, joined the Mukti Bahini. He also talks about mass killings of Urdu-speaking Pakistanis. Sharaf is touted as a ‘political economist’ and a ‘television economist’.
    It is very likely that these writings are not directed towards an international readership but the hard right blind nationalists of Pakistan itself, who still have not admitted that it was Pakistani policy and not the Hindus that created Bangladesh.
    Why the sympathy for the Urdu-speaking Bangladeshis did not translate into accepting the few hundred thousands of them into Pakistan remains a mystery.




    My Bangladeshi friend's comments:

    1. The Pakistani military is still boiling with rage over its loss of east Pakistan in 1971. There is little interest in the people that live(d) there, or even the land but the loss is due to being inflicted with a mammoth humiliation in the phallic competition and hostility with India.

    2. The Pakistani army is also very angry at the Bangladeshi (with Indian assistance) dismantling and weakening of Pakistani assets in Bangladesh (for them still spiritually "east Pakistan") including Jamaat e Islami.

    3. In the early 2000s when there was what some would say essentially a proxy Pakistani BNP-Jamaat government in Dhaka and no threat to "Pakistani" (as defined by the Punjabi generals of the Pakistan army) interests the Pakistani media were fairly honest and open about their atrocities in 1971 and the history of injustice before then to the majority population i..e east Pakistanis.

    4. The Pakistan military is feeling somewhat anxious about what is going on in Bangladesh, and even the mere existence of Hasina Wajid is an affront to them. For them Bangladesh is duty-bound to be a "friend" (vassal) of Pakistan and anything other than the expected "friendship" is "betrayal", especially if it is normalization of relations with neighbour India.

    5. The Pakistan military has control over key strategic issues in Pakistan and the Bangladesh file is one of them, hence journalists have been warned and threatened in case they post anything which undermines the new narrative of the Pakistani military in the past few years i.e. it was the Bengalis to blame.

    So any narrative counter to this is now suppressed. The fact that the army and ISI suppress this is indicative of how much importance they attach to the Bangladesh issue.

    What will happen?

    Nothing much, the Pakistanis are fighting a lost war which they will never win as they were defeated.

    Bangladesh will always be an independent state.

    WIll it be a de facto Pakistani proxy state under the BNP-Jamaat nexus? Not for a long time, not at least for another 6 years, maybe more.

    Each year that passes by the more "Bangladeshi", Bangladesh becomes including the many Biharis that live there. Each year that passes by the more business relations are cultivated by Bangladeshis with India, thus the business community which includes both leaders of the Awami League and BNP want a positive relationship with India just as there is bi-partisan acceptance (both Awami League and BNP) of good relations with Saudi Arabia (huge expatriate community) and China. National interests are national and transcend partisan divides.

    The Pakistani military using their assets such as pseudo-historians to talk about 1971 just invites more attention to 1971 which with any objective investigation shows from 1947-71, the majority east wing was exploited and treated with contempt on a political level and also on a ground level by West Pakistani officials. It won an election, the army refused to accept the outcome and then a war broke out.

    The best thing the Pakistani military can do about 1971 is to shut up, because beyond an easily manipulated Pakistani domestic audience, which has no power internationally or in Bangladesh, it achieves nothing and in fact just brings more focus on the 1971 tragedy and the Pakistan army's shameful role in it.
     
    Falcon likes this.
  3. Indx-techs

    Indx-techs Captain

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2016
    Messages:
    471
    Likes Received:
    363
    Location:
    India
    Hobby:
    Defence enthusiasm
    Some Indian:
    Weren't Bangladeshis being increasingly anti Indian?


    BT's response:

    I will give you an honest reponse.

    1. Where did you hear this from, PDF? If so, not a reliable source. Moderated in a heavily biased way also in a manner to eliminate anyone too "anti-Pakistani".

    2. I live in the UK so am not that familiar with what is going on in Bangladesh currently.

    I don't see a major upsurge in pro-Pakistan sentiment in Bangladesh. The Awami League are in power and will most likely win the next elections in 2019. That's all that really matters. Whether people want to be pro-Pakistan or India is a matter of personal preference, but Bangladesh being used as a giant ISI base is unacceptable as was the case under Khaleda Zia.

    3. Also it depends what "pro-Pakistani" means. Does that mean supporting the Pakistan cricket team? Does that mean posting positive stuff about Pakistan on social media (which I don't see amongst Bangladeshis). Even if Bangladesh was the most pro-Pakistan state on earth, as long as the country doesn't sponsor separatists in the north-east and there are relatively normal relations between the two, New Delhi decision makers won't care.

    All that matters is strategic goals e.g. no support for separatists, peaceful border etc.

    The Awami League are only in power because they are able to maintain economic growth in a country with possibly 170 million people unofficially. If they can't, they're out.[/QUOTE]
     
  4. Indx-techs

    Indx-techs Captain

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2016
    Messages:
    471
    Likes Received:
    363
    Location:
    India
    Hobby:
    Defence enthusiasm
    "Pakistan army was and is full of bombastic rhetoric.

    They had huge fervour and passion for raping and killing civilians in east Pakistan in 1971.

    However unlike the Japanese or Turkish soldiers that fought to the end defending their home territory the Pakistan army cowardly surrendered en masse to India without any major resistance.

    If there were no nuclear bombs and the Indian army entered Lahore you could expect something similar.

    Don't believe it?

    How did Sikh ruler Ranjit Singh rule Lahore and Punjab and enjoy the support of many of the Punjabi Muslims?"

    Not myself being the author of comment!:D

    @YarS
     
  5. Indx-techs

    Indx-techs Captain

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2016
    Messages:
    471
    Likes Received:
    363
    Location:
    India
    Hobby:
    Defence enthusiasm
    Crossing the limits of crimes against humanity, still declaring others violating human rights


    there is a movie on illegitimate child in bangladesh created by coward army of pakistan
    :mad::mad:
    http://www.genocidebangladesh.org/


    http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/genocide-us-cant-remember-bangladesh-cant-forget-180961490/


    ur government has failed to denounce the suppression of democracy. Our government has failed to denounce atrocities… Our government has evidenced what many will consider moral bankruptcy.” – Archer Blood, American diplomat, April 6, 1971.




    Blood wrote this dispatch two weeks into the bloody massacre that would lead to the birth of Bangladesh. Unlike the Rwandan genocide, or the Holocaust, or the killing that followed the breakup of Yugoslavia, the genocide in Bangladesh that ended 45 years ago this week has largely slipped out of public awareness—even though the upper estimate for the death toll is 3 million. With the ongoing debate over how or even if America should assist Syria and those trapped in Aleppo, understanding how the U.S. has responded to genocides in the past is more crucial than ever.





    In 1947, the partition of British India split the subcontinent into the independent nations of India and Pakistan, each a home for their respective religious majorities, the Hindus and the Muslims. But the unwieldy logistics of this divide meant Pakistan included two chunks of land separated by more than 1,000 miles of Indian territory.



    The geographic distance between West and East Pakistan was mirrored by their economic and political separation. With most of the ruling elite having immigrated westward from India, West Pakistan was chosen as the nation’s political center. Between 1947 and 1970, East Pakistan (which would eventually become Bangladesh) received only 25 percent of the country’s industrial investments and 30 percent of its imports, despite producing 59 percent of the country’s exports. West Pakistani elites saw their eastern countrymen as culturally and ethnically inferior, and an attempt to make Urdu the national language (less than 10 percent of the population in East Pakistan had a working knowledge of Urdu) was seen as further proof that East Pakistan's interests would be ignored by the government. Making matters worse, the powerful Bhola Cyclone hit East Bangladesh in November of 1970, killing 300,000 people. Despite having more resources at their disposal, West Pakistan offered a sluggish response to the disaster.




    As French journalist Paul Dreyfus said of the situation, “Over the years, West Pakistan behaved like a poorly raised, egotistical guest, devouring the best dishes and leaving nothing but scraps and leftovers for East Pakistan.”




    In 1970, West Pakistan announced the country would hold an election for its first general elections since the country gained independence. Like other Pakistani leaders before him, West Pakistan’s chief martial law administrator and president, General Agha Mohammad Yahya Khan, placed limits on the freedoms of voters, indicating that the integrity of the country of Pakistan was more important than the election outcomes. This practice of “Basic Democracy” had been used in the past to provide the appearance of democracy while still leaving the military in true control.




    In this election, 138 seats would go to West Pakistan representatives and 162 to the more populous East Pakistan (which had about 20 million more inhabitants). While West Pakistan’s votes were split between different parties, an overwhelming majority of votes in East Pakistan went to the Awami League led by Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, who campaigned on a platform of Bengali autonomy.




    Shocked by the results and what they meant for the stability of the country, Yahya Khan delayed calling the first meeting of the assembly and instituted martial law. Riots and strikes erupted across East Pakistan, with Mujibur announcing the start of a civil disobedience movement in front of a crowd of 50,000 on March 7, 1971. A last ditch effort to avert war occurred in Dhaka, the capital of East Pakistan, from March 16 to 24. Mujibur and Khan met, discussed the issues, and seemingly reached an agreement—but on the night of March 25, Mujibur was arrested and 60-80,000 West Pakistani soldiers, who had been infiltrating East Pakistan for several months, began what would be known as Operation Searchlight, the massacre of Bengali civilians by Pakistani soldiers.




    Estimates for the total number of deaths range from 500,000 to over 3 million, with the death toll having become politicized over the years, says Lisa Curtis, a senior research fellow at the Heritage Foundation’s Asian Studies Center.



    “Regardless of what the number is, clearly massive atrocities took place against the Bengali people,” Curtis says. “I think we have to say that the atrocities committed by the Pakistan military far outstripped what we saw from the other side.”

    The '3 million' figure came from the Soviet newspaper, Pravda, reported investigative journalist David Bergman in a New York Times op-ed, and it has been used to create a national narrative about Bangladesh and its formation that allows the government to extend its judicial power.




    By halfway through the nine-month genocide, the U.S Central Intelligence Agency gave a conservative estimate of 200,000 Bangladeshis murdered. There was violence on all sides, with some fighting between Bengali factions (whose goals for independence or unity with West Pakistan differed), but it seems clear that Pakistani soldiers perpetrated most of the brutal attacks, many wielding weapons supplied by the U.S., since Pakistan was considered an American ally. In May 1971, 1.5 million refugees sought asylum in India; by November 1971 that number had risen to nearly 10 million. When Australian doctor Geoffrey Davis was brought to Dhaka by the United Nations to assist with late-term abortions of raped women, at the end of the war, he believed the estimated figure for the number of Bengali women who were raped—200,000 to 400,000—was probably too low.




    All the while, tensions were gradually increasing between Pakistan and India, with both sides calling in reserve troops to prepare for a possible conflict along the Pakistan-Indian border. The massacre in Bangladesh came to an abrupt end when West Pakistan declared war on India in early December. By December 16, India forced Pakistan into unconditional surrender, and 90,000 Pakistani soldiers became prisoners of war. Bangladesh had achieved its independence—but at an incredibly high cost.




    The world at large was well aware of the violence happening in Bangladesh throughout Operation Searchlight. Indian Prime Minister Indira Gandhi termed the attack “genocide” as early as March 31 of that year. Blood, the American consul-general in Dhaka, and Kenneth Keating, the U.S. ambassador to India, both called on President Nixon to discontinue their support of the Pakistani regime. Both diplomats were ignored and Blood was recalled.




    Overshadowing the genocide were the ongoing tensions of the Cold War. Nixon and his national security advisor, Henry Kissinger, considered Pakistan a close ally in the region. The U.S. provided weapons, and used Pakistan as a gateway to open diplomatic relations with China.

    Further complicating matters was India’s closeness with the Soviet Union. In August 1971 the two countries signed the “Treaty of Peace, Friendship and Cooperation” that seemed to indicate India would be relinquishing its role as a neutral bystander in the Cold War. Nixon and Kissinger were both terrified about the possibility of India intensifying their relationship with the U.S.S.R. and not overly concerned about Pakistan’s military action in Bangladesh—or the reaction of Americans who read about it.




    “Biafra [another genocidal war in Nigeria] stirred up a few Catholics,” Nixon was recorded saying. “But you know, I think Biafra stirred people up more than Pakistan, because Pakistan, they’re just a bunch of brown goddamn Muslims.”




    As political scientist Gary J. Bass writes, “Above all, Bangladesh’s experience shows the primacy of international security over justice.”




    Despite gaining their independence, Bangladesh has struggled to overcome its bloody history. Although the current prime minister of Bangladesh, Sheikh Hasina,has instituted an International War Crimes Tribunal, the process has specifically targeted Hasina’s political opposition, says the Heritage Foundation’s Lisa Curtis.



    In addition to highlighting how one country has struggled to come to terms with its past, Curtis says the Bangladesh genocide should be further studied to help understand how the U.S. deals with massive atrocities happening abroad.



    “How do we look at these from both a U.S. values perspective, but also a national interests perspective?” Curtis says. “And where do those values and national interests combine to merit a stronger response?”



    The answer to that question, it often seems, is only clear in retrospect, when no more action can be taken.




    Read more: http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/genocide-us-cant-remember-bangladesh-cant-forget-180961490/#yYSYGiro53eXil6c.99

    Give the gift of Smithsonian magazine for only $12! http://bit.ly/1cGUiGv
    Follow us: @SmithsonianMag on Twitter
     
  6. Indx-techs

    Indx-techs Captain

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2016
    Messages:
    471
    Likes Received:
    363
    Location:
    India
    Hobby:
    Defence enthusiasm
    It isn't therefore surprising that these Pakis either don't want to read their own official Hamoodur Commission Report or term it as fiction.

    This report contains the official and classified papers of the events leading up to loss of East-Pakistan and the 1971 war with India. Initially, there were 12 copies of the report prepared by the Chief Justice of Pakistan, Hamoodur Rahman; all were destroyed except one. That single report was handed over to Government, which forbade its publication at the time. The report was leaked eventually by Indian and the Pakistani newspapers.


    The original report’s findings accuse the Pakistan Army of carrying out senseless and wanton arson, killings in the countryside, killing of intellectuals and professionals and burying them in mass graves, killing of Bengali Officers and soldiers on the pretense of quelling their rebellion, killing East Pakistani civilian officers, businessmen and industrialists, raping a large number of East Pakistani women as a deliberate act of revenge, retaliation and torture, and deliberate killing of members of the Hindu minority.


    So are apologists like Sarmila Bose and that Pakistani pseudo intellectual Junaid Ahmad more credible than the official report written by Hamoodur Rehman, then chief justice of Pakistan?

    This report can be downloaded in pdf format from the web. Read the original report which brings out the facts as they were and NOT the supplementary report which was written after India repatriated the 90,000 Pak POWs as this was pretty much biased as it was based on the statements of the Pak prisoners who would naturally say nothing about the atrocities committed by them.

    P.S. Were Sarmila Bose and that Pakistani pseudo intellectual Junaid Ahmad even born in 1971? Or they were probably in their diapers when the war happened. Did they witness what happened themselves? I bet the answer is no.

    I as a youngster was there and saw it all. I vouch for every word in the original Hamoodur Commission Report written by the Chief Justice of Pakistan as true.
     
    YarS likes this.
Loading...