The fall of Dhaka

Mohammad Jamil

On 16th December 1971, Pakistan was dismembered as a result of an
international intrigue’ of course India was the main player whereas
the former USSR helped India to implement the insidious plan to
disintegrate Pakistan. Unfortunately, Pakistan’s so-called friends
America and the West acted as silent spectators, and later the nation
was shocked to know through classified US papers released after a
period of 30 years that America was in favour of separation of former
East Pakistan but did not agree with the manner in which it was done
ie under the former USSR watch. A lot many books, theses and reviews
have been written on the causes of fall of Dacca and disintegration of
Pakistan. Hamood-ur-Rehman Commission report also tried to identify
the causes for this tragedy. Anyhow, it was not a military defeat but
result of flawed policies by the inept leadership that led to the
contradictions that became irreconcilable, and Pakistan’s enemy
benefited from the disunity.

There were a few pseudo-intellectuals and self-styled military
analysts who had declared that it was a military defeat. The
lackadaisicalness of the inept ruling elite and its failure to create
national cohesion by addressing the anomalies, deprivations of the
people, distance between the two wings of Pakistan separated by over a
thousand miles, and training of Mukti Bahini guerillas in Indian army
camps who later moved along with Indian army units in the then East
Pakistan were other factors responsible for the break up of the
country. Therefore, it could not be described a military defeat by any
stretch of imagination though it could be termed as a national
failure. Anyhow, on that ominous day the nation was shocked and
stunned on the dismemberment of a country created through the struggle
of millions of Muslims of the sub-continent under the leadership of
the Quaid. There seemed to be a consensus that flawed foreign policy
and wrong decisions made over a period of two decades had resulted in
conflicts between the people of the federating units. In 1965 war, the
people of Pakistan had displayed unprecedented unity. All opposition
parties those were against President Ayub, stood by the armed forces.
In fact, unity between the nation and performance of the armed forces
had unnerved the US and the western countries. They observed if
Pakistan could give a tough time to India, which was seven times
bigger and had an edge over Pakistan vis-a-vis size of the army and
conventional arms, it could become a force to reckon with over time.

On the other hand in 1971 the nation stood divided due to the
contradictions as a result of economic disparity and social
injustices. The moral is that a society where people are denied the
socio-economic rights and legal redress it is prone to disintegrate.
And no amount of rhetoric about ideology or appeal in the name of
religious fraternity could keep it together. The problem was that for
nine years after Pakistan came into being, the nation remained without
a constitution, and when it was adopted in 1956 it did not reflect the
aspirations of the people. Formation of One Unit and reducing the
status of East Pakistan under the ‘principle’ of parity had
disillusioned and alienated the Bengalis. And India took full
advantage of the contradictions and disunity. In 1970 elections Awami
League had participated on the basis of six points and secured
majority in the National Assembly. But power was not transferred to
the majority party leader Sh. Mujib-ur-Rehman for the fear that he
would transfer all the national assets to East Pakistan, and that
implementation of Mujib’s six points would weaken the country. The
question could be asked that if six points were not acceptable then
why Awami League was in the first place allowed to participate on that
basis? There is no denying that Sh Mujib had covert support from
Indian leaders who had never reconciled with the creation of Pakistan.
Bengalis indeed had some genuine grievances, but such grievances and
contradictions are found in most third world countries, and efforts
are made by the governments to address these grievances. India,
however, had stoked the passions, stirred emotions and persuaded
Bengali leadership to carve out a separate homeland with a view to
taking revenge of the partition of the subcontinent, which Indian
leadership had never forgotten. After 1965 war India focused on
enhancing its defence capabilities, whereas Pakistani leadership was
content with celebrating Defence of Pakistan Day. It was unfortunate
that in 1971 the UN and the big powers acted as silent spectators when
an independent country with recognized international boundaries was
being dismembered, and they virtually did nothing to stop India from
direct intervention because they wished to benefit from large
population and big a market. After the break-up of Pakistan, India
declared that two-nation had been sunk in the Bay of Bengal, but
eidetic reality was that Bangladesh became an independent country with
Muslim identity, and refused to accept Indian hegemony.

Jean Dreze, a professor at Delhi School of Economics and co-author
with Nobel Laureate Amartya Sen of “Poverty and Famine” says that
Bangladesh outdoes India in most measures of social development. Of
course, it would not be logical to compare Bangladesh with India in
trade and industry, as the latter had an industrial base even before
partition of the subcontinent in 1947. Anyhow, it was unfortunate that
Pakistan’s ruling elite did not learn any lesson from the break-up of
the country and continued to give over-riding consideration to their
personal interests over the national interest. Pakistan is once again
on the cross-roads.

Leaders of the ruling and opposition parties seem to be unmindful of
the multifaceted crisis, and their ruses and pretences are hurting the
nation’s very solidarity and cohesion. The people are aghast at the
blitheness with which this divide is chasing its fond passions of
internecine conflicts and intransigence. The leaders on both sides of
the divide should rise to the occasion to meet the challenges facing
the country. They should abandon their intransigence and point-scoring
against each other and work in unison to safeguard the sovereignty,
integrity and solidarity of the country which are more important than
their false egos.