The Fall of Dacca - what if it had not happened?

[Neo]

The Fall of Dacca - what if it had not happened?

NUSRAT NASARULLAH

ARTICLE (December 16 2009): Given the obvious, anxious challenges that the country faces this December, in a political climate of grim questions and gnawing growing concern, it could be a matter of opinion on how many citizens will realise that it was on this day, the 16th of December that Pakistan was dismembered. That was in the year 1971 - 38 years ago. That this is the subject that surfaces inevitably.

It is a time for contemplation and reflection of what has happened in Pakistan in these 38 years. And it is a time for contemplation on whether any lessons have been learnt since the Fall of Dacca (now Dhaka). I suppose those Pakistanis who were old enough in August 1947 would recollect the times and the overall environment that prevailed, and how they lived through that experience.

Pakistan was born, at that time, (1947) and the idealism, the euphoria, the sense of fulfilment and responsibility, the sense of purpose and destiny must have been integral to the citizens who saw the birth of Pakistan. And there are those Pakistanis for whom the first major national experience (in a way) was the Fall of Dacca that took place on the 16th of December 1971, East Pakistan, became Bangladesh as we all know.

Of course, the 38 years since then have been so eventful, and chaotic, turbulent and traumatic to say the least, and where the country stands today, is too obvious to be repeated here. The state of Pakistan and its hapless citizens, is staring at us in the face, and another December of agonising uncertainty is unfolding. In these thirty-eight years, there have been two more military dictators (Ziaul Haq and Pervez Musharraf) raising the total to four.

Ayub Khan and Yahya Khan were the first two, before the fall of East Pakistan. In these 38 years, the country hanged one elected Prime Minister (Zulfikar Ali Bhutto) and twice, elected prime ministers were disgraced and ousted. One of them, Benazir Bhutto, was assassinated on 27th December 2007 during Musharraf's rule and the other, Nawaz Sharif was forced into exile in Saudi Arabia.

The overall story of our political governments and military rule creates a national profile that is truly disturbing and unpromising. It also mirrors the Establishment's impatience with democratic rule. What the Establishment implies is also too well-known to be explained. It should however, be mulled over.

The future of Pakistan the Islamic Republic is a question mark that is forever being discussed publicly, privately; sadly no more is it a matter to be talked about in low tones, whispers, and behind the curtains. Ironically the very civil and military men who have ruled over this country, and held power offices and taken the wide spectrum of decisions that mattered, are the very ones who are deeply disappointed with the way the country has fared.

Who then, is responsible? It cannot be the man in the street, surely. Even though the Fall of Dacca is a theme that the citizens know little about, as indeed is the knowledge of Pakistan's leaders and the independence movement, one does wonder this: What if there was no December 16, 1971 in our lives? That is, what if Pakistan had not lost East Pakistan, and the country had a leadership which could have kept the two wings together? What kind of a Pakistan would we have today, had that been the scenario?

It is, at times, ferociously argued and repeatedly explained that many of the socio-political, economic factors that led to the break-up of the country go far back into time, into the early days of Pakistan. That, in fact, by the end of Ayub's rule, in 1968-69 it had become a hopeless case to try and hold the East and the West Pakistan together. I do not know.

The manner in which West Pakistan had treated, managed and exploited East Pakistan, and given to Bengalis a poor reputation was something that one could perceive living in Karachi. In my days, as a student in Karachi, until I finished my education at the Karachi University in 1968, the impression was that the people of East Pakistan were "not as good and efficient as those belonging to West Pakistan." This, however is a painful subject that one needs to look at sometime later.

It was, as a young Pakistani that I found that I always had a soft corner for the people of East Pakistan, and the fact that one of my best teachers was professor Dr Syed Ali Ashraf, Chairman of the English department, only helped to reinforce many times, this impression that has remained steadfast over a lifetime. That I have never been to former East Pakistan, or Bangladesh is strange, and willed so by Allah. So I neither regret nor consider it as a misfortune.

As I write on a Monday night that is chilly by Karachi's winter profile, it does make me wonder of what my own life could have been like had I lived in East Pakistan, and had it been a part of this country. There are numerous related thoughts that come with this. Having become a journalist (with The Leader) in August 1968, I was able to experience somewhat deeper the end of Ayub's rule, and what followed. Also, the December 1970 general elections are regarded as the fairest in the history of the country.

Ironically, a year later, in December 1971, the country disintegrated. One wonders, given the nature of the public reaction that was visible in West Pakistan at the fall of Dacca, whether the long drawn people's uprising in East Pakistan had created, to some extent, an attitude that Bangladesh was imminent. This is the thought that comes to mind.

And the villainous role that neighbouring India played (and still does) in the December 1971 war was also reflected in the Hamoodur Rehman Commission report in which it was quoted that the Director of the Indian Institute of Defence Studies Subramanium "in a reference to the India-backed armed rebellion in East Pakistan said that what India must realise is the fact that the break-up of Pakistan is in our national interest and we have an opportunity the like of which will never come again".

I am reminded here of the subject of thousands and thousands stranded Pakistanis in Bangladesh who remained loyal to Pakistan for a very long time, and I wonder whether it is one of the many forgotten sad themes in our lives. 38 years now, have their wounds healed? The report of the Justice Hamoodur Rehman Commission is a 540-page document, which is a revealing inquiry into the 1971 war, as declassified by the Government of Pakistan.

The composition of the Commission was as follows: Justice Hamoodur Rehman Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Pakistan, Justice Anwarul Haq, Chief Justice Lahore High Court, Member; Justice Tufailali Abdul Rehman, Chief Justice of the High Court of Sindh and Balochistan, member.

Subsequently, on the Commission's recommendations, Lieutenant General Altaf Qadir (Retd) was appointed as military advisor and M A Latif assistant registrar, Supreme Court of Pakistan, as a secretary to the Commission. One wonders why we do not discuss this report. Or the deeper significance of the 16th of December 1971 in our national life, or history. On what we can learn from it so that such a day is never ever repeated. (nusratnasarullah0@gmail.com)

[Al-Zakir]

I also wonder what united Pakistan would have become today if our politician could have avoid none sense conflict. Chittagong to Peshawar looks very good.

One thing for sure, we could have been a good example of Ummah and perhaps rest would have followed us however we proved it wrong. Dead wrong.

What's done is done! let us all look into better future....

[Neo]

Forced surrender in 1971

Published: December 16, 2009

The political chaos in 1971 culminating in secession of Pakistan's Eastern Wing was the result of a plan executed jointly by USA, Israel, Britain, India and former Soviet Union. Its mastermind was the Zionist International Jewry that controls the power centres in these countries through its entrenched lobbies. The plan could not have succeeded without the active participation of a treacherous gang of some civil and military leaders within Pakistan.

East Pakistan, now Bangladesh, may still one day rejoin with the parent country. People in both the wings are ready to forgive and forget. No one doubts that they were made the victims of an international conspiracy that included the services of several local agents. The Muslim of Bangladesh have realised that they were misled by design into looking upon Indians as their friends and West Pakistanis as enemies.

But the military surrender was devastating and beyond imagination. The humiliation and the anger felt by the masses, and more so by the soldiers, who had been cheated by their top commanders, lingers in their minds.
Although there is plenty of literature on the 1971 crisis, yet several devious schemes that nurtured the crisis and shaped its outcome are still to be exposed. Moreover, the writings of some Americans on the 1971 episode are a rich source of revelations about many of the otherwise less known occurrences. When this material is analysed it exposes USA' hand in fomenting rebellion by the Awami League, assisting India in deploying the Mukti Bahni terrorists, provoking the war and devising a quick defeat for Pakistan.

It is most depressing to find how Pakistan's top leaders were duped into accepting the idea of a military surrender although Indians were not expected it. Indian Army's Maj Gen Sukhwant Singh in his book wrote: "...most of the Pakistani units were up to operational strength and had a considerable potential to continue the war, if Gen Niazi had not accepted such an early ceasefire." Indeed, in spite of all the handicaps, Pakistan forces could have fought on for several weeks. So what caused the surrender?

The surrender was brought about by the US with masterful machinations, involving local agents in Pakistan and India and manipulation of the pliant persons who had been placed in key positions in Islamabad and Dhaka. The master stroke was the highly deceptive dispatch of the US naval forces to the Bay of Bengal.

The dramatic deployment of the US warships performed the pivotal role in the grand manoeuvre of deception and psychological warfare targeting the Pakistani leaders. Admiral Elmo R Zumwalt, Chief of Naval Operations of the US Navy in 197I, in On Watch: A Memoir wrote: "On Dec 10, a presidential order, that was not discussed with the Navy in advance, created Task Group (TG) 74, consisting of the nuclear carrier Enterprise and appropriate escorts, and sent it steaming from the Gulf of Tonkin to Singapore. The order did not specify what TG 74's mission was....The ships were held off Singapore for two days. On Dec 12 they were ordered through the Straits of Malacca into the Indian Ocean. Within an hour that order was rescinded! Next day it was reissued. At the same time, 'sources' in Washington let it be known that the object of the exercise was covering the evacuation of American civilians from Dhaka. This clearly was a cover story since that evacuation was successfully completed two days before TG 74 entered the Indian Ocean....On Jan 08 it was ordered out of the Indian Ocean as mysteriously as it had been ordered in. I still do not know exactly what to think of the TG 74 episode."
Zumwalt is right. Not even President Nixon knew what was TG 74's mission. Originally, the mission was a Zionist secret known only to Kissinger and his schemers from the CIA and Mossad. It was controlled from the White House, in other words, by Kissinger, who was the national security advisor to the president.

The Naval Task Force was used as a lethal instrument for a psychological blow. It was to flash a signal of support to the dispirited leaders in Pakistan, who were facing a desperate situation in the war, so as to boost their morale with the hope that US military help had arrived after all; and then at a set time cancel the signal abruptly, causing in Pakistan's military leaders a sudden and complete collapse of morale rendering them incapable of resistance to the offer of ceasefire with surrender. This was exactly what happened.

The writer is a retired commodore, Pakistan Navy.
Email: dilbedar@yahoo.com

[Selma Shirazi]

Originally Posted by Al-Zakir

I also wonder what united Pakistan would have become today if our politician could have avoid none sense conflict. Chittagong to Peshawar looks very good.

A bigger mess maybe? Lets be realistic, both wings were politicaly immature and failed to integrate into one political system during their short shared history of 24 years. West wing never treated you as their equal so there's no reason to believe that the situation would be any different now if we were still united.
West wing didn't fare wel either after 1971, two coups and five failed civilian governments and the sixth is strugling already.
So Chittagong to Peshawar would be a bumpy ride...

One thing for sure, we could have been a good example of Ummah and perhaps rest would have followed us however we proved it wrong. Dead wrong.

I don't see the point, to be honest I think the existance of an (united) Ummah is as realistic as Utopia.

What's done is done! let us all look into better future....

Agree on that, forget the past and build stronger bridges based on mutual interests, respect and friendship and maybe a comon ennemy ;) .

[Al-Zakir]

Originally Posted by Selma Shirazi

A bigger mess maybe? Lets be realistic, both wings were politicaly immature and failed to integrate into one political system during their short shared history of 24 years. West wing never treated you as their equal so there's no reason to believe that the situation would be any different now if we were still united.

So are you telling me that general public of west pakistani didn't think east pak as equal citizen of Pakistan or was it clash between elite class of united pakistan vs poor deprived pakistanis and it true that there were more poor in east Pakistan than west.

Tell you the truth east Pakistan was also divided and there was always miss treatment of poor by east Pakistani elite. A elite of united Pakistan enjoyed status of VIP despite the wing identity.

I don't see the point, to be honest I think the existence of an (united) Ummah is as realistic as Utopia.

If concept of Ummah dead than Islam is dead as well. It's an individual perception.

Agree on that, forget the past and build stronger bridges based on mutual interests, respect and friendship and maybe a comon ennemy ;)

If I am to believe your first statement that west wing thought east wing as less of human than I assume same mentalitiy still exist among new generation of pakistani thus why should bangaldeshi would build strong relation with mordern pakistan since bangaldeshi are not equal to pakistani.


I born much after the separation Pakistan thus I do no have any experice about those days but I would like to believe that a common west pakistani did not look down on a common east pakistani just because some diffrence.

[DarkStar]

The Ummah and Islamic STate were alive and well until 1918/1924 when the Ottoman Caliphate was dismantled by the French/British/Americans, and not a Utopia at all.

Just studying the extent of the Ottoman Caliphate's borders would give you an idea of it's strength and potential for hegemony in the 20th century. Dozens of countries now comprise what were it's boundaries only a mere 80 years ago.

The Europeans have created another Roman Empire of their own with the EU, and it's a great blueprint for muslim countries to follow, though it looks incoceivable at the moment.

[A1Kaid]

Originally Posted by DarkStar

The Ummah and Islamic STate were alive and well until 1918/1924 when the Ottoman Caliphate was dismantled by the French/British/Americans, and not a Utopia at all.

Historically and technically and truthfully the Caliphate was abolished by the Turkish Secularist elites, specifically by Mustafa Kemal with the support of the Young Turks. They abolished the Caliphate, not necessarily the Western Imperial nations such as Britain and France, though they supported the Young Turks and the dismantling of the Ottoman Caliphate. In fact, the Young Turks there secular thought was mentored in France.

Just studying the extent of the Ottoman Caliphate's borders would give you an idea of it's strength and potential for hegemony in the 20th century. Dozens of countries now comprise what were it's boundaries only a mere 80 years ago.

80 years ago the Ottoman Caliphate's power was perhaps comparatively at it's weakest and 80 years ago it had lost much of the land it once conquered. 80 years ago the Ottoman empire held little to no land in the Balkans, it mostly expanded from Anatolia (inc. Istanbul EU side), Palestine, Syria, Iraq, Mecca & Medina, Egypt was lost in the late 19th century though not completely, parts of Yemen, and Caucuses...


Hope you understand better now...



Back to topic now, Fall of Dacca...

"If concept of Ummah dead than Islam is dead as well. It's an individual perception. "-Al Zakir

Concept and the Islamic injunction for the Ummah state will never vanish.



As for the Fall of Dacca -what if it had not happened?

This is asking us to speculate about a hypothetical question.

Well several things would result as of this.

1. East Pakistan (modern day Bangladesh) would also be apart of the Pakistan nuclear power and under the nuclear shield.
   
2. The Pakistan military would have been much larger and more powerful if both Militaries were to combine their resources, supplies, and soldier.
   
3. It's also possible Bangladesh/E. Pakistan would have experienced better economic vitality.

Of course if the leadership and governance is good.

It's also possible that Bangladesh/East Pakistan would have posed an immense economic burden on West Pakistan. If Pakistan and Bangladesh were to merge once again this would mean West Pakistan would have to adopt the poverty, lack of health care, and other social ills Bangladesh currently faces and vice versa doubling the challenge and struggle to be faced if we were One Nation. This is just a realistic view point, no sugar coating.

Though it is also true we would have more resources to tackle these problems...


By the way, I read somewhere that East Pakistan or "Bangladesh" was never really in Allama Iqbal's vision of Pakistan, true or false?

The views above are of course my opinion.

[Selma Shirazi]

Originally Posted by Al-Zakir

So are you telling me that general public of west pakistani didn't think east pak as equal citizen of Pakistan or was it clash between elite class of united pakistan vs poor deprived pakistanis and it true that there were more poor in east Pakistan than west.

Tell you the truth east Pakistan was also divided and there was always miss treatment of poor by east Pakistani elite. A elite of united Pakistan enjoyed status of VIP despite the wing identity.

It doesn't matter what general public thinks, it didn't count in 1971 did it? At the political scene it always comes to a few poeple who run the show. These politicians and maybe a few generals never considered Bangalis as their equals or else we would have seen the capital shift from Islamabad to Dhaka in 1971 and we would not have at war at all.

If concept of Ummah dead than Islam is dead as well. It's an individual perception.

Personal opinion.

If I am to believe your first statement that west wing thought east wing as less of human than I assume same mentalitiy still exist among new generation of pakistani thus why should bangaldeshi would build strong relation with mordern pakistan since bangaldeshi are not equal to pakistani.

I didn't say that. 80-100 million Pakistanis are 18 years of age or even younger so the majority has no affinity with Bangladesh at all, I guess I belong to same catagory. Its only in comon interest to have strong bilateral relations with enhanced trade and military cooperation since we're both fighting Indian dominance in the region. Other than that we both have moved on so there's no use looking back or reviving the history.

I born much after the separation Pakistan thus I do no have any experice about those days but I would like to believe that a common west pakistani did not look down on a common east pakistani just because some diffrence.

I never lived in Pakistan so I could not tell what the general opinion is about East and West Pakistan. Maybe Mr Xeric or someone else living in Pakistan can answer that.

[DarkStar]

It is true that Mustafa Kemal abolished the Caliphate, but he did so at the insisitence of his paymasters, the Europeans.

The treaty of Sevres after the first world war effectively partitioned the Ottoman Empire, and this was affirmed by the later treaty of Lausanne.

A list of countries created after the first world war include the Kingdom of Hejaz, the State of Armenia, Lebanon, Syria and parts of Anatolia were given to France, Thrace and other parts were ceded to greece, Palestine, Mesopotamia and Asir (Iraq), given to the British, and Yemen were also created.

Below find a map, and the light peach areas are all the areas the Ottomans still had and lost in the Treaty of SEvres after the Great War.



Strategic waterways, major oil producing areas of Iraq, and Arabia were under Ottoman control, and this alone would have signalled teremendous financial clout after the invention of the motor car.

The Ottoman 'sick man of Europe' Caliphate, had a lot going for it, if it were not for the vile intentions of the Europeans in dismembering the country, and then supporting the Young Turks of dubious Turkish origin in aboloshing the figure of the Caliph.

[DarkStar]

Al Zakir,

First of all, there are a lot of Bengalis living in Pakistan, some Jamate Islami supporters who fled after the creation of Bangladesh, or others who for some reason or other decide that life was better in Pakistan.

We have also had a steady stream of economic migrants from Bengladesh over the past thirty years, although this has receded significantly for the past few years. There are many areas of Karachi which are in effect Bangla towns, with also quite a few undocumented migrants living their lives there.

The majority of Pakistanis have a brotherly attitude towards Bangladesh, and still consider them as estranged brothers. There is a whole set of people who keep telling us in the media, in books, that West Pakistan exploited East Pakistan, and that we and our army are the one's responsible for teh whole debacle, so there is a certain sympathy for the creation of Bangladesh. I don't entirely subscibe to the above views myself.

However, there is a minority among the intelligentsia which looks at the events of 1971 as treachery, something akin to Mir Jafar az Bangal of yore, and believe that if the country had remainted together, would have been a potent force. However, such voices rarely come to the fore, because the 'guilt lobby' is always there to force us to be ashamed of the events of 71.

However, there is no such thinking as Bengalis being inferior. Not sure where this idea came from, because we all know that Bengalis were more educated and civilised than the people of Punjab/Sindh/Afghania and were at the forefront of the Pakistan movement, more so than many ethnicities in West Pakistan.