The truth behind the separation
Despite gaining its independence, Bangladesh has grappled with its tumultuous history. This struggle serves as a poignant example of a nation's challenge in coming to terms with its past. Lisa Curtis, a senior research fellow at the Heritage Foundation’s Asian Studies Center, contends that the Bangladesh genocide should be further explored to gain insights into how the United States deals with massive atrocities happening abroad.
The harrowing events date back to March 25, 1971, when the Pakistani army initiated a brutal campaign against the Bengalis of East Pakistan. The trigger for this violence was the December elections that had designated Sheikh Mujibur Rehman as the Prime Minister of Pakistan, representing the Bengali region. His political rival, Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto, who secured a significant portion of West Pakistani votes, was unwilling to accept the resulting shift in regional power. The Pakistani army, primarily rooted in the western wing of the country, was also resistant to the implications of a democratic outcome.
Genocidal tendency of Pakistan
Between March and December of 1971, the Pakistani army, along with local irregular forces under their control, committed horrific atrocities, resulting in the deaths of over a million unarmed civilians in East Pakistan. This period witnessed a steady deterioration of Indo-Pakistani relations as a staggering 10 million refugees fled to India. In December, this escalated into a two-week war, culminating in India's victory over the Pakistani army in the east and the birth of an independent Bangladesh.
The United States was faced with complex diplomatic dilemmas in responding to this crisis. India had signed a mutual assistance treaty with the Soviet Union in August 1971, while China maintained friendly relations with Pakistan, having previously engaged in a conflict with India in 1965. However, Pakistan remained a valuable diplomatic partner, playing a crucial role in facilitating a rapprochement between the United States and the People's Republic of China in the early 1970s.
USA’s role in the war
During the Bangladesh Liberation War in 1971, American diplomats, led by Consul General Archer Blood in Dacca, sent telegrams documenting the atrocities committed by the Pakistani military against Bengali civilians. The Pakistani forces resorted to brutal methods to ensure the massacre of men, and women were not spared, with over 200,000 becoming victims of rape and assault. The destruction of villages became part of the strategy to prevent civilians from escaping oppression. Archer Blood, however, vehemently opposed U.S. involvement, particularly in providing military aid to Pakistan. The U.S. authorities downplayed his warnings about "moral bankruptcy" and "repressive measures and bloodshed" and disregarded his concerns due to the close American alliance with the Pakistani military junta.
Public opinion in the United States also turned against President Nixon for his administration's policy on Bangladesh. The U.S. Congress imposed an arms embargo on Pakistan, but the Nixon administration continued to secretly send arms shipments to the junta. When India intervened in December 1971, the United States dispatched an aircraft carrier to the Bay of Bengal. Peace activists protested against arms shipments in several northeastern American ports, and Bengali diplomats at the Pakistani embassy in Washington, D.C., defected and operated on behalf of the Provisional Government of Bangladesh.
A full frontal attack
In the late autumn of 1971, East Pakistani guerrilla forces, with support from India, engaged in combat with the Pakistani Army. In response, West Pakistan launched air attacks on India, sparking a full-scale war between the two nations on December 3. The United States publicly accused India of being the aggressor, sent the nuclear submarine U.S.S. Enterprise to the Bay of Bengal, and authorized the transfer of U.S. military supplies to Pakistan, despite the apparent legal restrictions. Furthermore, U.S. military aid was secretly routed to Pakistan via Iran and Jordan, even though both countries were under an arms embargo.
The figure of '3 million' victims came from the Soviet newspaper Pravda, as investigative journalist David Bergman reported in a New York Times op-ed. This figure has been used to shape a national narrative about Bangladesh and its formation, allowing the government to expand its judicial power. By the midpoint of the nine-month genocide, the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency estimated a more conservative number of 200,000 Bangladeshis murdered. Although violence occurred on multiple fronts, it is evident that the Pakistani soldiers were responsible for most of the brutal attacks, many of whom were armed with weapons supplied by the United States due to Pakistan's status as an American ally.
A call for recognition
Efforts have been made for the United Nations to recognize the Bangladesh genocide. In Geneva, Sanchita Haque, the Deputy Permanent Representative, recently called for the recognition of the Bangladesh Genocide of 1971, an initiative aimed at holding the Pakistani Army accountable for its past brutalities and casualties. The United Nations, with its mandate encompassing the prevention and punishment of genocidal crimes, could take actions to address Haque's concerns. Such actions would not only acknowledge one of the most tragic events in history but also reaffirm tolerance for diversity among peoples, as the shadows of the past continue to haunt us.
The backdrop of these events reveals that extremist ideologies have been influential, particularly in areas where religious or regional identities are deeply entrenched. The radical Islamist ideology that prevailed in Pakistan led to the violent conflict in Bangladesh, and a similar extremist ideology played a role in communal violence in India. The Sabarmati Express attack in 2002, when a train carrying Hindu devotees was set on fire near Godhra, triggered communal riots across Gujarat, leaving a devastating toll. In the aftermath, a special investigation team was set up, which resulted in the conviction of numerous individuals involved in the violence.
Gujarat riots
The horrifying incident on February 27, 2002, saw as many as 59 Hindu devotees, including children, lose their lives in a train attack that left them charred to death near Godhra railway station. This tragedy served as a catalyst for communal riots that swept across Gujarat, resulting in one of the most devastating communal clashes in India. The violence claimed the lives of at least 1,000 people and left thousands injured.
In the aftermath of the unrelenting violence, which raged for about three days before the intervention of army troops, the Supreme Court of India established a Special Investigation Team (SIT) in 2008 to investigate the Godhra and post-Godhra riots. While some level of calm was restored, incidents of communal clashes continued to be reported from various parts of the state over the next three to four months.
The investigations into the 12 major Godhra and post-Godhra riots cases led to accusations against about 600 individuals. Of these, close to 200 have been convicted, with over 150 serving life sentences for their roles in the violence.
The blame game
During this tumultuous period, activist Teesta Setalvad and the organization Citizen for Justice and Peace blamed the then Chief Minister of Gujarat, Narendra Modi, and approximately 60 others for their alleged inaction during the Gujarat riots. In 2012, the SIT conducted an inquiry into these allegations and ultimately gave Narendra Modi a clean chit, submitting its findings to the local magistrate's court, which accepted the report. Despite the exoneration, Zakia Jafri, widow of a prominent victim of the violence, challenged the report and sought reinvestigation, but this request was rejected by the court in October 2017.
Interestingly, Teesta Setalvad, known for her activism in seeking justice for the Gujarat riots victims, has herself come under police interrogation for her alleged connection with the Newsclick portal case.
The role of Narendra Modi
Narendra Modi had assumed the role of Chief Minister of Gujarat just four months prior to the horrific events of 2002. In response to the crisis, he sought assistance from three neighboring states to help restore law and order. The Chief Ministers of Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh, and Maharashtra at the time were Ashok Gehlot, Digvijaya Singh, and Vilasrao Deshmukh, respectively.
In the aftermath of these events, questions and debates swirled around the responsibilities and accountability of the political leadership during the Gujarat riots. Journalist Rajdeep Sardesai, responding to inquiries about Narendra Modi's role, personally expressed his belief that Modi was not responsible for the 2002 riots that followed the Godhra massacre. He noted that it was unfair to hold Modi or anyone else responsible for the violence, emphasizing that there was no evidence to suggest that he had asked for or incited the violence.
Conclusion
Despite these protracted debates and investigations, justice and closure have remained elusive, both in Gujarat and Bangladesh. The communities affected by these tragic events continue to navigate their paths toward reconciliation, coexistence, and healing.
Comments