Dismemberment of Pakistan

7/31/2019 Dismemberment of Pakistan

1/103

DISMEMBERMENT OF PAKISTAN

D R. SARFARAZ HUSSAIN M IRZA

NAZARIA-I-PAKISTAN TRUSTAiwan-i-Karkunan-i-Tahrik-i-Pakistan, Madar-i-Millat Park,

100-Shahrah-i-Quaid-i-Azam, Lahore. Ph.: 9201213-14 Fax: 9202930Email: [email protected] Web: nazariapak.info

AN O VER-VIEW


2/103

Editor: Dr. Sarfaraz Hussain Mirza

Published by: Nazaria-i-Pakistan Trust

Printer: Nazaria-i-Pakistan Printers

Under Supervision: Rafaqat Riaz

Designing: Shahzad Yasin

Composing M. Shahid Gulzar

First Edition: August 2009

Copies: 1000

Price: Rs. 115

NAZARIA-I-PAKISTAN TRUSTAiwan-i-Karkunan-i-Tahrik-i-Pakistan, Madar-i-Millat Park,

100-Shahrah-i-Quaid-i-Azam, Lahore. Ph.: 9201213-14 Fax: 9202930Email: [email protected] Web: www.nazariapak.info

Published by

Printed at: Nazaria-i-Pakistan Printers,10-Multan Road, Lahore. Ph: 042-7466975

All rights reservedResponsibility for the accuracy of facts and for the

opinions expressed rests solely with the author.


3/103

DEDICATION

With all my sea-deep affection,I earnestly dedicate this humble

work to the millions of Pakistani

Youth who are perhaps still

unaware about the realities of thedisintegration of their beloved

motherland.


4/103


5/103

Message from the Chairman

Nazaria-i-Pakistan Trust is a national

academic-cum-research institution for promoting and

projecting the ideology of Pakistan as enunciated by

Quaid-i-Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah and Allama

Muhammad Iqbal. To fulfill this role, the Trust's

programmes aim at highlighting objectives for whichPakistan was established, recalling sacrifices rendered

for achieving it, and creating awareness among

people, particularly young generations, about its

ideological basis and its glorious Islamic cultural

heritage. The Trust feels that its efforts can bear fruit if

it succeeds in equipping the youth with authentic

knowledge about the inspirational teachings and

achievements of our Founding Fathers, Quaid-i-Azam

Muhammad Ali Jinnah and Allama Muhammad Iqbal.

With this aim in view, the Trust carries out multi-

faceted activities, one of which is production of

literature which not only disseminates knowledge

about the great Pakistan Movement but also fills ourhearts with feelings of pride on our successful struggle

for independence, makes us conscious of our vast

national and human wealth, and unfolds our

capabilities to face the future with confidence.

It must be admitted that although, after

suffering huge losses of life and property, we


6/103

ultimately succeeded in achieving Pakistan under the

epoch-making leadership of Quaid-i-AzamMuhammad Ali Jinnah, we could not make it an ideal

Islamic State as visualized by Quaid-i-Azam and

Allama Iqbal. After the death of the Father of the

Nation, his unfaithful successors deviated from his

path and turned Pakistan into a playfield of civil and

military dictators. The Quaid-i-Azam delivered usfrom the slavery of Britishers and Hindus but we have

now fallen into the trap of another type of slavery. To

free ourselves from its clutches and all other types of

overlordships, we must seek guidance from the nation-

building thoughts and actions of Quaid-i-Azam and

Allama Iqbal who aspired to make Pakistan a truly

modern Islamic welfare democratic state.

As pointed out before, our main focus is on

younger generations who were in the forefront in the

struggle for Pakistan and who can even today play a

similar role in building up Pakistan into a modern

democratic and welfare Islamic State. The students'

favourite slogan during Pakistan Movement wasPakistan ka matlab kiya: La Ilaha Illallah. Through

this slogan the Muslim youth saw a dream of regaining

our past glory and establishing our own free Muslim

State in our homelands.

The Quaid-i-Azam was fully conscious of the

mighty role which students played in the past and


7/103

could play in the future. Addressing a deputation of

students on 31 October 1947 he observed: Pakistan isproud of its youth, particularly the students who have

always been in the forefront in the hour of trial and

need. You are the nation-builders of tomorrow and you

must fully equip yourself with discipline, education,

and training for the arduous task lying ahead of you.

You should realize the magnitude of yourresponsibility and be ready to bear it.

The truth is that we have long neglected the

youth and our educational system does not inspire

them to give their best in the building up of Pakistan

economically, socially, politically and even

educationally. Inspiration comes through ideological

education, which in our case involves a study of two-

nation theory derived from Islamic Ideology which

motivated the great Pakistan Movement and on which

is raised the edifice of our nationhood. It is this

ideological education which the Trust seeks to impart

to the Pakistani youth through its publications,

including the present one. I hope, this literature willacquaint the Pakistani youth about the separation of

East Pakistan and inspire them to rise above

provincial, linguistic and sectarian rivalries and make

them apostles of national unity and territorial integrity.

Majid Nizami


8/103

CONTENTS

v Preface 9

v Prelude 13

v Language Controversy 17

v Promulgation of First Martial Law in 1958 21

v Mujib's Controversial Points 22

v Second Martial Law and General Elections 24

v Beginning towards an End 27

v India's Role in the Dismemberment of Pakistan 37

v The ugly Role of Foreign Press 44

v BBC Reporting 52

v Analysis 63v Conclusion 65

v Appendices:

o The text of Six-Point Formula 67

o Mr. Bhutto storms out of Security Council 71

o

Operative Clauses of the Polish Resolution 75O President Yahya breaks the News 77

O Comments of the Pakistani Press 79

v References 101


9/103

9

PREFACE

It was in early eighties when I first attempted to

work on East Pakistan Crisis under the guidance of Prof.

Dr. Rafique Ahmad. With his blessings, I was able to

produce a book on the Role of Foreign Press in the

dismemberment of Pakistan.

The present monograph is a supplement of my

earlier work with a few changes and addition of four

Appendices i.e., (i) Text of Six Point Agenda Formula of

Sheikh Mujiburrahman, (ii) Operative Clauses of historic

Polish Resolution (iii) President Yahyas speech of 16th

December, 1971 and (iv) Extracts from The Times,London December 16, 1971 dealing with the speech of

Mr. Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto in the United Nations Security

Council when he said: Mr. President!

I am leaving your Security Council. I find it

disgraceful to my person and to my country toremain here a moment longer. Impose any decision,

have a treaty worse than Versailles, Legalize

aggression, Legalize occupation... I will not be a

party to it. We will fightmy country harkens for

me.

As a humble student of history, I have tried to put

facts before the readers with utmost care and

responsibility. My view point is that the Pakistani nation

specially the generation born after the good old days of


10/103

10

the United Pakistan should be properly acquainted with

the realities of the seventies. It is a fact that at that time,

the whole nation was kept completely ignorant of whatwas being written and told by the foreign media especially

at a time when Pakistan was struggling to steer out of

turbulence.

Hence the whole narrative and reporting of the

foreign press was biased and totally one sided. The Indian

press media played havoc following the policy of

disinformation and misinformation. As we know, India

could never reconcile herself to the fact of partition,

therefore, one could see the Indians inner desire to undo

Pakistan in its damaging press propaganda against it.

It may be recalled that during the East PakistanCrisis, the Indian Foreign Minister had categorically

declared: We may have to take action on our own if a

satisfactory political solution to the Bangla Desh crisis is

not found out. (The Times, London, June 26, 1971).

(Late) Indira Gandhis, inflammatory statementneeds special mention when she said. the enemy shall

be crushedAnd now victory will be complete when the

Bangla Desh Government establishes itself in Dhaka and

stabilizes. (The Times, London, December 11, 1971).

What does this depict? One may appreciate to

believe that Bharat has not recognized Pakistan even

today. History is the witness to the fact that she is the arch

enemy of Pakistan and shall remain so for all times to

come. It is a fact that Bharat is mainly responsible for


11/103

11

disintegrating Pakistan. Beware, she is on the look for

another misadventure. Pakistani nation should learn a

lesson from its past because any nation which does notlearn from its past may not have any future to plan.

I would call this monograph a sorrowful vent of a

wretched heart remembering a part of its country that was

treacherously separated by the enemy when it was still in

its twenties.

Acknowledgements

I must acknowledge that I was able to complete this

task because of foster care of the respected Chairman

Janab Majid Nizami, who has been very kind and

considerate to me throughout my job at the Nazaria-i-

Pakistan Trust.

Prof. Dr. Rafique Ahmad, Vice-Chairman needs

special mention since he, as usual, gave me tremendous

moral encouragement and provided academic guidance in

the completion of this booklet.

Above all, Mr. Rafaqat Riaz, Additional Secretary

deserves my special thanks for taking personal interest in

making this project as a regular assignment and publishing

it in a booklet form.

I shall be failing in my duty if I dont mention the

name of Mr. Shahid Rasheed, Secretary who gave mefree hand to complete my task.


12/103

12

I am thankful to Mr. Naeem Ahmad, an

experienced script editor, for bringing this script in order.

While doing so, he gave me very useful suggestions.

I should thank Mr. Shahid Gulzar for the entire

typing work which he undertook with care and

responsibility. As usual, Mr. Muhammad Shahzad showed

keenness in finalizing this booklet.

In the end, I must acknowledge that I am aware ofthe flaws in the work for which I alone stand responsible.

An effort will be made to remove discrepancies if any, in

the next edition.

Lahore: 3rd

June, 2009 Sarfaraz Hussain Mirza


13/103

13

PRELUDE

In March 1940, the Muslims of the South Asian

Sub-continent voiced for the creation of a separate

homeland in their majority areas. With this aim before

them, they, under the able and dynamic leadership of the

Quaid-i-Azam Mohammad Ali Jinnah (1876-1948), after

decades of relentless struggle, ultimately achieved their

goal on August 14, 1947 and their Quaid was sworn in as

the first Governor General of the largest Muslim country

in the world. This biggest state of Muslims comprised of

two wings set apart by 1000 miles from each other. The

eastern and western zones of Pakistan worked under onesystem for good 24 years but were disjointed in December

1971 owing to a number of reasons major cause being

the hostility of Pakistans immediate neighbour Bharat

with whom she had parted ways in 1947.

Bharat could not reconcile herself, with the

partition right from 1947 which she dubbed as cutting of

the baby into two. During the movement for Pakistan, the

Hindu leaders called it vivisection of mother India and

once the region was divided, they could not accept the fact

of Pakistan. They, however, did so with mental

reservation and since then remained active in makingpersistent efforts to undo Pakistan. The top brass of the

Indian National Congress failed to conceal their inner

hatred against Pakistan and, on different occasions, gave


14/103

14

the impression of creating forced Akhand Bharat. In

their bid for re-unification of British India, they spared no

effort to undermine Pakistan by different means eitherthrough their utterances or by means of physical

interventions. The Congress Committees resolution of

June 14, 1947 expressing their hatred against the division

of India; Sardar Vallabhbhais (1875-1950) statement

regarding re-unification; Pandit Jawaharlal Nehrus (1889-

1964) verdict on re-union, Maulana Abul Kalam Azads(1888-1958) remarks of short lived partition; M.K.

Gandhis (1869-1948) opposition to the creation of

Pakistan; Acharya Kriplanis claim of a United India,

are clear testimony to the fact that Bharat could not digest

the birth of Pakistan. While the Muslims were satisfied

psychologically over what they had achieved, the Hindus

seemed determined to regain what they [thought they] had

lost. And to achieve this end, Bharat lost no opportunity,

whenever made available to her. She suddenly stopped the

flow of canal waters to Pakistans parched lands; pushed

millions of refugees into Pakistan at the time of partition;

seized Junagarh and Kashmir states on different pretexts.

She struck against Pakistan thrice first in 1948, secondly

in 1965 and lastly in 1971, when she was able to have

fulfilled her evil design of disintegrating Pakistan.

It may be recalled that the Bengali Muslims played

a very vital role in the creation of Pakistan; as no other

Muslim province had so overwhelmingly supported the

idea of Pakistan as had the province of Bengal. Tracing

the history of the Muslim national struggle one finds that


15/103

15

the political party that gave Pakistan to the Indian

Muslims, the All-India Muslim League, was established in

Bengal in 1906. The historic Pakistan Resolution ofMarch 1940, demanding a separate Muslim State, was

moved by a stalwart Bengali Muslim leader, A.K. Fazlul

Haque (1873-1962). In the general elections of 1945-46,

the role of Bengali Muslims proved to be decisive in the

creation of Pakistan.

It was a Bengali Muslim League leader in the

person of Syed Hussain Shaheed Suharawardy (1893-

1963) who moved the historic resolution demanding a

single state of Pakistan on the occasion of Muslim League

Legislatures Convention held in April 1946 at Delhi,

under the presidentship of Quaid-i-Azam Mohammad AliJinnah. It may be noted that while the Bengali Muslims

voted for Pakistan, the Hindu Bengalis never voted or

supported the Pakistan Movement and, it was this

pressure group of Hindu element that worked behind the

scenes for reunion with their co-religionists in Hindu

Bharat.

One feels difficult to find out any historical

instance of Bengali Muslims disinterest in the creation of

a single state Pakistan. It is also difficult to see how

Pakistan should have become a reality without the

determined support of the eastern wings electorate. Then,

what provoked them to express their discontent soon after

the creation of Pakistan till the crisis of 1971? Seen in the

light of facts, there is little doubt to believe that Hindu


16/103

16

machinations against a sovereign nation sowed the seeds

of the East Pakistan crisis, through which the country and

the nation passed between 194871.

The Hindu school teachers and University

professors played a significant role in carrying out

propaganda against Pakistan among the students. Prior to

partition, a province that served as hinterland for the

Hindu industrialists and an area that was kept in a state of

backwardness during the British regime and, the Bengali

Muslim, who by experience of history since the annulment

of the partition of Bengal in 1911, had thrown its weight

in the Muslim League independence movement for better

economic living and openings, now miserably fell victim

to the nefarious underhand activities of the Hindupopulation within East Pakistan and with their co-

religionists across the border. Due to hostile Hindu

propaganda, serious misunderstandings cropped up to

strain the relations between West and East Pakistan. These

misunderstandings gave an opportunity to the hostile

elements within Pakistan to exploit the situation toengineer the March 1971 uprising in East Pakistan.

Other factors, such as distance between the two

wings, lack of contact between the masses of both the

wings, the emotions that arose because of language issue,

mishandling of delicate issues by some unimaginative

policy makers and a false sense of neglect and

exploitation of Bengalis by West Pakistanis, gave a


17/103

17

chance to the fifth columnist and the outside interests to

intervene.

Language Controversy

The most crucial hour of misunderstanding

between the two wings that sowed permanent seeds of

mistrust between them came when controversy began in

February 1948 with regard to a demand for making

Bengali Language an official language.1

This, however,was opposed and a serious controversy started at the

national level that led to the significant political blunders.

This was the first occasion when the East Pakistan

leadership involved students into anti-centre agitations

and inadvertently, invited the nefarious interest of the

communist elements to step in. The resentment bred bythe language issue was transformed into a political

movement with the passage of time. However, the tension

subsided with the timely intervention of the father of the

nation Quaid-i-Azam Mohammad Ali Jinnah during his

visit to Dhaka on March 17, 1948 but about four years

after his death, it emerged again in February 1952, when

the Central Government attempted to introduce Arabic

script for the Bengali language. Khawaja Nazimuddin

(1884-1964) the Prime Minister of Pakistan, declared

Urdu as the national language. The Provincial Assembly

of East Pakistan in return passed resolution demandingBengali to be one of the national languages. Soon after,

demonstrations started and on February 21, two Bengali

students died of police firing and a Shaheed Minar was


18/103

18

erected in their memory. At length, in 1954, the

Constituent Assembly approved Bengali as one of the two

state languages. With this move, provincialism, which hadraised its head as early as 1950, now heightened political

polarization in Pakistan.

In the general elections of 1954 held in East

Pakistan, the Muslim League was badly defeated. A

United Front comprising of four parties, including the

Awami League preached regionalism in the electioneering

campaign presenting 21-point programme which voiced

for regional autonomy. Soon after the crushing defeat of

the Muslim League in East Pakistan, a new chapter of

violence, armed attacks, rioting and plundering was

opened, resulting in a large number of casualties. The thenChief Minister, A.K Fazlul Haque, on this occasion

remarked, that the true solution of the problems of East

Pakistan was independence.2

In these hectic days of

political unrest, Haque ministry (United Fronts

Government) was dismissed and Governors rule was

imposed in East Pakistan by Governor General GhulamMohammad (1895-1956). Major General Iskander Mirza

(1899-1969) was appointed Governor of the Province.

This step redoubled the hatred of Bengalis against West

Pakistan and as such the former turned against the Central

Government.

In was then in 1955 that Chaudhary Mohammad

Ali (1905-1980) became the Prime Minister after

Mohammad Ali Bogra (1909-1963). His appointment as


19/103

19

Premier was seen with bitterness by the Bengalis on the

pretext that both the number one and number two

positions that of the Governor General and the PrimeMinister were usurped by the West Pakistanis against

the established tradition of allocating one key position to

either wing. While the East West relations were getting

strained, the Indian interest began to increase in Pakistans

politics and, from 1956, the Indians stealthily began to

intervene in Pakistani politics.

Chaudhary Mohammad Ali entered into an

agreement with the East Pakistan leaders. According to

the agreement, matters such as unification of West

Pakistan, parity between East and West Pakistan and the

question of regional autonomy were solved whichultimately paved the way for the passing of the

Constitution in 1956. After the failure of the Ministry of

Abu Hussain Sarkar (1895-1969) during the premiership

of Chaudhary Mohammad Ali, Ataur Rehman (b-1907) of

the Awami League was appointed Chief Minister in 1956

by the new Prime Minister, Hussain ShaheedSuharawardy, who was commissioned to form the

Ministry at the Centre in September 1956. With his great

political skill, Suharawardy solved some of the

controversial issues including that of the electorates yet

the discontent of the Bengalis did not subside and, in April

1957, the East Pakistan Legislative Assembly adopted a

resolution with regard to regional autonomy. In this

particular move, politicians like Maulana Abdul Hameed

Khan Bhashani (1880 1976) took the initiative.


20/103

20

The political problem of regional autonomy kept on

troubling and, in October 1957, Suharawardy, who had so

amicably handled the situation, resigned for fear ofdismissal. Thereafter Ismail Ibrahim Chundrigar (1897-

1960) succeeded Suharawardy in 1957. The year 1958

saw rapid changes in the ministries one after another, in

East Paksitan. On March 31, 1958 the new Governor of

the Province, A.K. Fazlul Haque, dismissed Ataur

Rehmans ministry and installed Sarkars ministry.Immediately afterwards, the Central Cabinet dismissed

Fazlul Haque and, as a result, Sarkar was ousted within

twelve hours leaving the office vacant for Ataur Rehman

to come back to power. On June 18, 1958 the Awami

League was defeated in the House because the National

Awami Party of Bhashani, which had been playing a

changing role of now opposing and then supporting

different ministries one after another, now withdrew its

support of the Awami League. On June 20, Abu Hussain

Sarkar formed the Government but it was short-lived as

National Awami Party had once again withdrawn its

support and had sided with the Awami League. This

resulted into change of ministry once again and on June

23, Sarkar was defeated in the House. Because of unstable

and increasingly confused situation, Presidents Rule was

imposed in the Province on June 24,1958.

In August 1958, Awami League was reinstalled

and this time the Assembly once again could not function

properly. The overall political situation by then was

awfully painful in both the wings. If there was turmoil in


21/103

21

the east, the west too was not free of tension as the

Muslim League and the Republican Party, formed in

1956, were at loggerheads against each other in WestPakistan Legislative Assembly.

Promulgation of First Martial Law in 1958

In these circumstances, when the nation was

completely disillusioned with the political leadership, the

first Martial Law was imposed on October 28, 1958 by theCommander-in-Chief of the Pakistan Army, General

Mohammad Ayub Khan (1907-1974). He unnecessarily

charge sheeted the politicians and wrongly held them

responsible for inviting such an uncalled for step.

Ayub Khans Martial Law was seen by the

Bengalis as a conspiracy hatched by West Pakistanis who,

according to them, did not allow the parliamentary system

to work successfully in the country. Ayub Khan ruled

both the wings with a strong hand and made relentless

efforts to curb provincialism. Apparently he formulated a

policy of better understanding between the people of bothwings, laid stress on Islam as a unifying force, increased

the ratio of installation of industry, encouraged inter-wing

marriages and revised quota of East Pakistanis in Civil

Services; but despite his persistent efforts he failed to

satisfy the Bengalis and all his attempts for reconciliation

were frustrated owing to one reason or the other. His self-styled system of Basic Democracy could not achieve

desired results. Ayub Khan introduced Presidential form

of government and gave a Constitution to the nation in


22/103

22

1962 which was bitterly resented by the East Pakistanis,

resulting into wide spread unrest in that region which

convulsed the whole Province for a year. It was on thisoccasion that Hussain Shaheed Suharawardy was arrested.

Resentment of the people gave an opportunity to many

intruders of the enemy camp, including the foreign powers

to walk in and, thereafter, passive voices for separation

began to be heard here and there. The years 1964-65

witnessed increasing political chaos in the country. In1965, Pakistan faced aggression by India and during these

fateful days, the East Pakistanis began to think themselves

unprotected and Sheikh Mujibur Rehman (1922-1975) the

leader of the Awami League, came to the forefront with

his controversial demand of self-determination.

Mujibs Controversial Points

It was during this ugly period that the foreign press

had started taking interest in the political crisis of

Pakistan. The seeds of the future foreign press sabotage

were sown in 1965, which continued to prick Pakistan

from time to time and ultimately fired its last bullet during

1971 crisis in East Pakistan. India, which had begun

intervening in Pakistani politics after 1956, now

encouraged Mujibs uncalled for activities who had

exposed himself with his much controversial Six-points3.

Because of his campaign of hatred against the westernzone and, also, his intentions of secession, Mujib was

arrested in April 1966, but released after a few days and


23/103

23

was re-arrested in May 1966an act that triggered off

demonstrations by the Awami League workers.

In January 1968, Mujib became the centre of

attention when his name was announced in Agartala4

Conspiracy, thereby making him a martyr while he was

in jail. The case, however, was withdrawn due to political

pressure and, East Pakistans hatred against West Pakistan

became intense which paved the way for the Bengalis to

openly speak about independence. By the end of 1968,

Ayubs power was forcefully challenged by the people

and a storm of frustration rose against him leading to

severe agitations against the Centre. Ayub Khan tried to

save the situation by calling a Round Table Conference

(RTC) of political leaders on February 26, and March 10,1969. Prior to that, Mujib was released under political

pressure to participate in the Conference. His attitude

during the deliberations of the Conference was negative as

he totally refused to soften his stand on Six-points. Since

Ayub Khan believed these points to be a gate-way towards

confederation, therefore, he declined to accept them. Onthe other hand, while the Conference was in progress, both

Bhashani from East Pakistan and Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto

(1928-1979) from West Pakistan, who had refused to

attend the Conference earlier, staged agitations in the

streets. Thus the RTC failed because of serious differences

of opinion amongst political leaders and non-cooperation

of Bhutto and Bhashani. The effort of a peaceful political

solution therefore ended in fiasco.


24/103

24

Seeing all avenues closed for the transfer of power

to civilian government, Ayub Khan resigned on March 25,

1969, abrogated the Constitution and handed over thegovernment to General Agha Mohammad Yahya Khan

(1917-1980), who imposed second Martial Law in the

country. While addressing the nation, Ayub Khan referred

to the efforts being made for dividing the country and said

that in such circumstances, I cannot preside over the

destruction of my country.5 However, the fact remainsthat the first seed of destruction was sown on the

promulgation of Ayubs Martial Law.

Second Martial Law and General Elections

With the beginning of the second Martial Law

regime, the people became more disgruntled. Thedisgusted Bengalis, who had already resented the Martial

Law of 1958, immediately reacted to the second one too.

They felt that it was another step to curb them

economically and, they began drifting towards the Awami

League. It appears that at the advent of Yahyas Martial

Law, the nation had been divided into opposing factions

one believing their salvation lying with the Awami

League under Mujib and the other faction thought Bhutto

to be their saviour but unfortunately both of them

miserably failed to save the unity of Pakistan.

After assuming power, Yahya Khan declared thathe would hand over the government to the elected

representatives of the people and to achieve this end, he

announced general elections and did some spade work


25/103

25

prior to that event. In his broadcast of November 28, 1969

he dissolved the One Unit and adopted the principle of

one man-one vote instead of paritya principle that hadpopular support in the past among the warring political

groups, even the East Pakistan leadership. Dissolution of

One Unit and the abolition of parity system was perhaps,

the first step towards bifurcation of Pakistan. The events

that followed in the coming years in the political history

of Pakistan changed the entire fabric of the Pakistansbody politic.

In order to hold general elections in December, the

government lifted the ban on political activities on

January 1, 1970. On March 30, Yahya Khan promulgated

the Legal Framework Order (LFO) which laid certainprinciples for the coming elections i.e., the type of the

future government; preservation of Islamic ideology;

framing of the Constitution in a specific period and the

powers of the President of Pakistan to amend or reject the

Constitution passed by the National Assembly.

Elections to the National Assembly were to be held

on October 5, 1970 but in September, East Pakistan was

afflicted by heavy floods followed by cyclone disaster in

mid-November 1970. As millions of East Pakistanis had

been severely affected by this natural calamity, the

Government as well as the majority of political parties of

both the wings agreed for the postponement of the

elections, which were now postponed from October 5 to

December 1970 accordingly.


26/103

26

During the electioneering campaign, Mujib availed

of every opportunity of exploitation and left no stone

unturned to spread hatred against West Pakistan amongstthe Bangalis. He exploited the flood situation and fully

benefited from the cyclone disaster by playing up the

passions of the Bengalis and blaming the Government for

apathy and neglect. While he was cunningly carving a line

of separation with his notorious slogan of Six-points, the

political situation in West Pakistan was also notencouraging. No political party could seriously challenge

the veiled secessionist intentions of Mujibs Six-points.

Neither wings political parties other than the Awami

League tried to bring effective and representative

candidates in the field in East and West Pakistan

constituencies. Even the Pakistan Peoples Party of

Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto did not nominate any one over there.

The result was that the election campaign gave an

impression of regionalism rather than nationalism. The

East Pakistan leadership particularly Mujib, became

aggressive and gave an impression of clear cut hatred

against West Pakistan and its leadership. Of course, it was

a confusing as well as a discouraging situation from the

national point of view.

After the elections, the two largest parties that

emerged victorious were the Awami League from East

Pakistan and the Pakistan Peoples Party from the West

Pakistan. They secured 160 seats and 81 seats respectively

out of 300 total National Assembly seats6

(excluding

reserved seats for women to be indirectly elected). These


27/103

27

results show that the elections were fought on the basis of

regionalism and not on the national level--though

popularly known to be the most fair elections ever held inthe history of Pakistan. In other words, this fairness did

not suit the needs of the geo-political requirements of the

country. The way in which the electioneering campaign

was launched by the political parties and, the display of a

lack of foresight by the people in general and the leaders

in particular, moved the country towards a confederation.

Beginning towards an End

After the elections, the situation became alarming.

The future of the country depended on two largest groups

which had emerged victorious. The eyes of the world were

set on the political situation of Pakistan. Democracyawaited the decision of the hour. The nation was anxious

to see her fortunes in the democratic framework that was

supposed to be built up after the elections. But what

happened after the elections was a sad story of ugly events

that took place one after the other. A serious controversy

in inflammatory words began between the leaders of the

major victorious parties in whose hands lay the destiny of

the country. The government in power lacked imagination

who could not fully guage the seriousness of the

disastrous consequences of the grave situation. The ship of

the nation was tottering on the turbulent sea and hardlyany leader had the capability of a real statesman who

could face the nasty waves.


28/103

28

The party leader having the lions share became

arrogant and too difficult a man to be handled either by

the government or the second majority party or any otherpolitical quarter. Mujib wanted nothing but separation.

His attitude then was take it or leave it.7

As such, a cold

tug of war for snatching power began between the two

majority parties. What should have happened after the

elections was that the session of the National Assembly

should have been convened according to schedule, but allefforts towards this direction were frustrated due to wrong

interpretations and untimely utterances of the contending

political parties regarding the future course of action and

framing of the constitution. This battle of words helped to

intensify the existing hatred and misunderstandings and

the little that was left beneath the surface ascended up

with its ugly and horrible posture. The extremist groups

while reaping the harvest, cried for independence which

further widened the gulf between the two wings. The

nefarious activities of the extremists radical students

added fuel to Mujibs secessionist intentions. On January

3, 1971 Mujib and his partymen including MNAs, in a

public meeting clearly indicated their designs of

separation. On this occasion, Mujib, in his address, said

that the blood of the martyrs would not be allowed to go

in vain. We will frame the constitution as we are the

representatives of the majority. Those who want to placean obstacle in its way will be eliminated

8.While Mujib

spoke, the map of Bangladesh was displayed on the table

carrying the words Jai Bangla.9


29/103

29

To coop the situation, a series of parleys began

between the political leaders and Mujib. The President of

Pakistan also met with Mujib, and talks between Bhuttoand Mujib also took place but nothing concrete came out

of these meetings. During the course of these meetings,

Mujib showed least interest in the all-Pakistan role which

the nation expected him to play.

Alarmed by Mujibs activities, General Yahya

Khan went to Dhaka and held 3-hour talks with the former

on January 12, 1971. These talks failed to produce any

positive result. On January 27, 1971 Bhutto flew to Dhaka

with his constitutional formula which was rejected by

Mujib as it did not protect his future scheme of creating a

separate Bangali state. According to Bhutto, he hadaccepted all the Six-points minus half a point, but

negotiations between the two could not continue and, at

the end of the parleys, both of them criticized each other

for the failure of talks. Meanwhile, on January 30, 1971 an

Indian plane was hijacked as a result of treachery to

Lahore by two so-called Kashmiri freedom fighters. Thehijackers were given asylum. The Indian government held

Pakistan responsible for this incident and suspended

flights of all Pakistani aircrafts over Indian territory,

which cut off the link between East and West Pakistan.

Such an act was necessarily part of the treachery referred

to above.

Bhutto, who was busy in talks with Mujib, returned

to the capital bare handed and met President Yahya on


30/103

30

February 11, 1971 to acquaint the President about his

discussion with Mujib. The situation as it appeared was

that: Apart from the uncompromising attitude of thepolitical leaders, the self-assumed role of the army as the

custodian of the country, the role of foreign agencies, the

pressure of the extremists and the refusal of the West

Pakistan leadership to recognize the new political realities

of the situation played a vital role in widening gulf

between East and West Pakistan.10

On February 13, 1971 General Yahya Khan

announced that the National Assembly would meet in

Dhaka on March 3. On February 15, 1971 Bhutto declared

that his party MNAs would not attend the session in the

given situation. The same day Mujibs MNAs and MPAsreaffirmed their faith in Six-points programme. Realising

the gravity of the situation and, for fear of any possible

catastrophe, the West Pakistan leadership and political

circles did not appreciate Bhuttos verdict and expressed

serious apprehensions. They said that if the step was

actually taken then it would lead to a point of no return.

On February 19, Bhutto again met the President to

discuss the tense and serious situation. On February 20,

1971 an amendment was made in the Legal Framework

Order (LFO) which made a provision for elected

members to resign even before the meetings of the

assemblies.

On February 22, 1971 President Yahya Khan held a

high level meeting with the Governors and Martial Law


31/103

31

Administrator of East Pakistan. According to Dr. Safdar

Mahmood, as communicated to him by a knowledgeable

source, it was in this meeting that the plan for militaryaction was approved in case Mujib refused to modify his

Six-Points.11

On February 22, 1971 Bhutto reiterated his earlier

threat of launching a movement throughout West Pakistan

if the session of the National Assembly was convened as

scheduled. It was on this day that he unequivocally

declared to liquidate any member of his party who dared

to attend the session. In case it was the intention of

someone to create different independent states in Pakistan,

let it be said so clearly added he12

. Thus the foundation

for separating of ways was laid on February 28, 1971 and,the later events, proved decisive as history witnessed

thereafter. Bhuttos sensational slogan of Idhar Ham

Udhar Tum struck the last nail resulting into final parting

of ways.

On March 1, the session was declared to have been

postponed by the Government with no fresh date

announced. While the postponement of the Session was

welcomed by West Pakistan majority parties, the East

Pakistanis termed it as a challenge and began talking of

independence. As a result, Mujib called for a total strike

on March 2, as a mark of protest against the postponement

of the session. What followed thereafter was horrible

which completely paralysed the entire administration of

the Province.


32/103

32

Mobs took to the streets and indulged in

arson, murder, rape and lootworkers

walked out of factories, business housesclosed down and Government servants

began absenting themselves from offices.

Those who failed to cooperate voluntarily

were made to comply through strongarm

tactics reminiscent of nazi storm troopers.

So great was the reign of terror that allnormal life came to a standstill. Instead of

the legally constituted Government running

the administration, the Awami League

headquarters issued edicts stopping the

payment of taxes or transferring payments

from the central head to the provincial

account, and depositing Government

revenues in private banks rather than

Government treasury.13

Even the Army troops were not spared and were

attacked by trained guerillas. It was in these days of

bloodbath that General Yahya Khan proposed a Round

Table Conference to be convened on March 10, 1971 to

subside the crisis, but Mujib and others refused to attend.

On March 4, Mujib launched the civil disobediencemovement which spread like wild fire from one end of the

Province to another, resulting into a wave of fascist

hysteria. Every type of inhuman atrocity was committed


33/103

33

and hundreds of innocent people done to death. Houses

were set on fire. Arson, loot and plundering became the

rule of the day. National flag was desecrated and theportrait of the Father of the Nation was trampled under

foot.14

On March 6, Yahya Khan, in his broadcast,

announced that the National Assembly would meet on

March 25, 1971. In response to this, Mujib placed certain

demands as pre-conditions for attending the Session. He

pressed for withdrawal of Martial Law before convening

the session and, transfer power to the elected

representatives of the people forthwith, through a

Presidential Proclamation. He, in fact, had added another

four demands to his Six-points. These demands were seenas a prelude to independence. It became evident when

Mujib announced his plan to run a parallel government on

March 7. It was on this day that Bangladesh flag flew on

the top of his house.15

This act clearly signalized porting

to the ways.

While unspeakable brutalities continued to be

committed on non-Bangalis, the President of Pakistan, as

a last resort, though too late, tried to convince Mujib not

to declare independence. He flew to Dhaka on March 15,

1971. He negotiated with the later for ten days to hammer

out a compromise, preserve the democratic process and

facilitate transfer of power. During the negotiations,

said an official report, Sheikh Mujibur Rehman initially

escalated his mandate for provincial autonomy into a


34/103

34

demand of confederation. This meant that after the issue

of the proposed proclamation, extinguishing Martial Law

and transferring power, the five provinces of Pakistanwould be cut adrift and national sovereignty would be

virtually extinct.16

The report further said that Sheikh

Mujibur Rehman demanded that the National Assembly

must ab initio sit in two committees: one composed of

members from East Pakistan, the other from West

Pakistan. Later he developed this into a demand for twoconstitutional conventions drawing up separate

constitutions.17

On March 22, both Mujib and Tajuddin Ahmad,

the General Secretary of the Awami League, had an

unscheduled meeting with General Yahya Khan in whichthey categorically demanded the transfer of power to East

and West Pakistan. This was categorically a clear signal

for the break up of Pakistan. Historically March 22, would

be considered as the decisive day for the dismemberment

of Pakistan in her history. It may be referred here that

earlier on March 14, Bhutto too had made a similardamaging statement of demanding transfer of power to

majority parties in East and West Pakistan. It was in

response to this statement that seven political parties

severely condemned Bhuttos malicious plans and had

declared to start a movement for the transfer of power.

On March 23, Dr. Kamal Hussain, a prominent

Awami League leader, met President Yahyas aides and

handed over Awami Leagues draft constitution, which


35/103

35

proposed the procedure for framing two constitutions.18

Tajuddin Ahmad demanded for a proclamation to be made

within 48 hours in the light of their draft constitution. Thesame day the West Pakistani leaders who were trying to

soften Mujib reported to General Yahya their failure to

dissuade the arrogant Sheikh from secession.19

Shortly

before that, Mujib took salute of a March past from a

squad of armed volunteers. March 23 was observed as a

Resistance Day in East Pakistan under his directive. Theflag of Bangladesh was unfurled on his residence. While

unfurling the flag, Mujib said that the struggle is for

emancipation and for freedom.20

On March 24, the Awami League aides met

President Yahyas aides and Tajuddin Ahmad, whiletalking to the press reporters said that so far as they were

concerned there was no further need for negotiations.21

The conspiracy originally uncovered by Agartala Case

was now fully under way. The fact is that Volunteers

were under training in every district in the garb of

Sangram Parishads. Arms and ammunitions from Indiahad been smuggled in and stocked at strategic points all

over the provincehow well-planned and well-organised

the Awami League move was can be gathered from the

mortar fire which came from Jagannath Hall on the night

of 25th

-26th

March and the appearance within 3 hours of

innumerable barricades all over the city of Dhaka on the

night of the 25th

March.22


36/103

36

While political negotiations were in progress, the

Awami League was busy preparing to get her demand of

separation fulfilled by force. They instigated students,armed soldiers of regular forces, and made the educational

institutions the centres of subversive activities. When

failed to win over by persuation, the Awami League

sought to line up through Nazi-style tactics. A reign of

terror was unleashed and unmentionable atrocities

committed. On March 25, Mujib, in the presence of a hugemob at Dhaka persuaded them to prepare themselves for

supreme sacrifice and the following day, on March 26, a

full-scale revolt was witnessed throughout East Pakistan.

Mujib called on his people to continue the struggle until

the last enemy soldier has vanished.23

It was against this

background that Mujib was arrested for his rebellious

activities and Army action was ordered in East Pakistan.

The small hours of March 26, 1971 had been set as the

zero hour for an armed uprising, and for the formal

launching of the independent Republic of Bangladesh.

Awami Leagues bid for secession was now under way.

Barely a few hours before the Awami Leagues zero hour

for action, the Armed Forces of Pakistan came in the field

around midnight of March 25-26, 1971.

On the eve of Army action, Yahya and Bhutto, who

had gone there for negotiations, flew back to West

Pakistan on March 25 and 26 respectively. Yahya Khan in

his broadcast of March 26, outlawed the Awami League,

banned political activity throughout Pakistan and

described Mujib and his party as enemies of Pakistan.


37/103

37

Commenting on the Army action, Bhutto remarked,

Thank God Pakistan has been saved, but the subsequent

events later on proved that the military action, in fact,marked the end of the united Pakistan. What a pity!

Indias Role in dismemberment of Pakistan

India, who had been reluctant to accept the creation

of Pakistan since 1947 could never reconcile to the

partition of the sub-continent. She remained on the look-out to undo the existence of Pakistan. On the eve of the

March crisis in East Pakistan, India played havoc. She was

directly involved in the armed rebellion by the

secessionist elements in East Pakistan in March-April

1971. As discussed before, the Indian intervention in the

political affairs of Pakistan had started earlier in 1956. Itcontinued to enhance with the passage of time and, on

various occasions, India deliberately interfered in

Pakistani politics, especially after Mujibs victory in the

1970 elections. Her attitude became threatening. Her press

and election media missed no opportunity of portraying

Mujib as a hero and martyr. The hijacking of the Indian

plane was a pre-planned conspiracy against Pakistan. Prior

to this, in 1965-66, the Indian High Commission at Dhaka

had indulged in East Pakistan politics. The All India

Radio began a malicious campaign against Pakistan,

thereby inciting the Bangali sentiments. Indian

propaganda literature was being smuggled into Pakistan

territory and freely distributed to project Mujibur Rehman.

At the time of Mujibs arrest in May-June, 1966, Indian


38/103

38

infiltrators had crossed over the borders to Pakistan to

help the Awami League workers in demonstrations against

the Central Government. In 1967, according to a concreteevidence, it was found out that India was involved in

Agartala Conspiracy. A number of witnesses confirmed

that Sheikh Mujibur Rehman had been one of the actors of

this drama since 1964 in collusion with India.24

One of the

witnesses stated that India had categorically agreed to

provide arms and ammunitions to the secessionists at thetime of revolt against Pakistan and, on the eve of

successful rebellion, India would block the air and sea

routes which join East and West Pakistan with each

other.25

Again in 1968-69, a large number of miscreants

were sent by the Indian Government to East Pakistan, who

were to play a mischievious role during agitations in

association with local Hindu population. These miscreants

raised slogans such as Jai Hind, Akhand Bharat and

Bande Matram even in Dhaka city.26

During the Round Table Conference of political

leaders with Ayub Khan in February-March 1969, AyubKhan had disclosed that thirty thousand Indian

miscreants equipped with arms and ammunition had

entered East Pakistan and were looting and killing

people.27

It may be recalled that after Mujibs victory in

1970 elections, India adopted a threatening posture and

amassed her Army along the borders of East Pakistan on

the pretext of holding fair elections in Bangal. Indian

Radio and press gave all out support to Mujib and incited

East Pakistanis against the Government of Pakistan.


39/103

39

Thousands of Indians entered East Pakistan and posed a

threat to law and order. The Indian arms and ammunition

was freely distributed by her agents during and after theelections.

After the pre-planned hijacking of the Indian plane

to Lahore, the Indians made their bid to inflict financial

loss on Pakistan and to provide an opportunity to the

Awami League to make its military preparations for a

final round with the Pakistan Army. At the time of Awami

Leagues call for strike on March 2, 1971 thousands of

Indian agents and huge quantity of arms poured into East

Pakistan. During the first fortnight of March 1971,

inhuman barbarities were witnessed in most of the East

Pakistan districts in which the Indian miscreants with thehelp of Hindu population of East Pakistan surpassed all

the past events of brutalities ever committed in the history

of the sub-continent. Thousands of persons were

surrounded and killed in cold blood. Women were paraded

naked in the streets and mothers were made to drink the

blood of their own children. Women and children lockedup in thousands were burnt alive and inmates were roasted

to death. The streets of Dhaka were littered with corpses.28

Mujibs Mukti Bahini, a brain child of India was

established in July 1970, which was duely trained in

Indian territory by the Indian Army, whose endless

atrocities committed on non-Bangali population of East

Pakistan can hardly be discussed in words. At the time of

Bangladesh Ceremony observed on March 23, 1971 the

Indian officials participated in the notorious function.


40/103

40

Concrete evidence is available to prove that during 1970-

1971, infiltration of armed personnel and transportation of

ammunition from India into East Pakistan continued on ahectic speed under the supervision of the Border Security

Force. The Mukti Bahini was expanded, strengthened, and

trained militarily.29

On the day Mujib was arrested for revolting against

the Government, Indian reaction to the event was not only

quick but sharp as well. On March 27, India expressed

sympathy in Lok Sabha with the refugees from East

Pakistan. While the fact is that by that time no East

Pakistani had ever crossed the borders to take refuge in

the Indian territory.

Also indisputable as a fact was the speech of thethen Prime Minister of India, (late) Mrs. Indira Gandhi on

March 29, when she moved a resolution in the Indian

Parliament offering unanimous support to what was

described as the freedom struggle.30

On March 31, the

Indian Parliament expressed its deep anguish and grave

concern at the developments in East Pakistan.31 The

tempers of the Congress Parliamentary party members

were so high that some demanded recognition of

Bangladesh by the Government of India, and others

declaration of war against Pakistan.32

Again on March

30, the State Assemblies of Bihar and Assam unanimously

adopted resolutions urging the Indian Government to

recognize the provisional government of the Republic of

Bangladesh and the same sentiments were expressed by


41/103

41

the Chief Ministers of Tamil Nadu and Madhya Pradesh.

On the same day, both houses of the Indian Parliament

assured the secessionists in East Pakistan of theirwholehearted support. Situated as India is said the

Indian Prime Minister so cunningly while moving the

resolution, and bound as the people of the sub-continent

are by centuries-old ties of history, culture and tradition,

parliament cannot remain indifferent to happenings so

close to the Indian border.33 On April 4, Mrs. IndiraGandhi speaking at the session of the All-India Congress

Committee asserted that it was neither proper nor

possible for India to keep quite.34

However, on April 24,

the Deputy Chief Minister of West Bangal declared, we

in West Bangal recognize Bangladesh although the

Central Government has not done so yet.35

From the above facts the salient point emerges

about Indias role in the East Pakistan crisis that India,

officially and unofficially, openly and secretly, physically

or vocally, showing complete disregard to international

law of non-intervention in any other country, blatantlyinterfered in Pakistans internal crisis.

It may be noted that on the eve of Mujibs

proclamation of illegal independence, the Indian radio

and other media of publicity began a vehement campaign

propagating the false cause of Mujib and the Awami

League. In other words, India found the situation quite

compatible towards fulfilling her unholy design to undo

Pakistan - the moment for which she had been waiting


42/103

42

since 1947. Chaos in East Pakistan offered her a golden

opportunity to disintegrate Pakistan. In the words of

Subrahmanyum, Director of the Indian Institute forDefence Studies, what India must realize is the fact that

the breakup of Pakistan is in our interest and we have an

opportunity the like of which will never come again.36

In such an environment while the Indian media and

their leadership including the Premier were busy carving a

line in the map of Pakistan, the international press,

influenced and bribed by Indian secret agencies added

more fury to the already tense situation. Seconding the

Indian exaggerated propaganda, they gave false accounts

of events, thus turning the events in favour of India and

damaging the image of Pakistan at international level.Death toll in thousands was exaggerated and the stories of

refugee problem surpassed any type of falsehood. The

refugee problem was only used as a pretext for invading

Pakistan. India wanted to aggravate the situation by

shrieking for refugee settlement to grab more aid for

relief. If refugees were a problem to India then why didnot she allow them to return to their homeland after the

general amnesty had been declared and, the things,

seemed to be settling down? The fact, however, as

interpreted by Mohammad Ayoob and K. Subrahmanyum

was:-

The Government of India, presumably

after due deliberations, decided not to close

the borders, but to allow the refugees to


43/103

43

come in. In a sense the commitment of the

Government of India to the liberation of

Bangla Desh was implicit in this decision. Ifthis had not been done, it would have been

difficult to have sustained the flame of

resistance in Bangla Desh for nine long

months, and to keep up the morale of the

people of Bangla Desh.37

When uncertainty and confusion were at their peak,

Indira Gandhi hurriedly toured several countries during

which she advocated the false cause of India. Her tone

was threatening with regard to the situation in East

Pakistan. Her attitude reflected her determination to have

a final round with Pakistan. She played with one ball inhand, leaving the rest in the air thus isolating and

depriving Pakistan of any possible assistance from any

quarter, and decided to beat the trumpet of deliberate

aggression against her. It may also be noted that by then

India had entered into a Joint Defence Pact with Russia.

Eventually, the skirmishes with the Indian Army in

the guise of Mukti Bahini, which had started as early as

March, now took shape of a full-fledged war when India

sent her Army in East Pakistan on November 22, 1971.

The war spread and on December 3, 1971 it took West

Pakistan in its fold.

When war flames had risen too high, the matter

was taken to the Security Council where various

resolutions were moved for a cease-fire, but one way or


44/103

44

the other, either India or her ally Russia, rejected or

vetoed on one pretext or the other. The resolution moved

by Poland on December 15, 1971 to cease all militaryaction as a first step towards cease-fire met the same fate.

Z.A. Bhutto, who was representing Pakistan in the

Security Council, made a lengthy speech on this occasion

saying: I find it disgraceful to my person and my country

to remain hereLegalize aggression, legalize occupation

I will not be a part to it. We will fight. We will go backand fight. Then he ripped up the Council agenda and

stalked out of the chamber38

While this was going on

in the Security Council, Dhaka fell to the Indian Army on

December 16, 1971. The long cherished goal of India was

thus achieved.

The ugly Role of Foreign Press

It would not be wrong to implicate the western

press as one of the founding fathers of Bangladesh. At

the indignation of Bharat its correspondents did not stop at

malicious and tendentious reporting. They spent hours and

days among University students discoursing on the

economic viability of the proposed state of Bangladesh

and canvassing the possibility of an open revolt against

the Central government when they arrived in East

Pakistan for the ostensible purpose of reporting on the

situation resulting from tidal floods in November 1970.But none of this talented team visited Lahore to witness

the massive relief effort organized for flood-victims.39

The news of floods, sufferings of the displaced people and


45/103

45

the news of internal strife between the two brotherly

wings, practically came from the foreign press probably

interested foreign press who sabotaged the whole affairin conformity with the policy line given to them by their

friends the Indians.

It is believed that there are three permanent

elements in the foreign press: one that believes in

objective writing, the second which is regarded as a

forceful element, works in line with the policies of the

secret services agencies of any of the foreign country

which purposely provides information in conformity with

her designs, and the third perhaps the biggest of all, is that

element which is tactfully bribed for any adventure. It

appears that India made best use of the last two whodeliberately created confusion during the East Pakistan

crisis and willingly engaged themselves in concocting

stories to malign Pakistan.

The foreign media particularly the British News

media, gave one-sided accounts of the events in East

Pakistan quoting a line from here and a line from there to

suit there own interest.40

It published unfounded and

distorted reports showing open sympathy with the Indian

supported Bangladesh rebellion. Their editorials, articles

and news comments and reports carried biased stories

damaging the Pakistani image. Taking notice of it, the

national press gave critical comments. Deploring their

attitude the Pakistan Observerof Dhaka in its editorial of

April 27, 1971 said the British press, minus a small


46/103

46

section, has been following the same line of anti-Pakistan

propaganda depending wholly and blindly on unverified

stories told by Indian propagandatists.41

Calling thesenews as gross exaggeration Mrs. Jill Knight an MP of

the British Parliament, who happened to visit Pakistan in

June 1971, remarked, papers in Britain are still reporting

atrocities, and shocking evidence of violence, but there is

none of this going on now.42

The ire and wrath of the

foreign correspondents was mirrored in their exaggeratedaccounts of the Army Action.

43The statement of General

Tikka Khan, Chief Martial Law Administrator in East

Pakistan, as quoted in Pakistan Divided, portrays a vivid

picture of the ruthless reporting of the foreign press

media. He remarked, to this day the world still believes

we started everything. This is a complete distortion of

historyMujib wanted a showdown. During the struggle

that followed, the Bangalis exaggerated their casualties by

a thousand percent or more. Mujib says there were

200,000 rapes. A Roman Catholic Organization, which the

press has chosen not to quote, comes up with a figure of

4,000. We have been the victims of a propaganda

machine.44

Such an act of journalistic dishonesty was done

under the Indian-inspired falsehood tactics. Dailies like

Times, Guardian and Telegraph carried virulent anti-

Pakistan propaganda campaign throughout the crisis in

East Pakistan especially after the expulsion of about half

a dozen foreign correspondents from Dhaka by the

military authorities for their safety purpose. These


47/103

47

correspondents took this step too seriously and, in return,

deliberately presented distorted events in a manner

prejudicial to Pakistans interests. Exaggerated figures ofrefugees were given, imaginary stories of large scale

fighting were published. The illegal and revolutionary

demand of a pressure group, miscreants and anti-state

elements was presented in such a way that it looked like a

demand of the entire population of East Pakistan. Funny

stories as ludicrous and malicious as anything wereadvertently circulated to slander Pakistan.

One such story that appeared in the foreign press

was that a large number of girl students had been killed

in the Roqayya Hall on the night of 25th

March while the

fact of the matter is that the military did not enter thepremises of the Hall at all, to which the provost of the Hall

herself bears testimony.45

While commenting on the role

of the British Press, the Pakistan Observer, in its issue of

September 4, 1971 wrote:

if one goes by what is being published in

the British press, one would almost believe

that Bangladesh exists while in fact there is

noneIt is notable here that while the

British press has approved the role of the

British troops in north Ireland in quelling

rebellion and lawlessness, the same press is

denouncing Pakistan for using troops to curb

lawlessness and anarchy to save the lives of

innocent citizens and restore law and order


48/103

48

in East PakistanThis is a policy of double

standard.46

One finds contradiction in the publications of such

a press. It would be interesting to note that many British

papers wrote about the reign of lawlessness that the

Awami League had let loose in East Pakistan in the month

of March; called Shaikh Mujibur Rehman a demagogue

and rabblerouser and emphasized the need to restore order

in the Province. But later on when the Pakistan Army

intervened to restore the order, safeguard the integrity of

Pakistan and tackle the disruptionists, the same papers

began to sing a different tune. They began to lionize the

Awami League and called the law breakers and

secessionists freedom fighters.

47

It is increasinglyastonishing and a pity that while brazenfacedly distorting

truths and misrepresenting facts emanating from India,

they blacked out the news and versions from Pakistani

sources.

It may be recalled that Even when Hilters

Germany was at the peak of its power, the master

propagandist, Goebbels, observed certain principles to

deceive the world but the irresponsible manner in which

the western press, maliciously propagated against echoing

on Pakistan, the Indian broadcasting media and the press,

can hardly be narrated in adequate words. It is a wonder-

how the western press and news media became a tool in

the hands of Indian expansionists and war mongers. It is

quite evident that saboteurs and miscreants played a nasty


49/103

49

game of rumour mongering to create boundless confusion

and chaos with the sole objective of destroying the

confidence of the people and, thereby, enabling the anti-state elements and infiltrators to make capital out of the

weaknesses of those who fell a prey to the sordid stories

that were invented during the crisis.

Whatever was happening in East Pakistan was the

internal problem of Pakistan and only the Pakistanis were

to decide the best way out for themselves and no foreign

power had a right to impose a solution. The fact is that the

baseless and unfounded propaganda was carried out by

Indian agents in the foreign press. According to an

editorial of the Pakistan Observer ofApril 27, 1971, this

version has been beautifully picturized when the paperwrote: for all we know, the British publicity media have

no correspondents of their own in East Pakistan and are

apparently guided by second hand reports from hostile

sources in India. They seem almost to be functioning as

relaying stations of the All India Radio and other Indian

publicity agencies so that if you have heard one you haveheard all.

48To please the Indians, the British press and

her broadcasting services reported false stories often

committing ridiculous blunders. On many issues they

widely differed among themselves. For example, the

number of refugees from East Pakistan was estimated

between 10,000 by the British press in June 1971 while

the BBC told that the number was 20,000 and the Indian

Television was saying their number was 600,000.

Similarly, the estimates of deaths on the first day of Army


50/103

50

action was reported to be 6,000 and the press declared the

number as 10,000.49

As referred to earlier, the Times, the

Guardian and The Sunday Telegraph took the lead inpresenting most virulent anti-Pakistan propaganda through

their news columns and also editorially. They frequently

used the name of Bangladesh without any inverted

commas as a matter of principle. Through their writings,

these papers gave the impression that long before its

actual existence, the country had come into being andher government functioning in Calcutta. The Guardians

reporting about Pakistani affairs was remarkable for its

lack of objectivity, while using loaded phrases like

Punjabi occupation regime, liberation forces of the

Bangladesh, Bangals struggle and self-determination

for Bangladesh.

Commenting on the role of The Guardian, an

analyst wrote in the Pakistan Times of Lahore in its issue

of June 18, 1971 that: The Guardian does not report

events; it tells the Bangalis living in Britain how to carry

on the war, how to use guerrilla tactics and defeat thehated Pakistan Government and of course the BBC is

always there to line the cue and broadcast a summary of

the British press for the benefit of the poor East

Pakistanis, who know nothing of modern techniques of

war.50

The performance of the Indian propagandists in

distorting facts about happenings in East Pakistan and the

futile attempts to justify her illegal and immoral

intervention in Pakistans internal affairs was

understandable, but what was not so understandable was


51/103

51

the role played by the British publicity media with minor

exceptions. It is a pity that the British press minus a small

section had been following the same line of anti-Pakistanpropaganda, depending wholly and blindly on unverified

stories told by Indian propagandists. One is compelled to

appreciate the propaganda machinery of the Indian

propagandists who successfully directed rumour-

mongering campaign on an international scale thereby

convincing the world media to see things in Pakistanthrough Indian eyes only. It may be recalled that the

Western press had remained mute when India illegally

occupied Kashmir in 1948, forcibly held Goa, Monabao,

Hyderabad and, thereafter, attacked Pakistan thrice in

1948, 1965, 1971. Why did the Western Press remain cold

during periodical pogroms of Muslims in India since

partition of the South Asian region? Why, after all,

Pakistan remained their attractive target throughout?

The attitude of the American news media was also

no better. Their attitude remained unfriendly and

unsympathetic on a number of occasions. Pakistanexpressed her concern over unauthenticated and

tendentious reports, mostly derived from Indian sources.

Deploring the publication of one-sided news and views

about happenings in East Pakistan, the Pakistani

Ambassador pointed out that those newspapers had

refused to publish the news refuting reports of the killing

of ten professors of Dhaka University51

The tendency

in America to publish and believe unconfirmed reports, so

long as they were damaging to Pakistan, also became


52/103

52

apparent, from the statement issued by the International

Committee of University of Emeritus in New York,

describing the massacre of scholars at Dhaka. The truthabout the massacre was revealed when the professors

listed as dead were authoritatively reported to be alive.52

The western press gave horrible stories of refugee

sufferings as depicted by India. They published tearful

accounts of the sufferings of refugees and of starvation.

Although there had been human suffering during a few

months in East Pakistan but the question is that how did

this take place and who caused it? Wasnt it India who

first created unrest in East Pakistan, executed acts of

rebellion and sabotage and then opened her borders,

encouraging somewhat unhappy and innocent people ofEast Pakistan to cross over and take refuge in camps set

up under a pre-planned programme. By raising hue and

cry, India killed two birds with one stone damaging the

integrity of Pakistan and getting maximum foreign

economic aid from the world in the name of refugee

sufferings and shortage of food grains.

BBC reporting while analyzing the attitude of the

British press and the British Broadcasting Corporation

(BBC) propaganda on the East Pakistan crisis, Dr. K.K.

Aziz, has given considerable account on the subject in his

work titled Britain and Pakistan. He writes:

British politicians, historians, writers,

journalists and authors of letters to

newspapers had not missed any opportunity


53/103

53

between 1947-1971 of expressing their

intense dislike for Pakistan. But it was only

when the crisis in East Pakistan came inMarch 1971 that they discovered a God-sent

occasion to vent their spleen to their hearts

content. All the pent-up emotions, historical

memories and bitter frustration suddenly

found release. The long-awaited moment

had come and with a concerted and gleefuldetermination they assailed everything

Pakistani from the very creation of the

country to its minor difficulties.53

Side by side with the British press, its radio played

the same role. It appears that the BBC mostly depended onthe distorted reporting of the press. Its programmes were

later reproduced in its magazine namely Listener. One,

Michael Clayton of the BBC who was expelled from

Dhaka along with a few other foreign correspondents on

March 26, 1971 in his talk on Radio in early April called

Sheikh Mujibur Rehman a moderate politician anddescribed the armys action of restoring law and order as

applying the solution of burning and killing to the

independence aspirations of East Pakistans people.54

David Sells in his talks on radio called upon the Bangalis

of East Pakistan to organize themselves politically so as to

be able to offer effective military opposition to the

domination of West Pakistan.55

By the end of July in a talk, John Grigg said:


54/103

54

The partition of India in 1947 was an

unmitigated tragedy, the principle cause of

which was that a man of perverse genius Mohammad Ali Jinnah was determined at

all costs to create a separate Muslim state. In

spite of the Indian National Congresss

genuine commitment to secularism, Jinnah

aggravated and exploited the Muslims fear

that in a Hindu-majority state they would bepersecuted, or would at any rate exist only

as second-class citizens. On the basis of that

doctrine Pakistan was established, the unity

of India shattered, and in the process two

historic Indian communities Bangal and

Punjab were divided. Pakistan was from

the first day a geographical

nonsenseSince 1947 the concept of

Muslim solidarity, which was the one

positive element in the case for Pakistan, has

been exposed as a disastrous myth, while the

negative argument that Muslims would find

life intolerable in India has proved equally

illusoryThe demand for an independent

Bangladesh is a fair enough comment on the

record and the very idea of Pakistan. But

is it fair toIndias record, or to the idea of aunited India which was sacrificed (want only

by Jinnah, sadly by Nehru) when the British

withdrew? Gandhi could never give his


55/103

55

blessing to what he called the vivisection

of India. To him, the events of 1947 were

heart-breaking the negation of all that hehad worked for more than thirty years. But

surely his vision of a united India, in which

different religious groups could live together

in peace was the right and the true vision,

and is this not the moment to recapture it?...

No doubt it would be extremely difficult toreopen the question which was settled, on

the wrong lines, in 1947. Sovereign states,

however misbegotten, have a terrible bound

to resist any attempt to liquidate them. All

the samethe people of India and Pakistan

are essentially one people, whose artificial

division has been a calamity for themselves

and for the world. That calamity should, if

possible, be endedThe proper demands to

make are that Sheikh Mujibur Rehman

should be released, that the elected

representatives of the Pakistani people

should be allowed to meet, and that military

rule should give way to constitutional

governmentit is possible that a liberated

Pakistan would gradually, through its

component parts (Bangalis, Baluchis,Pathans etc. as well as the dominant

Punjabis) return to the idea of a united,

confederal India. Such a development would


56/103

56

bring comfort and hope to the masses whose

lives have been blighted by the effects of

Partition.56

The above sentiments are being expressed even

today by Indians and a group of seudo-intellectuals who

are playing role of fifth columnists in Pakistan since its

dismemberment in 1971.

Now have a look on another inflammatory analysisagainst the creation of Pakistan.

In the late October, John Grigg said in his talk that:

Bangal was partitioned in 1947 and East

Pakistan brought into being on two

assumptions which have turned out to becompletely false. The Muslim solidarity

proclaimed by Jinnah has been disproved by

West Pakistans exploitation of the eastern

region over more than twenty years, and by

Yahya Khans recent atrocities; while the

alleged impossibility of a fair deal forMuslims under Hindu majority rule has been

disproved by the experience of Indias 60

million Muslims since Independence. So

why not revert to the idea of a united India?

Since the two-nation theory has failed, why

not go back to one nation instead of creating

a third nation and so, perhaps, starting an

endless process of Balkanistan.57


57/103

57

While talking about the plight of the refugees in the

same radio programme, John Grigg said that:

One thing is absolutely clear. The refugees

will go home only if and when the Punjabi

Army is withdrawn from East Bangal.

Moreover, to be sure that they return in

safety they will need to know that Sheikh

Mujib has been released and that the country

is effectively under his controlThe outside

world has shown too little appreciation of

Indias gigantic act of charity towards nine

million citizens of another nation driven by

methods of barbarism on to her soilThe

partition of Bangal is against nature. Theoriginal cause of it religious prejudice is

now palpably a waning force, and the vested

economic interests which partition has

created are unlikely to be much of a

breakwater against the force of Bangali

nationalism. Meanwhileunless they gohome very soon, there will be war.

58

In early November 1971, another speaker namely

Donald Milner, not only made a forecast of an Indian

attack on Pakistan but also advocated it during his talk on

the radio, saying:

Steadily, it seems, the false logic of events

in forcing India and Pakistan into warThe

end of the monsoons means that heavy


58/103

58

artillery can be moved up to the East

Pakistan frontierMeanwhile, the

continued pressure of the Bangali refugees isimpelling the Indians to action. As war fever

mounts, at least in the north of India, a quick

campaign looks more and more attractive. In

theory, it would create one independent state

of Bangladesh, beholden to India for its very

existence, to which the refugees could allreturn in confidence. And with Pakistan

weakened irreparably by the loss of half of

her population and resources, India would

be free to divert her own vast defence

budget towards crying social and economic

needs. Mrs. Gandhis cabinet is still divided

roughly 50-50 between hawks and doves,

and there seems little doubt that the decision

is hers.59

In early December Donald Milner in his talk said:

Even the most optimistic observer must

now admit that little short of a miracle can

save India and Pakistan from war. India

had no need to foment anti-Punjabi fervour

in East Pakistan. The refugees are a very

real goad to India to take action. Overtly she

has behaved in the circumstances with

commendable moderation, insisting until

very recently that the whole crisis was an


59/103

59

internal affair for Pakistan to solve (even if

India knew she couldnt!). For the Indians,

it may be now or never: a uniqueopportunity (while world sympathy lasts)

not only to get rid of the refugees, but at the

same time finally to shatter the unity of

Pakistan.60

By the end of December 1971, a report of Peter

Flinn sent from Rawalpindi was read out on radio which

alleged that:

The youth of Pakistan had already written

off Muslim unity as a practical failure before

the fighting and the armed services are

almost relieved to see the East go.61

Like the BBC, the British press did no less harm to

Pakistan by false reporting during the March crisis. Its

leading papers gave full-scale coverage to the so-called

Bangali Liberation Movement with full devotion. The

Times took the lead in the whole affair:It did not make a secret of its utter dislike

for Pakistan. In the dispatches it chose to

print, in the headline

Dismemberment of Pakistan

Documents

Transcript of Dismemberment of Pakistan