Connect with us

Features

Birth of Bangladesh

Published

on

By Jayantha Somasundaram

“My greatest strength is the love for my people,

My greatest weakness is that I love them too much.”

– Sheikh Mujibur Rahman

On December 16, 1971, Lieutenant General Amir Abdullah Khan Niazi, Pakistan’s Eastern Commander, surrendered to India’s Lieutenant General Jagjit Singh Aurora, bringing to an end the war that completed the bifurcation of Pakistan, in order to create the new state of Bangladesh. This war of independence had been a brutally bitter conflict that had lasted almost a year.

When dominion status was granted in August 1947, Pakistan was made up of two enclaves, separated by a thousand miles of Indian territory. Muslim-majority East Bengal made up East Pakistan while the other Muslim-majority areas in the west comprised West Pakistan. In 1971 East Pakistan with 73 million had a larger population than West Pakistan which had 57 million.

At the end of over a decade of military rule in Pakistan, General Yahya Khan held parliamentary elections in December 1970. The poll resulted in the Awami League securing nearly all the seats in East Pakistan. The All Pakistan Awami (People’s) League was founded in 1949 by Bengali nationalists as a counter to the Muslim League which sought centralisation of political power and the imposition of Urdu as the national language. The Awami League had gone to the election on a Six Point Plan to gain Bengali control of everything except defence and foreign affairs.

However, overlooking the claims of Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, the leader of the Awami League, President Yahya Khan appointed Zulficar Ali Bhutto as Prime Minister, and refused to summon the newly elected parliament, the National Assembly of Pakistan.

In response, Mujibur Rahman on March 7, 1971 at a public rally in Dacca, attended by two million Bengalis, called for civil disobedience, armed resistance and Bengali independence. The result was a civil disobedience campaign which took the form of a general strike, non-payment of taxes, closure of schools and courts; and for the next three weeks East Bengal was a de facto independent state ruled by the Awami League.

Sahabzada Lieutenant General Yaqub Ali Khan was commander of the Pakistan Army’s Eastern Command in Dacca and Governor of East Pakistan. He opposed the use of military force to settle the Bengali issue and when ordered to do so, he refused and resigned his position. He was replaced by Lieutenant General Tikka Khan. His use of force led to criticism even in West Pakistan and in August he was recalled.

Independence declared

On March 25 Mujibur declared Bangladesh independent. That night the West Pakistani armed forces attacked the police barracks at Rajarbagh and the East Pakistan Rifles, a 15,000 strong paramilitary force based in Dacca. Debasish Roy Chowdhury in The Asia Times (23/6/05) claims that, “The military now decided enough was enough. At a meeting of the military top brass, Yahya declared: Kill three million of them and the rest will eat out of our hands.” Islamabad responded with Operation Searchlight on 26, a lightning military move aimed at taking all major Eastern cities. It included the arrest of Sheikh Mujibur who was thereafter imprisoned in Karachi in the West.

In addition, Islamabad banned the Awami League and arrested its leaders. The Awami League described it as genocide, targeting in particular their leadership and supporters as well as Bengali intellectuals and the destruction of their economy.

The New York Times

reported on March 30, “In two days and nights of shelling by the Pakistan Army perhaps seven thousand Bengalis died in Dacca alone. The Army which attacked without warning with American-supplied M24 Chaffee tanks destroyed large parts of the City.” A subsequent report published in the Times on April 14 said, “The Central Government forces killed East PakistanArmy officers and soldiers who were unable to break out and join the guerrillas when the Army offensive began on 25th March.”

Responding to the claim that Ceylon provided refuelling facilities for Pakistani military planes carrying troops to the East to suppress the uprising, Leslie Goonewardena, Minister of Communications stated, “in March 1971 sixteen east-bound and fifteen west-bound Pakistan Air Force planes touched down at the Bandaranaike International Airport.”

Provisional Government established

The Provisional Government of Bangladesh was established on April 17 when the 469 Bengali parliamentarians elected in December 1970, to the National and Provincial assemblies, formed the Constituent Assembly of Bangladesh and drew up an interim constitution. In the absence of Mujibur, Syed Nazrul Islam was appointed Acting President. In the months that followed it is alleged that anything up to three million Bengalis were killed, including students, intellectuals, politicians and Hindus in what is referred to as the 1971 Bangladesh Genocide. The post war Hamoodur Rahman Commission appointed by Islamabad concluded that there were only 26,000 civilian deaths.

Anthony Mascarenhas was a Karachi-based reporter who was one of eight Pakistani journalists given a tour of the East by the Government. Appalled by what he learnt he fled to London with his family and broke his story in an article published in The Sunday Times on June 13. Under the headline ‘Genocide’ it began with: “Abdul Bari had run out of luck. Like thousands of other people in East Bengal, he had made the mistake – the fatal mistake – of running within sight of a Pakistani patrol. He was 24 years old, a slight man surrounded by soldiers. He was trembling because he was about to be shot.”

“…I have heard the screams of men bludgeoned to death in the compound of the Circuit House (civil administrative headquarters) in Comilla. I have seen truckloads of other human targets and those who had the humanity to try to help them hauled off ‘for disposal’ under the cover of darkness and curfew…I have witnessed the brutality of ‘kill and burn missions’ as the army units, after clearing out the rebels, pursued the pogrom in the towns and villages. I have seen whole villages devastated by ‘punitive action’. And in the officer’s mess at night I have listened incredulously as otherwise brave and honourable men proudly chewed over the day’s kill. ‘How many did you get?’ The answers are seared in my memory.”

Ten years ago on the anniversary of these events the BBC said: “There is little doubt that Mascarenhas’ reportage played its part in ending the war. It helped turn world opinion against Pakistan and encouraged India to play a decisive role….In the first of many notorious war crimes, soldiers attacked Dhaka University, lining up and executing students and professors….Their campaign of terror then moved into the countryside, where they battled local troops who had mutinied.”

In an article titled ‘Pakistan: The Ravaging of Golden Bengal’ on August 2, Time reported that “In Dacca, where soldiers set sections of the Old City ablaze with flamethrowers and then machine-gunned thousands as they tried to escape the cordon of fire, nearly 25 blocks have been bulldozed clear, leaving open areas set incongruously amid jam-packed slums.” It quoted a senior US official as saying, “It is the most incredible, calculated thing since the days of the Nazis in Poland.”

Archer Blood, US Consul-General in Dacca criticised Washington for supporting Islamabad, in an official cable subsequently known as the Blood Telegram. “Our government has failed to denounce the suppression of democracy,” the telegram said. “Our government has failed to denounce atrocities….Our government has evidenced what many will consider moral bankruptcy.”

By April 10, the West Pakistani Army had control of Dacca and Operation Searchlight, and the military control of all of Bangladesh by Pakistan was successfully completed in less than two months. In the civil war that ensued 300,000 Bengalis died. And by August there were seven million Bangladeshi refugees in India.

(To be continued)



Features

US’ drastic aid cut to UN poses moral challenge to world

Published

on

An UN humanitarian mission in the Gaza. [File: Ashraf Amra/Anadolu Agency]

‘Adapt, shrink or die’ – thus runs the warning issued by the Trump administration to UN humanitarian agencies with brute insensitivity in the wake of its recent decision to drastically reduce to $2bn its humanitarian aid to the UN system. This is a substantial climb down from the $17bn the US usually provided to the UN for its humanitarian operations.

Considering that the US has hitherto been the UN’s biggest aid provider, it need hardly be said that the US decision would pose a daunting challenge to the UN’s humanitarian operations around the world. This would indeed mean that, among other things, people living in poverty and stifling material hardships, in particularly the Southern hemisphere, could dramatically increase. Coming on top of the US decision to bring to an end USAID operations, the poor of the world could be said to have been left to their devices as a consequence of these morally insensitive policy rethinks of the Trump administration.

Earlier, the UN had warned that it would be compelled to reduce its aid programs in the face of ‘the deepest funding cuts ever.’ In fact the UN is on record as requesting the world for $23bn for its 2026 aid operations.

If this UN appeal happens to go unheeded, the possibilities are that the UN would not be in a position to uphold the status it has hitherto held as the world’s foremost humanitarian aid provider. It would not be incorrect to state that a substantial part of the rationale for the UN’s existence could come in for questioning if its humanitarian identity is thus eroded.

Inherent in these developments is a challenge for those sections of the international community that wish to stand up and be counted as humanists and the ‘Conscience of the World.’ A responsibility is cast on them to not only keep the UN system going but to also ensure its increased efficiency as a humanitarian aid provider to particularly the poorest of the poor.

It is unfortunate that the US is increasingly opting for a position of international isolation. Such a policy position was adopted by it in the decades leading to World War Two and the consequences for the world as a result for this policy posture were most disquieting. For instance, it opened the door to the flourishing of dictatorial regimes in the West, such as that led by Adolph Hitler in Germany, which nearly paved the way for the subjugation of a good part of Europe by the Nazis.

If the US had not intervened militarily in the war on the side of the Allies, the West would have faced the distressing prospect of coming under the sway of the Nazis and as a result earned indefinite political and military repression. By entering World War Two the US helped to ward off these bleak outcomes and indeed helped the major democracies of Western Europe to hold their own and thrive against fascism and dictatorial rule.

Republican administrations in the US in particular have not proved the greatest defenders of democratic rule the world over, but by helping to keep the international power balance in favour of democracy and fundamental human rights they could keep under a tight leash fascism and linked anti-democratic forces even in contemporary times. Russia’s invasion and continued occupation of parts of Ukraine reminds us starkly that the democracy versus fascism battle is far from over.

Right now, the US needs to remain on the side of the rest of the West very firmly, lest fascism enjoys another unfettered lease of life through the absence of countervailing and substantial military and political power.

However, by reducing its financial support for the UN and backing away from sustaining its humanitarian programs the world over the US could be laying the ground work for an aggravation of poverty in the South in particular and its accompaniments, such as, political repression, runaway social discontent and anarchy.

What should not go unnoticed by the US is the fact that peace and social stability in the South and the flourishing of the same conditions in the global North are symbiotically linked, although not so apparent at first blush. For instance, if illegal migration from the South to the US is a major problem for the US today, it is because poor countries are not receiving development assistance from the UN system to the required degree. Such deprivation on the part of the South leads to aggravating social discontent in the latter and consequences such as illegal migratory movements from South to North.

Accordingly, it will be in the North’s best interests to ensure that the South is not deprived of sustained development assistance since the latter is an essential condition for social contentment and stable governance, which factors in turn would guard against the emergence of phenomena such as illegal migration.

Meanwhile, democratic sections of the rest of the world in particular need to consider it a matter of conscience to ensure the sustenance and flourishing of the UN system. To be sure, the UN system is considerably flawed but at present it could be called the most equitable and fair among international development organizations and the most far-flung one. Without it world poverty would have proved unmanageable along with the ills that come along with it.

Dehumanizing poverty is an indictment on humanity. It stands to reason that the world community should rally round the UN and ensure its survival lest the abomination which is poverty flourishes. In this undertaking the world needs to stand united. Ambiguities on this score could be self-defeating for the world community.

For example, all groupings of countries that could demonstrate economic muscle need to figure prominently in this initiative. One such grouping is BRICS. Inasmuch as the US and the West should shrug aside Realpolitik considerations in this enterprise, the same goes for organizations such as BRICS.

The arrival at the above international consensus would be greatly facilitated by stepped up dialogue among states on the continued importance of the UN system. Fresh efforts to speed-up UN reform would prove major catalysts in bringing about these positive changes as well. Also requiring to be shunned is the blind pursuit of narrow national interests.

Continue Reading

Features

Egg white scene …

Published

on

Hi! Great to be back after my Christmas break.

Thought of starting this week with egg white.

Yes, eggs are brimming with nutrients beneficial for your overall health and wellness, but did you know that eggs, especially the whites, are excellent for your complexion?

OK, if you have no idea about how to use egg whites for your face, read on.

Egg White, Lemon, Honey:

Separate the yolk from the egg white and add about a teaspoon of freshly squeezed lemon juice and about one and a half teaspoons of organic honey. Whisk all the ingredients together until they are mixed well.

Apply this mixture to your face and allow it to rest for about 15 minutes before cleansing your face with a gentle face wash.

Don’t forget to apply your favourite moisturiser, after using this face mask, to help seal in all the goodness.

Egg White, Avocado:

In a clean mixing bowl, start by mashing the avocado, until it turns into a soft, lump-free paste, and then add the whites of one egg, a teaspoon of yoghurt and mix everything together until it looks like a creamy paste.

Apply this mixture all over your face and neck area, and leave it on for about 20 to 30 minutes before washing it off with cold water and a gentle face wash.

Egg White, Cucumber, Yoghurt:

In a bowl, add one egg white, one teaspoon each of yoghurt, fresh cucumber juice and organic honey. Mix all the ingredients together until it forms a thick paste.

Apply this paste all over your face and neck area and leave it on for at least 20 minutes and then gently rinse off this face mask with lukewarm water and immediately follow it up with a gentle and nourishing moisturiser.

Egg White, Aloe Vera, Castor Oil:

To the egg white, add about a teaspoon each of aloe vera gel and castor oil and then mix all the ingredients together and apply it all over your face and neck area in a thin, even layer.

Leave it on for about 20 minutes and wash it off with a gentle face wash and some cold water. Follow it up with your favourite moisturiser.

Continue Reading

Features

Confusion cropping up with Ne-Yo in the spotlight

Published

on

Ne-Yo: His management should clarify the last-minute cancellation

Superlatives galore were used, especially on social media, to highlight R&B singer Ne-Yo’s trip to Sri Lanka: Global superstar Ne-Yo to perform live in Colombo this December; Ne-Yo concert puts Sri Lanka back on the global entertainment map; A global music sensation is coming to Sri Lanka … and there were lots more!

At an official press conference, held at a five-star venue, in Colombo, it was indicated that the gathering marked a defining moment for Sri Lanka’s entertainment industry as international R&B powerhouse and three-time Grammy Award winner Ne-Yo prepares to take the stage in Colombo this December.

What’s more, the occasion was graced by the presence of Sunil Kumara Gamage, Minister of Sports & Youth Affairs of Sri Lanka, and Professor Ruwan Ranasinghe, Deputy Minister of Tourism, alongside distinguished dignitaries, sponsors, and members of the media.

Shah Rukh Khan: Disappointed his fans in Sri Lanka

According to reports, the concert had received the official endorsement of the Sri Lanka Tourism Promotion Bureau, recognising it as a flagship initiative in developing the country’s concert economy by attracting fans, and media, from all over South Asia.

Nick Carter: His concert, too, was cancelled due to “Unforeseen circumstances

However, I had that strange feeling that this concert would not become a reality, keeping in mind what happened to Nick Carter’s Colombo concert – cancelled at the very last moment.

Carter issued a video message announcing he had to return to the USA due to “unforeseen circumstances” and a “family emergency”.

Though “unforeseen circumstances” was the official reason provided by Carter and the local organisers, there was speculation that low ticket sales may also have been a factor in the cancellation.

Well, “Unforeseen Circumstances” has cropped up again!

In a brief statement, via social media, the organisers of the Ne-Yo concert said the decision was taken due to “unforeseen circumstances and factors beyond their control.”

Ne-Yo, too, subsequently made an announcement, citing “Unforeseen circumstances.”

The public has a right to know what these “unforeseen circumstances” are, and who is to be blamed – the organisers or Ne-Yo!

Ne-Yo’s management certainly need to come out with the truth.

However, those who are aware of some of the happenings in the setup here put it down to poor ticket sales, mentioning that the tickets for the concert, and a meet-and-greet event, were exorbitantly high, considering that Ne-Yo is not a current mega star.

We also had a cancellation coming our way from Shah Rukh Khan, who was scheduled to visit Sri Lanka for the City of Dreams resort launch, and then this was received: “Unfortunately due to unforeseen personal reasons beyond his control, Mr. Khan is no longer able to attend.”

Referring to this kind of mess up, a leading showbiz personality said that it will only make people reluctant to buy their tickets, online.

“Tickets will go mostly at the gate and it will be very bad for the industry,” he added.

Continue Reading

Trending