What's new

16th December 1971: From East Pakistan to Bangladesh

Posting this article as a neutral account of the causes leading up to the March 1971 Liberation War in Bangladesh, a piece by Sydney Schanberg, a Pulitzer prize-winning columnist. Please read carefully and discuss in an un-biased manner, though difficult it might be. We have to understand our historical viewpoints on both sides.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Bengalis and the Punjabis: Nation Split by Geography, Hate


By SYDNEY H. SCHANBERG DEC. 4, 1970


December 4, 1970, Page 10

“The British started the racial domination of Punjabi over Bengali,” a Bengali intellectual said with a sneer the other day. “They liked to talk paternally about the simple, straight forward, martial Punjabis, much better fellows than those nasty, scheming Bengalis.”

It is hard to imagine two races or regions any more different. They speak different languages—Urdu in the West, Bengali in the East—eat different foods—meat and grain in the West, fish and rice in the East— and have almost contradictory cultures, for the Bengalis are volatile and love politics and literature while the Punjabis are more stolid and prefer governing and soldiering.

The only thing the two wings have in common is their religion, Islam. That was the basis for the country's creation when it was decided that Hindus and Moslems could not live peacefully together and the subcontinent was carved into largely Hindu India and the two Moslem segments that make up Pakistan.

Glue May Lose Its Hold

The glue of Islam may finally be losing its hold. Many observers deem it a miracle that the two regions have stuck together so long and believe that their separation into independent nations is only a matter of time.

National elections will be held next Monday—the first full elections under adult franchise in Pakistan's history— and East Pakistan is pushing for a form of regional autonomy that many believe is only a prelude to secession.

There has recently been talk that the Government, under pressure from the Punjabi‐run army, is planning to postpone the elections, but fears of popular uprising in East Pakistan have apparently quashed any such intention.

The Bengalis would have regarded postponement as a flimsy pretext for continuing the martial ‐ law regime proclaimed last year, when Gen Agha Mohammad Yahya Khan became President, and with it the domination of the East by the West.

“If the elections are aborted,” warned Sheik Mujibur Rahman, leader of the Awami League, the East's key political party, “The people will owe it to the million who have died in the cyclone to make the supreme sacrifice of another million lives, if need be, so that we can live as a free people. We will no longer suffer the arbitrary rule of the bureaucrats, the capitalists and the feudal interests of West Pakistan.”

Pakistan is that rare country where the majority region is the backward one. Although the East has 75 million people to the West's 55 million, the West has received the over whelming proportion of the development funds, factories, public‐works projects and defense facilities.

Prices are higher in East Pakistan, with rice and wheat twice as costly, although per capita income is at least 50 per cent lower. Six times as much electricity is produced in the West, four times as much foreign aid is spent there, three times as many imports are consumed there, twice as much development money is allocated there and nine times as much is spent on defense.

The disparity is heightened, grimly, by the population pressure in East Pakistan, with 20 million more people than in the West in an area only a sixth as large. If the United States had the same density, it would have 4.5 billion people. Broken down, it is more than 1,300 per square mile on the average and as high as 2,100 in cultivated areas.

Perpetual Disaster Area

The pressure, matched only in some parts of Japan, Taiwan and Communist China, has forced the division of farms into smaller and less profitable plots and has pushed hundreds of thousands of the poorest peasants down into the fertile but dangerous lowlands and offshore islands of the Ganges Delta.

Eighty per cent of East Pakistan is less than 50 feet above sea level; the delta areas, even lower, are more vulnerable to storms and monsoon flooding.

East Pakistan is a perpetual disaster area, even in “normal” times—ravaged by cholera, typhoid and smallpox, by pests and filth, by raging unemployment and monsoon floods.

West Pakistan, benefiting from the so‐called green revolution in improved agricultural yields, is just about self‐sufficient in food while East Pakistan has an annual deficit of some 2.5 million tons. Experts say it could be five million tons by 1975, which could mean famine.

As if internal problems were not enough, East Pakistan has been far more damaged than was the western sector by the partition, which virtually cut it off from neighboring West Bengal, now a state of India. All trade between them has been forbidden since the brief Indian ‐ Pakistani war over Kashmir in 1965.

The coal that used to come from West Bengal now comes from Communist China at as much as 10 times the cost. The only cement factory in East Pakistan, which used to get its limestone from India, must get it from less economical domestic deposits and pay five times the Indian price.


If the East Pakistanis win a measure of regional autonomy, they will immediately press to improve trade with India, one of the moves feared by the army and the hierarchy of the central Government in West Pakistan.

Generals Are Fearful

The Generals know that with greater provincial autonomy, the central Government's powers would be reduced and the vast military spending, some times as much as half of the budget, would be sharply cut. The army also knows that better relations with India would weaken the arguments for perpetuating the Kashmir dispute, which is one of the main reasons for the army's existence and has never aroused the Bengalis as it has the Punjabis, who live next to the disputed territory.


Does the answer to all this woe lie in breaking Pakistan into two nations, as many militant Bengalis and even some Punjabis tired of the crisis now believe? But could East Pakistan, with its overwhelming problems, survive as a separate entity?

The fear of not surviving is what is keeping the dominant Bengali political forces from demanding secession right now.

“If we are the majority, we are Pakistan!” Sheik Mujibur thundered at a meeting with the foreign press last week.

Unfortunately for the Bengalis, the army and its powerful friends in West Pakistan do not quite see it that way.
__________________________________________________________________________

I will be posting more insightful articles soon from that era by Mr. Schanberg.

East Pakistan Leader Voices a Secession Threat


By SYDNEY SCHANBERG NOV. 27, 1970


DACCA, Pakistan, Nov. 26— Sheik Mujibur Rahman, East Pakistan's dominant political leader, warned the central government today that if the national elections were postponed, “I go for a total struggle” for secession of East Pakistan.

There have been reports that President Agha Mohammad Yahya Khan might once again postpone the elections for a National Assembly, which are scheduled for Dec. 7 and which would be the first full and free election based on adult franchise in Pakistan's 23‐year history.

The elections were originally scheduled for Oct. 5, but when monsoon floods disrupted much of East Pakistan, the President put them off, President Yahya, who returned this afternoon from a two‐day tour of the coastal area devastated by the cyclone and tidal wave of Nov. 13, would presumably declare a postponement this time on the ground that the damage, caused by the cyclone and tidal wave, in which the official death toll is over 175,000, had produced a national emergency.

This, however, probably would be regarded in East Pakistan as merely an excuse for continuing the present martial law regime, and, with it, West Pakistan domination over East Pakistan. The eastern and western sections of the country are separated by over a thousand miles of Indian territory.

The Bengalis of East Pakistan feel that the central Government, which is run from West Pakistan and is controlled by the Punjabis, did not press relief efforts after the cyclone and therefore proved its callousness and indifference to the plight of the poorer and more populous East.

Sheik Mujibur, charging “our own rulers” with “criminal negligence”, said, “A massive rescue and relief operation, if launched within 24 hours of the disaster, could have saved thousands of lives.”

Speaking at a chaotic news conference attended by many foreign correspondents, the 50 year‐old leader of the Awami league, who had just returned from a tour of the disaster area, said, “Only present experience has brought into sharp focus the basic truth that every Bengali has felt in his bones, that we have been treated so long as a colony and a market that we have been denied our birthrights as the free citizens of an independent state.”
Joining with West Pakistan in 1947 was our biggest geo-political disaster in history perhaps only after battle of Plassey. We had patriotic and visionary leaders like HS Suhrawardy, AK Fazlul Haque, Mawlana Bhashani then. Why they could not anticipate the danger of joining with Pakistan? Bangladesh should have been independent since 1947. We could have bargained a much better deal instead of sacrificing our rights on the behest of West Pakistani interest in partition. Top Muslim League leadership like Jinnah and Liaqaut used East Bengal as their bargaining chip to maximize the gain in western Pakistan in partition. And exploited East Bengal as a cash cow for industrialization after the 1947. If we were independent in 1947, we could have been a much better shape now. At least then British Prime Minister Clement Attlee was sympathetic to independent Bengal cause. We could have taken that opportunity.
 
.
Joining with West Pakistan in 1947 was our biggest geo-political disaster in history perhaps only after battle of Plassey. We had patriotic and visionary leaders like HS Suhrawardy, AK Fazlul Haque, Mawlana Bhashani then. Why they could not anticipate the danger of joining with Pakistan? Bangladesh should have been independent since 1947. We could have bargained a much better deal instead of sacrificing our rights on the behest of West Pakistani interest in partition. Top Muslim League leadership like Jinnah and Liaqaut used East Bengal as their bargaining chip to maximize the gain in western Pakistan in partition. And exploited East Bengal as a cash cow for industrialization after the 1947. If we were independent in 1947, we could have been a much better shape now. At least then British Prime Minister Clement Attlee was sympathetic to independent Bengal cause. We could have taken that opportunity.
Actually it happened not only because of the Muslim league leaders but also for the hindutva ideology of Binay savarkar.

Otherwise we would have United Bengali as sohrawardi proposed. And if we had United Bengal who knows maybe even seven sisters would also be the part of United Bangladesh.

The hindutva theory of Saverkar was actually a fake theory, because in Bangladesh minority Hindus are living in peace ( except after 2001 when the Jamati terrorists came to power) , and Bangladesh is a country of religious harmony and peace. So if we got United Bengal, Hindus would be more than one third in that United country so I think all side of Bengalis would be happy.
 
.
Actually it happened not only because of the Muslim league leaders but also for the hindutva ideology of Binay savarkar.

Otherwise we would have United Bengali as sohrawardi proposed. And if we had United Bengal who knows maybe even seven sisters would also be the part of United Bangladesh.

The hindutva theory of Saverkar was actually a fake theory, because in Bangladesh minority Hindus are living in peace ( except after 2001 when the Jamati terrorists came to power) , and Bangladesh is a country of religious harmony and peace. So if we got United Bengal, Hindus would be more than one third in that United country so I think all side of Bengalis would be happy.

Whats the point of united bengal over united India then?
 
.
Whats the point of united bengal over united India then?

A cohesive country dominated by the Muslim Bengalis with the Hindus as junior partners.

The tribals would also not have to give away their resources to more than a billion Hindus.

This would have been the success story of S Asia with different religions and ethnicities living in peace in a prosperous and geographical diverse country.

Partition should have been the following to make it a success:

1. Pakistan and Kashmir
2. India minus Kashmir, W Bengal and NE states
3. BD with W Bengal, NE states and Arakan.

Nearly EVERYONE in S Asia would be richer and happier now.
 
.
A cohesive country dominated by the Muslim Bengalis with the Hindus as junior partners.

The tribals would also not have to give away their resources to more than a billion Hindus.

This would have been the success story of S Asia with different religions and ethnicities living in peace in a prosperous and geographical diverse country.

Partition should have been the following to make it a success:

1. Pakistan and Kashmir
2. India minus Kashmir, W Bengal and NE states
3. BD with W Bengal, NE states and Arakan.

Nearly EVERYONE in S Asia would be richer and happier now.


Noakhali riots etc...showed otherwise....and the continued stories of Hindus that have fled from BD over the decades.

In the end, the reality happens for a reason as opposed to your dreams/visions.

I'm overall satisfied how it has turned out (and you lot rightfully got the stick from karma)....and that you have to cling to your dream ....seeing the reality of your miserable dominated rump state, spawned out of 3 million crying....and opening up for full political obeisance to India....and whatever Burma wants to send your way.

Now jihadidi is on the way out.....NRC there will follow. Bengali Hindus rightfully are taking action and there will be only one way it ends for your illegals and "feelings"....crushed as usual:

D8sgW7oUEAAKusE.png


westbengal.jpg


@Axomiya_lora @Aung Zaya
 
.
Whats the point of united bengal over united India then?
Other than religion, both part of Bengal share similar culture,lifestyle etc and also understanding was much better in them unless religious extreme dividation was introduced to them . On the other hand Indian subcontinent had been culturally diverse.

And religion should not be a matter ( it's personal choice, if people are tolerant, religion should never ever be an issue) if it has no caste system or oppressive ideology ( atleast that was practiced in society) and in Bengali Hindus ( mostly shaktiays) caste system were never predominent here unlike other parts of Indian subcontinent. That's the reason united bengal was totally accepted unlike united India!

So language and cultural similarity is the key to form a nation imo. So if in United Bengal, hindus were bigger in number, still I have no problem.
 
Last edited:
.
A cohesive country dominated by the Muslim Bengalis with the Hindus as junior partners.

The tribals would also not have to give away their resources to more than a billion Hindus.

This would have been the success story of S Asia with different religions and ethnicities living in peace in a prosperous and geographical diverse country.

Partition should have been the following to make it a success:

1. Pakistan and Kashmir
2. India minus Kashmir, W Bengal and NE states
3. BD with W Bengal, NE states and Arakan.

Nearly EVERYONE in S Asia would be richer and happier now.


Don't worry. Wait for 30 more years. Hindu majority India will be richer and more prosperous. Not sure much about Pakistan and Bangladesh.
 
.
Noakhali riots etc...showed otherwise....and the continued stories of Hindus that have fled from BD over the decades.
Noakhali riot was a result of kolkata riot after direct action day of Jinnah . Before such movement people were mostly against British, but later they turned against each other. I think if the United Bengal proposed by sohrawardi was accepted, there should be no riot happened.

So basically hindutva ideology of Binay savarkar and opportunist behavior of top Muslim League leaders is the main reason of such chaos. If hindutva ideology ( that was not predominent in this region) wouldn't want Bengal ( undivided Bengal) to be part of United India, then a third country would form that was United Bengal.
 
Last edited:
.
Why would Indian Bengalis give up being part of India to become subservient of Bangladesh? So they end up like Pakistan? This United Bengal theory is hilarious.
 
.
Other than religion, both part of Bengal share similar culture,lifestyle etc and also understanding was much better in them unless religious extreme dividation was introduced to them . On the other hand Indian subcontinent had been culturally diverse.

And religion should not be a matter ( it's personal choice, if people are tolerant, religion should never ever be an issue) if it has no caste system or oppressive ideology ( atleast that was practiced in society) and in Bengali Hindus ( mostly shaktiays) caste system were never predominent here unlike other parts of Indian subcontinent. That's the reason united bengal was totally accepted unlike united India!

So language and cultural similarity is the key to form a nation imo. So if in United Bengal, hindus were bigger in number, still I have no problem.

We listen to the stories of Bangal Hindus that left Bangladesh...and they have all together different perspective. We trust in their narrative...since they saw things first hand on the ground.

Presence and lack of "Caste" factors is a weak excuse...because there are plenty of regions in subcontinent where this varies (and there is cohesion issues of this nature in every society/religion....the point is to make a system that works to address it comprehensively over time...to ensure equal opportunity for all).

If the country was highly federated (as it would have needed to be to have muslims remain in united larger polity), why would it even matter? Simply there would be enough balance between what the central govt purview is (geopolitics, foreign affairs, larger security etc) and what the local regional govts would have responsibility/legislation for.

The water has now flown under the bridge several times over anyway.....I mean we can simply keep turning the clock back in time and do "what if" scenarios all day long....matters nothing to today's reality.

Noakhali riot was a result of kolkata riot after direct action day of Jinnah . Before such movement people were mostly against British, but later they turned against each other. I think if the United Bengal proposed by sohrawardi was accepted, there should be no riot happened.

So basically hindutva ideology of Binay savarkar and opportunist behavior of top Muslim League leaders is the main reason of such chaos. If hindutva ideology ( that was not predominent in this region) wouldn't want Bengal ( undivided Bengal) to be part of United India, then a third country would form that was United Bengal.

Hindutva ideology also took stock from reactionary aversion to what Muslims were doing to Hindus at the time as well.

This whole narrative that all blame comes from one side solely and everything is hunky dory before some sudden "initiation" is frankly BS.

The point is, could the elites put that aside and try make a better reasoning above such raw identities and forces on the ground...to try give best chance to something bigger taking shape beyond such identities and forces.

The answer was no....those forces were simply too strong and elite were just not that interested anyway. Once you set that into process (division)....sorry you don't get to say a certain amount is "enough" to get some favourable regional result on it....it will go bare bones all the way to the starkest (and arguably most black and white) identity clash, which in south asia case will always be muslim vs non-muslim.

That is why united bengal (since it takes away from united India) was a doomed concept from the get go....even if it somehow took stock....you would have simply had another version of partition and/or 1971 eventually at some point all over again....because anything that propped it up to exist would have also been same argument for larger united India/Hindustan to exist. But because it didn't, occam's razor (using the reality that has unfolded) in the hypothetical debate the cohesive forces at that level in subcontinent simply weren't enough at that crucial span of years when the polities did take shape and sought "free" air and new beginning.
 
.
Hindutva ideology also took stock from reactionary aversion to what Muslims were doing to Hindus at the time as well.
What time? During partition or before? This area was under British rule.for 200 years, and British favoured Hindus because when they ( British) came that time Muslim were in administrative position, so probably they ( British) didn't feel secure to give Muslims better position. We know the permanent settlement by British!

Later during all British time all land lords were Hindus, so what actually Muslims did to Hindus I am unable to understand. Before British came here Muslim rulers of this region was much more liberal and many Muslim sultans were patron of many hindu literature ( you can search Google for more information) , many hindu literature were translated into Bengali from sanskrit in sultani era.

And if you are talking about mughal emperor Aurangzeb, then I would say that he is the only ruler who had problems with non Muslims, but other Mughal emperors were good and liberal minded . So can you clarify your position about rising hindutva as reactionary aversion ?
 
.
What time? During partition or before? This area was under British rule.for 200 years, and British favoured Hindus because when they ( British) came that time Muslim were in administrative position, so probably they ( British) didn't feel secure to give Muslims better position. We know the permanent settlement by British!

Later during all British time all land lords were Hindus, so what actually Muslims did to Hindus I am unable to understand. Before British came here Muslim rulers of this region was much more liberal and many Muslim sultans were patron of many hindu literature ( you can search Google for more information) , many hindu literature were translated into Bengali from sanskrit in sultani era.

And if you are talking about mughal emperor Aurangzeb, then I would say that he is the only ruler who had problems with non Muslims, but other Mughal emperors were good and liberal minded . So can you clarify your position about rising hindutva as reactionary aversion ?

No, the British just recognised who are more competent at merit-based bureaucracy....rather than an artificial imposed identity politics based one from mughal era (which led to its own inevitable demise). That reality is again manifesting today....why you think legislatively India is only one in the region with actual semblance of a constitution thats followed rigorously in modern era? It manifests in the large companies and capital created now and starting to really get deployed....and what manifests between these nationalities in western world broadly too.

The whole history written under Mughal time will obviously have a biased slant to it....you really think there is going to be written record on the oppression faced by non-muslim under more "liberal" sultans who were self-declared "patrons" of whatever?

Sorry it was never a common or accepted reference point....Islam was as much an invader to this region as the British were....its presence was just a lot longer and followed up with much more austere long term identity politics and it simply manifested big time when all the invader yokes started to free up. Did British impose a jizya on non-Christians to pressure people to convert to christianity? Nope...because their whole objective was mercantile + strategic + extraction based in nature.....so simply it was stratified situation with not too complex removal as far as political revolution goes. But when it comes to something far more deeper than that....then you have to look at the actual messengers/creators of the historical narrative to check for deepset bias....and its not too hard to do in south asia case....especially as time goes by and more reality springs up.

Lack of narrative because of lack of equal opportunity reference point from earlier era does not at all mean these fissures were not existing big time in the area soon after a stark foreign ideology arrived in the area with full objective of "might = right". The ottoman empire break up (w.r.t places like balkans and eastern europe where non-muslim populations remained majority) is another case in point.
 
.
I still can't believe that people who used to say we wuzz martial race, we will change race of bengalis surrendered in largest size after WW2 :lol:

1,00,000+

There are members here who had their uncles who surrendered like little bitches to us in 1971 :lol:
After hunting/raping millions of Ban-ugly pigs(as per Bdees/Indees) our uncles after full fledged war gracefully surrendered their weapons.That,s it.Story finished.
But your forefathers for centuries kept surrendering their wealth,women,girls and even beautiful boys to Muslims and British rulers.Do you guys have any thing to be proud of except shame and humiliation.This Ban-ugly-deshi breed is not much different from you Indians too.Rightly they are in the foot steps of their masters.Every year BD surrenders 50,000 Bangladeshi women and children age 12 to 30 to Indians for prostitution. BD is only so called Muslim country where prostitution is allowed legally.
 
Last edited:
.
After hunting/raping millions of Ban-ugly pigs(as per Bdees/Indees) our uncles after full fledged war gracefully surrendered their weapons.That,s it.Story finished.
But your forefathers for centuries kept surrendering their wealth,women,girls and even beautiful boys to Muslims and British rulers.Do you guys have any thing to be proud of except shame and humiliation.This Ban-ugly-deshi breed is not much different from you Indians too.Rightly they are in the foot steps of their masters.Every year BD surrenders 50,000 Bangladeshi women and children age 12 to 30 to Indians for prostitution. BD is only so called Muslim country where prostitution is allowed legally.

I'm not sure about our forefathers but your forefathers definitely surrendered wealth, women and boys to the Muslim Arabs that invaded. Then they converted you by putting swords to your neck.

Regarding prostitution, bachabazi still happens in Pakistan. You people have weird fantasies about young boys :lol:
 
.
Islam was as much an invader to this region as the British were
Mughals and other Muslim rulers ( except few like sultan mahmud of ghazni) came here and took India as their country to live, while British came here to do business.
However in this sense ( invading issue) Hindus are also not native to India , are they? Weren't Aryans migrated from outside of India? What is your opinion about this Aryan migration?
 
Last edited:
.
Back
Top Bottom