The 16th December is remembered as an ominous and the darkest day in the history of Pakistan, when it was dismembered in 1971 as a result of international intrigue. Of course, India had planned this tragic event whereas the former USSR for its own reasons had helped India in implementing the insidious plan to disintegrate Pakistan. This is the day that Pakistani nation should introspect as to what led to dismemberment of Pakistan. And what steps should be taken that Pakistan never faces such a tragedy again. A lot many books, theses and reviews have been written on the causes of fall of Dacca and disintegration of Pakistan. Of course, the causes for the defeat and particularly for the breakup of Pakistan should be identified, and steps should be taken to address the issues in order to avert any mishap in future.
One has to admit that there were contradictions between East and the West Pakistan. For one, the declaration that Urdu would be the only national language had angered Bengalis. Secondly, no constitution could be framed for the first nine years; and when the one was framed in 1956 it did not reflect the aspirations of the people. Bengalis were the majority, but formation of One Unit by merging provinces of West Pakistan due to leadership’s obsession with ‘parity’ between the two wings had further alienated the people of former East Pakistan. Distance between the two wings of Pakistan separated by over a thousand miles, and training of Mukti Bahini guerillas in Indian army camps that later moved along with Indian army units in the then East Pakistan were other factors responsible for the breakup of our motherland. But there was more to that.
Flawed foreign policy, wrong decisions made over a period of two decades and lack of socio-economic justice had resulted in contradictions between the people of the federating units that became irreconcilable over time. India had taken full advantage of the disharmony and contradictions that existed, which could have been resolved if Pakistan had visionary leadership at that time. In fact, contradictions existed in many developing countries, but were resolved through dialogue, but India’s propaganda about exaggerated figures of deaths of Bengalis had stoked the passions and stirred the emotions to take revenge of partition of India. Sallust, Roman historian, one of the great Latin literary stylist and a great philosopher had said: “By union the smallest states thrive. By discord the greatest are destroyed.” In fact, unity of the nation during 1965 war had enabled Pakistan to resist seven times bigger India, rather cause colossal damage to the enemy.
Whereas Pakistan had become complacent over performance in 1965 war, India continued preparations for another round. Then prime minister Indira Ghandi had threatened to select the next war zone of its choice. In 1971, the nation stood divided; hence defeat and disintegration. The moral is that a society where people are denied the socio-economic rights and legal redress, it is prone to disintegrate because enemies capitalize on the contradictions and disharmony created by an unjust system. Sarmila Bose, a noted British academic and senior research associate at the Centre for International Studies at Oxford University, in her book ‘Dead Reckoning: Memories of 1971 Bangladesh War’ had moved back and forth between Pakistan and Bangladesh, seeing and interviewing mainly retired Pakistani officers in the west, and survivors of killings and their relatives in the east, as well as members of the non-Bengali and non-Muslim minorities in the quest for truth.
She underlined how stretched the Pakistani forces were, and how perplexed they were in the face of a Bengali hostility. Her investigations revealed the death toll was between fifty thousand to one hundred thousand including Benglis and non-Bengalis and not three million as claimed by Bangladesh. The government had constituted Hamood-ur-Rehman Commission to identify underlying causes for this tragedy. The Commission in its report, among other causes, described failure of the then military and political leadership in resolving the crisis; but it debunked the propaganda by India that three million Bengalis had been killed by the Pakistan army. The commission also made a pointed reference to killings of West Pakistanis, members of Pakistan’s security personnel and Biharis that were butchered by Mukti Bahini guerillas. Many writers also rejected the exaggerated figures of killings of Bengalis by the Pakistan army.
Anyhow, it was unfortunate that the UN and the big powers acted as silent spectators and did nothing when an independent country with recognized international boundaries was being dismembered. However, Ibn Khaldun had said: “Throughout history many nations have suffered defeat, but that has never marked the end of a nation”. But in view of the distance between the two wings and Indian support to Awami League, it cannot be described as military defeat. Indeed, 1970-elections were contested on the basis of greater provincial autonomy to the provinces, and Awami League had secured majority in the National Assembly. However, power was not transferred to the majority party leader Sh. Mujib-ur-Rehman was hell-bent on implementation of his six points, and in that event the country would have assumed the shape of confederation rather than federation.
Over the centuries, many civilizations had waxed or ascended and waned, and many new countries emerged especially after the Second World War. After the break-up of Pakistan, India had declared that two-nation had sunk in the Bay of Bengal, but Bangladesh had become an independent country with Muslim identity. So far as Pakistan is concerned, its ruling elite did not learn any lesson from the break-up of the country and continued to give over-riding consideration to their personal interests over the national interest. The people are aghast at the blitheness with which this divide is chasing its fond passions of internecine conflicts and intransigence. The leaders on both sides of the divide should rise to the occasion to meet the challenges facing the country. They should abandon their intransigence and point-scoring against each other and work in unison to safeguard the sovereignty, integrity and solidarity of the country.