DISMEMBERMENT OF PAKISTAN

AN OVER-VIEW

DR. SARFARAZ HUSSAIN MIRZA

NAZARIA-I-PAKISTAN TRUST
Aiwan-i-Karkunan-i-Tahrik-i-Pakistan, Madar-i-Millat Park, 100-Shahrah-i-Quaid-i-Azam, Lahore. Ph.: 9201213-14 Fax: 9202930 Email: trust@nazariapak.info Web: nazariapak.info

All rights reserved
Responsibility for the accuracy of facts and for the opinions expressed rests solely with the author.

Editor: Published by: Printer:

Dr. Sarfaraz Hussain Mirza Nazaria-i-Pakistan Trust Nazaria-i-Pakistan Printers

Under Supervision: Rafaqat Riaz Designing: Composing First Edition: Copies: Price: Shahzad Yasin M. Shahid Gulzar August 2009 1000 Rs. 115

Published by

NAZARIA-I-PAKISTAN TRUST
Aiwan-i-Karkunan-i-Tahrik-i-Pakistan, Madar-i-Millat Park, 100-Shahrah-i-Quaid-i-Azam, Lahore. Ph.: 9201213-14 Fax: 9202930 Email: trust@nazariapak.info Web: www.nazariapak.info Printed at: Nazaria-i-Pakistan Printers, 10-Multan Road, Lahore. Ph: 042-7466975

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 the disintegration of their beloved motherland.

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 which Pakistan 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 multifaceted activities, one of which is production of literature which not only disseminates knowledge about the great Pakistan Movement but also fills our hearts 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

ultimately succeeded in achieving Pakistan under the epoch-making leadership of Quaid-i-Azam Muhammad 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 us from 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 nationbuilding 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 was Pakistan 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

could play in the future. Addressing a deputation of students on 31 October 1947 he observed: “Pakistan is proud 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 your responsibility 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 twonation 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 will acquaint 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

CONTENTS
Preface 9 Prelude 13 Language Controversy 17 Promulgation of First Martial Law in 1958 21 Mujib's Controversial Points 22 Second Martial Law and General Elections 24 Beginning towards an End 27 India's Role in the Dismemberment of Pakistan 37 The ugly Role of Foreign Press 44 BBC Reporting 52 Analysis 63 Conclusion 65 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 75 O President Yahya breaks the News 77 O Comments of the Pakistani Press 79 v References 101 v v v v v v v v v v v v v

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 Yahya’s 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 to remain 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 fight…my 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

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 what was 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 Indian’s inner desire to undo Pakistan in its damaging press propaganda against it. It may be recalled that during the East Pakistan Crisis, 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 Gandhi’s, inflammatory statement needs special mention when she said. “… the enemy shall be crushed…And 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

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 not learn 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-iPakistan 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 don’t mention the name of Mr. Shahid Rasheed, Secretary who gave me free hand to complete my task.

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 of the 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

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 one system for good 24 years but were disjointed in December 1971 owing to a number of reasons – major cause being the hostility of Pakistan’s 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 making persistent 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

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 – either through their utterances or by means of physical interventions. The Congress Committee’s resolution of June 14, 1947 expressing their hatred against the division of India; Sardar Vallabhbhai’s (1875-1950) statement regarding re-unification; Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru’s (18891964) verdict on re-union, Maulana Abul Kalam Azad’s (1888-1958) remarks of “short lived partition”; M.K. Gandhi’s (1869-1948) opposition to the creation of Pakistan; Acharya Kriplani’s “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 Pakistan’s 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

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 of March 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 (18931963) 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 Ali Jinnah. 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 Muslim’s 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 wing’s 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

machinations against a sovereign nation sowed the seeds of the East Pakistan crisis, through which the country and the nation passed between 1948–71. 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 Hindu population within East Pakistan and with their coreligionists 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 to engineer 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

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 by the 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 demanding Bengali 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

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 had raised 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 then Chief 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 Front’s Government) was dismissed and Governor’s rule was imposed in East Pakistan by Governor General Ghulam Mohammad (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

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 Prime Minister – 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 Pakistan’s 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 which ultimately 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 Shaheed Suharawardy, 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

The political problem of regional autonomy kept on troubling and, in October 1957, Suharawardy, who had so amicably handled the situation, resigned ‘for fear of dismissal’. Thereafter Ismail Ibrahim Chundrigar (18971960) 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 Rehman’s ministry and installed Sarkar’s 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, President’s 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

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 West Pakistan 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 the Commander-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 Khan’s 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 both wings, 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 selfstyled 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

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 this occasion 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. In 1965, 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’.

Mujib’s 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 Mujib’s uncalled for activities who had exposed himself with his much controversial Six-points3. Because of his campaign of hatred against the western zone and, also, his intentions of secession, Mujib was arrested in April 1966, but released after a few days and

23

was re-arrested in May 1966—an 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 Pakistan’s hatred against West Pakistan became intense which paved the way for the Bengalis to openly speak about ‘independence’. By the end of 1968, Ayub’s 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’. On the 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

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 the government 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 remains that the first seed of destruction was sown on the promulgation of Ayub’s Martial Law.

Second Martial Law and General Elections
With the beginning of the second Martial Law regime, the people became more disgruntled. The disgusted 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 Yahya’s 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 that he 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

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 parity—a principle that had popular 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 Pakistan’s body 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 certain principles 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

During the electioneering campaign, Mujib availed of every opportunity of exploitation and left no stone unturned to spread hatred against West Pakistan amongst the 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 not encouraging. No political party could seriously challenge the veiled secessionist intentions of Mujib’s Six-points. Neither wing’s 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

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 in the 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. Democracy awaited 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 hardly any leader had the capability of a real statesman who could face the nasty waves.

28

The party leader having the lion’s share became arrogant and too difficult a man to be handled either by the government or the second majority party or any other political 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 all efforts 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 Mujib’s 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 place an 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

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 Bhutto and 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 Mujib’s 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 had accepted 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’. The hijackers 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

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 the political 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 Mujib’s MNAs and MPAs reaffirmed 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 Bhutto’s 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

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 military action 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. Bhutto’s 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

“Mobs took to the streets and indulged in arson, murder, rape and loot…workers walked out of factories, business houses closed 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 all normal 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 disobedience movement 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

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 the portrait 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 seen as 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

demand of confederation. This meant that after the issue of the proposed proclamation, extinguishing Martial Law and transferring power, the five provinces of Pakistan would 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 two constitutional 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 which they 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 similar damaging 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 Bhutto’s ‘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 Yahya’s aides and handed over Awami League’s draft constitution, which

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. The same 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. The flag 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 Yahya’s aides and Tajuddin Ahmad, while talking 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 India had been smuggled in and stocked at strategic points all over the province…how 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

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 huge mob 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 League’s bid for secession was now under way. Barely a few hours before the Awami League’s 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

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! India’s 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 lookout 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. It continued to enhance with the passage of time and, on various occasions, India deliberately interfered in Pakistani politics, especially after Mujib’s 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 Mujib’s arrest in May-June, 1966, Indian

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 concrete evidence, 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 the time 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, Ayub Khan 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 Mujib’s 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

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 the elections. 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 League’s 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 the help 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 locked up in thousands were burnt alive and inmates were roasted to death. The streets of Dhaka were littered with corpses.28 Mujib’s 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

“Concrete evidence is available to prove that during 19701971, infiltration of armed personnel and transportation of ammunition from India into East Pakistan continued on a hectic 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 the then 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

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 their “wholehearted 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. Indira Gandhi 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 India’s 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, blatantly interfered in Pakistan’s internal crisis. It may be noted that on the eve of Mujib’s 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

since 1947. Chaos in East Pakistan offered her a golden opportunity to disintegrate Pakistan. In the words of Subrahmanyum, Director of the Indian Institute for Defence 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 did not 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

come in. In a sense the commitment of the Government of India to the liberation of Bangla Desh was implicit in this decision. If this 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 in hand, 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

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 military action 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 here…Legalize aggression, legalize occupation I will not be a part to it. We will fight. We will go back and fight”. Then he ripped up the Council agenda and stalked out of the chamber…”38 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

the news of internal strife between the two brotherly wings, practically came from the foreign press – probably ‘interested foreign press’ who sabotaged the whole affair in 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 who deliberately 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 Observer of Dhaka in its editorial of April 27, 1971 said “…the British press, minus a small

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 these news 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 exaggerated accounts of the Army Action”.43 The 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 history…Mujib 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 antiPakistan 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

correspondents took this step too seriously and, in return, deliberately presented distorted events in a manner prejudicial to Pakistan’s interests. Exaggerated figures of refugees 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 were advertently 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 the premises 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 none…It 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

in East Pakistan…This 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 increasingly ‘astonishing 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 Hilter’s 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 wonderhow 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

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 antistate 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 of April 27, 1971, this version has been beautifully picturized when the paper wrote: “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 have heard all”.48 To 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

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 in presenting 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 and her government functioning in Calcutta. The Guardian’s reporting about Pakistani affairs was remarkable for its lack of objectivity, while using loaded phrases like “Punjabi occupation regime”, “liberation forces of the Bangladesh”, “Bangal’s 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 the hated 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 Pakistan’s internal affairs was understandable, but what was not so understandable was

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-Pakistan propaganda, 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 rumourmongering campaign on an international scale thereby convincing the world media to see things in Pakistan through 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. Pakistan expressed 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 University…51” The tendency in America to publish and believe unconfirmed reports, so long as they were damaging to Pakistan, also became

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 truth about 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? Wasn’t 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 of East 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

between 1947-1971 of expressing their intense dislike for Pakistan. But it was only when the crisis in East Pakistan came in March 1971 that they discovered a God-sent occasion to vent their spleen to their heart’s 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 gleeful determination they assailed everything Pakistani from the very creation of the country to its minor difficulties.”53 Side by side with the British press, it’s radio played the same role. It appears that the BBC mostly depended on the 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’ and described the army’s action of restoring law and order as applying ‘the solution of burning and killing’ to the independence aspirations of East Pakistan’s 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

“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 Congress’s genuine commitment to secularism, Jinnah aggravated and exploited the Muslims fear that in a Hindu-majority state they would be persecuted, 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 nonsense…Since 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 illusory…The demand for an independent Bangladesh is a fair enough comment on the record – and the very idea – of Pakistan. But is it fair to India’s record, or to the idea of a united India which was sacrificed (want only by Jinnah, sadly by Nehru) when the British withdrew? Gandhi could never give his

55

blessing to what he called the “vivisection” of India. To him, the events of 1947 were heart-breaking – the negation of all that he had 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 to reopen 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 same…the 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 ended…The 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 government…it 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

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 analysis against 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 be completely false. The Muslim solidarity proclaimed by Jinnah has been disproved by West Pakistan’s exploitation of the eastern region over more than twenty years, and by Yahya Khan’s recent atrocities; while the alleged impossibility of a fair deal for Muslims under Hindu majority rule has been disproved by the experience of India’s 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

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 control…The outside world has shown too little appreciation of India’s gigantic act of charity towards nine million citizens of another nation driven by methods of barbarism on to her soil…The partition of Bangal is against nature. The original 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. Meanwhile…unless they go home 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 war…The end of the monsoons means that heavy

58

artillery can be moved up to the East Pakistan frontier…Meanwhile, the continued pressure of the Bangali refugees is impelling 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 all return 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. Gandhi’s 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

internal affair for Pakistan to solve (even if India knew she couldn’t!)’. “For the Indians, it may be now or never: a unique opportunity (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 headlines it gave to the news, in the placing of the reports, in the location and choice of the letters to the editor, in the gossip of its “Times Diary” – man, in its leading articles and editorials, in the choice and size of photographs published – in the entire handling of the crisis it struck such a

60

partisan and one-sided attitude that there is no good in analyzing its point of view”.62 The correspondent who frequently wrote about East Pakistan crisis for the Times was Peter Hazellhurst, whose accuracy of reports was widely challenged in the Pakistani press. His dispatches in particular, seriously damaged the reputation of Pakistan. As quoted in “Pakistan and Britain”, Nirad C. Chaudhuri, an Indian Hindu Bengali and a famous writer in his article titled “Indian Government and British Correspondents” published in Hindustan Standard of Calcutta on June 6, 1971, wrote in his concluding remarks that: “Some very strange and significant points are to be noted in connection with these reports: First, a foreign correspondent is playing up the idea of an inevitable and general war between India and Pakistan as imminent. Secondly, he is allowed to observe and report details of troop movements, deployment, armaments, and defensive works, and even to identify units of the army. Thirdly he predicts the results. Let me assert this categorically: that no country in the world if it means business will ever allow anyone, not to speak of foreign correspondents, to observe and report military dispositions in this manner. Even the idea of a war is not allowed to be

61

played up. The suspension is unavoidable that The Time’s correspondent is doing all this with the tacit consent if not at the instance of the Government of India. On any other supposition it is incomprehensible… But the really important question to put is, why Mr. Peter Hazellhurst is being given opportunities to collect information to write as he is doing? I can only say that knowingly or unknowingly he is playing the part of a publicity agent for Government of India in order to serve certain ends of our foreign policy. The Government of India has found that no amount of threats on its part will make the Pakistani Government change its policy in East Bangal, and also that all its diplomatic notes will not make foreign governments put any kind of pressure in order to compel the Pakistani Government to come to terms with the Muslims of East Bangal. Yet the Government of India feels that it is presenting the bogey of war between India and Pakistan, with all its possibilities of involvement of the Great Powers and a world war, to frighten these Powers into forcing Pakistan to make concessions to the

62

Muslims of East Bengal. Of course, this is a very naive manoeuvre. But there is hardly any other option open to the Government of India, with the exception of actual war which certainly will not be risked. Mr. Hazellhurst’s dispatches, with all their unreliability as reporting and mischievousness as propaganda, fall within the framework of such a policy. Whether it is due to Mr. Hazellhurst’s personal commitment to India or to promptings from the Government of India, I cannot say. But whatever the inspiration, the writing itself is highly irresponsible”.63 The other correspondent namely Anthony Mascarenhas, published for years his reports in the New York Times and The Time magazine. Later, in February 1971, he associated himself with The Sunday Times. He was once an assistant editor of the Morning News of Karachi where his role became controversial on account of some financial embezzlement and, he left Pakistan some how or the other without clearance. Having associated with The Sunday Times, he could not really commit himself to objective reporting and published utterly baseless and false stories about the crisis, particularly when he wrote articles such as “Genocide” published in the The Sunday Times on June 13, 1971 – reporting the killing of East Pakistan University teachers, intellectuals and artists by the Pakistan Army, who – not

63

only one but all of them were later found to be alive and had appeared on the television to testify the blatant untruth of Anthony Mascarenhas. Despite the fact that the report had been found totally absurd, yet the paper, a little after that event, while advocating the accuracy of this report said that “…in any event, we have the fullest confidence in the integrity of our reporter”. So this is one of the example of the press that claimed to be free of any outer pressure; objective in writing and positive in thinking.

Analysis
It is apparent that casual forecasts, futuristic propositions, carefree reporting, and one-sided stories published in the Foreign Press particularly British, were taken as a reality by the world media. Some ‘influenced’ Pakistanis including the unaware Bangalis, remained ignorant of the factual position. The public at large, not aware of the events and its consequences fell a victim to this propaganda of the British press. The material thus published was based on day-today reportage of the crisis but one feels bewildered to find that a large portion reflected ‘advocacy’ of India in which the word ‘Bangladesh’ in place of East Pakistan was frequently used since March 1971. The plight of the refugees was described in an emotional manner thereby using it as a pretext for fulfilling the future designs of India to disintegrate Pakistan. Discussions on military

64

strategy of countries; support to the Mukti Bahini guerrillas and, objections raised in favour of India regarding posting of the U.N. members to the refugee camps, remained attractive topics for the British correspondents throughout the crisis. They strongly advocated the ‘cause’ of India for borrowing maximum economic aid on the pretext of refugee sufferings. The Pakistan Army remained their favourite target. The foreign correspondents did not even spare the irregulars such as civilian Razakars by calling them “fanatic rightists” and “zealous Muslims”. The matters such as shortage of foodgrain and distribution of rations amongst the refugees was discussed under the influence of the Indian press. Any statement or analysis from outside, favouring Pakistan, appear to be immediately sabotaged and every effort made to nullify the facts. An example of the statement of Mrs. Jill Knight, an MP of the British parliament, and, its subsequent nullification the next day by the British press, is sufficient to prove this verdict. The foreign correspondents passed sarcastic remarks against Muslims, specially the West Pakistanis. These correspondents seem to be worried about American and Chinese support to Pakistan in the event of war and talked of the probable Russian involvement as a consequence. They appear to be satisfied over guerrilla’s activities but seem to be annoyed with the Razakars helping the administration for maintenance of law and order. It is not possible to offer a detailed analysis of all that was partially reported in the Foreign Press, however,

65

an effort has been made by quoting a few references which clearly depict that the foreign press is association with the Indian media played a havoc with the sovereignty of Pakistan.

Conclusion
It may be concluded that it was not a ‘genocide’ as termed by the Foreign Press but, a well-fought civil war. Throughout the campaign, India had been deliberately misinterpreting the East Pakistan case. It was, in fact, ‘war’ between two clauses of the UN Charter i.e., (i) responsibility to safeguard human rights and, (ii) nonintervention in the internal affairs of a member country of the United Nations. It may be noted that throughout the crisis, India had been debating the question of selfdetermination, a right which, the East Pakistanis had categorically used in the general elections of 1945-46, when they had opted to join Pakistan. The fact is that India never accepted the existence of Pakistan since its birth. The British and other Foreign Press propaganda helped cherish the Indian dream of disintegrating Pakistan. As quoted in “Britain and Pakistan, A study of British Attitude towards East Pakistan Crisis in 1971”, “British propaganda against Pakistan in 1971 was far better organized, more effective and enjoyed greater official encouragement than that against Nigeria during the Biafra war…The responsibility for the admittedly one-sided presentation of the situation in the British Press and British Television falls largely on

66

President Yahya Khan for the expulsion of the Foreign Correspondents…The public opinion then of this country was considerably and inevitably misinformed”. It is alleged that Pakistan was bifurcated because of fallacies committed by military junta in power. While some believe that Pakistan was dismembered by Indian hostility. Still others are of the view that it was the result of the hostile attitude of the political elite of both the wings, whose thirst for power had pushed them to the extreme ends. But an in depth study of the Foreign Press would reveal that besides other various factors especially Indian Military intervention which was responsible for the break-up of Pakistan, it was decidedly by the hostile IndoBritish Press media that sealed the fate of a united Pakistan. Had it not played havoc during the fateful days of the East Pakistan crisis, one could possibly dream of an amicable solution to the problem.

67

APPENDIX I
THE TEXT OF THE SIX-POINT FORMULA AS ORIGINALLY PUBLISHED AND SUBSEQUENTLY AMENDED IN THE AWAMI LEAGUE’S MANIFESTO Point No. 1 Original: The Constitution should provide for a Federation of Pakistan in its true sense on the basis of the Lahore Resolution, and Parliamentary form of Government with supremacy of Legislature directly elected on the basis of universal adult franchise. Amended: The character of the government shall be federal and parliamentary, in which the election to the federal legislature and to the legislatures of the federating units shall be direct and on the basis of universal adult franchise. The representation in the federal legislature shall be on the basis of population. Point No. 2 Original: Federal government shall deal with only two subjects, viz. Defence and Foreign Affairs, and all other residuary subjects shall vest in the federating states. Amended: The federal government shall be responsible only for defence and foreign affairs and, subject to the conditions provided in Point No. 3 below, currency.

68

Point No. 3 Original: (A) Two separate but freely convertible currencies for two wings may be introduced, or (B) One currency for the whole country may be maintained. In this case effective constitutional provisions are to be made to stop flight of capital from East to West Pakistan. Separate Banking Reserve is to be made and separate fiscal and monetary policy to be adopted for East Pakistan. Amended: There shall be two separate currencies mutually or freely convertible in each wing for each region, or in the alternative a single currency, subject to the establishment of a federal reserves system in which there will be regional federal reserve banks which shall devise measures to prevent the transfer of resources and flight of capital from one region to another. Point No. 4 Original: The power of taxation and revenue collection shall vest in the federating units and that the Federal Centre will have no such power. The Federation will have a share in the state taxes for meeting their required expenditure. The Consolidated Federal Fund shall come out of a levy of certain percentage of all state taxes. Amended: Fiscal policy shall be the responsibility of the federating units. The federal government shall be provided with requisite revenue resources for meeting the

69

requirements of defence and foreign affairs, which revenue resources would be automatically appropriable by the federal government in the manner provided and on the basis of the ratio to be determined by the procedure laid down in the Constitution. Such constitutional provisions would ensure that the federal government’s revenue requirements are met consistently with the objective of ensuring control over the fiscal policy by the governments of the federating units. Point No. 5 Original: (1) There shall be two separate accounts for foreign exchange earnings of the two wings. (2) Earnings of East Pakistan shall be under the control of East Pakistan Government and that of West Pakistan under the control of West Pakistan Government. (3) Foreign exchange requirement of the Federal Government shall be met by the two wings either equally or in a ratio to be fixed. (4) Indigenous products shall move free of duty between two wings. (5) The Constitution shall empower the unit Governments to establish trade and commercial relations with, set up trade missions in and enter into agreements with, foreign countries. Amended: Constitutional provisions shall be made to enable separate accounts to be maintained of the foreign exchange earnings of each of the federating units, under

70

the control of the respective governments of the federating units. The foreign exchange requirements of the federal government shall be met by the governments of the federating units on the basis of a ratio to be determined in accordance with the procedure laid down in the Constitution. The Regional Governments shall have power under the Constitution to negotiate foreign trade and aid within the framework of the foreign policy of the country, which shall be the responsibility of the federal government. Point No. 6 Original: The setting up of a militia or a paramilitary force for East Pakistan. Amended: The governments of the federating units shall be empowered to maintain a militia or para-military force in order to contribute effectively towards national security.

71

APPENDIX II
MR. BHUTTO STORMS OUT OF SECURITY COUNCIL ACCUSING BIG POWERS
Mr. Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto, the Foreign Minister of Pakistan, stormed out of the United Nations Security Council today shouting: “I will not be party to the ignominious occupation of part of my country. You can take your Security Council. I am going.” Weeping openly, he said: “I find it disgraceful to my person and my country to remain here….Legalize aggression, legalize occupation, I will not be a party to it. We will fight. We will go back and fight.” Then he ripped up the Council agenda and stalked out of the chamber, with the rest of his delegation following hard behind. From: Micheat Leapman New York, December 15 THE TIMES, December 16, 1971 The theatrical gesture came at the end of a tearful speech in which Mr. Bhutto urged members not to pass a resolution recognizing the fact of India’s occupation of East Pakistan. He had called for the meeting late this morning as consultations continued among Council

72

members on British and French proposals for a resolution recognizing this reality. His excitable speech included attacks on the Soviet Union, Britain and France for failing to support Pakistan’s position. He said: “We are told about the realities but the realities keep changing.” Gesturing towards Mr. Jacob Malik of the Soviet Union Mr. Bhutto said: “The reality was that Nazi forces were at the gates of Moscow. You were saluted for resisting this reality.” Principles were more important than realities, he went on. “The principle is that Pakistan is an independent sovereign state…that is the basic reality.” The great powers were pandering to India which was intoxicated with military success. This was his moment of anguish. He addressed himself directly to “the super-powers, the super-duper powers, the razzling-dazzling powers” that had “imposed their super-will for the moment”. The Security Council, by recognizing India’s occupation of East Pakistan, would write a new page in international relations. “Do not permit this shameful barbaric aggression to hold sway”, he pleaded. “You want us to lick the dirt. We are not going to lick the dirt.” Referring to the British and French initiative Mr. Bhutto went on: “Gallic logic and Anglo-Saxon experience, or whatever it is, have cost us dearly.” It was

73

not acceptable for Britain and France or for anybody to take a neutral attitude. “You have to take a position on these matters. You have to be on the side of justice or the side of injustice, on the side of the aggressor or the side of the aggressed.” Afterwards, the British spokesman commented: “There will be widespread sympathy for the personal despair voiced by Mr. Bhutto in the Council today. It is a pity that he felt it necessary to denigrate the efforts of Britain and France to restore peace to the subcontinent.” Earlier the British spokesman had outlined the proposals on which Britain and France are trying to get agreement in the Council. They are: 1. A cease-fire in the West and in the East. 2. A preservation of lives and observance of the Geneva Convention. 3. A comprehensive political settlement which takes account of the realities of the situation. 4. A reference to the (United Nations) Secretary General’s offer of good offices. 5. The need for relief and rehabilitation. 6. A call for a report on the implementation of the resolution. The spokesman added that during the intensive discussions last night and today no delegation had rejected the proposals but, so far, some were uncommitted to them.

74

New York, Dec. 15. – Outside the Council chamber, Mr. Bhutto said: “I hate this body. I don’t want to see their faces again. I’d rather go back to a destroyed Pakistan.” Then, followed by the seven grim-faced members of his delegation, he strode down the carpeted main hall past milling groups of surprised diplomats, and was driven off in a misty rain. His parting words to the Council had been: “Mr. President, I am not a rat. I’ve never ratted in my life. I have faced assassination attempts, I’ve faced imprisonment. …Today I am not ratting, but I am leaving your Security Council. “I find it disgraceful to my person and to my country to remain 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 fight…my country harkens for me”. On his march through to the corridor, Mr. Bhutto told reporters that Pakistan was not breaking its relations with the Council or the United Nations. Although he had been caustic about the British and French during his speech. He said afterwards that his delegation was working with the British and French on their resolutions. – (New York Times News Service.)

75

APPENDIX III
Operative Clauses of the Polish Resolution
It may be recalled that four resolutions were tabled in the meeting of the UN Security Council held on 15 December, 1971. Of these, the operative clauses of the polish draft resolution, S/10453 Rev 1, are appended below as examined in “The Separation of East Pakistan” authored by Hasan Zaheer (Karachi, 1994). The clauses are:i) “The immediate release of Mujibur Rahman (this was deleted in the revised version) and transfer of power to the elected representatives in East Pakistan; ii) An initial cease-fire in all areas of Pakistan for a period of 72 hours immediately after the beginning of the process of power transfer; iii) Regrouping of Pakistani armed forces in East Pakistan to pre-set locations for evacuation from there; iv) All West Pakistani civilian personnel and other persons willing to return to West Pakistan, and East Pakistani Civilian personnel and other persons in West Pakistan willing to return to East Pakistan to be given an opportunity to do so under the supervision of the United Nations;

76

v) The cease-fire to become permanent soon after the withdrawal of Pakistani troops and their concentration for that purpose had started during the period of 72 hours; vi) Withdrawal of Indian armed forces from East Pakistan to start soon after the evacuation of nationals from both the Wings and the Pakistan armed forces from East Pakistan had started; vii) The withdrawal of Indian troops to actually start in consultation with the newly-established authority in East Pakistan.”

77

APPENDIX IV
PRESIDENT YAHYA BREAKS THE NEWS THE TIMES, December 17, 1971
“President Yahya Khan today admitted to his people that the army in East Pakistan had been overwhelmed, but he said that a temporary setback in one theatre of war did not mean the end of the struggle.” “Nowhere in his 15-minute broadcast to the nation did he concede that East Pakistan had been lost, nor did he specifically commit himself to continuing with the war in the west. He called, however, on the international community to “move quickly and firmly to extinguish the flames of war in the entire region.” “The President said that “the heroic fight put up by our armed forces in East Pakistan against overwhelming odds will go down in history as an epic of indomitable courage reminiscent of the highest traditions of the soldiers of Islam. Though vastly outnumbered and cut off from supplies and reinforcements by land, sea and air due to the enemy blockade, “these ghazis of Islam held out for months against a perfidious and ruthless enemy, massively equipped and backed by a super power.” “The President told the nation that though a battle might be lost, final victory would be theirs. To the people

78

of East Pakistan he said: “This is not the end. We shall fight for our country relentlessly.” “He also made no mention of cease-fire possibilities, though he said Pakistan was ready to honour any decision of the United Nations that led to an honourable solution consistent with the national interest.” “He ended his speech by calling on the people to carry on the struggle with discipline and determination. “This is a war which has to be fought in the fields, factories and homes as much as the battlefield”, he said. “The collapse of East comes a little over three weeks after Indian troops first crossed the border in strength. For the Pakistanis it is a humiliating blow. The outcome of the war to date is that half of the country and an army of more than sixty thousand men have been lost and no compensating gains have been made in the west. “President Yahya’s vague promise to continue with the struggle is partly an attempt to damp down popular agitation, it also leaves him the option of pursuing the war in the west if all attempts at a cease-fire fail.”

79

Appendix V
In the following pages one would find that the Pakistani Press had so perfectly penpictured the factual position about the biased and negative approach of the Indian and British Press. In the following editorial comments the truth has been rightly unveiled by the Pakistani Press. (Editor)

COMMENTS OF THE PAKISTANI PRESS
(English & Urdu) DELINQUENT PROPAGANDISTS THE PAKISTAN OBSERVER EDITORIAL “Joseph Goebbels, Hitler’s propaganda minister, worked on principles of self-justification of power and including “The big lie” by varied repetition. We do not subscribe to the view that propaganda agencies of all governments look upon Goebbels as their idol and ideal. But it is blatantly evident that the Indian propagandists do. In fact, they are so adept at this “big lie” technique that they have succeeded in pushing Goebbels to the second place in their own game. The shameless way in which the

80

Indian publicity media – the press and radio – are indulging in spreading falsehoods about Pakistan should leave no doubt about their super-skill in this regard. Truth always happens to be the first casualty of motivated publicity and propaganda. In this sense the performance of the Indian propagandists in distorting facts about happenings in East Pakistan and in the futile attempt to justify India’s illegal and immoral interference in Pakistan’s internal affairs is understandable. What is not so understandable is the role being played by the British publicity media with minor exceptions. For instance, although the news of the setting up of an inquiry commission to go into the circumstances and cause of the hijacking of the Indian plane of January 30, was reported in the overseas bulletin of the British broadcasting corporation’s radio and T.V., the Commission’s finding that it was wholly planned and executed by the Indian intelligence agencies has been completely blacked out. It is a pity that the British press minus a small section has been following the same line of anti-Pakistani propaganda depending wholly and blindly on unverified stories told by Indian propagandists. It is amazing how the British press had drifted from the ethical mooring in its campaign against Pakistan. Unless it has done away with the indispensable principle of objectivity, it would be impossible for it to be almost completely taken in by Indian propaganda machinery. For all we know, the British publicity media have no correspondents of their own in East Pakistan and are apparently guided by second

81

hand reports from hostile source 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 have heard all. Even a whisper emanating from the air seems to raise a faithful echo there. We take no pleasure in finding ourselves compelled to write in this vein which we do in sorrow rather than in anger. It is far from us to, as they say, take them for a ride, which, unfortunately, they are obviously doing in open defiance of their journalistic traditions of treating facts as sacred and printing them only after they have passed through the sacrament of confirmation. Otherwise it may be called a free press, but never a responsible one. This is not an inspiring record of performance of the press of a country which continues to be the model of parliamentary democracy. It is, of course, not unknown to any student of history that the British Press, at least a substantial section of it, tended to magnify events in any country which freed itself from the British Colonial subjugation and got out of its orbit of influence. For this every reason a BBC correspondent was, not quite long ago, expelled even from India. This time, of course, Pakistan has to be maligned and harmed because it serves their economic interests more to please India, the bigger country, where the scope and prospects of trade and profitable investments are much wider and better. When eventually truth will come out and the real story will be told, much of the credibility of their reports and comments will be lost and their

82

versions of events in other countries will also be taken with a large grain of salt. Incidentally we recall the story told of a high official in the Roosevelt Administration, who was known for his very cautious attitude in the matter of accepting a reported fact without proper verification. One day when someone pointed to a flock of sheep and said that their wool had been sheared, he said, “on this side it looks so, anyway”, we do not expect the British press to exercise that much caution, but it will be appreciated and it will be closed to reality if it does not see things in Pakistan only through Indian eyes.”

PAKISAN ATTITUDE OF UK’S INFORMATION MEDIA
Anti-Pakistan news being readily spread Dawn, April 24, 1971

London, April 23
“How partisan and dishonest have organs of British information media become vis-à-vis Pakistan is amply demonstrated by the virtual blackout imposed on the verdict of the inquiry commission headed by Mr. Justice Noorul Arefin, that the Indian intelligence service and enemies of Pakistan were behind hijacking of an Indian airliner to Lahore which was used by India as a pretext to ban Pakistani over flights. The British Broadcasting

83

Corporation broadcast the news of the report about the inquiry commissions in its overseas news bulletins but the BBC practically blacked out news in its domestic radio and television news bulletins. British public has been conditioned to prolonged poisonous propaganda emanating from over worked rumour factories in India and the situation has now been reached when any antiPakistan news is readily believed. The Liberal British newspapers, “The Guardian” which published letters on March 31, supporting “Bengal’s struggle” and “Self-determination” for “Bangladesh” has so far not published the statement by Col. (Rtd.) Inayat Hassan that he never signed one of these letters which included his name. “The Guardian” and the British newspapers have also not printed news that Col. Hassan (Rtd.) resigned from Chairmanship of the socalled campaign for “self rule in Bangladesh”. Oft-repeated, protestations by the British information media and those by the British Officials and diplomats on its behalf that it is independent and dedicated to principles of free expression and fairplay appear pretty hollow in view ever since the cyclone in East Pakistan last November.

Cricket Tour
A campaign against England tour by Pakistan Cricket Team starting on Saturday has been mounted by anti-Pakistan elements in this country which include

84

Indians, “Bangladesh” extremists, black power supporters and now also some left wing labor MPs known for their pro-Indian sympathies. This campaign forms part of the world-wide psychological warfare being waged by the enemies of Pakistan following the total collapse of the Indian supported “Bangladesh” rebellion. Other weapons in the armoury of these enemies of Pakistan are rumours designed to disrupt Pakistan’s foreign trade (principally raw jute and jute goods exports) and to create misgivings about the value of Pakistan rupee.”

BRITISH NEWS MEDIA AND PAKISTAN
By: “OBSERVER” THE PAKISTAN TIMES, JUNE 18, 1971 “Pakistan political crisis has clearly demonstrated that by and large the British press, television and radio are either unsympathetic or outright hostile to Pakistan. One did expect complete impartiality or objectivity from the news media, because the subject was sensitive and emotive. But, of course, it would be sheer folly to expect any sympathy from the British press (or Government) for the following reasons: • Britain has larger investments in India than in Pakistan.

85

• India is a bigger country and therefore a bigger potential paradise for the fortune-hunters of British board rooms. • India has a much stronger and more successful propaganda and public relations machinery than Pakistan. Its large crowd of foreign correspondents, writers, artists, dancers, singers, sadhus, jogis, jugglers, and their hirelings, infesting every nook and corner of Britain constantly keep India in the forefront. In view of these and many other reasons, knowledgeable persons had no illusions that in case of choice between India and Pakistan, Britain will always choose the former. However the high ideals and the almost proverbial ‘objectivity’ of the British Journalists and particularly BBC were held up as models before us. These models now lie broken before us. To analyse the recent attitude of British mass media towards Pakistan one should see things with the hindsight of recent history. It is common knowledge that the British press has been painting Pakistanis living in this country in lurid colours for several years. Any coloured thief, vagabond, smuggler or smuggled one, is always reported to be Pakistani. Facts are hardly checked and it is taken for granted that a coloured wrong-doer must be a Pakistani.

86

The most virulent anti-Pakistan propaganda was carried on by the “Guardian”—both editorially and through its news columns. Although it is common that the nomenclatures of Pakistan army and East Pakistan have been changed into West Pakistan army and East Bengal by British press, the “Guardian” always writes Bangladesh (not within inverted commas) as the name of the imaginary country whose cabinet is in the Indian Government hostel in Calcutta and which exists in the news rooms of AIR and PTI. However, during the last few days for some reasons it has ceased to be fashionable to quote the Bangladesh radio, which is not heard even in Calcutta. The “Guardian’s” reporting about Pakistani affairs is remarkable for its lack of objectivity (e.g. using loaded phrases like “Punjabi occupation regime”—April 16) but also reads like an “order of the day” for the “liberation forces of the Bangladesh”. The “Guardian” does not report events; it tells the Bengalis living in Britain how to carry on the war, how is to use guerrilla tactics and defeat the hated Pakistan Government. Of course the BBC is always there to link 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. Dailies like “Times”, “Guardian” and “Telegraph”, gave Indian-inspired stories, some BBC broadcasts give

87

false reports and often commits ridiculous blunders, in its intense desire to please the Indian. But united against Pakistan, the British media widely differ among themselves on many issues. For example the number of refugees from East Pakistan has been estimated at between 100,000. One was amused to hear that on the same day BBC was talking of 20,000 refugees and ITV was saying their number 600,000. Similarly, the estimates of details on the first day were 6,000 than the headlines next day declared 10,000. The British press had been doing its best to create bad blood between the two wings, highlighting and augmenting parochial feelings. The British press had played a similar role in Biafra. The “Times” correspondent callously wrote on April 19 about the Bengalis “—some see them (Bengalis) as a race of feckless poetasters, spouters of perfervid political oratory, who tend to melt away at the first sound of gun-fire.” The ITV did no good turn to the East Pakistanis when it showed a film in which an Indian instructor was teaching the Bengalis the art of the warfare. He mercilessly slapped a Bengali who was unable to handle the gun properly. Pakistan’s Government, press and radio would do well to face these hard facts, and review their policies accordingly.

88

PAKISTAN AND THE BRITISH PRESS
By: a correspondent THE PAKISTAN OBSERVER

September 4, 1971
“The western press, particularly the British has been carrying on for the past several months a virulent anti-Pakistan propaganda campaign. They have printed all kinds of lies and rumors and presented them as news to their readers. From the way events in Pakistan have been presented in the British press, it appears that their reports have been mostly based on hearsay gossips and rumours. Instances are galore where figures have been blown out of all proportions, facts have been distorted and events deliberately presented in a manner prejudicial to Pakistan’s interests. Exaggerated figures of refugees have been given, imaginary stories of large scale fighting have been printed. The demand of a small band of miscreants and anti-state elements have been presented as that of the people of East Pakistan. One story circulated in the foreign press was that a large number of girls 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 the premises of the Hall at all, to which the provost of the Hall herself bears testimony. Such other ludicrous and malicious stories have been deliberately circulated to slander Pakistan. If one goes by what is being published in the British press, one would almost believe that

89

‘Bangladesh’ exists while in fact there is none. The socalled ‘Bangladesh’ is a figurant of the fevered imagination of the British correspondents and a few Indian agents. Britain is herself burdened with the problem of north Ireland. It 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 in East Pakistan. What is lawlessness for Pakistan? This is a policy of double standard.

Truthful Stories
Even so some honest and fair minded British journalists have spoken the truth and exposed the hypocrisy of their press. Many British reporters had the courage to swim against the current and wrote about the real state of affairs in East Pakistan which totally negates the bulk of reporting on Pakistan in the British papers. The truthful stories about Pakistan have exposed the antiPakistan stance taken by a large section of British papers. It is remarkable 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 Sheikh Mujib a demagogue and rabblerouser and emphasized the need to restore order in the province quickly. But later on after the Pakistan army intervened to restore order, safeguard the integrity of Pakistan and tackle the

90

disruptionists, the same papers began to sing a different song. They began to lionize the Awami League and called the law breakers and secessionists the freedom fighters. One of the British papers which has been persistently spreading malicious propaganda against Pakistan in recent times is the “Guardian”.”

PAKISTAN AND THE WESTERN PRESS
By: Mohammad Aminur Rashid THE PAKISTAN OBSERVER

October 18, 1971
“Even when Hitler’s Germany was at the peak of its power, the master propagandist Goebbels observed certain rules to deceive the world. His blatant lies and exaggerated accounts of victories of Hitler’s Germany did however, contain an iota of truth in them. But from the irresponsible manner in which certain western papers and broadcasting institutions such as BBC i.e. “Bania” Broadcasting Corporation and All India Radio have been spreading lies about the events in Pakistan it seems these are bent on establishing new records of telling lies. It is the duty of pressmen, reporters, news media, Radio, T.V., and other broadcasting institutions to enlighten the public as to the exact nature of events that take place anywhere in the world. ‘Bias’ and slant in any form should be avoided. It is a pity that the western press, journalists and other

91

news media have been brazenfacedly distorting truths, misrepresenting facts and spreading lies about Pakistan. They have published misleading stories emanating from India while blacking out the news from Pakistani sources.

Expansionist Policy
The baseless propaganda and filth that is pouring out of all India Radio needs to be treated with contempt. All India Radio is called a public corporation but the way it is behaving it seems that it is worse than a privately owned radio station. Even privately owned Radio stations and news media in many parts of the world maintain much better and higher standards of reporting and would certainly feel ashmed of belonging to a fraternity to which All India Radio belongs. India is undoubtedly a country which does not have much regard for peace and world opinion. Inspite of being a member of the U.N., she has frequently defied its resolutions. Her expansionist foreign policy makes us shudder to think what would have been the fate of the world had India been as powerful as say the U.S.A. Confronted with India even Hitler would have set up in utter consternation. She is a nation without scruples, character or principles of any kind and her activities have proved this beyond any shadow of doubt. It is a wonder how the western press and news media have become a tool in the hands of Indian expansionists and war mongers. It is admitted on all hands that Pakistan is a sovereign state and has shown to the world that she is capable of running her affairs with the highest ideals of

92

democracy and goodwill that has brought her lasting respect of the big and small alike. She has exhibited her tolerance, foresightedness and powers of impartial discretion much to the astonishment of the entire world. What happened in East Pakistan is our own concern. But India is blatantly interfering in our internal affairs. For a country like India, whose own internal affairs are nothing but crude high-handedness of a country that does not know what to do with its time. The world at large should know that events in East Pakistan are a purely internal matter and Pakistan is quite capable of putting her house in order in course of time. Indian attempts to force Pakistan to act in accordance with her dictates is simply unbearable, to say the least. Pakistan’s political life unlike that of many countries of the world has been one of peace and tranquility. Not only the world press but also the bitterest enemies of Pakistan have had to admit that Pakistan has made gigantic progress in all spheres of life and the present situation is but a passing phase that will soon be over. In contemporary political history and during the last twenty years the world has seen so many political changes, upheavals and the like, even within some of the so-called most advanced countries that changes in the political arena are more or less a matter of routine these days.

Our Conviction
The action that was taken in East Pakistan was necessitated by the exigencies of the situation. Whatever

93

may be said by our enemies we stand firmly to the conviction that the changes were necessitated by the rebellion of the now defunct Awami League. Pakistan was created as a single entity, though separated by geography. The fact that Pakistan has continued to progress for the last 23 years has made it quite clear that Pakistan has come to stay. It is obvious that anyone or any political party that attempts to dismember the country is a traitor and enemy of the people. The big powers of the world should take note of the fact that the action taken by President Yahya Khan to save the solidarity and integrity of Pakistan will go down in history as one of the greatest decision that any president has had to take. The decision had to be taken to save the very foundations of Pakistan from being destroyed by a selfish, shortsighted and rebellious political party whose greed and thirst for power had reached the point of insanity. It should further be noted that had President Yahya intended to cling on to power, he would never have held the elections in the first place. The elections were the first free and fair elections ever held on the basis of adult franchise in Pakistan and that is enough proof of the fact that President Yahya is capable of delivering the goods. If after this magnanimous show of good will and complete sincerity, the now defunct Awami League chose to dismember the country and destroy Pakistan altogether then, all right thinking people of the world and even those with the slightest commonsense, will agree that President Yayha had no choice but to take steps to stop such an act of treason. The present

94

state of affairs in East Pakistan in view of the communication difficulties created by saboteurs and miscreants is not fully known to the public at large and miscreants are playing a nasty game of rumour mongering to create more trouble. These rumours are coined and circulated with the sole objective of destroying the confidence of the people and thereby enabling the antistate elements and infiltrators to make capital out of the weakness of those who fall prey to the sordid stories that are invented. In view of this, one can well imagine the dangerous consequences of rumour-mongering. What All India Radio and the foreign press are doing is rumourmongering on an international scale.

Truth
The ‘Bania’ Broadcasting Corporation, All India Radio and sections of the press should note that they cannot mislead the world for long. Truth is bound to come out sooner or later. The people of Pakistan are determined to live in a free and united Pakistan. What is happening in East Pakistan is our own internal affair and we Pakistanis ourselves will decide what is best for us. No foreign power has a right to impose a solution on us. The facts of the matter cannot be changed by the ridiculous, illogical, unfounded and baseless propaganda being carried by Indian agents in the foreign press and radio.

95

96

97

98

99

100

101

References
Safdar Mahmood, Pakistan Divided, Lahore, 1984, p.8. Pakistan Divided, op.cit. p. 19. 3 The Six-point formula was originally authored in 1966 which was reevaluated in 1970. It carried all regional demands which were articulated from time to time since 1947. It proposed a weak Centre; two currencies for the two Provinces; Provincial governments to negotiate foreign trade and aid; communication to be placed under the Provincial governments control; to maintain a military and para-military force. It was a veiled scheme of secession which carried inherent contradictions and was impracticable. (However Z.A. Bhutto, had agreed to all points minus half point relating to foreign trade and aid). For text of the Formula, please see Appendix 1. 4 Agartala – a place in the state of Taripura where in July 1967 a conspiracy was hatched to secede by violence. Its secret leaked out and Sheikh Mujibur-Rehman and 34 others, involved in conspiracy, were arrested under the Public Safety Ordinance. Later, the withdrawal of the case led to Armed Revolt of March 1971 by the Awami League. 5 The Pakistan Times, Lahore, March 26, 1969. 6 There were 56,508,000 people on the electoral register. Of these 25,300,000 were in West Pakistan and the remainder in East Pakistan. The actual turn-out for polling was 56% in East Pakistan; 70% in Punjab; 60% in Sindh; 48% NWFP and 40% in Baluchistan. The party position was – All Pakistan Muslim League (Qayyum Group) 9; Pakistan Muslim League (Council) 7; Jamiat-ul-Ulema-i-Islam (Hazarvi Group) 7; National Awami Party (Wali Group) 7; Pakistan Muslim League (Convention) 2; Jamaat-eIslami, 4; Pakistan Democratic Party, 1; Markazi Jamiat-ul-Ulema-i-Islam, (Thanvi Group) 7; and Independents, 14. 7 The Present Crisis in East Pakistan, A Statement by an official spokesman of the Government of Pakistan, May 5, 1971. p.5. 8 Pakistan Divided, op.cit., p. 9. 9 Ibid. 10 Pakistan Divided, op.cit., p. 105. 11 Ibid., p. 111. 12 The daily Dawn, Karachi, March 1, 1971. 13 The Present Crisis in East Pakistan, op.cit., p. 6. 14 Ibid. 15 Ibid. 16 Ibid., p. 7. 17 Ibid. 18 White Paper, (Urdu), Mashraqui Pakistan Kay Haliya Buhran per Hukumat-e-Pakistan Ka Jaree Karda Qartas Abeez, August 5, 1971, p. 9. 19 Ibid.
2 1

102
Ibid., p. 10. Ibid. 22 The Present Crisis in East Pakistan, op.cit., p. 7. 23 Pakistan Divided, op.cit., p. 133. 24 White Paper, (Urdu), op.cit., p. 12. 25 Ibid., pp. 12-13. 26 Pakistan Divided, op.cit., p. 52. 27 Ibid., p. 53. 28 Ibid., pp. 121-122. 29 Pakistan Divided, op.cit., p. 135. 30 “Mujib Fighting India’s War”, India’s Role in East Pakistan Crisis, (East Pakistan Documentation Series) Speech at the All India Congress Committee, New Delhi, 4 April 1971. p. 9. 31 Pakistan Divided, op.cit., p. 140. 32 Ibid., 33 Mujib Fighting India’s War, op.cit., p. 10. 34 Mujib Fighting India’s War, op.cit., p. 10. 35 Ibid. 36 Ibid., p. 19. 37 Mohammad Ayoob and K. Subrahmanyum, The Liberation War, New Delhi, (Reprint March 1972) p. 156. 38 The Times London, December 16, 1971. 39 Dr. Abdul Hamid. “Origins of the East Pakistan Problem – A Historical View”, Journal of the Research Society of Pakistan. University of the Punjab. (Lahore) Vol. VII., No. 3, July 1970. p. 30. 40 The daily Dawn, Karachi, June 19, 1971. 41 Mehrunnisa Ali. The East Pakistan Crisis: International Crisis, published in Pakistan Horizon, Vol. XXIV, No. 2, Karachi. (Second Quarter, 1971), p. 52. 42 Ibid. 43 Pakistan Divided, op.cit., p. 143. 44 Ibid. 45 The Pakistan Observer, Dacca, September 4, 1971. 46 Ibid. 47 Ibid. 48 Ibid. April 27, 1971. 49 The Pakistan Times, Lahore. June 18, 1971. 50 Ibid. 51 The East Pakistan Crisis: International Crisis, op.cit., p. 45. 52 Ibid. 53 Aziz. K.K., Britain and Pakistan, A Study of British Attitude Towards the East Pakistan Crisis of 1971, Islamabad, 1974, p. 143.
21 20

103
Ibid. p. 144. (Reproduced from Listener April 8, 1971, p. 437). Ibid., p. 146. (Reproduced from Listener, May 6, 1971, p. 607. 56 Britain and Pakistan, A Study of British Attitude Towards East Pakistan Crisis of 1971, op.cit., pp. 147-148. (Reproduced from Listener, July 29, 1971, pp. 134-135. 57 Ibid., op.cit., pp. 148-149. (Reproduced from Listener, October 28, 1971, pp-562-563). 58 Britain and Pakistan, A Study of British Attitude towards East Pakistan Crisis of 1971, op.cit., pp. 148-149. (Reproduced from Listener, October 28, 1971, pp. 562-563.
55 54

Ibid., p. 150. (Reproduced from Listener, November 11, 1971, p.641). Ibid., p. 150-151. (Reproduced from Listener, December 9, 1971, p.785). 61 Britain and Pakistan, A Study of British Attitude Towards East Pakistan Crisis of 1971, op.cit., pp. 151. (Reproduced from Listener, December 30, 1971, pp. 892. 62 Ibid., p. 170. (Reproduced from Listener, December 30, 1971, p.892). 63 Britain and Pakistan, A Study of British Attitude Towards East Pakistan Crisis of 1971, op.cit., pp. 170-171.
60

59

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful