DEAD RECKONING

Book Review

GC ARSLAN ARSHAD
SAAD TGC -30
 1
RESTD

BOOK REVIEW – DEAD RECKONING: MEMORIES OF THE

BANGLADESH WAR 1971
(Sarmila Bose)

Book Info:

1. Info about book is as follows

Name Dead Reckoning: Memories of the Bangladesh war 1971
Author Sarmila Bose
Published April 1, 2011
Publisher C. Hurst & Co
Pages 288
Genre History
Country United States
ISBN 978-1849040495

Author:
2. Sarmila Bose is an American journalist and academic of Indian origin. She
is currently a senior research associate at the Centre for International Studies in
the Department of Politics and International Relations at the University of Oxford.
She is the author of Dead Reckoning: Memories of the 1971 Bangladesh
War, a controversial book on the Bangladesh Liberation War that accuses both
sides of war crimes
3. The grandniece of Indian nationalist Subhas Chandra Bose and
granddaughter of nationalist Sarat Chandra Bose, Bose is the daughter of
former Trinamool Congress parliamentarian Krishna Bose and pediatrician Sisir
Kumar Bose. Her brother Sugata Bose is a member of Indian parliament since
2014. She was born in Boston, but grew up in Calcutta, returning to the US for
higher studies. She obtained a bachelor's degree in history from Bryn Mawr
College, and a master's and doctorate from Harvard University in Political
Economy and Government. Sarmila Bose was a political journalist in India,

RESTD
 2
RESTD

working for Ananda Bazar Patrika. After her higher studies, she has held
teaching and research positions at Harvard University, Warwick University,
George Washington University, Tata Institute of Social Sciences, and Oxford
University

Review:
4. The year 1971 is etched in the collective consciousness of Bangladeshis,
Pakistanis and Indians – though to a lesser degree – as a time of tragedy and
upheaval. For Bangladeshis it is the year of blood and tears, for Pakistanis deep
humiliation, and for the Indians of triumph. And though memories come in
simplistic categories, the reality is very complex. Sarmila Bose, a well-known
name in both academia and media, undertakes to unravel some of these
complexities in her book Dead Reckoning: Memories of the 1971 Bangladesh
War.
5. There is a lot of literature on 1971 but, understandably enough, very little
of it comes from Pakistan. Hassan Zaheer’s book entitled The Separation of East
Pakistan (1994) and Kamal Matinuddin’s Tragedy of Errors (1993), though
certainly commendable in part, are written from a Pakistani perspective and do
not mention the suffering of Bengalis adequately. And, of course, General A.A.K.
Niazi’s The Betrayal of East Pakistan (1998) is meant to defend him against the
charge of having lost the war to India.
6. The liberation literature in Bangladesh, the author points out, rests upon
the perception of ‘victimhood’ to the point of denying resistance from Bengali
armed fighters at places. Moreover, it exaggerates the killings and rapes without
quoting reliable sources. The literature from India – mostly accounts of military
officers – focuses on the 1971 war without taking account of the role of India in
East Bengal from March 1971 onwards. It, too, misses out both on the
perspectives of the Bengalis as well as the West Pakistanis.
Bose adds to this existing scholarship with her meticulous research. Besides
taking account of written sources in Bengali and English (including reports,
documents, biographies, memoirs) she has interviewed eyewitnesses and

RESTD
 3
RESTD

participants in Bangladesh, Pakistan and India. These people have deepened

her understanding of the events while earlier accounts relied on hearsay,
testimony or rumours.
7. The book has nine chapters in addition to an introduction. It has a
bibliographical note which describes major works in a synoptic form. There is
also an appendix of participants and eyewitnesses. Moreover, there is a select
bibliography to complement the bibliographical note mentioned above. There is
also an index at the end of the book.
Bose argues that the period between the beginnings until March 25 was a time of
inaction – “power without responsibility.” The Pakistan army did nothing to
prevent the killing of Biharis and West Pakistanis by Bengalis which was going
on. On the night between March 25 and 26, the Army took action beginning from
Dhaka University where people, including students and professors, were killed.
Then, the army fanned out all over Bangladesh ‘securing’ the countryside
(Chapter 5), mainly by killing men. Although Bengali young men (and some
women too) had been undertaking some form of military training at least from
March, they started crossing over to India in large numbers after the military
action. The Mukti Bahini was organised and trained in India and moved in for ‘hit-
and-run’ actions in Bangladesh (Chapter 7), though most of these ended in
torture and death for the perpetrators. Right at the end of the war, a number of
Bengali intellectuals were killed, probably by members of the Al-Badr
organisation, which was pro-Pakistan.
8. The outline of this story is known to anyone who has read the fairly vast
archive of writings on 1971. Even if one has read the biographies and memories
of participants in English, it becomes clear that Bose’s analysis of events is
correct. But her real contribution to scholarship is that she demolishes a number
of myths that surround the events of that fateful year. For instance, she argues
that the number of Bangladeshis killed in 1971 was not three million but between
50,000-100,000 (p.181). She also contends that the soldiers taken as prisoners
of war were not 93,000 (as believed in Pakistan too), but 45,000 including police
and civil armed forces personnel. She also points out that the references in
Bangladesh sources to the Balochis being kinder than the Punjabis are based on
RESTD
 4
RESTD

some misperception. The Pakistan Army probably had no ethnic Baloch and
Brahvis, though there were Pakhtuns from Baluchistan. It is possible that Baloch
regiments, which had Punjabis and Pakhtuns like other regiments, were mistaken
for being ethnically Baloch.
9. Since Bose’s correction of exaggerations and countering of myths tilts in
favour of the Pakistan army, it might be assumed that she is unduly sympathetic
towards Pakistan. The fact is that she is objective and, like all good research
scholars, relies on eyewitness testimony corroborated by other sources. Such
high standards of evidence obviously refute myths to which all non-scientific
people cling to in all countries – not just in Bangladesh or Pakistan.
As proof that the author is even-handed, it should be pointed out that she has
narrated stories of how the Pakistan army did kill civilians. The Dhaka University
massacre is mentioned among other incidents of a similar nature: Shankhariara
on March 26, Thanapara on April 13, Chuknagar on May 20, and Boroitola on
October 13 – to mention only the better-known ones. Moreover, the army went
out of its way to kill Hindus on the mistaken assumption that they were Indian
agents. All these the author has described; however, she does not seem to have
investigated cases of rape and arson, whereas there is biographical evidence
that those also took place. As in other cases, she should have taken a clear
position on these two issues as well.
10. Omissions, myths and exaggerations aside, it becomes quite evident that
the ruling elite of Pakistan – which was the military at that time – did not
understand the force of public opinion against it. Military action was not the
correct response to the imperatives of Bengali nationalism that was the result of
20 years of perceived injustice and discrimination. In this context, Bose’s
assertion that “42% voted in favour of the Awami League cannot be interpreted
as a vote for secession” (p.171), needs to be questioned. Because, if numbers
are the criterion, then the creation of Pakistan as well as that of a number of
other states in the modern world, would also be called into question. Given the
state of indifference to politics among some sections of society, a reluctance to
vote among the well-to-do led to genuine confusion; it so happens that
sentiments do not necessarily translate into votes. The alienation of the Bengalis
RESTD
 5
RESTD

from Pakistan was certainly pervasive and, if the ruling elite had been humane
and wise, a political solution – based on the acceptance of the six points or
freedom – would have been the preferred solution. Bose is not critical enough of
the ruling elite as far as this is concerned. She may be right in mentioning that
the rank and file from West Pakistan thought they were doing their nationalistic
duty – though brutality is never part of any such duty – but surely the intellectuals
and the ruling elite ought to know better.
11. While atrocities from all sides are to be regretted and condemned, it is the
function of the state not to allow them to take place. Thus, it is the military
government of Pakistan who should have stopped Bengalis from killing Biharis,
and the army from killing Bengalis. It is only by acknowledging this and seeking
pardon from the families of the dead that Pakistan can make partial atonement
for the events of 1971.

Critic:
12. Despite my minor disagreements with Sarmila Bose, I consider her book
by far the best account of 1971, so far. It should, perhaps, have been more
sympathetic to the Bangladeshis, but in her desire to be objective and demolish
myths, she may be seen to be less sympathetic to their suffering. This, however,
is a matter of tone and not of scholarship. Indeed, her greatest asset is her ability
to be fair, objective and impartial and, like a true scholar, rely only on solid
evidence. The book is also eminently readable. For all these qualities the book is
recommended strongly to scholars of South Asia and the interested layperson
alike. It is a milestone in South Asian studies, which will remain required reading
for quite some time to come.

RESTD