Year: 2009

By Mubarak Ali

In the twentieth century, nationalism played a very effective role in liberating countries from colonialism. However, the nature of nationalism differed from one country to another. Some states experienced territorial nationalism, while others were unified by linguistic bonds and yet others by religion. In all cases the role of nationalism was to unite different segments of society into one, irrespective of caste, creed or class. Generally nationalism began with romantic idealism but changed its character when independence was achieved.

At this stage, it was appropriated and monopolized by the ruling classes and excluded the workers, peasants, women, and minorities who had made sacrifices during the course of the freedom struggle. In the words of Ranabir Samaddar, “In all nationalist construction of regime of power, the peasant is mobilized only to be demobilized soon after.”The book under review talks about the dilemma of the intellectuals of Bangladesh in constructing history under the influence of nationalism. The first question they face is, from where should they start? The significant moments in their history are 1905 when Bengal was divided by the British provoking a very powerful movement by the Bengali nationalists to undo it. The British government was forced to annul the partition in 1911.

However, the situation changed in 1947, when Bengal was divided on religious basis and the Congress rejected the idea of an independent Bengal. Therefore, 1947 was the point in history when East Bengal became East Pakistan and aligned itself with West Pakistan on the basis of religion. Then came 1971, when Bangladesh came into existence denying Muslim nationalism and projecting linguistic sentiments to unite people under this ideology and to fight against Pakistan.

It was decided to make 1971 as a starting point of the new history. This raises the question: how then should Bangladesh nationalism be defined? If language becomes the basis of nationhood, how should West Bengal, which is now a part of India, be treated? To extricate themselves from this paradox, the historians chose to deny Bengali nationalism and instead promote Bangladeshi nationalism. This has consequently brought back religion as an element in the construction of Bengali national identity.

Samaddar explains this phenomenon in these words: “The imperative of nationalism is that the whole course must be straightened, the rough edge must be smoothened, the disturbing zones silenced, and a monolith whole of Muslim history in Bengal be put into account so that the nation-making agenda in Bangladesh receives genealogical legitimacy.”

Analyzing the process of construction of a new history after the war of liberation in 1971, Samaddar points out how myth-making attempts have been made to project the groups in power and exclude others from the process. The list of exclusion is very long. There is no place for Maulana Akram Khan, Abul Qasim Fazl Haq, and Hussain Shaheed Suhrawardy as they were the products of pre-Partition politics and contributed nothing to Bangladesh. Even Maulana Bhashani was pushed outside the pail of the new history and his role marginalized. Instead, Mukti Bahini became the main force that fought bravely against the Pakistan army and successfully liberated the country.Atrocities and genocide of the Pakistan army emerged as the second element in mobilizing the people emotionally in order to convince them that freedom was not cheap and people paid a heavy price for it. Mujib emerges as the great leader who led his people through all ups and downs. Mujib and his party took full advantage of the situation to assume total power. Soon the sacrifices and atrocities were forgotten and the people were denied participation in the power structure.

Rakshi Bahini, a praetorian force, was used to silence the opposition. The leftist politicians were marginalized, bureaucracy became dominant, and the personality cult of Mujib was established. To keep the nation united, violence was permitted. Thus ended the era of romantic nationalism and the hope of the people for a better future collapsed.

What was the result of this new construction of history? When the role of the army in the liberation of the country was glorified and the sacrifices of the workers, peasants, women and other civilian institutions was ignored, the armed forces seized political power and ousted the politicians from the governance of the country. Military rule not only eliminated the radical elements but also rehabilitated those military officers who had served in the Pakistan army. The victim of this whole process was democracy and its institutions.Analyzing the paradoxes of Bangladesh nationalism, Samaddar points out the efforts of the Bangladesh historians who have made attempts to reconstruct the history of their country. In the first instance in 1977, a commission was set up to write the history of the war of liberation. By 1985, 15 volumes of documents had been published with these comments: “The main consideration was to have the correct documents for the correct events. We do not have any comment, we point towards nothing, we offer no explanation, no analysis of our own.” It means that until today no comprehensive history of the events of 1971 has been written.

However, many problems can still be anticipated in the writing of the history of Bangladesh. For example, how does one underplay the military role and emphasize the civilian contribution in the 1971 struggle? A new history has to explain the events before 1947 and the role of Bengal in the creation of Pakistan. It has to explain the approach of those personalities who worked for Pakistan on the basis of Muslim nationalism. And the role of radicals must be historicized and their contribution must be recognized.

History plays a crucial role in constructing the past. If it ignores or marginalizes people and projects the army and the elite classes, it provides them reason and logic to legitimize their rule and deprive the people of their rights. This happened not only in Bangladesh but in most of the third world countries whose history is constructed in the interest of the army or elite classes. That explains why people suffer from the lack of historical consciousness and acquiesce in dictatorial rule so quietly.

Paradoxes of the nationalist time :Political essays on Bangladesh
By Ranabir Samaddar
The University Press, Red Crescent Building, 114 Motijheel C/A, PO Box 2611, Dhaka-1000, Bangladesh
Email: upl@bangla.net
Website: www.uplbooks.com
ISBN 984 05 1634 5
188pp. Tk300

Courtesy: Dawn
Akhbar

By Wajid Ali Khan Panni

The nation observed Begum Rokeya Day on December 8 to commemorate Begum Rokeya’s revolutionary role in advancing the causes of women in this subcontinent. It was she who took the first step for awakening the Muslim womenfolk in the British India through education in an adverse environment.

Begum Rokeya Sakhawat Hossain (1880 – 1932) started a school in 1909 for Muslim girls at Bhagalpur town in Bihar after her husband Syed Sakhawat Hossain’s demise. But this noble venture faced many impediments, so she was compelled close down the school and moved to Calcutta where she opened the Sakhawat Memorial Girls’ School in 1911. At the age of 21, she started publishing articles about the condition of women.

By 1930, it was upgraded to a high school where Bengali and English were regular courses. In 1926, Rokeya presided over the Bengal Women’s Education Conference held in Calcutta. She was active in debates and conferences concerning the advancement of women until her death in December 9,1932, shortly after presiding over a session during the Indian Women’s Conference in Aligarh.

Women constitute approximately half of the world’s total population. While we consider the dual role of women in both productive and reproductive realm of life, their social contribution is more than men. Yet, participation of women in socio-economic and political process is far less compared to men.

Given their social roles and responsibilities, women are disadvantaged with regard to access to resources and power compared to men. Women’s civil and political participation implies women’s capability to participate in all spheres of public and political activities and decision making process. However, the power relations that shape social, political, economic and cultural life prevent women from participating fully in all areas of their lives, whether it’s in the home, or in the public arena. Even though women tried to assert their role in society and politics since time immemorial, through effective interventions, there still exists a cultural, religious and structural barrier which keeps women’s position in society less significant than men. According to UN, “women’s historic exclusion from political structures and processes is the result of multiple structural, functional and personal factors that vary in different social contexts across countries”. Religion, patriarchy, military domination, lack of experienced women, family responsibilities, unfair party nomination process, lack of funding etc are some of the cultural and institutional factors which affect political participation of women.

The movement towards gender equality in politics was greatly influenced by human rights and civil liberties movements of the second half of 20th century. However, as a movement towards equal suffrage rights, it started in 18th century itself.

The Beijing conference envisaged to occupy at least 30 per cent of the political positions for women. However, as per the latest data of 2008, women occupy only 18 per cent parliamentary seats across the world. There is significant regional variation as well. It is evident that except Nordic countries like Norway, Sweden Denmark and Switzerland, all other countries women lags far behind men in political decision making roles.

Bangladesh scenario

In South Asia, women still face social and religious barriers which had affected their political and social participation. Bangladesh is not an exception, even though we proudly share the great tradition of Begum Rokeya who was the embodiment of emancipated and liberated women of the 20th century.

The Constitution of Bangladesh grants equal rights to women and men in all spheres of public life [Article 28(1), 28(2), and 28(3)]. Various laws have been enacted and amended to protect women’s rights: the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance of 1961, the Muslim Marriage and Divorce Registration Act of 1974, the Dowry Prohibition Act of 1980, the Family Court Ordinance of 1985, and the Child Marriage Registration Act of 1992 etc are some of them. Interestingly, Bangladesh was one of the first among developing countries to establish a separate ministry for Women Affairs in 1978.

Holiday for more

Foreign Relations, 1969-1976, Volume E-7, Documents on South Asia, 1969-1972

India and Pakistan: Crisis and War, March-December 1971

122.  Editorial Note

The political crisis in Pakistan, which escalated into civil war in East Pakistan in March 1971, ultimately led to armed conflict between India and Pakistan and convulsed the subcontinent of South Asia through the end of the year.  Most of the important documents bearing on the United States response to that crisis are in Foreign Relations, 1969?1976, South Asia Crisis, 1971. The documents in this electronic publication for that period supplement, and should be read in conjunction with, the printed volume.

---

123.  Memorandum From the Staff Secretary of the National Security Council (Davis) to the Deputy Secretary of Defense (Packard), Washington, March 3, 1971

Davis circulated to members of the Senior Review Group the response to NSSM 118, a contingency study that examined the policy options available to the United States in the event of a move by East Pakistan to secede.

Source:  National Archives, Nixon Presidential Materials, NSC Files, NSC Institutional Files (H-Files), Box H?053, SRG Meeting, Pakistan, 3/6/71.  Secret; Exdis.  Keith Guthrie signed for Davis.  Also sent to Irwin, JCS Chairman Moorer, and CIA Director Helms.  A copy of the contingency study in the Department of State files indicates that it was prepared by the NSC Interdepartmental Group for Near East and South Asia and forwarded to Kissinger on March 2 by Sisco, who was serving as chairman of the group.  (Ibid., RG 59, Central Files 1970?73, POL 1 PAK?US)  The Senior Review Group meeting scheduled for March 3 was held on March 6.

View Text

---

124.  Telegram 697 From the Consulate General in Dacca to the Department of State, March 10, 1971, 1205Z

Awami leader Mujibur Rahman sent a message to the Consulate General to ask if the U.S. would be willing to indicate to Pakistani President Yahya its preference for a political solution to the crisis.

Source:  National Archives, RG 59, Central Files 1970?73, POL PAK.  Secret; Immediate; Exdis.  Repeated to Islamabad, London, Karachi, Lahore, New Delhi, and priority Bangkok for Farland.

View Text

---

125.  Telegram 959 From the Consulate General in Dacca to the Department of State, March 28, 1971, 0540Z

The Consulate General in Dacca began its report on the crisis on March 28 as follows:  “Here in Dacca we are mute and horrified witnesses to a reign of terror by the PAK military.”

Source:  National Archives, RG 59, Central Files 1970?73, POL 23?9 PAK.  Confidential; Immediate; Exdis.  Also sent to Islamabad.  Repeated priority to London, Bangkok, New Delhi, Karachi, Lahore, Calcutta, CINCSTRIKE, CINCPAC, and MAC.

View Text

US State Department for more

On May 13, the government of Bangladesh demanded an unconditional apology from the government of Pakistan for war crimes committed during the 1971 army action in what was then East Pakistan. The Pakistani government’s response was to dismiss the demand, telling Bangladesh to “let bygones be bygones.” This was not the first time this demand was made, nor the first time it was dismissed with such flippancy by Pakistan.

Between March 25-26, 1971 — the start of the military offensive — and the signing of the instrument of surrender on December 16, 1971, the Pakistani army engaged in what essentially amounted to genocide against its own citizens for daring to demand that their electoral writ be implemented. The army’s atrocities were both indiscriminate and targeted — the rape of countless Bengali women, the killing of hundreds of Bengali intellectuals and students, and the senseless murder of hundreds of thousands of ordinary Bengalis and indigenous people, besides looting and pillaging on an unprecedented scale.

Nearly forty years on, even a reliable estimate of the number of people killed by the army isn’t possible because mass graves continue to be unearthed, a powerful testimony to the horror that was perpetrated on our people. This is the horror, which the Pakistani army continues to cravenly refuse to acknowledge.

The sole recognition of these atrocities — the Hamoodur Rahman Commission Report, which was an official government of Pakistan panel — was ignominiously suppressed by then Prime Minister Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto and successive governments, and declassified only in December 2000.

The outrageous dismissal of Bangladesh’s demand by the Pakistani foreign office — “let bygones be bygones” — is a shameful reflection of Pakistan’s constructed amnesia over the horrific actions of its army and its political leadership. Not only has there never been any move on the part of the Pakistani state to apologise to Bangladesh, there has not even been any sustained effort by citizens’ groups to pressure the government to publicly acknowledge the truth.

As Pakistanis, we find this unconscionable. We find it unconscionable that the Pakistani army raped, killed and pillaged our brothers and sisters in East Pakistan in 1971. We find it unconscionable that the Pakistani state has steadfastly refused to acknowledge these atrocities for the past 38 years, leave alone hold those responsible for them accountable as suggested by its own chief justice in the state commissioned inquiry. We reject the Pakistani state and army’s claim that these atrocities were committed in our name.

Today, as we stand at the brink of yet another army action aimed at our own people, at the brink of another human catastrophe brought about by and for the same interests and institutions, namely the Pakistani military, we remember 1971. We demand that our state acknowledge and apologise for the actions of its army, punish those responsible for the atrocities (and named in the HR Commission’s report) and pay reparations for the extensive infra-structural damage and looting to Bangladesh. Only through such expiation can we — as a people and a state — heal the wounds of the past and hope to build a new partnership with the people of Bangladesh.

The above apology to the Bangladeshi people for the atrocities of 1971 is made by the group, Action for a Progressive Pakistan. You may learn more about this group at its website: progpak.wordpress.com, or contact it at: progpak@gmail.com.

Daily Star

DHAKA: A Pakistani envoy has urged Dhaka to let ‘bygones be bygones’ as he rejected Bangladeshi calls for help in prosecuting alleged war criminals.

Bangladesh’s new government has said it will try suspected war criminals for murder, rape and arson committed during the country’s bloody liberation struggle in 1971.

Mirza Zia Ispahani, a special envoy of President Asif Ali Zardari to Bangladesh, said late Monday both nations should now look to the future.

Ispahani said former president Pervez Musharraf apologised for the war when he visited Bangladesh during his tenure.

‘We have already apologised when the former president (Musharraf) came here. He apologised. Certainly he did. Bygones should be bygones,’ Ispahani told reporters.

‘We should not now go into this right at this moment because there are so many other issues we would like to cooperate on with Bangladesh,’ he added.

War crimes have been an unresolved issue in Bangladesh since the former East Pakistan won independence from Islamabad in a nine-month liberation conflict.

The government said some three million people were killed during the war with a private group which has investigated the conflict blaming dozens of top Pakistani generals, brigadiers and local militants allied with Islamabad for the alleged atrocities.

The Pakistan envoy’s comments came after Bangladeshi police arrested two men Saturday suspected of war crimes in the 1971 conflict. They were the first arrests since 1975 when thousands of suspected war criminals were pardoned.

The plan to try the suspects follows pledges by newly elected Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina and appeals by veterans of the conflict.

War crimes were a big factor in December’s general elections, when veterans addressed a series of nationwide rallies telling young voters that this was the ‘last chance’ to try suspects.

A private War Crimes Fact Finding Committee recently unveiled a list of 1,775 people it alleges were war criminals, including 16 top Pakistani generals and key leaders of the country’s largest Islamic party, Jamaat-i-Islami.

Dawn

Book Review
By A.G. NOORANI

THE HINDU PHOTO LIBRARY

Jawaharlal Nehru and Mohammad Ali Jinnah

Jinnah Papers: Pakistan – Struggling for Survival, 1 January – 30 September 1948, Editor-in-Chief Z.H. Zaidi; Qauid-i-Azam Papers Project, Government of Pakistan; distributed by Oxford University Press, Pakistan; pages 835, Rs.750.

THIS volume appeared just about the time the Government of India decided to allow the Indian Council of Cultural Relations to occupy the magnificent Jinnah House at Mount Pleasant Road in Mumbai. A few years after Partition, the British Deputy High Commissioner (DHC) began to reside there. The most senior information officials at the DHC occupied the first floor. Both moved out in the early 1980s. Around this time India agreed to Pakistan’s request that it be allowed to buy or use Jinnah House to house its Consul-General and his offices, only to change its mind. For well over a decade no one lived there. The place went to seed; but never faded away from public memory or of those interested in the history of Partition and its aftermath.

For one thing, it was of undoubted historic significance. The Gandhi-Jinnah talks were held at this bungalow in September 1944. So were Jinnah’s talks with Subhas Chandra Bose and Jawaharlal Nehru who met him there last; ironically, on August 15, 1946, exactly a year before India became independent and was partitioned. The host became Governor-General of Pakistan and the visitor, Prime Minister of India. Astrologers might ponder over the fact that Jinnah’s only child, his daughter Dina, was also born on August 15, 1919.

Less famous was Jinnah’s house at 10 Aurangzeb Road in New Delhi where the Ambassador of the Netherlands now resides. Jinnah bought it, he did not build it, unlike the Bombay house. The house at 10 Aurangazeb Road was sold to Ramkrishna Dalmia for Rs.3 lakhs shortly before Partition. In contrast, Liaquat Ali Khan did not sell his house. He gave it to his country. “Pakistan House” at Tilak Marg, formerly Hardinge Road, is now the residence of Pakistan’s High Commissioner. Liaquat, born to wealth, died an impoverished man.

But it is not these “small” houses that we are here concerned with. Sunday Standard of June 14, 1981, had a detailed account of all that from one Adil Dastoor. Of greater relevance is Jinnah’s concept of the greater house he built, Pakistan, and of its relations with India. Pakistanis little realise that his dream was shattered with the exodus of non-Muslims from West Pakistan. For reasons more than one, not least the character of the state, he wanted them to live there. Events overwhelmed him. He had, obviously, not quite reckoned with the rancorous atmosphere to which he himself had made no small a contribution with his abrasive rhetoric, arrogance and, of course, the poisonous two-nation theory. Most in the Congress did not lag behind in this, either.

Partition was not a parting in amity, but in bitterness. How then does one explain Jinnah’s financial dealings on the eve of Partition and immediately thereafter? He prided himself on his sense of realism and rightly so. But hubris is a cruel master to those it possesses. It robbed Jinnah of that gift. Jinnah, it seems, thought that there would be no barriers between India and Pakistan.

His colossal fortune was not built up only from earnings from his lucrative practice at the Bar and the high fees he charged. He was a careful and persistent investor in shares and landed estates. By March 1947, both the Congress and the Muslim League were agreed that India would be partitioned. How then is one to explain Jinnah writing to share brokers and estate agents that very month buying 500 shares in Air India Ltd. And showing keen interest in the purchase of “Sandow Castle”, described as “a large property near Bombay with 18 acres of land and with an unrestricted view of the sea”. Its price was advertised at Rs.5 lakhs. He could have easily afforded to give 10 Aurangzeb Road in New Delhi to his country instead of selling it for Rs.3 lakhs.

Therein lies the relevance of this volume. A couple of documents it publishes would suggest that Jinnah liked to return to Bombay (as it was known then) and spend his last days in the house he had so fondly built. It confirms the account which India’s first High Commissioner to Pakistan, Sri Prakasa, gave in his memoirs Pakistan: Birth and Last Days (Meenakshi Prakashan; Meerut, 1965).

Nehru left the Bombay house undisturbed out of courtesy. But there was a shortage of accommodation and questions were asked. Sri Prakasa was directed to consult Jinnah’s wishes and the rent he wanted for letting it out. It may be recalled that the Administration of Evacuee Property Ordinance was promulgated in 1949 with retrospective application from March 1947. Travel restrictions (passports and visas) were imposed abruptly in 1948. Many were stranded on the wrong side of the frontier.

Jinnah was completely taken aback by Sri Prakasa’s inquiry “and almost pleadingly said to me: `Sri Prakasa, don’t break my heart. Tell Jawaharlal not to break my heart. I have built it brick by brick. Who can live in a house like that? What fine verandahs? It is a small house fit only for a small European family or a refined Indian prince. You do not know how I love Bombay. I still look forward to going back there.’

“`Really Mr.Jinnah!’ I said. `You desire to go back to Bombay. I know how much Bombay owes to you and your great services to the city. May I tell the Prime Minister that you want to go back there?’ He replied: `Yes, you may’.”

Sri Prakasa recalled this talk in a letter to Jinnah dated July 30, 1948. It bears quotation in extenso for it reveals a lot of Jinnah’s and Nehru’s civility. “You will perhaps remember the interview that you were good enough to grant me on May 14, when I asked for your permission, on behalf of the Government of India, to requisition your Bombay house, in view of the acute shortage of accommodation, particularly when the house was vacant for the preceding many months.

Hinduonnet for more

By Vinay Lal

Vinay Lal teaches at UCLA and can be reached at vlal@history.ucla.edu
His blog is Lal Salaam