Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

'Indians are bastards anyway'
Asia Times ^ | Debasish Roy Chowdhury

Posted on 06/22/2005 10:38:34 AM PDT by robowombat

http://www.atimes.com

'Indians are bastards anyway' By Debasish Roy Chowdhury

HUA HIN, Thailand - Indians are "a slippery, treacherous people", said president Richard Nixon. "The Indians are bastards anyway. They are the most aggressive goddamn people around," echoed his assistant for national security affairs, Henry Kissinger. The setting: a White House meeting on July 16, 1971, during the run-up to the India-Pakistan war which ultimately led to the birth of Bangladesh, erstwhile East Pakistan.

The US State Department recently declassified some of the Nixon White House tapes and secret documents that bring to light the way in which the Nixon administration went about the Bangladesh saga, reflecting the potential of mindsets and personal equations taking precedence over ground realities in White House decisionmaking.

In 1971, some 3 million people are estimated to have been killed in the genocide unleashed by Pakistan's military government on East Pakistan, leading to a rush of refugees into India, drawing India into a swift and decisive war that eventually forced Pakistan's hand. But all along, the Nixon administration sided with the military establishment of Pakistan over democratic India because of Nixon's "special relationship" with Pakistan's handsome military dictator, General Yahya Khan, and his uncontrolled revulsion at the "old witch" Indira Gandhi, India's then prime minister.

Despite the avowed goal of containing war, the US administration, in its zeal to put India in a spot, even went to the extent of pleading with the Chinese to initiate troop movements toward the Indian border in coordination with Pakistan, and assured it support in case the Soviet Union jumped into the fray. Near the end of the war, in a highly secret meeting on December 10, 1971, Kissinger pitched the idea to Chinese ambassador to the UN, Huang Ha. The declassified documents reveal that China took a couple of days to think about it and finally said it was not game, much to Kissinger's disappointment.

The seeds of the Bangladesh war were sown in India's freedom in 1947, which came with a bloody partition, with India keeping the Hindu-dominated areas of British India and Pakistan the Muslim-dominated ones - to the extent they were geographically divisible. The Pakistan that was born as a result had two flanks - East and West. East Pakistan comprised the Muslim-majority Bengali-speaking areas, while West Pakistan consisted of primarily Urdu-speaking Punjab, Sindh, Balochistan and North-West Frontier Province.

Separated by 1,200 miles, East and West Pakistan were hardly comfortable in the compact. Though the East was more populous, West Pakistan cornered the bulk of the Pakistani budget. The West was given more representation in the legislature than the East, and further fueling Bengali sub-nationalism, Urdu was made the official language. West Pakistan, with a 97% Muslim population, was also far less liberal than the East, where at least 15% of the population did not practice Islam. With Pakistan mostly under military rulers - all from West Pakistan - since 1958, any scope for political accommodation was limited. Successive military regimes tried to deal with the problem the only way they knew how - savage repression, adding to the spiral of hatred and tyranny.

The relationship between the two Pakistans became progressively more neo-colonial, with the protest against the West's domination growing shriller by the day in the East. The tension reached a flashpoint when in 1970, the Awami League led by Sheikh Mujibur Rahman swept the national elections, winning 167 of the 169 seats allotted for East Pakistan, giving it a majority in the 313-seat National Assembly and the right to form government at the center. Neither West Pakistani political leader Zulfikar Ali Bhutto nor General Yahya Khan would accept this Bengali ascendancy in national politics, and the convention of the newly elected National Assembly was postponed indefinitely. The Awami League, now convinced that there could never be any political cohabitation between the East and the West, called for "full regional autonomy" and Mujibar Rahman announced that he was taking over the East's administration.

The military now decided enough was enough. At a meeting of the military top brass, Yahya declared: "Kill 3 million of them and the rest will eat out of our hands." Accordingly, on the night of March 25, 1971, the Pakistan army launched "Operation Searchlight" to "crush" Bengali resistance in which Bengali members of military services were disarmed and killed, students and the intelligentsia systematically liquidated and able-bodied Bengali males just picked up and gunned down. Death squads roamed the streets of Dacca, killing some 7,000 people in a single night. "Within a week, half the population of Dacca had fled. All over East Pakistan, people were taking flight, and it was estimated that in April, some 30 million people were wandering helplessly across East Pakistan to escape the grasp of the military," writes Robert Payne in Massacre. Mujibur Rahman was arrested and the Awami League - which should have been ruling Pakistan - banned.

Then began the rapes. In Against Our Will: Men, Women and Rape, Susan Brownmiller likens it to the Japanese rapes in Nanjing and German rapes in Russia during World War II. "... 200,000, 300,000 or possibly 400,000 women (three sets of statistics have been variously quoted) were raped." Reporter Aubrey Menen describes an incident targeting a just-married couple: "Two [Pakistani soldiers] went into the room that had been built for the bridal couple. The others stayed behind with the family, one of them covering them with his gun. They heard a barked order, and the bridegroom's voice protesting. Then there was silence until the bride screamed. Then there was silence again, except for some muffled cries that soon subsided. In a few minutes one of the soldiers came out, his uniform in disarray. He grinned to his companions. Another soldier took his place in the room. And so on, until all the six had raped the belle of the village. Then they left. The father found his daughter lying on the string cot unconscious and bleeding. Her husband was crouched on the floor, kneeling over his vomit." (Quoted in Brownmiller's Against Our Will.)

As East Pakistan bled, refugees began to pour into India, some 8-10 million over the period of the genocide. India repeatedly pleaded with the US administration that it could not cope with any more refugees, and appealed that it use its influence over Pakistan and rein in Yahya. But Nixon continued to condone the repression. To a Pakistani delegation to Washington, DC, he said: "Yahya is a good friend. I understand the anguish of the decisions which Yahya had to make." Strangely, in his eyes, the military dictator was the victim - one forced so much against the wall that he had to conduct mass murders and rapes.

Even American consul general Archer Blood couldn't take his administration's position any more. In an act of open rebellion, he sent a telegram through the "dissent channel", condemning his country for failing "to denounce the suppression of democracy"; "to denounce atrocities", and for "bending over backwards to placate the West Pakistan-dominated government". "We, as professional public servants express our dissent with current policy and fervently hope that our true and lasting interests here can be defined and our policies redirected in order to salvage our position as a moral leader of the world," the telegram read. Nixon's answer: "Don't squeeze Yahya at this time." Both the consul general and the head of the United States Information Service were subsequently transferred out for their anti-Pakistan views to prevent "any further negative reporting on the situation".

In India, US ambassador Kenneth Keating also made it clear that "military aid to Pakistan is just out of the question now while they are still killing in East Pakistan and refugees are fleeing across the border". He told Kissinger on June 3, 1971: "We are on the threshold of better relations with the one stable democracy in that part of the world. They are making real progress and want to be more friendly with us." Replied Kissinger: "In all honesty, the president has special feelings for Yahya. One cannot make policy on that basis, but it is a fact of life."

Nixon had a simple explanation for the wayward behavior of his ambassadors. At a meeting with members of the Senior Review Group in August 1971, he said: "Ambassadors who go to India fall in love with India. Some have the same experience in Pakistan, though not as many because the Pakistanis are a different breed. The Pakistanis are straightforward and sometimes extremely stupid. The Indians are more devious, sometimes so smart that we fall for their line."

Even as the refugee situation was escalating, the Nixon administration kept playing politics. Sample this conversation at the White House a day after George Harrison and his soul mate, Indian sitar player Ravi Shankar, held the "Concert for Bangladesh" to raise money for the refugees. "So who is the Beatle giving the money to - is it the goddamn Indians?" asks Nixon. "Yes," says Kissinger, adding that Pakistan had also been given $150,000 in food aid, but the major problem "is the goddamn distribution". Nixon butts in: "We have to keep India away." Agrees Kissinger: "We must defuse the refugee and famine problem in East Pakistan in order to deprive India of an excuse to start war. We have to avoid screwing Pakistan that outrageously ... We should start our goddamn lecturing on political structures as much as we can, and while there will eventually be a separate East Bengal in two years, it must not happen in the next six months."

By now India had completely given up on the US. In August 1971, it ended its non-aligned stance and signed the Treaty of Peace, Friendship and Cooperation with the Soviet Union to safeguard itself against any American intervention. At the end of October, Indira Gandhi embarked on a tour of Moscow, Washington and several Western capitals to assess the international mood. It is widely believed that she had already planned to attack East Pakistan before this public relations tour.

Nixon and Kissinger met at the Oval Office on the morning of November 5 to discuss the president's conversation with Indira on the previous day. Kissinger's assessment: "While she was a bitch, we got what we wanted ... She will not be able to go home and say that the United States didn't give her a warm reception and therefore in despair she's got to go to war." Replied Nixon: "We really slobbered over the old witch." After she got home, the "old witch" wrote to Nixon: "I sincerely hope that your clear vision will guide relations between our two democracies and will help us to come closer. It will always be our effort to clear any misunderstanding and not to allow temporary differences to impede the strengthening of our friendship."

Within a day of Gandhi's return on November 21, Indian forces attacked East Pakistan at five key areas. Yahya's 70,000 soldiers deployed in the East were hopelessly outnumbered against the 200,000 Indian troops and the Mukti Bahini, Bengali guerrilla freedom fighters. Within 10 days, India had completely taken over the East. On December 16, after a final genocidal burst, Pakistan surrendered unconditionally. Awami leader Sheikh Mujibar Rahman was released and returned to establish Bangladesh's first independent parliament.

The US government supplied military equipment worth $3.8 million to the Pakistani dictatorship after the genocide started, even after telling Congress that all shipments to the regime had ceased. Throughout the war, the US government tried everything in its power to hinder India. The US policy included support of Pakistan in the United Nations, where it branded India as the aggressor, and putting pressure on the Soviets to discourage India, with the threat that the US-Soviet detente would be in jeopardy if Moscow did not play ball. When war broke out, Nixon promptly cut off economic aid to India, and at one point dispatched the nuclear-powered aircraft carrier USS Enterprise to the Bay of Bengal to "intimidate" India. When nothing worked, it pleaded China to join the war to scare off India.

As millions suffered in East Pakistan, the only focus, an obsessive one, of the Nixon administration continued to be China. One of the reasons why Nixon sided with Yahya - apart from "he has been more decent to us than she [Indira] has" - was that the general was his conduit with China. In a personal letter of thanks to Yahya for his role in Sino-American rapprochement, Nixon wrote, "Those who want a more peaceful world in the generation to come will forever be in your debt." Yes, indeed. But once the war ended, the same US policy changed overnight. It quickly spotted a regional hegemon in India, and began to respect it. Though it had made it clear before the war that it would never have anything to do with Bangladesh, ever, it advised Pakistan to accept India's ceasefire offer, recognized the new country, and went about building bridges with India.

In that sense, this war was the turning point in Indo-US relations, triggering a slow and long process of engaging Delhi - a policy that picked up steam under Bill Clinton and accelerated further under George W Bush. Testifying before the House International Relations Subcommittee for Asia and the Pacific, Assistant Secretary of State for South Asia, Christina Rocca, last week said: "We are accelerating the transformation of our relationship with India, with a number of new initiatives." With India "this is a watershed year", she said, with Prime Minister Manmohan Singh scheduled to visit the US next month and President Bush promising to go to India some time later this year".

Seen as a possible counterweight to the same China for which it sacrificed the lives and honor of millions of Bangladeshi men and women three decades ago, the US is even said to be tilting to India as a possible permanent UN Security Council member. Even Kissinger has come out strongly in favor of a permanent seat for India. "I'm known as a strong advocate and one of the originators of close relations with China. I believe that today I am also a strong advocate of close relations with India," he was recently quoted as saying. Bring home the bastards, such are the compulsions of geopolitics.

This is the same India whose nuclear tests a few years ago drew sanctions from the US. But as in the Bangladesh war, it has lost little time in reversing its position. Now it conducts military exercises with India and offers to make fighter jets with it. In addition to US Undersecretary for Political Affairs Nicholas Burns' agenda when he reaches India on Friday is, curiously, a deal on civilian nuclear energy, which may be unveiled during Manmohan Singh's trip. This serial policy infidelity has only one explanation: the US understands power, and respects power. That's why it pounces on Iraq and engages North Korea. Manmohan Singh would do well to remember this when he embarks on his trip to the US to chase India's UN dream. Groveling won't help, growling might.

And yes, he might also consider coloring up his staid beard a tad lest a declassified UN document 30 years hence finds him mentioned as an "old fogey".

Debasish Roy Chowdhury is a Correspondent for Asia Times Online based in Thailand.


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Foreign Affairs; Front Page News; Government; News/Current Events; Philosophy; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: bangladesh; bastards; bigot; freedom; india; racist; us
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 121-128 next last
To: robowombat

Wonder what Nixon had to say about the Democrats?


61 posted on 06/23/2005 12:21:36 AM PDT by Smokin' Joe (Grant no power to government you would not want your worst enemies to wield against you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: robowombat; Arjun
Despite the avowed goal of containing war, the US administration, in its zeal to put India in a spot, even went to the extent of pleading with the Chinese to initiate troop movements toward the Indian border in coordination with Pakistan, and assured it support in case the Soviet Union jumped into the fray

Nixon was a *******
62 posted on 06/23/2005 12:33:01 AM PDT by Cronos (Never forget 9/11)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: robowombat
Those days are over. Why the hell bring this up now?

A lot of us Americans work with and appreciate Indians as well as people from all over the world. Heck, WE ARE from all over the world.

Some idiot has an agenda.

63 posted on 06/23/2005 12:39:56 AM PDT by Bon mots
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: robowombat; CarrotAndStick; Arjun; Gengis Khan; sukhoi-30mki
Chinese or russian hiddenhand ploy to remind Indians that the US has not been their best bud in the past?

And a pretty good one. This would still rankle the Indians a lot -- and rightly so, any nation would be majorly p'oed that the US supported military dictatorships and communist states over a fellow republic.
64 posted on 06/23/2005 12:45:00 AM PDT by Cronos (Never forget 9/11)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DM1; RusIvan; Destro
well it was a commie govt in India granted a Democratically elected one.

India's never had a commie central government -- it has two states (out of 28) that have had democratically elected communist governments who've won and lost. India was socialist, still is, though it is dismantling that now that its improving its own lot.

India was allied with Russia at the time

No. India was friendly with Russia and still is for a very good reason -- Russia and India have lots of points in common, #1 being to contain their mutual neighbor: China, with whom both have fougth wars.

Plus, most Indians keep emphasising that Russia is their true friend. There's no way we could split the two nations -- they trust each other completely.

Nixon was a virulent anticommunist

Oh, I guess that's why he got so pally with the COMMUNIST Chinese?
65 posted on 06/23/2005 12:49:53 AM PDT by Cronos (Never forget 9/11)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: CarrotAndStick
The tilt involved the dispatch of the aircraft carrier Enterprise to the Bay of Bengal to try to intimidate the Indian Government. It also involved encouraging China to make military moves to achieve the same end, and an assurance to China that if China menaced India and the Soviet Union moved against China in support of India, the United States would protect China from the Soviet Union. China chose not to menace India, and the crisis on the subcontinent ended without a confrontation between the United States and the Soviet Union.

Nixon was a nut -- he nearly made a little war of liberation into world war III. What a beautiful scene -- the US fighting on the side of communist China and the military dictatorship of Pakistan against the Republic of India, who would be supported by the USSR. And this, just 2 decades after the Chinese had bled America in Korea.
66 posted on 06/23/2005 12:56:35 AM PDT by Cronos (Never forget 9/11)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: monday
Right now in Afghanistan Al Queida and Taliban hide in the Northeast corner of Pakistan and conduct raids across the border. It is essentially on the same level as Syria when it comes to allowing terrorists sanctuary within it's borders.

No, it's worse than Syria -- it TRAINS terrorists, it trained and created the Taliban, it trained Al-Qaida and now it trains other terror groups
67 posted on 06/23/2005 1:01:41 AM PDT by Cronos (Never forget 9/11)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: JanCBurton
The US, like most nations, will condone brutality if it suits her.

That's acceptable IF IT SUITS THE US. But supporting the Pakis was not and IS NOT in our long-term interests (to a large extent not even in our short-term interest)
68 posted on 06/23/2005 1:04:41 AM PDT by Cronos (Never forget 9/11)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Gengis Khan

There's a difference between Nixon and Bush. Bush understand ground realities. I don't understand why he's giving the pakis those F16s though.


69 posted on 06/23/2005 1:05:43 AM PDT by Cronos (Never forget 9/11)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Sonny M; JanCBurton

I agree. I don't think Reagan condoned the use of chemical weapons by Saddam.


70 posted on 06/23/2005 1:10:29 AM PDT by Cronos (Never forget 9/11)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: GOP_1900AD

The US should have taken out the Taliban in Afghanistan AND the slamofascist dicatorship in Pakistan (eliminating theIslamicbomb and preventing its proliferation to North Korea, Iran, Libya etc.)


71 posted on 06/23/2005 1:12:58 AM PDT by Cronos (Never forget 9/11)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: dervish
Can someone explain to me India's motivation to war with Pakistan here?

Simple -- the same as the US's intervention in Iraq -- to liberate a people, to prevent a genocide and to insure that the instability in East Pakistan didn't affect India.
72 posted on 06/23/2005 1:25:24 AM PDT by Cronos (Never forget 9/11)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: Cronos
India was allied with Russia at the time

No. India was friendly with Russia and still is for a very good reason -- Russia and India have lots of points in common, #1 being to contain their mutual neighbor: China, with whom both have fougth wars.

Plus, most Indians keep emphasising that Russia is their true friend. There's no way we could split the two nations -- they trust each other completely.

The August 1971 friendship pact with the Soviet Union made them what . . . just friendly friends?

Remember, during this period the overriding objective was to contain the Soviet Union.  Hence, ping pong diplomacy and Pakistani go-betweens.

From "The SVR:  Russia's Intelligence Service," a March 2000 paper written by Gordon Bennet.

India was an ideal country for the Soviet intelligence services. Large, chaotic and poor, India was a useful ally, and natural opponent of China, especially after the border clashes between the USSR and China in 1968. The generation of activists fighting for India’s independence and hostile to both the UK and the USA held many important posts in the Indian administration.


73 posted on 06/23/2005 1:34:05 AM PDT by Racehorse (Where your treasure is, there will your heart be also.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: Racehorse

But isn't it worthwhile to note that not a single Soviet military base ever existed on Indian territory? If it had, then the Soviets wouldn't have needed to invade Afghanistan. IIRC, the Soviets were desperate for a warm water naval base, in the Indian Ocean.


74 posted on 06/23/2005 1:55:41 AM PDT by CarrotAndStick (The articles posted by me needn't necessarily reflect my opinion.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: dervish; Cronos

"Can someone explain to me India's motivation to war with Pakistan here? "

India's motivation to war with Pakistan could be anything from dismembering Pakistan so that India's eastern flanks are no longer a threat. Moreover a smaller Pakistan = a less dominant and a less belligerent Pakistan.

But the most important reason was.....(and what the article didnt mention out of political correctness) was that the East Pakistan genocide was actually a Hindu genocide. It was the time when Hindu population of East Pakistan plummetted from near 20% to 14% almost overnight. Hindu majority India with a large Bengali population (my folks included) wont have take that lying down even if that meant risking a military confrontation with the US. If its not India comming to the aid of the Hindus, who would?

Now do you see the motivation ?


75 posted on 06/23/2005 1:59:48 AM PDT by Gengis Khan (Since light travels faster than sound, people appear bright until u hear them speak.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: dervish; Cronos

India's motivation to war with Pakistan could be anything from dismembering Pakistan so that India's eastern flanks are no longer a threat.....[to establishing regional dominance.]

Left that one out :)


76 posted on 06/23/2005 2:09:42 AM PDT by Gengis Khan (Since light travels faster than sound, people appear bright until u hear them speak.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: CarrotAndStick
But isn't it worthwhile to note that not a single Soviet military base ever existed on Indian territory? If it had, then the Soviets wouldn't have needed to invade Afghanistan. IIRC, the Soviets were desperate for a warm water naval base, in the Indian Ocean.

It wasn't for lack of trying by the Soviets.

I don't think an Indian port would have staved off the Soviet misadventure in Afghanistan.  But, I'm pretty sure the prospect of the Soviets reaching the Indian Ocean didn't please anybody in the Carter Administration.

Had the Shah survived his problems, he might have lured Daoud, and Afghanistan, away from the Soviets, making an invasion impossible for fear of being confronted by Iran and the U.S, with assistance from Pakistan.  Would Carter have followed through?  Who knows?

I do know that in the same year the Soviets invaded Afghanistan (1979), they also set up what would become their largest overseas naval base at Cam Ranh Bay.

And, I do know that after being turned down by the UK and the US during the sixties, India turned to the Soviets for assistance in creating their navy.  I'm fairly certain their fleet consisted almost exclusively of ships purchased from the Soviets--until the eighties.

77 posted on 06/23/2005 3:12:38 AM PDT by Racehorse (Where your treasure is, there will your heart be also.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: Gengis Khan; sukhoi-30mki
Hindu majority India with a large Bengali population (my folks included) wont have take that lying down even if that meant risking a military confrontation with the US. If its not India comming to the aid of the Hindus, who would?

Quite correct. And also to note -- the General who led the war on the Indian side was a Parsi/Zoroastrian, and the chief Indian war architect was a Jew and there were many Christians and Sikhs in the army. What I'm saying is that India as a whole would not tolerate the slaughter.
78 posted on 06/23/2005 5:27:57 AM PDT by Cronos (Never forget 9/11)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: Cronos

Hey pal you want to get specific fine:
"The Congress split into two in 1969, the new factions being the Congress (O)--for Organisation--and Mrs. Gandhi's Congress (R)--for Requisition. The Congress (R) continued in power with the support of non-Congress groups, principally the Communist Party of India (CPI) and the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK--Dravidian Progressive Federation)."
more "Indira Gandhi wanted to use a populist agenda in order to mobilize popular support for the party. She raised slogans such as Garibi Hatao (Remove Poverty), and wanted to develop closer ties with the Soviet Union. "

what i should have stated was a Quasi Communist govt VERY FRIENDLY with the SOVIET UNION

as for Nixon the man knew how to play sides against one another
he exploited things like this:
"After 1967 the Cultural Revolution overthrew the existing structures of state and party in China. The only significant party apart from the Albanians to support the Chinese line was the Communist Party of Indonesia, which was destroyed during a military coup in 1965. Maoist parties were formed in many countries.

The Sino-Soviet confrontation had now become a conflict between states. In January 1967, Red Guards besieged the Soviet Embassy in Beijing. Diplomatic relations were never formally broken, but they went into a deep freeze. The Chinese also chose to raise the issue of the Sino-Soviet border, which was the result of nineteenth century treaties imposed on the weakened Qing Dynasty by Czarist Russia. China did not make specific territorial demands, but insisted that the Soviets acknowledge that the treaties were unjust. The Soviets flatly refused to discuss the issue."
and made China a semi-ally
look i am no fan of ChiComms but Nixon used the split between China and the Soviets to our advantage
yes i am generalizing and have no time to quibble just learn to relax when reading posts


79 posted on 06/23/2005 5:33:33 AM PDT by DM1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: robowombat; GOP_1900AD; dervish; Cronos

"Quite correct. And also to note -- the General who led the war on the Indian side was a Parsi/Zoroastrian, and the chief Indian war architect was a Jew and there were many Christians and Sikhs in the army. What I'm saying is that India as a whole would not tolerate the slaughter."

Precise assessment. BTW you might be interested inthis article:

Srinandan Vyas
Hindu Genocide in East Pakistan

This article by Srinandan Vyas has been taken from http://rbhatnagar.ececs.uc.edu:8080 It deals with slaughter of about 2.5 million Hindus in East Pakistan in 1971. This article refers to information provided by Dept. of Planning of Government of Bangla Desh, Encyclopedia Britannica, Senator Edward Kennedy's report to the U.S Senate Judiciary Committee, Newsweek, New York Times,etc. This information and elementary math are used to show that indeed millions of Hindus were killed in East Pakistan in 1971.


ABSTRACT

It is well known that the 1971 army repression in Bangla Desh (former East Pakistan) resulted in an influx of 10 million refugees into India. Most world renowned relief and news agencies put the number of dead at 3 million. However the fact that is glossed over in these statistics is that THE ENTIRE HINDU POPULATION OF EAST PAKISTAN WAS THE PRIMARY TARGET OF PAKISTANI ARMY DURING THE 9 MONTHS OF REPRESSION IN 1971. Using the population statistics from Bangla Desh Government and US Government publications this article PROVES that 80 percent of the refugees from Bangla Desh were Hindus and that 80 percent of the 3 million killed were Hindus. THUS IT WAS A HINDU REFUGEE PROBLEM and IT WAS A HINDU GENOCIDE THAT TOOK PLACE IN EAST PAKISTAN IN 1971.

10 References - Encyclopedia Britannica, Bangla Desh Government - Ministry of Planning (for statistics), Newsweek, New York Times, Senator Edward Kennedy's report to the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee.


Hindu Victims
Figure1.
Few of the Hindu Victims of the Bagladeshi Genocide

INTRODUCTION

In the December 1970 general election in Pakistan, Awami League won 167 of 169 seats and over 80 % of popular votes in East Pakistan. Numerically Awami League had an absolute majority of seats in the Pakistan National Assembly (167 of the total 313 seats)(1). Historically, East Pakistan was allocated only 36 % of the total resources and East Pakistanis occupied only 20 % of the positions in the federal government in the United Pakistan (2). The Pakistani government's apathy towards East Pakistan after a terrible cyclone in November 1970 in which over 250,000 people died, had alienated East Pakistani people. The solid outcome of the 1970 elections for Awami League created an alternative power center for an already alienated people. The differences between the East and West Pakistani politicians snowballed into a major international crisis. On March 25, 1971 Pakistani army on President Yahya Khan's orders initiated a campaign of terror which was to last till its final surrender to the Indian army on December 17, 1971. This terror campaign by Pak army resulted in 10 million Bangla Deshi refugees crossing over to India (per Senator Edward Kennedy's report to the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee (3)) and 3 million killed (4,5) based on reports from most relief agencies and official Bangla Desh government estimate. However the religious mix of both the refugees and the dead is nowhere emphasized anywhere. This significant information has particularly been absent in the reports from Indian News Media. This selective news dissemination has kept a more sinister truth of Hindu genocide in East Pakistan hidden from the world in general and Indians in particular.

More Hindu Victims
Figure2.
Piles Of Hindu Corpses littered the streets

HINDUS IN EAST PAKISTAN WERE SPECIAL TARGET OF PAK ARMY

In the summary of his report dated November 1, 1971 Senator Edward Kennedy writes (6):

Sydney Schanberg, pulitzer prize winning journalist (of 'Killing Fields') was New York Times correspondent in Dhaka in 1971 at the time of army repression and during the 1971 Bangla Desh war. In his syndicated column 'The Pakistani Slaughter That Nixon Ignored' Mr.Schanberg writes:

Thus two independent observations one dated prior to November 1, 1971 and other in January 1972 confirm that Hindu houses in East Pakistan were marked with yellow "H"s and that Hindus were particular targets of the Pakistani army. The situation thus bears an uncanny resemblance to the predicament of Jews targeted by Nazis from 1939 to 1944, with similar out come.

 

MOST OF THE REFUGEES FROM BANGLA DESH WERE HINDUS

Senator Edward Kennedy in his report gives following details about the the refugees from Bangla Desh in 1971. As of October 25, 1971, 9.54 million refugees from East Pakistan had crossed over to India. The average influx as of October 1971 was 10,645 refugees a day (3). Hence the total refugee population at the start of Bangla Desh war on December 3, 1971 was about 10 million (5).

Sen. Kennedy further mentions that Government of India had set up separate refugee camps for Hindus and Muslims where possible, i.e. refugee camps of Hindus were located in Hindu majority areas and similarly Muslim camps were located in Muslim majority areas. THE COMMUNAL REPRESENTATION OF REFUGEES WAS 80 PERCENT HINDU, 15 PERCENT MUSLIM AND 5 PERCENT CHRISTIAN AND OTHER (8).

This means that 8 MILLION OF THE 10 MILLION REFUGEES WERE HINDUS (8). Other fact that corroborates this is that when Sen. Kennedy had asked several Chief Relief officers in charge of refugee camps what was needed most urgently, their reply was "crematoriums".

THE MISSING 2 .5 MILLION HINDUS

Several agencies indicate that the brutal Pakistani army repression killed 3 million Bengalis. This estimate is even given by the Government of Bangla Desh (5). However no religious mix of the dead is easily available.

Let us therefore look at the population demographics for Bangla Desh which is given in Table I.

TABLE I

Source : Based on Information from Bangladesh Ministry of planning, Bureau of Statistics (9)

YEAR

Total Population in Millions

Hindu Population as % of Total

Hindu Population in Millions

1941

42.00

28.0

11.76

1961

50.84

18.5

9.41

1974

71.48

13.5*

9.655

1981

87.13

12.2

10.633

* Encyclopedia Britannica (10) gives 13.5% figure for 1974, where as Government of Bangla Desh gives 13.5% for 1971 and total population of 71.48 million for 1974 (9).

Since Hindus and Muslims in Bangladesh have similar socio- economic and educational backgrounds, the birth and death rates for these two groups must be very similar. This means that the Hindu population must grow at the same pace as the total population growth rate. Hence any unusual drop must be accounted for by influx of Hindu refugees and mortality rate from non natural causes. The expected Hindu population, the emigration to India from E. Pakistan and actual populations are listed in Table II.

Table II

YEAR Hindu Population of East Pak/BD Actual (9)
(millions)
Expected Hindu Population in Absence of Strife
(millions)
Refugees from E. Pakistan to India(8)
(millions)
Hindus Missing
(millions)

1941

11.766

-

-

-

1961

9.41

14.24

4.12(1947-58)

0.711

1974

9.65

13.23

1.11(1964-70)

2.477

Thus if 1947 partition had not resulted, the Hindu population of East Pakistan area should by 1961 have increased proportionally from 11.76 millions in 1941, to 14.24 millions (11.76 * 50.84 / 42 = 14.24). The official Indian Government records indicate that between 1947 and 1958, 4.12 million (Hindu) refugees crossed into India from East Bengal(3). This means the Hindu population in East Pakistan in 1961 should have been 10.12 million (14.24 - 4.12) compared to the actual 9.41 million. The missing 0.7 million Hindu population can be accounted by several hundred thousands killed in the riots in 1947 on the Bengal border, plus the refugee influx from 1958 to 1961. 1961.

Let us now look at Hindu population in East pakistan from 1961 to 1974. With proportional increase the Hindu population of 9.41 million in 1961 should have increased to 13.23 million ( 9.41 * 71.48 / 50.84 = 13.23 ) by 1974. However the actual Hindu population as per Bangla Desh Census data for 1974 was 9.65 million. Of the 3.58 million shortfall only 1.11 million can be accounted for since Government of India's record indicate that 1.11 million (Hindu) refugees crossed into India between 1964 and 1970 (3) i.e.PRIOR to the 1971 crisis.

THUS 2.47 MILLION (13.23 - 9.65 - 1.11 = 2.47) HINDUS FROM EAST PAKISTAN ARE UNACCOUNTED FOR FROM THE 1971 PAK ARMY REPRESSION.

 

OTHER PROOF FOR 2.4 MILLION HINDUS KILLED IN EAST PAKISTAN

Since the 80 percent of the refugees in 1971 were Hindus,a similar proportion of the dead are likely to be Hindus also. The official Bangla Desh government estimate puts the number of Bengalis killed at 3 million. 80 percent of 3 million put THE NUMBER OF HINDUS KILLED AT 2.4 MILLION which is close to the number of Hindus missing calculated comes above.

 

SUMMARY & CONCLUSIONS

  1. Independent accounts indicate that Hindus from East Pakistan were special target during the 1971 army repression. HINDU HOUSES WERE PAINTED WITH YELLOW "H"s, THEY WERE ROBBED OF THEIR LANDS AND SHOPS, AND THEY WERE SYSTEMATICALLY SLAUGHTERED.

  2. 80 percent of the refugees to India in 1971 were Hindus, THUS IT WAS A HINDU REFUGEE PROBLEM.

  3. NEARLY 2.5 MILLION HINDUS WERE KILLED DURING THE 9 MONTHS OF PAKISTANI ARMY REPRESSION OF EAST PAKISTAN IN 1971. THUS IT WAS A HINDU SLAUGHTER IN 1971.

  4. ALL THE ABOVE BEAR AN UNCANNY RESEMBLANCE TO THE PERSECUTION & HOLOCAUST OF JEWS BY THE NAZIS.

  5. INDIAN GOVERNMENT CONTROLLED 'SECULAR' MEDIA DELIBERATELY HID THE SINISTER TRUTH OF HINDU GENOCIDE IN EAST PAKISTAN.

  6. In any internal political problem of an Islamic country, Hindus (or minorities of other religions) become the scapegoats and will be liquidated at the first chance the Islamic Government gets.

  7. WE HAVE LEARNT NOTHING FROM THE HISTORY AND WITH THE 'PSECULAR' MEDIA WE WILL LEARN NOTHING.

And more Hindu Victims
Figure3.
Millions Of Innocents like these were brutally massacred by the
Islamic Army Of Pakistan

 

COMMENTS & FUTURE WORK

This is just the tip of the iceberg. The ethnic cleansing of Hindus in Bangla Desh did not end in 1971. Since 1974 to 1981 the Hindu population as a percent of total Bangla Deshi population decreased from 13.5 % to 12.2 %. This slide has continued over the last decade. Same is true about Hindus in Pakistan and in Kashmir valley.

There is a genuine need for systematic record keeping and documentation of the history of Hindu genocides & Hindu ethnic cleansing, so that we don't repeat it again (and again and again..) There is also a need to build a memorial of this Hindu holocaust similar to the Jewish Holocaust memorial in Washington DC.

This topic is extensively dealt in a book 'Genocide in East Pakistan/ Bangla Desh' by S.K.Bhattacharya. However the present author has verified the findings of S.K. Bhattacharya based on completely independent sources. For detailed descriptions and news reports of 1971, reader should refer to the original book.

 

REFERENCES

  1. Bangladesh: The Birth Of A Nation, A hand book of Background information and Documentary Sources Compiled by Univ. of Chicago Group of Scholars, by M.Nicholas, P.Oldensburg, Ed.W.Morehouse, M.Seshachalam & Co., India, 1972, p.7

  2. Same as reference 1, p.73

  3. Crisis in South Asia - A report by Senator Edward Kennedy to the Subcommittee investigating the Problem of Refugees and Their Settlement, Submitted to U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee, November 1, 1971, U.S. Govt. Press, pp.6-7.

  4. Newsweek, August 1, 1994, p.37

  5. Same as reference 1, pp.44-45

  6. Same as reference 3, p.66

  7. The Pakistani Slaughter That Nixon Ignored , Syndicated Column by Sydney Schanberg, New York Times, May 3, 1994.

  8. Same as reference 3, p. 19

  9. Bangladesh A Country Study, Ed. J.Heitzman & R.L.Worden, 2nd Ed, Federal Research Division, Library of Congress, Publisher U.S. Army, 1989, pp.250,255

  10. Encyclopedia Britannica, 15 th Ed, Micropedia, Vol.1, p.789 Desh

80 posted on 06/23/2005 5:54:38 AM PDT by Gengis Khan (Since light travels faster than sound, people appear bright until u hear them speak.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 121-128 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson