Untold Facts

The Courageous Pakistan Army Stand on the Eastern Front: An Untold Story of 1971 Indo-Pak War

THERE is much for Pakistan to come to terms with what happened in 1971. But the answers don’t lie in unthinking vilification of the fighting men who performed so well in the war against such heavy odds in defense of the national policy. Rather, in failing to honour them, the nation dishonours itself.

My introduction to international politics was 1971, as a schoolgirl in Calcutta. Many images from that year are still etched in my mind, but the culminating one was the photo on Ramna racecourse of two men sitting at a table — the smart, turbaned Sikh, ‘our’ war-hero, Jagjit Singh Aurora, and the large man in a beret, A A K Niazi, commander of the other side, signing the instrument of surrender. Nearly a generation later, a chance interview for the BBC (British Broadcasting Corporation) with Lt Gen. Aurora took me back to 1971. The interview was not about 1971, but about injustices suffered by Sikhs at the hands of the state General Aurora had served. I thought he was a bigger hero for what he had to say then. That view was reinforced as I read — with incredulity — the disparaging remarks by other Indian officers about him, and each other, in their books. If this is what happened to the winning commander, I wondered what had happened to the other man in the photo.
The result was a revelation.

It turns out that General Niazi has been my ‘enemy’ since the Second World War. As Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose and his Indian National Army fought on the Burma front in 1943-45 in their quest for India’s freedom, Niazi was fighting on the other side, for the British Indian Army, under the overall command of General (later Field Marshal) William Joseph Slim. Slim and his 14th Army halted the advance of the INA and the Japanese at the Imphal campaign and turned the course of the war.

In the process of inflicting military defeat upon my ancestor, Niazi’s performance was so exceptional that the British awarded him an on-the-spot Military Cross for action on the Assam-Burma front in June 1944. On another occasion they wanted to award a DSO, but he was too junior, so a Mention in Despatches was recorded. In the original record of his MC signed by his commanding officers all the way up to Slim, which I obtained from the British Ministry of Defence, the British commanders describe Niazi’s gallantry in detail: “He organized the attack with such skill that his leading platoon succeeded in achieving complete surprise over the enemy.” They speak of how he personally led his men, the ‘great skill and coolness’ under fire with which he changed tactics with changing circumstances, created diversionary attacks, extricated his wounded, defeated the enemy and withdrew his men by section, remaining personally at the rear in every case.

The British honoured Niazi for “personal leadership, bravery and complete disregard for his own personal safety.” On 15 December 1944 the Viceroy Lord Wavell flew to Imphal and in the presence of Lord Mountbatten knighted Slim and his corps commanders Stopford, Scoones and Christison. Only two ‘Indian’ officers were chosen to be decorated by the Viceroy at that ceremony — ‘Tiger’ Niazi was one of them.

In 1971 Niazi was a highly decorated Pakistani general, twice receiving the Hilal-e-Jurat. He was sent to East Pakistan in April 1971 — part of a sorry tradition in South Asia of political rulers attempting to find military solutions to political problems. By then Tikka Khan had already launched the crackdown of 25 March for which he has been known to Bengalis as the ‘butcher of Bengal’ ever since. The population of East Bengal was completely hostile and Pakistan condemned around the world.

Authoritative scholarly analyses of 1971 are rare. The best work is Richard Sisson and Leo Rose’s War and Secession.

Robert Jackson, fellow of All Soul’s College, Oxford, wrote an account shortly after the events. Most of the principal participants did not write about it, a notable exception being Gen. Niazi’s recent memoirs (1998).Some Indian officers have written books of uneven quality — they make for an embarrassing read for what the Indians have to say about one another.

However, a consistent picture emerges from the more objective accounts of the war. Sisson and Rose describe how India started assisting Bengali rebels since April, but “the Mukti Bahini had not been able to prevent the Pakistani army from regaining control over all the major urban centers on the East Pakistani-Indian border and even establishing a tenuous authority in most of the rural areas.” From July to October there was direct involvement of Indian military personnel. “…mid-October to 20 November… Indian artillery was used much more extensively in support …and Indian military forces, including tanks and air power on a few occasions, were also used…Indian units were withdrawn to Indian territory once their objectives had been brought under the control of the Mukti Bahini — though at times this was only for short periods, as, to the irritation of the Indians, the Mukti Bahini forces rarely held their ground when the Pakistani army launched a counterattack.”

Clearly, the Pakistani army regained East Pakistan for their masters in Islamabad by April-May, creating an opportunity for a political settlement, and held off both Bengali guerrillas and their Indian supporters till November, buying more time — time and opportunity that Pakistan’s rulers and politicians failed to utilise.

Contrary to Indian reports, full-scale war between India and Pakistan started in East Bengal on 21 November, making it a four-week war rather than a ‘lightning campaign’. Sisson and Rose state bluntly: “After the night of 21 November…Indian forces did not withdraw. From 21 to 25 November several Indian army divisions…launched simultaneous military actions on all of the key border regions of East Pakistan, and from all directions, with both armored and air support.” Indian officers like Sukhwant Singh and Lachhman Singh write quite openly in their books about India invading East Pakistani territory in November, which they knew was ‘an act of war’.

None of the outside scholars expected the Eastern garrison to withstand a full Indian invasion. On the contrary, Pakistan’s longstanding strategy was “the defense of the east is in the west”. Jackson writes, “Pakistani forces had largely withdrawn from scattered border-protection duties into cleverly fortified defensive positions at the major centres inside the frontiers, where they held all the major ‘place names’ against Mukti Bahini attacks, and blocked the routes of entry from India…”

Sisson and Rose point out the incongruity of Islamabad tolerating India’s invasion of East Pakistani territory in November. On 30 November Niazi received a message from General Hamid stating, “The whole nation is proud of you and you have their full support.” The same day Islamabad decided to launch an attack in the West on 2 December, later postponed to 3 December, after a two-week wait, but did not inform the Eastern command about it. According to Jackson, the Western offensive was frustrated by 10 December.

Though futile, the Western offensive allowed India to openly invade the East, with overwhelming advantages. “ …despite all these advantages, the war did not go as smoothly and easily for the Indian army…”, but Sisson and Rose come to the balanced judgment that “The Pakistanis fought hard and well; the Indian army won an impressive victory.” Even Indian officers concede the personal bravery of Niazi and the spirited fight put up by the Pakistanis in the East. That the troops fought so well against such overwhelming odds is a credit both to them, and to their commanders, for an army does not fight well in the absence of good leadership.

However, as Jackson put it, “…India’s success was inevitable from the moment the general war broke out — unless diplomatic intervention could frustrate it.” As is well known, Pakistan failed to secure military or diplomatic intervention. Sisson and Rose also say, “The outcome of the conflict on the eastern front after 6 December was not in doubt, as the Indian military had all the advantages.” On 14 December Niazi received the following message from Yahya Khan: “You have fought a heroic battle against overwhelming odds. The nation is proud of you …You have now reached a stage where further resistance is no longer humanly possible nor will it serve any useful purpose… You should now take all necessary measures to stop the fighting and preserve the lives of armed forces personnel, all those from West Pakistan and all loyal elements…” Sisson and Rose naturally describe this message as “implying that the armed forces in East Pakistan should surrender”.

No matter how traumatic the outcome of 1971 for Pakistan, the Eastern command did not create the conflict, nor were they responsible for the failure of the political and diplomatic process. Sent to do the dirty work of the political manoeuvrers, the fighting men seem to have performed remarkably well against overwhelming odds. It is shocking therefore to discover that they were not received with honour by their nation on their return. Their commander, Niazi, appears to have been singled out, along with one aide, to be punished arbitrarily with dismissal and denial of pension, without being given the basic right to defend himself through a court-martial, which he asked for.

The commission set up allegedly to examine what had happened in 1971 was too flawed in its terms of reference and report to have any international credibility. However, even its recommendations of holding public trials and courtmartials were ignored. There is much for Pakistan to come to terms with what happened in 1971. But the answers don’t lie in unthinking vilification of the fighting men who performed so well in the war against such heavy odds in defence of the national policy. Rather, in failing to honour them, the nation dishonours itself.

Author:Sarmila Bose

(Sarmila Bose is the niece of Subhas Chandra Bose or Netaji of Indian National Army fame who fought against the British supporting the Japanese. He is considered as a great hero in Bengal and India.Sarmila Bose is Assistant Editor, Ananda Bazar Patrika, India & Visiting Scholar, Elliott School of International Affairs, George Washington University.)

Are Indian Nuclear Assets Safe!

An Indian nuclear scientist, Lokanathan Mahalingam, disappeared from the Kaiga Atomic Power Station in Karnataka on June 8, 2009 and his dead body was found from Kali River on June 13. The Kaiga plant is located near one of the biggest naval bases, Project Seabird and the scientist was working on the atomic plant since last eight years. He was involved in training apprentices on a replica of the actual reactor and was in possession of highly sensitive information.

According to media reports Mahalingam went on morning jogging and got disappeared. As per his family members, he did not carry money or his cell phone with him and went for walk whereas the security guards on duty said that they didn’t see him leaving the campus. It is worth mentioning here that he also disappeared 10 years back when he was working at the Kalpakkam Atomic Station. On his return, after five days, Mahalingam expressed that he had gone to seek spiritual consolation.

A DNA test was performed just to ascertain the identity of the dead body. But that also raised the question: why was he cremated in such a hurry even before the results of the DNA test and the post-mortem report? The presence or absence of air in his lungs, any signs of torture on his body and the level of decomposition could have pointed to the circumstances in which he met his final end.

It is also questionable that shortly after his body was found the police announced its verdict that the scientist had committed suicide. The conclusion was premature since Mahalingam left no suicide note. Even if this version of Mahalingam’s death is accepted, the suicide of an Indian nuclear scientist who worked in a sensitive field is not an ordinary event. It points to the shaky human and personnel reliability in the Indian nuclear complex.

It must be a matter of global concern that killing of the Mahalingam is not only the first case of murder. Earlier, this year, another NPC non-technical employee Ravi Mule was found dead in the township on April 7. He too had gone for morning walk. Before that, on November 11, 2006, Director of Uttaranchal Space Application Centre, Dr Anil Kumar Tiwari, was also shot dead by an unidentified person near his residence. Police have not cracked the earlier cases and similarly are clueless in the current case of scientist. Moreover, in addition to financial corruptions, 152 theft cases of uranium have also been reported and registered with the police since 1984.

The fact of the matter is that Indian top listed companies have remained engaged in illegal importing and exporting of nuclear equipments. For example Berkeley Nucleonic Corporation (BNC), an American company was fined US $ 300,000 for exporting a nuclear component to the Bhaba Atomic Research Center in India and also in December 2005, United States imposed sanctions on two Indian firms for selling missile goods and chemical arms material to Iran in violation of India’s commitment to prevent proliferation. In the same year, Indian scientists, Dr Surendar and Y. S. R. Prasad had been blacklisted by the US due to their involvement in nuclear theft. Again, in December, 2006 a container packed with radioactive material had been stolen from an Indian fortified research atomic facility near Mumbai.

The above incidents confirm that the security of Indian nuclear programme is highly questionable. It is evident that the world’s most treacherous nuke proliferation is going on in India. The Hindu extremists with the help of Indian nuke scientists belonging to the Hindu fundamentalist organization Rashtriya Swayam Sewak Sang (RSS) have been found involved in illegal transfer of nuclear technology to Israel and some western countries through underworld organizations to generate the funds for the completion of “Maha Baharat agenda”.

The recent release of US document on the internet is another security concern in the serious circles of the Washington. The list includes both government and civilian nuclear facilities and covering the details and location of nation’s 103 commercial nuclear power reactors. The equipment useful in preparation of nuclear device is available in the open American markets and reportedly being sold to Indian organization illegally.

The release of US nukes document, selling of equipment in local American market, theft cases of Indian Uranium, disappearance and abduction of Indian Nuke Scientist seem to be correlated to each other.

Two of India’s most important nuclear installations are located near Mumbai. Tarapur’s two 160 MW nuclear plants are already functioning near Trombay while two more 500 MW power plants are under construction near Mumbai itself. These two plants are designed to work as fuel fabrication facilities and are not safeguarded under the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) nor effectively protected. India’s Bhabha Atomic Research Centre (BARC) and a number of other nuclear plants and uranium conversion facilities are also not part of IAEA safeguards. A fuel fabrication facility is also not far from the city and is considered unsafe by most accounts.

If one is to believe the Indian claim that ten young militants engaged more than 3000 of India’s top commandoes, intelligence and police officials for 60 hours and killed 200 people in Mumbai city, then we must seriously be worried about the safety of India’s nuclear arsenal, radioactive material, and nuclear power plants. Experts are of the view that if ten gunmen can hold a city of 15 million people, which houses a number of sensitive nuclear and radio-active plants, then how safe are India’s nukes?

Intriguing Role of Western Media
It is intriguing that not a single major American or British media outlet covered the story of the kidnapping and murder of a man that holds the key to the Indian nuclear arsenal with proper analysis. There are no scare stories on CNN, BBC, Fox etc about Indian nukes falling in the wrong hands. There are some reasons behind all this fact. One is that the Am-Brit media spent much of its energy in the last two years trying to scare the world about Pakistan’s nukes and how the Pakistanis are unable to protect them. Suddenly a major nuclear security breach in India surfaced. One of the reasons can be that the Americans have just broken all proliferation laws and decided that India is such a responsible nuclear power that it deserves to be given advanced nuclear technology.

Imagine if this incident had happened in Pakistan. The entire Am-Brit media would have been beating the drums of war, reminding the world how dangerous and unstable Pakistan is. Isn’t it deliberate that the western media is silent about the basic questions: Who kidnapped and later killed the Indian nuclear scientist and what was the purpose? What would happen if one of the 14 separatist movements or the Hindu fundamentalist groups in India had kidnapped the scientist to gain access to Indian nuclear bombs? What if the terrorists who have actually gained access to an Indian nuclear facility, killed the scientist and are now waiting to carry out a major terrorist act? What if any one of those Indian separatist groups fighting for the independence in 14 out of the 28 Indian states have used the scientist to sell information or nuclear designs to groups or countries that end up attacking the United States? These are the questions that not only need answers but also put the peace and security of the whole world at stake.

Author: M Raza Malik
Source: Kashmir Media Service

Self-defeating attitude of the Taliban

Among many stories that come out of Afghanistan I read one which is remarkably similar to the experience of the people of Swat and Waziristan. In the village of Hiratian in Afghanistan’s Helmand province, locals found the body of eight-year-old Dilawar hanging from a tree of a small fruit farm. The Taliban fighters had accused the boy of spying for the American forces; they kidnapped him, strung him up and left his body to sway in the wind for hours for all to see.

The murder was horrifying, yet few villagers come to the defence of anyone charged with spying for the hated Americans. But slowly, the details of the story emerged. The Taliban in the area had been collecting donations — money, food or weapons. They demanded money or a weapon from Mullah Qudoos, the boy’s father. Qudoos, poor and jobless, had neither. So the insurgents took his son instead. He was too young to be suicide bomber. So, they killed him to strike awe and set an example. When villagers learned the truth they erupted in fury. They openly vowed to fight the Taliban. Some called the Taliban “our oppressors.” Others swore never to help them again.

Hiratian lies in an area that is outside the government’s authority and has been under nearly continuous Taliban control for years. The political bankruptcy of direct Taliban rule in these areas has succeeded in doing what the Americans have not: turn the population against them. While the residents of Hiratian have not yet expressed their sentiment through action, villagers in other areas have. The Taliban exerted complete rule over large parts of Gizab district, in Dai Kundi province of central Afghanistan for years, until many villagers started refusing to cooperate with them earlier this year. All these areas have had few foreign troops. The insurgents imposed their harsh rule and the population suffered. Even after the large influx of troops in South Afghanistan over the past few years, the dynamic persisted: the Taliban were so powerful that it obviated the need to win over the population.

On the other hand, in those areas where the insurgency’s growth roughly coincided with or followed the arrival of the foreign forces — in the provinces near Kabul, for example — the Taliban have been more sophisticated. They have had to compete with the foreigners for the population’s allegiance, and in the process had to administer their rule with a softer touch. In such places, troop presence actually makes the insurgents more popular in local eyes. The conclusion is obvious. Without US troops in the area, the Taliban have no legitimacy.

It is a trend that belies conventional wisdom. It is hard to believe that increased effort to wage a war for ‘hearts and minds’, which at the heart of the COIN strategy, makes the Taliban popular. General Petraeus may well be smart enough to see that and move away from the present strategy of ‘surge’ which places reliance on a large U.S. military footprint. But the US has failed to rally Pashtun villagers to its side or to break the will of the resistance. For this reason many of these Pashtuns call for a negotiated ceasefire. They want to end the war their own way and rightly maintain that only they can deal with the Taliban and on their own terms. As the Taliban in Hiratian (as well as Swat and Waziristan) have shown that the Taliban can be their own worst enemy.

Negotiating between the populace and the resistance in Afghanistan would be protracted if the Americans continue to maintain a heavy military presence. I believe that a ‘threat’ of an early withdrawal would expedite matters. Instead of saying that the Americans ‘could stay long after the July next year deadline’ they should be saying that ‘withdrawal could begin’ as soon as all segments of populace and the resistance can come together to negotiate a settlement.

Many American strategists have already expressed the opinion that it is the future and fate of nuclear Pakistan, not the future and fate of Afghanistan, which should be the focus of US policy. The access of Afghanistan to the outside world would be through Pakistan. The alternative of Shia Iran, and Central Asian Republics (which are themselves land-locked) is not viable. It is the common interest of the USA and Pakistan-Afghanistan that Pakistan and Afghanistan should be friends – like twins conjoined at the hip, as President Karzai put it. Why the three of them are not pursuing what is their obvious common interest? It is because there is another group of three – India, Israel and the Neo-con America (supported by much of the Republican Party) – who would like the USA to not only stay longer in Afghanistan but also make use of the opportunity to strike at Pakistan and Iran.

The Republican Party would like President Obama to be a ‘one term President’ failing to get re-elected and being held responsible for the ‘defeats’. The Zionist lobby in America would like the destruction of the military of two more countries – Pakistan and Iran – to ‘make Israel more secure’. India eagerly wants to split Pakistan into several countries like it did in 1971 but that is possible only if it can win a victory in a conventional war in which the USA neutralises the nuclear deterrent of Pakistan. The ruling coalition in Pakistan is of parties that opposed the creation of Pakistan or have since emerged with or adopted that agenda. The USA may be persuaded to opt for the course being recommended by India, Israel and Neocon America merely because the ruling coalition in Pakistan is eager to oblige without questioning what may be done to Pakistan by ‘the three’. All eyes in Pakistan are on the military.

The Army is headed by a wise General. But he is due to retire in November this year. It has been the practice to grant one year extension to every COAS in Pakistan. But Zardari-Geelani may decide against it because he cannot be relied upon to refuse to obey the Supreme Court (SC) if he is asked to impose its judgement. Such a situation may come about well before November if the SC decided that the President cannot hold the office of PPP Chairman. Nobody in Pakistan’s Government is giving much thought to the dwindling prospects of the Taliban and Pakistan’s role in: 1) honourable exit with continued friendly US engagement with Afghanistan; 2) a durable peace settlement in Afghanistan between the populace and the resistance. I believe that vague objectives of the USA and Pakistan have fudged the issues which precluded emergence of wise and viable common objectives. But USA and Pakistan-Afghanistan do have common interests; they can surely agree on common objectives.

The Taliban did rule Afghanistan for a time but their government was recognised only by three countries – Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and the UAE. It was because of perceived illegitimacy of their rule that it was hard for Pakistan to stand by them when they were invaded in 2001. They are now being offered negotiations and peace that the Afghan people desperately want and deserve. If the Taliban refuse to make a deal with the USA, there would be no recognition of their rule even in the remote eventuality of the American leaving Afghanistan like they left Viet Nam. Pakistan is sincere in its support of Afghans; it has made much sacrifice for their sake against Soviet occupation and now American occupation. The Muslim World has a stake in the Afghan leaders acting sensibly to guard the national interests. Pakistan and Saudi Arabia have some influence over the Taliban. They can and they must act to bring about a peace settlement. ++

Author: Brig. Gen. Usman Khalid
The writer is the Secretary General of Rifah Party of Pakistan

India, the Water Terrorist and SAARC

16th SAARC summit was held at Thimpu, capital of Bhutan from April 28 -29, 2010. People of the participant countries are looking towards their leaders for establishment of regional peace in this highly adverse security environment. They feel that future of their new generation has become highly insecure due to poverty, continuous deteriorating living environment, terrorism and major regional conflicts like territorial and water issues that has brought the region to the brink of a major disaster, the nuclear war. Let’s hope that this time our leaders find some solutions to resolve Kashmir issue, water issue, and Bangladesh border clash with India and Nepal Energy crises, Afghanistan problem and other bilateral matters for lessening our worries for the betterment of our future. Without resolving these major issues initiatives like ‘Aman Ki Asha’ nothing more than hypocrisy.

The Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) of the United Nation mentioned in its report that rural poverty and food insecurity has been intensified and is showing downward trend all over the world. Developing countries within the Asia-Pacific region represent more than half of the world population. Today, a total of 3.7 billion out of 6.3 billion people in 2000, which continued to grow at 1.4% per year (1990-2000) and slowing down to 0.7% per year in 2020-2025 live in this region. The population in urban areas will increase from 37% to 51% during the same period. The report further reveals that majority of the worlds poor live in this region, about 829 million out of a world total of 1.2 billion, living on an average of just one dollar a day.

An alarming aspect of under discussion issue is that despite having maximum manpower, natural resources and all weather pieces of land, why Asian countries failed to bring Green Revolution. The answer is simple, the expansionist designs of India that does not allow its neighbours to settle down and concentrate inwards. New Delhi never realized that her wishful thinking of attaining supremacy and capturing natural resources is pushing the region into war. She has forgotten that hunger is the only factor which changes the human characteristics. It gave birth to the world terrorism too. Here, in the region, if we have the highest peak, the Mount Everest the poverty is also matching in the same dimension. Most of the governments in south Asian region cannot maintain even daily necessities of their nations. Pakistan and Bangladesh have been directly threatened by chocking their water resources; Bangladesh may not be able to react militarily but Pakistan can hit back and hit hard.

Nepal, with which India entered into an agreement to supply power if Nepal allowed her to build hydel projects over its rivers. After having built the projects, India has turned the power supplies off to further squeeze Nepal. Who can trust India? Only a fool or who has no option to walk away from her.

India has added a new dimension to the war philosophy by using water as an instrument of war. It is also worth mentioning here that India is the only country which is having conflicts with its bordering countries while all others in the world want peace at their borders. She is constructing more than 300 dams to interlink her rivers. Out of these 71 dams are being constructed in Indian Occupied Kashmir alone, which defiantly is provoking Pakistan. She has the intentions of converting her neighbours land into ruins and deserts through inundation and trickling of water. In this regard her actions speak that she is emerging as a “Water Terrorist” in the world. New Delhi has planned number of barrages and dames by violating international water pacts. Now, it’s the talk of the region that future war would be on water issue because none of the country will like to become barren as result of Water terrorism. Therefore, it is evident from the prevailing environment that if world community failed to control water grabber then insecurity of food would be the core issue of future Asia and would prove fatal for the world peace.

It is further emphasized that Agriculture sector is expected to continue to play the central role in achieving sustainable food security and poverty alleviation through increasing the food production, improving productivity and quality, expanding non-farm employment and enhancing trade and overall capital formation. But, the increase in capital is only possible if water resources shall be available to the countries. But unfortunately the major supporting element of future development revolves around Water. Unavailability or shortage of water might lead into environmental degradation, erosion of top soils, and depletion of soil fertility, pollution, starvation and low production of food.

The third word countries that are already suffering from depleted economies have to do something for their survival. The numbers of water issues of South Asian countries though have been taken up on various international fora but are still unresolved or pending due to disinclination attitude of India towards in execution of already concluded International Pacts.

Indus Basin Water Treaty between India and Pakistan 1960, Indo-Bangladesh water dispute over the Farakka Barrage (The Ganges Water Treaty) and the Indo-Nepal dispute over the Mahakali River are the glaring ones and endangering to the regional peace. It is notable here that India always used water as tool against Pakistan Nepal and Bangladesh. The Indian rulers exploit this natural resource through blocking the flow of rivers which originate from the Indian controlled territories and claiming their rights of using Nepalese Origin Rivers too.

It is also notable here that major water issue between two nuclear powers (India and Pakistan) is directly linked with the territorial dispute too. Pakistan and India have fought four wars over Kashmir. The sources three major rivers are located in Indian Held Kashmir (IHK). India has started construction of dams and barrages over these rivers with the aim of destroying agriculture sector of Pakistan. According to the sources, India has also suggested Afghan government to construct dam over Kabul River which is the major water contributor to Indus. She has also offered her technical assistance to Afghanistan. Therefore it’s a proven fact now that India will never be our trust worthy friend because of her mean nature. Her only aim is to create instability, destruction of Pakistan. Her ingress in Afghanistan is again questionable. She is using Afghan soil for fomenting terrorism in Pakistan.

Pakistan, Bangladesh and Nepal have tried to resolve their water issue with India. These countries also used SAARC platform to settle these long outstanding issues but some how on one pretext or other New Delhi showed her unwillingness in resolving the issue. India straightaway refused to come on

SAARC forum while saying that water dispute will be solved with Bangladesh and Nepal through tri-partite dialogues. In fact India is not interested to resolve the issues at all and will keep on avoiding the situation. Same situation is prevailing between Pakistan and India over water problem.

The reluctance of India in resolving basic issues is further depleting the regional security. In his regard probably, the political and military leadership of India have either failed to comprehend the real threat or deliberately causing insecurity for the completion of their hegemonic design. The ruling party of India is trying to corner the lonely Islamic nuclear power without realizing that Pakistan can not afford anymore conventional war with India. She must know that Pakistani nuclear programme is though very safe but off course in strong hands too. According to A Q khan Pakistan Nuclear Programme is of latest version and has edge over Indian nuclear programme too.

Pakistan has sufficient nuclear arsenals too. Careful analysis of current political and security environment dictates that future nuclear war would be on water issue. India must know that Pakistan can go for nuclear strike first, since it’s the matter of her survival on the world map. To avoid this nuclear war, we have to establish, deliberate and redress the major water issues of Pakistan, India, Bangladesh and Nepal. Present SAARC Summit is again providing the chance and forum our leaders to resolve the major regional issues

Author: Zaheerul Hassan

WAR ON TERROR HAS PRODUCED MORE TERRORISTS AND HATE

There is no question that terrorism must be curbed. A fact bought sharply in focus, by the Faisal Shahzad case. There is tremendous pressure on Pakistan by USA to have it’s army initiate a ground offensive against the terrorists in North Waziristan. The questions this demand raises are many. They must be weighed carefully before jumping head on in yet another front.

North Waziristan is a place where al-Qaida and its Afghan and Pakistani allies can train fighters, store explosives and rest from the strain of war. Much of North Waziristan is a wasteland dotted with small clusters of sun-baked mud houses that seem to blend into the dusty brown landscape. Outside the towns, there are few signs of modern life __ no power lines or telephone poles.

Pakistan’s forces are already overstretched, battling against Taliban against thousands of stretches of land. Can they afford to open a new front without first clearing out what they started earlier? Thousands of Pakistani soldiers have already been killed in this War against Terrorism. “Collateral damage” of civilians owing to drone strikes has anti American sentiments on the rise.

The second question that needs to be answered is, will the offensive ensure the curbing an end to terrorism? In the recent past, we have seen, the offensive in FATA and NWFP led to a spillover effect in South Waziristan and then Punjab. Now, it is North Waziristan. Will the terrorists sit like a lame duck to be shot at or will they seek refuge elsewhere and regroup? Will this be the end or the beginning to yet another spillover?

Another most crucial consideration must be the cost of the war. Can we afford the war in a case where the payments in terms of help under the Kerry Lugar Bill are delayed? Overdue payments amounting to millions of US dollars is expected to reach Pakistan in September.

And then there is the question of a minor thing known as “Principle”.

Do we attack when told to attack, by an alien power, or does the Pakistan Government has a right in terms of evaluating the ground realities and then taking a decision in light of this. It is a fact that we, know our geography and people better than do the Americans.

Yes the terrorists pose a threat to life, livelihood of the people of Pakistan, they do pose a threat to the integrity of Pakistan and the standing of the country in the international comity of nations. However, we cannot and must not ignore the ground realities. Without good intelligence on ground, an in-house offensive is bound to meet with less than success.

The West needs to get out of ad hominem that since Faisal Shahzad purportedly received training in North Waziristan to try carry out an attack at Times Square, the whole of North Waziristan is swarming with terrorists. The Muslim world is not attacking the USA. It’s the 400 years of West’s colonisations of the Muslim world and now the thrusting of foreign Jews on top of Palestinians and various invasion, occupations and threats invasions of Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran and Pakistan that are the causal factors.

Unfortunately, these situations have nonetheless unleashed a genie that threatens to devour all.

It took Sri Lanka 26 years to handle and curb terrorism. Nations must realize that Pakistan is not fighting a normal war. Pakistan is not fighting an alien aggressor. Pakistan is fighting pockets of people hidden within, a war thrust upon us with a brute force and cunning deceit. More or less Pakistan has a faceless enemy within it’s folds. It is this that makes the need for good intelligence great.

Wars like these are long drawn out wars. Events cannot be rushed through to suit some. Nations need to understand the nature of the conflict. Every step must be weighed carefully. Let us not forget, it is the Pakistani People who are paying the heaviest price.

Author: Yasmeen Ali
The writer is a lawyer and teaches at Beacon House National University Lahore.

1971 Mukti Bahini war documents lost!

Incredible
Unbelievable! Incredible! Four decades or nearly 39 years have gone by this time for Bangladeshis to know the news is a fishy matter. Possibly it would have remained in the dark for another long time, how long difficult to imagine, had there been no program for reception for the freedom fighters of Bangladesh in Kolkata would be planned.

Evidences
The Times of India (TOI) published the news of destroyed documents at Calcutta (now Kolkata) Head Quarters at the Fort William soon after the war ended. General Jacob came to know about shredding the files with all documents as he enquired for the documents soon after he joined as the Eastern Command Chief in August 1974. That was 36 years ago. He kept the information to himself for all these years to disclose it now, not voluntarily but otherwise. But as the BBC Bengali Service Radio reporting from Kolkata on the 9th May aired an observation of another retired General about shredding off the documents. That was not covered in the TOI 9 May news. This General stated that the classified documents possibly had many facts that might in future seriously harm India - Pakistan relations, if declassified later on, and so were destroyed under order from Delhi. He did not elaborate neither did General Jacob say anything further.
Be these facts as are by now known in sketchy detail we may have some clues into the truth of the incredible matter whatever was published. The May 9 TOI issue had the news like this: “The history of the 1971 India Pakistan war will never be fully written. Most of the official records of the war that led to the liberation of Bangladesh have been destroyed… Authoritative Army sources said all records held at the Eastern Command in Kolkata, were destroyed immediately after the war”. The 11 May TOI news further added, “Senior army officers serving and retired are not surprised that official records of the 1971 war have been destroyed, particularly those related to the creation of Mukti Bahini…The records would have revealed the involvement of the Indian Army in then East Pakistan much before the war had been officially declared in December 1971….it must have been under instruction from the government”.

Delhi asked Kolkata
Delhi asked Calcutta to destroy the documents immediately after the war ended on the 16th December 1971 in matters of raising the Mukti Bahini or freedom fighters in many camps spread all over India, organization by Indian army units for their training to fight the Pakistan army inside East Pakistan, putting the Mukti Bahini in combative action, particularly, during March to December 1971, etc. The thesis advanced being that those documents, if made known to Pakistan at any time afterwards, would have adverse effects and might deteriorate relations between the two enemy neighbors at daggers drawn since the very days of 1947 and now going on in the same pattern for over 62 years since then. That was exactly what one retired Lieutenant General then in 1971 a Captain and a Colonel of Indian army who claimed to have been inside Bangladesh long before the war began. This was quite likely, and that is why Delhi asked for their shredding and possibly destroyed for good in bonfire.

Who else but Indira Gandhi
But then the question arises who exactly in Delhi directed Calcutta to do the job and keep that in secrecy for decades. Could it be anybody except the centre of power, the then Prime Minister, Indira Gandhi? Could the Chief of Army Manekshaw do the elimination bit all on his own the materials being otherwise internationally valuable war documents of 1971? The defense Minister Jagjivan Ram? How could he dare to do so not only being the subordinate one to Indira but also native of the scheduled caste or the ‘untouchable minister’? The other point that must come up, was there was any written formal order from Delhi? That’s not known as yet, possibly there were none and no way to know that precisely now for the matter is four decades old and the big players in the Great Game is already gone and passed away to the after world. Because in matters of such delicate issue involving another neighboring sovereign country whose destruction and dismemberment had been the goal of Indian high caste rulers in all likely would not keep any written record of the matter for future to know and make judgment on the PM’s psyche, attitude of the Congress and the administration. Because, as is well known it was her serious ego to dismember Pakistan by any means no matter how costly or foul those could have been. One must recall her determination in the matter in her 16th December 1971 evening straight forward comment after the war victory news given in the Parliament speech and brief comment made to the press immediately afterwards in exact verbatim: ‘HAZAR SALO KA BADLA LE LIE’- we have avenged the defeat of ‘One thousand years’.

Morarji Desai on 71 war
Morarji Desai the then oldest political leader and Deputy and later on Prime Minister of India and Jawaharlal’s close friend went all way out to state in public so much so that the war had been ‘willed’ and by ‘provocation’ engineered by Indira. He further went on to disclose that while the Indian army men in civilian dress had been fighting and five thousand of them gave lives in nine months between March and December 1971 not in formal war but outside declared formal war, the then Chief of Indian army Manekshaw told bluntly to the PM Indira that they must not give lives like that inside East Pakistan; they would prefer to fight in formal war (See, M. Rahman & N. Hasan, Iron Bars of Freedom, London 1980, pp.108-09). These are some of the available facts I have with me; there must have many other facts of more crucial and hegemonic feature that Indira, in particular, had had in view, and so considered appropriate to ask for their elimination from any record or even a trace that could have been there in any formal written order given in any file or in any document whatsoever.

Acrimony with no substance
On the 10th May evening BBC provided some other clues in the matter. The Opposition, particularly the BJP has asked for inquiry and let the people know the truth about the documents fate. This is simply to put fact straight that the Congress had been in Delhi’s power at that time; Indira had been the P.M. and historic heroine in the Great Game between the two rivals both of whom owe to the long past not only for war, fame and rivalry but also psychological warfare all the time. Had the BJP been then in power and the same thing happened, certainly the Congress now would make the same chorus for inquiry and report open to public. Undoubtedly the row is certain to keep the political air charged with the matter until how long it is difficult to predict at this stage. The issue may be a good point for political show down in the field ahead.

Looser Bangladesh
I am sure Pakistan may take the scope to score some points against Indian hegemony not only for her but also for all other smaller Indian neighbors. Bangladesh seems to incur the biggest loss in terms of self dignity and sovereignty for the main reason that the 1971 war was virtually turned into the India-Pakistan war, India won and Pakistan defeated, having no place of Bangladesh freedom fighters in the war except lip service and eyewash though many had valiantly fought then in 1971. The reception being arranged for the freedom fighters would be no make up of losses of Bangladesh already incurred in the fishy shredding off of the valuable historic documents lost in Kolkata Indian Army Eastern Command Head Quarter amazingly in top secrecy.

Author: B Khair

Pakistani spies & new Pakistan in India

A hypothesis is recently advanced by the Awami League that the former President of Bangladesh General Ziaur Rahman was a Pakistani spy. On the 27th April 2010 Madhuri Gupta, an Indian diplomat, has been arrested by her government for allegedly working as a Pakistani spy. The other current news is that the Maoist controlled large area in West Bengal, Bihar, Orissa, Jharkhanda, Chattisgarh, Telengana etc all closer to Bangladesh western border are named by the law enforcing agencies of India as Pakistan. Are they not interesting?

No matter whether these issues in the air are sustainable or not the underlying matters are not beyond common interest.

General Ziaur Rahman started his army career in Pakistan (united) in early 1960s. During the 1965 India-Pakistan war he was known to be a valiant fighter in the Khemkaran Sector. Later on in early 1971 he was posted as Major in a Pakistan army unit in Chittagong, East Pakistan. There he once again proved to be heroic with few of his comrades to declare unilateral independence of Bangladesh or East Pakistan seceded from Pakistan making a revolt against the Federal Government of Pakistan on the 26-27 March 1971. In course of Bangladesh becoming independent and changes one after another Ziaur Rahman rose to the position of Bangladesh President in late 1975 and then fell in 1981. During these five years in power he had been very dynamic to lift the country from utter frustration to some degree of dignity and honor. Lifting the country up owed in particular his making close relations with the Muslim countries including Pakistan after the bitterness of 1971 war.

Not much known about Madhuri Gupta for her credentials. She had been a mid level diplomat of India lately posted in Islamabad Indian High Commission. She had been called back to Delhi and then arrested for spying for Pakistan! Her name indicates that she is a respectable Bengali woman from high caste in Hindu religion. There is, however, a new propaganda in India that she had embraced Islam about six years ago. She thus may be made a scapegoat. If proved guilty in the spying she may face ten years imprisonment.

Indian Maoists are by now well known all over the world. They have been fighting for nearly half a century now for minimum rights of the deprived tribal and scheduled caste millions of India particularly of the provinces mentioned. Their predecessors had been known as Naxals that started the movement in 1960s under Charu Mjumder, a well known left Maoist in the West Bengal province of India. The Indian famous writer Arundhati Roy (49) for her alleged sympathy with the Maoists had been sentenced to imprisonment for two years in 2007 by her own government! She does not deny that she is sympathetic to the endless deprivations of the tribal poor people that she had herself tasted with the Maoists in their jungle hideouts their mode of selfless armed struggle that gradually gained ground so much so that the seating PM of India Manmohon Singh declared the Maoists to be ‘the biggest threat to the security of the country’ and ordered crushing them by the joint forces now going on in the name of Green Hunt security operation. The Union Home Minister Chidambaram hinted at, in addition, strike by the Air Force. In the neighboring county of Nepal, the Maoists had already brought to an end of the age old Monarchy, rose to state power through winning election, stayed in power for some time, then abandoned running the country in matters of principle hinting at dislike for Indian interference, but soon may come up to hold on to the power of the State.

Zia was a Pakistani spy, so is alleged for Madhuri having amazing coincidence that the Maoists have established ‘Pakistan’ in large chunk inside Indian territories. It looks much more substantive than spying by two prominent Bengalis, being close to Bangladesh border and not border with Pakistan like Jammu and Kashmir! Who’s to blame? Pakistan, Bangladesh or India herself? And what must be the substance of the blames and accusations except signaling that the 1947 partition of the British India further be pursued for emancipation and liberation of the majority billions of India suffered inhumanly for centuries at the hands of the ruling elite.

Author: H B Khair

January 27, 2010: Watershed in the History of Bangladesh

The day – January 27, 2010 – will go down in the history of the South Asia as a black day on which five patriotic officers of the Army who saved Bangladesh from becoming the colony of India 35 years ago, were hanged. It was not surprising because the Prime Minister of Bangladesh – Hasina Wazed – is the daughter of the traitor – Sheikh Mujib – who was the President of the country against who the 15 August 1975 coup d’etat was carried out. It was vendetta, not justice; its shadow will loom large over the country until the legacy of the traitor is disowned and discredited in Bangladesh. It took Sheikh Hasina 35 years to discredit the heroism of the best sons of the soil as mere murders. It will not take that long to discredit Hasina – the lap dog of India - who has since become so bolds as to wear her father’s treachery as a badge of honour. It would not be long before Sheikh Mujib is seen as the worst traitor in the sub-continent since Mir Jaffer.

Bangladesh is the product of conspiracy and war in which India played the major part. India deserves credit for being able to recruit popular Muslim leaders of Bengal to betray their fellow Muslims to advance the objectives of India. Sheikh Mujib was a student leader active in the Pakistan Movement and he could have become the Prime Minister of Pakistan in 1971 when he emerged as the leader of the Party with the largest number of seats in the parliament. He met President Yahya Khan and accepted his invitation in March 1971 to form the next government. But only a few days later he conveyed regret to Yahya Khan after his Indian agent handler came back from New Delhi and informed him that Prime Minister Indira Gandhi had agreed to invade East Pakistan in support of his Unilateral Declaration of Independence (UDI). Sheikh Mujib betrayed his constituency, refused to take office as the Prime Minister of Pakistan, and followed the direction of his handlers from India. That truth has since been revealed in several books published in India and now his daughter – Prime Minister Hasina Wazed - has admitted that her father was a traitor (following story). The irony is that the politicians in Pakistan continue to sell the Indian propaganda that secession of East Pakistan was the ‘inevitable consequence of maltreatment’. What maltreatment? No one bother to ascertain or detail!

The senior most officer executed - Colonel Syed Farook Rehman – was like a son to me. I met him in Libya where he along with other officers who took part in the coup d’etat of 15 August 1975, had been given political asylum. A relationship of warmth and trust developed between me and Colonel Farook. He is the most fearless person that I came across in my life. The only person to benefit from his courage and fearlessness was the President of the country - General Ershad. He recognised the honourable role those young officers had played in loosening the shackles in which India held their country – Bangladesh. He allowed them to return to Bangladesh, whereupon they founded a new political party- Freedom Party. Colonel Farook contested presidential elections against General Hussain Muhammad Ershad, and secured respectable fifth of the votes cast. It was only after Mujib’s daughter – who had lived in exile in India for a long time – returned to Bangladesh; took the reins of her father’s party – the Awami League – into her hands and won the elections with the guidance and financial help of India in 1996. She had been campaigning on a platform to avenge the murder of her father. Most of those who had participated in the coup d’etat in 1975 left the country. However, the five (Colonel Farook, Lt Col Sultan Shahayar Khan, Lt Col. Mohyuddin Ahmed, Major Badrul Huda and Major AKM Mohyuddin) who were hanged on January 27, put faith in ‘indemnity’ provided by constitutional amendment. They were clearly wrong to have trusted the ‘judiciary’ to uphold that their action had been motivated by ‘high purpose’ and not ‘personal benefit’.

I feel sad that they were unable to articulate the ‘high purpose’ that motivated the action they took on 15 August 1975. It has since been clearly established that Sheikh Mujib acted under the guidance of and in collaboration with the enemy - India - to dismember his country. To remove a traitor – an Indian agent - from power is indeed ‘high purpose’. Now Prime Minister Hasina Wazed has admitted that her father was a traitor who worked with and for the enemy – India. It took her 35 years to so tire the people with rhetoric and propaganda and so undermine the institutions of the state that she could get away with murder. The execution of the five patriots on January 27 this year was indeed murder. The parliament reversed the ‘indemnity’ and a ‘special court’ passed the death sentences during her first term as Prime Minister. But she could not get high judiciary to bend to her will and reject their appeal. The military was also not willing to endorse their execution. Hasina had to wait until the Peelkhana mutiny and massacre by BDR (Bangladesh Rifles) of 25-26 February 2009, to terrify the people as well as the judicial and the military establishment to an extent that the ‘feared outrage’ that had prevented her from sending the five military officers to the gallows did not materialise.

This is the second instance of the Indian Intelligence (RAW) having won a victory far more substantive than any won by its military. The first was to absorb the independent state of Sikkim into India. Sikkim is a Buddhist country lying between Assam and Nepal that provided a route through low passes to Tibet province of China. Since India‘s imperialist rulers have always had an eye on Tibet as a target, they looked at occupation of Sikkim as a pre-requisite as it provided direct access to Tibet for military or clandestine operations. The methods India used in Sikkim were very similar to those in Bangladesh. India installed its protégé – Kazi Lhendup Dorji – as the Prime Minister of Sikikim, who set up a pro-India Sikkim National Congress (SNC) as an affiliate of the Congress Party in India. The SNC started a movement for the ‘abolition of monarchy’. Demonstrations against the King were organised by RAW in which Indian military personal in civvies took part. Eventually, the Prime Minister Kazi Dorji invited the Indian Army into Sikkim to remove its ruler – Chogyal Palden – on April 6, 1975. The country of Sikkim was annexed by India and the annexation was validated by a referendum – something that India refuses to hold in the State of Jammu and Kashmir.

In Bangladesh, the Army had emerged as a strong institution willing and able to oppose and resist Indian domination. There had been three military coup d’etats in Bangladesh – all of which were successful - and the two led by the Army Chief - General Zia ur Rehman and General Hussain Muhammed Ershad – became the vehicle for new political parties to be created that won popular mandate in free elections. Naturally, the military of Bangladesh is seen by India as an impediment to its hegemony and by Sheikh Mujib’s Awami League as an obstacle in it collaborative rule. RAW came up with a plan to ‘remove the obstacle’: 1) to rig the elections to give the Awami League (AL) a landslide victory; 2) to use the AL members to incite a mutiny by BDR (which is border police) against their officers (who are seconded from the Army); 3) to use AL workers( even ministers) to facilitate the smuggling in of professional killers from abroad and arrange their exit while the Prime Minister herself provided time and opportunity for them to ‘complete the task’ by opting for prolonged negotiations keeping the Army from timely response to save the lives of their comrades and the honour of their wives.

History has seen many mutinies by soldiers against their officers but the officers were always of a different race or religion to that of the soldiers. I cannot recall any instance in history where soldiers engaged in the rape of the wives of their officers before murdering them. Fifty seven Army officers were killed in the Peelkhana Mutiny and Massacre in two days which is two more than during the 1971 insurrection and war. This is the most vicious mutiny in the annals of history; it is also the most diabolical because the allegedly popular elected government was complicit in every stage – planning, execution, exit and cover up. The people as well as the officials in Bangladesh know the facts, thanks to the Internet. But no one is willing to risk giving evidence. They are literally scared to death. It is widely believed that if any one expressed doubts about the AL version of events, he would invite the ire of RAW and be murdered like the Army officers and their wives held hostage in Peelkhana. It was in this environment of fear that the five patriotic officers were executed - eleven months after the BDR Mutiny; just over a year after Hasina became the Prime Minister for the second time.

The execution of the five officers is bound to be seen by the AL and RAW as the final triumph over the people of Bangladesh who, they believe, would have to comply with their every whim and wish and be punished for even the mildest protest. That India succeeded in getting patriots to the gallows and traitors into power, is a huge failure for Bangladesh as a country. It is not a failure of the ‘five martyrs for freedom’ who suffered long incarceration before being hanged, or their dwindling band of supporters; it is the failure of the society that allowed that to happen.

The colonization by India of Bangladesh is now complete. Prime Minister Hasina Wazed is complying with India’s orders unafraid of any institutional (the military or the judiciary) constraints or robust political opposition. She is now so confidant that India would be the overlord of Bangladesh for ever that she has now admitted that her father worked for India. She clearly thinks that she must henceforth work overtly for India and be rewarded with rule by ‘Mujib Dynasty’ in perpetuity. The military has been restrained in performing its statutory role to safeguard the national interest as RAW has demonstrated that its hold over Bangladesh is tight. No wonder the senior officers of the military are afraid they might be murdered by RAW agents or dismissed by the Government if they are suspected to be patriots unafraid of India.

The politics of Bangladesh is bound to become more polarised into ‘lackeys of India’ and ‘Muslim patriots’. The latter are bound to see Sheikh Mujib as a traitor worse than Mir Jaffer. (Mir Jaffer also became the ruler of Bengal as reward for cooperating with the British). The judiciary in Bangladesh has shown that it will also obey India’s wishes which is ensured by Hindus as Judicial officers at all levels including the Supreme Court. The people noted that the SC Bench, which upheld the death sentences to the five martyrs, had two Hindu members. It is a case of kangaroo court justice as it was ignored that those officers had acted as commanders of their units and should have been tried by a court martial. Until 1996, these officers had lived and worked in Bangladesh where they were seen to be patriots who saved their country from tutelage of India. That is why they had been given pardon and immunity from prosecution.

Hasina Administration has shown its obsequiousness to Indian interests also by handing over ULFA leaders to India even though there is no extradition treaty between India and Bangladesh. With the Armed Forces and the Judiciary so intimidated ‘new realities’ are being created quick and fast to prevent any future government of Bangladesh to be able to say ‘no’ to anything that India asks. The construction of Tipaimukh Dam is one; agreement to allow India to connect the ports of Bangladesh by rail is another. The people of Bangladesh are bound to reach the same conclusion that Colonel Farook and fellow patriots reached in 1975. They had concluded there was no way to stop the Indian protégé – Sheikh Mujib - except by physically eliminating him. By being complicit in Peelkhana massacre Hasina has now reinforced the legacy of slaughter with the help of and at the behest of India. She is not merely the ‘daughter of a traitor’ but a traitor in her own right. The attempt to remove her may entail slaughter much more widespread over much longer time. It would be foolish to forecast her fate. But her days are numbered. ++

The above is the Editorial of LISA Journal, London, UK Issue No 14 - (April-June 2010)