Lhore: Origin, Mythology, Faiths, Non-Mulim and Muslim legacy, Walled City, Outside Walled City settlements, Greek, Persian, Turkish influences, Mughal and post Mughal period, Three rulers of Lhore, Lhore Darbar, British Period and present times
لہور
تے اساں 100 پروگرام وی کریے تے اساں ایس شہر بارے پوری گل بات نہیں کرسکدے کیونجے
لہور لہور اے۔
اک
لہور دھرمی ونڈ توں وکھرا وی ہے تے لہور شہر بہوں سارے دھرماں دا پالن ہاروی۔ جداں
دھرم نہیں ہوندے سن تاں وی لہور سی۔
اج
اسی “لہوری بندر” (Lahori Port)
دی گل نہیں کراں گے جہہڑی ٹھٹہ توں سمندری رستے ول جاندے چھ دریاواں دا پانی
سمندراں وچ رلاندی سی اتے ایتھے تجارتاں دا بھنڈارسی۔ پرانی کتاباں وچ ایس دا ذکر
اذکار بہوں ہے۔ دریا تے سمندردے پانیاں دے ملاپ دے نیڑے موجود ایس پورٹ نوں
پرتگالیاں 14 ویں صدی وچ کیوں اگ لاکے ساڑدتا سی ایہہ اک وکھری کہانی ہے۔ ایہہ
ساڈی دریائی تجارتاں دی کہانی ہے اتے ایس بارے اساں اک پورا پروگرام کراں گے۔
اسی
سکندر مقدونی دی گل وی نہیں کراں گے جس دے لکھاری 327 قبل مسیح وچ پنجاب آئے اتے
ایس نوں پینٹا پوٹامیا
(Panta-Potamia) آکھیا۔
پینٹا
پرانی یونانی زبان وچ پنچ نوں آکھدے نیں۔اتے یونانیاں وی ایس تھاں نوں پنج دریاواں
دی دھرتی آکھیا۔ مہا بھارت وچ ساڈی تھاں نوں پنج ند آکھیا کیونجے پرانی بولی وچ
دریا لئی ”ند“ ہی ورتیا جاندا سی جس توں لفظ ندی بنیا ہے یعنی دریا توں نکلی ہوئی۔
پراساں
تے اج پنجاب دے دل تخت لہور دی گل بات ہی کراں گے۔
ساڈے
نال متراقبال قیصر نیں جنھاں آپدی جنڈری دا وڈا ویلہ لہور دے بیٹیاں، ٹیلیاں،
بازاراں، پنڈاں نوں گھنگالن وچ گذاریا ہے۔ اج اساں آپدے شہر دی گواچی تاریخ بارے
گل کراں گے۔
اکبر
دس سال لہور آکے رہیا اتے ایتھے کلہ گڈ کے کشمیر، لہوری بندر تے اٹک دی مہماں
چلائیاں۔ مغلاں بعد مثلاں بنایاں گیاں اتے بھنگی مثل سب توں وڈی سی۔ کانگڑہ،
امرتسر توں لہور، ملتان تے ڈی آئی خان توں قبائلی تھاواں تک پھیلی ایہہ مثل
تجارتاں دا بھنڈار سی اتے “بھنگ” دا کارویماروی ایتھے ہوندا سی۔
انگریزاں
لہور ناں کیہ کیتا ایہہ وی کہانی آپدے تھاں اہمیتاں والی ہے۔ پر اج اساں اقبال
قیصر دی گلاں سناں گے، تسی وی سنو تاں
Colonial legacy to use religion and sects in State Craft was inherited by both newly formed countries India & Pakistan in 1947.
Allama Iqbal & Jinnah accepted religious and sub-religious (sectarian) diversity and Pakistan movement was a struggle of minority Muslims to safeguard their rights as equal citizens. The challenge to minorities included in political scene after the infamous Lucknow Pact of 1916. Rowlatt committee report further communalize the politics by calling an uprising A Hindu German conspiracy in 1917. Khilafat Movement was another colonial twist to tackle Hindu-German Conspiracy. Muslims were largest minority (more then 25%) in subcontinent and had marginal majorities in two provinces i-e Bengal (their first capital) and the Punjab (Epic center of Frontier Forward Policy). Due to weight-age formula, coined by Lucknow Pact, muslim majorities were compromised in both provinces. That is why Iqbal called it a pitfall. Even in his historic Allahbad address he pinpointed it too. Muslims of India fought their case with the help of Bengal and the Punjab. Strength of Indian Muslims was in muslim majority provinces so Muslim League after 1937 defeat had realized its mistakes and change its attention towards muslim majority provinces. So in pre-partition politics ML acknowledged provincial and minority rights well yet in post 1947 politics rulers not only rejected diversity but also adopted centralist legacy of colonial rulers. Even then due to timely intervention of then Finanace minister Malik Ghulam Muhammad Objective resolution got a place only in the preamble. In 1950 first draft of proposed constitution was submitted in the assembly which had a reasonably good report regarding miority rights. There was not any condition on the posts of PM and President regarding religion. But Liaqat ali himself withdrew from it.
From 1947 till 1971, religious minorities were 22% in whole country while in Eastern wing religious minorities were more then 29% but during that period they failed to use their pressure and remained aloof from the political arena by and large. Dhakha Fall reduced percentage of religious minorities from 22 to 7 or less then 5%.
During Zia era religious minorities were targeted mainly but its preamble was written during Yayha Khan period. as per news a Christian Judge Justice Cornelius was preparing Islamic Constitution for the dictator while Yahya Khan education policy recommended a ban on Missionary organizations and called them against ideology of Pakistan. Zia had changed the social contract coined by Ghulam Muhammad in late 1940s and made Objective Resolution part of the Constitution. It was beginning of the problems for religious minorities in Pakistan
Today Pakistan's projected population is more then 200 million and if religious minorities are 5% (their claim is 7%) then it means that non-muslim Pakistanis are more then 10 million in Pakistan. but they have no presence in Public and private textbooks. There is not any lesson regarding services of non-muslim Pakistanis.
But as par constitution every Pakistani is equal in the eyes of the law. But in practice poor people have problems for justice and majority of religious minorities are poor.
Due to Education policy 2009, Non-Muslim Pakistanis got right to have textbooks of ethics (books for non muslims as advised in 2006 curriculum) instead of islamic Studies. It was a good news but Only Government of the Punjab has published all textbooks from class 3 to 10 so far
In 18th amendment Pakistani politicians accepted Joint electorate. it was introduced in the infamous 17th amendment during Musharaf times. Politicians rejected 17th amendment but continued with joint electorate. Since 2010 it is in practice and in current period we have witnessed even local body elections. But till today religious minorities failed to take advantage from that opening. It is because of their A-Political attitude. they are not part of major political parties neither remained active in struggle against marshallahs. It is high time for them to change their narrative.
Another program about Pakistani Christians recorded at official TV , it has good information too but many facts are missing and twisted too
Listening BB interview after 8 years of her death is really a different experience. it shows how much clarity she had in August 2007. What she said, argued and narrated is our recent past and in 2016 we are enjoying First democratic transition is a vision she expressed in her conversation. Unfortunately, her statements were twisted by and large mischievously. She supported restoration of Chief Justice of Pakistan. She told that there are madrassas who are peaceful and there are madrassas who are promoting militancy. I am against those madrassas who are promoting militancy. I will not allow any one, including Talibans to use our country. International community should give long term commitment to democracy in Pakistan as they did to Europe after 2nd WW. Mushraff made army controversial which is not in the interests of Pakistan. She also shared her dialogues with Mushraff Government and emphasized that international community should play her role in organizing free and fair elections. however, she said Mushraff publicly told that me and Nawaz must not come before coming elections but it is unacceptable to me.
Watch Benazir Bhutto, former prime minister of Pakistan, discuss terrorism, foreign aid, democratic reforms, and the military situation in Pakistan.
SPEAKER: Benazir Bhutto, Former Prime Minister of Pakistan PRESIDER: Richard N. Haass, President, Council on Foreign Relations Analysis Revisiting PPP: 27 December is a day when PPP workers should revisit post BB decline of the party. They should identify those who supported and benefited during Mushraff times, some made connections with Mushraff , some supported Q-league, some wanted to make PPP+Q-league alliance in 2007. They were largely in media, NGOs and lawyers. During Zardari period same people, due to their Pervaizi Legacy, were more critical to Nawaz sharief than Mushraff. Unlike reasonable leaders like Raza Rabbani, they called Zardari more smart then BB. How people like Zulfiqar Mirza, Faisal Raza Abdi, Babar Awan Amin Faheem, Rahman Malik damaged the party from within due to their bad political preferences. How party lost its appeal in the Punjab is a major failure and its basic responsibility is not on the workers of PPP but those who were in command at center and the Punjab PPP. Reluctance to restore Ch Iftiqar and acceptance for NRO (it was implemented unilaterally by Mushraff without the consent of BB is a recorded fact) were bigining of wrong policies during post BB era while Double standards regarding new provinces in the Punjab and Sindh, Bughz e mauvya policy against Nawaz and Pro PTI policy to damage Nawaz in the Punjab proved pitfalls for the PPP. 18th amendment and NFC award were real achievements supported by all major parties but after 2011 hawks sat on driving seats with the support of Presidency and made party a bad example. it is time for revisit post BB policies. PPP workers are not responsible for this decline but the leadership. Previous articles regarding PPP http://punjabpunch.blogspot.com/search?q=ppp
From textbooks till war heads our prejudice mindset is a proof of our priorities and warmongering based Narratives. India produced Agni, Pirthavi, tirshol, Brahmu while Pakistan produced Shaheen, Ghuri, gazhnavi, Abdali and these names are enough to understand the misleading narratives we have in South Asia.
Pakistan India Conflict is linked with religion and in the presence of such narratives how can we expect PEACE. At 19 December, 2015, Deccan Herald published a news item regarding Concern over radicalisation of youths through social media & online forums in Bharat. This news item remind me a latest study done by an NGO Bargad in Pakistan supported by USIP Hate Speech on Mass and Social Media in Pakistan, 2015.
How a peace loving region is converted in a conflict zone is a question for all of us. We have a history of wars and agreements since 1947 but our narratives are based on conflicts only. In 2004 I met with Shabnam Hashmi and interviewed her. She boldly
criticizedsecular and progressive forces especially Indian Communists and Congress regarding Gujrat killings. Her interview was published in left liberal Pakistani Journal People's Democratic Forum (Awami Jumhori Forum).
How we gradually drifted towards extremism in South Asia is largely linked with our misleading Narratives. Till 1965 in war-games both armies fought with Japanese which was a post 2nd WW legacy yet after 1965 both countries converted it into religion base enemy construction. So Pak India Conflict transformed smartly into Hindu Muslim conflict. That narrative is part of the problem and if we need to address issues of extremism and terrorism we have to change that narratives. Now read the story yourself by clicking below
جب تک پاک ہندوستان سرد جنگ کو مذہب کی آڑ میں لڑنے کی روایات برقرار رہیں گی تب تک جنوبی ایشیا میں انتہا پسندیوں کے بادل منڈلاتے رہیں گے۔ جب وہ ترشول، پرتھوی، اگنی، براہمو جیسے میزائل بناتے رہیں گے اور ہم غوری، شاہین، غزنوی، ابدالی جیسے میزائلوں سے رانجھا راضی رکھیں گے تو پھر اعتدال پسندی، بردباری اور ہم آہنگی کی باتیں محض مذاق ہی رہیں گی۔
مہا قوم پرستی (Supper Nationalism) تنگ نظر قوم پرستی (Narrow Nationalism) اور مذہبی تعصب و تفاخر انسانوں کو رواداریوں اور اعتدال پسندیوں سے دور لے جاتی ہیں۔ اپنی قوم، زبان، مذہب یا فرقے کو افضل قرار دیتے ہوئے دوسری قومی، زبانوں، مذاہب یا فرقوں کو رگیدنا ہی وہ غیر مناسب رویہ ہے جو انسانوں میں انتہا پسندیوں کی گرہ مضبوط کرتا ہے۔ یہی وجہ ہے کہ صوفیوں، بھگتوں اور جوگیوں نے ہمیشہ اعتدال پسندی کی تعلیم دی۔
تاہم 19 ویں اور 20 ویں صدیوں میں وطنی ریاستوں کی تشکیل کے بعد ہونے والی گرم و سرد جنگوں کی وجہ سے ہم صوفیوں اور بھگتوں کی اعتدال پسندیوں کو بوجوہ طرز حکمرانی میں سمونے سے قاصر رہے۔ البتہ دو خوفناک عالمی جنگیں لڑنے اور انسانیت کا قتلام کرنے کے بعد جمہوری اقتدار کی آبیاری کی تحریک نے ’حقوق“ کے عنوان تلے تقویت پکڑی۔ جدید عہد میں اعتدال پسندی کی یہی تعلیم جمہوری اقرار کے عنوان سے دی جا رہی ہے۔
19 دسمبر کو ہندوستان سے شائع ہونے والے دکن ہیرالڈ کے شمارے میں وزیراعظم نریندر مودی کی زیر قیادت ہونے والے اعلیٰ سطحی اجلاس کی خبر چھپی۔ اس میں یہ اقرار موجود تھا کہ ہندوستانی نوجوانوں میں شدت پسندیاں اور انتہا پسندیاں بڑھ رہی ہیں جس کی اک نمایاں وجہ سوشل میڈیا ہے۔ ہندوستانی صوبے گجرات میں ہونے والے اس اجلاس میں صوبائی وزیرِ داخلہ راج ناتھ سنگھ نے بڑھتی ہوئی شدت پسندیوں کی بڑی وجہ سوشل میڈیا کو قرار دیا۔
پچھلے دنوں مجھے پاکستان کی معتبر سرکاری و نجی یونیورسٹیوں میں کیے جانے والی سروے رپورٹ پڑھنے کا موقع بھی ملا تھا۔ امریکی ادارے یو ایس آئی پی اور غیر سرکاری تنظیم ”برگد“ کے ذریعے کروائے گئےاس سروے میں بھی پاکستانی نوجوانوں میں بڑھتی ہوئی انتہا پسندیوں کے ضمن میں سوشل میڈیا کے کردار کی بات کی گئی تھی۔ تجزیہ کرتے ہوئے رپورٹ میں یہ انکشاف بھی کیا گیا تھا کہ انتہا پسند رحجانات کی طرف 20 سے 30 سال کے بچے بچیاں زیادہ مائل ہیں۔ یوں یہ بات باآسانی کہی جاسکتی ہے کہ 1980 کی دہائی میں جو نسل پاکستان و ہندوستان میں پیدا ہوئی تھی وہ نفرتوں اور کدورتوں سے لیس ہے۔
سوال یہ ہے کہ جب دونوں ممالک ایک دوسرے کے خلاف لڑائیوں کو ہندوﺅں اور مسلمانوں یا ہندومت اور اسلام کی جنگ کے پیرائے میں بیان کرتے رہیں گے تو پھر حکمرانوں کا گلہ نہ تو نوجوانوں سے ہونا چاہیے نہ ہی وہ محض سوشل میڈیا کو اس کا ذمہ دار ٹہرا سکتے ہیں۔ 1960 کی دہائی کے اولین سالوں تک پاکستان اور ہندوستان کے فوجی جوان جنگی مشقوں میں جاپانیوں کے خلاف لڑائی لڑتے تھے جسے دوسری جنگ عظیم کے تناظر میں سمجھنا آسان ہے۔ تاہم 1965 کے بعد پاکستان میں دشمن کی ”بودی“ نکل آئی اور ہندوستان میں دشمن کی ”داڑھی“ بنادی گئی۔
2004 میں مشہور ہندوستانی سماجی کارکن شبنم ہاشمی سے میں نے اک نجی محفل میں پوچھا کہ آپ کے ملک میں بنیاد پرستوں نے معاشرتی سطح اور ریاستی اداروں میں پناہ گاہیں کب سے بنانی شروع کی تھیں، تو جواب ملا کہ 1965 سے 1974 کے درمیان، کہ خود پاکستان میں بھی یہی وہ وقت ہے جب غیر ریاستی عناصر اور انتہاپسندوں کی سرپرستی کا آغاز ہوا تھا۔ میں نے ان کا انٹرویو شائع بھی کیا تھا جس میں انہوں نے بتایا تھا کہ آج ہندوستان میں لبرل، جمہوری اور ترقی پسند کارکنوں کے پاس کوئی متبادل نہیں رہا. وہ ہندوستانی ریاست گجرات میں مسلمانوں کے قتلام پر کمیونسٹ پارٹیوں اور کانگریس کی مجرمانہ خاموشی کی ناقد تھیں۔
1965 سے قبل دونوں ممالک میں ایک دوسرے کی فلمیں بھی دیکھی جاتی تھیں مگر جنگ کے بعد ان پر بھی پابندیاں لگ گئیں۔ حالات اس قدر خوفناک شکل اختیار کرگئے کہ آج کا نوجوان یہ سمجھتا ہے کہ شاید پاکستان اور ہندوستان 14 اگست کے بعد ایک دوسرے کے خلاف ہر میدان میں برسرپیکار رہے تھے۔ اسے دونوں ممالک کے ارباب اختیار میں ہونے والے دو طرفہ اور بین الاقوامی معاہدوں اور سمجھوتوں کے بارے میں تو بتایا نہیں جاتا البتہ جنگوں اور اختلافات کا تواتر سے ورد کروایا جاتا ہے۔
اخباروں اور نصابی کتابوں سے لے کر ہتھیاروں کے ناموں تک تمام امور میں پاک ہندوستان سرد جنگ کو ہندو مسلم تنازعے کی صورت میں بڑھاوا دیا گیا۔ کم از کم دو نسلیں مذہب کی بنیاد پر لڑی جانے والی سرد جنگ میں جوان ہوچکی ہیں اور اس کا سب سے خطرناک اثر تو خود پاکستانی و ہندوستانی معاشروں ہی پر پڑا ہے۔ آج بشمول میڈیا کون سا ادارہ ہے جہاں مذہبی جنگی جنونیت کے اثرات نہیں ہیں۔ پاکستان میں تو 2013 کے انتخابات میں ”ہندوستان دشمنی“ کوئی سیاسی ایشو ہی نہیں تھا مگر ہندوستان میں تو 2014 کے انتخابات میں ”پاکستان دشمنی“ کا کارڈ خوب کھیلا گیا۔
جس دہشت گردی کا رونا صبح شام دونوں ممالک کے حکمران اور پالیسی ساز رو رہے ہیں اس کی ماں تو انتہا پسندی ہے اور جب تک انتہا پسندیاں موجود رہیں گی، دہشت گردوں کی نرسریاں آباد رہیں گی۔ جب تک پاک ہندوستان اختلافات کو مذہبی عینک سے دیکھتے رہیں گے تب تک انتہا پسندیاں ہمارا مقدر رہیں گی۔ آج ضرورت اس امر کی ہے کہ دونوں ممالک اپنے اپنے بیانے بدلنے پر غور کریں۔
سوشل میڈیا اور نوجوانوں کے گلے میں انتہا پسندیوں کی گھنٹیاں باندھنے سے کام نہیں چلے گا بلکہ اب اپنے اپنے بیانیوں کو بدلنے کا عملی اقرار کرنا ہوگا۔ نصابی کتابوں سے ہتھیاروں کے ناموں تک اس کا اظہار ہوگا تو دنیا یہ بات تسلیم کرے گی کہ آپ انتہا پسندیوں اور دہشت گردیوں کے واقعی خلاف ہیں۔
اگر دونوں ممالک نفرتوں بھرے مواد کی ترویج و اشاعت کو کچلنے پر متفق ہوجائیں تو اگلے سال سارک کے 19 ویں اجلاس میں اس کا قابل عمل طریقہ کار بنایا جاسکتا ہے، کیونکہ پاک ہندوستان سرد جنگ کے مہلک اثرات سارا خطہ بھگت رہا ہے۔ محض تجارتیں شروع کرنے کے اعلان سے یہ گتھی نہیں سلجھے گی، بلکہ تجارتی ماحول بنانے کے لیے اعتماد سازیوں کو بحال کرنا لازم ہے۔ بصورت دیگر جنوبی ایشیائی حکمران اور معاشرے ”لیا اپنی ہی صورت کو بگاڑ" کی عملی تفسیر ہی بنے رہیں گے۔
Till 16 December 1971: From Karachi to Khyber we
had intellectuals who remained busy in "Supper Nationalism" based on ruling elite cum Muslim prides and Anti hindu cum Bharat prejudices. It was 13th consecutive year of Marshallah but they did
not raised their voices for Democracy yet now many of them are self appointed
custodians. No one is ready to accept his/her role against democratic
principles. In this respect, December 16, 2015 is much different as we have comparatively a stronger voice in favor of democracy. Just read the list of 177 intellectuals who participated in a
conference at September 1971 regarding “Ideology of Pakistan” , many are still
alive and some are custodians of Art, literature, policy making and some are writing
in leading newspapers. They often talk
about East Pakistan crisis but none of them ever confess his/her role. It includes Istique Hussain Qureshi, Alama Elahudin Sadiquee, Jafar Shah Phulwari, Intizar Hussain, Kishwar Naheed, Prof Waris Mir, Justice Hamudur Rahman, Jutice S A Rahman, Syed muhammad Qasim Rizvi, Dr Munier u din Chughtai, Professor Ali Abbas, Ali Shabbar Kazmi, Professor Muhammad Usman, Ms Zarina Salamat, Professor Jillani Kamran, Dr Beha ul Haq, Mr Anwar Barkat and many more. You can read their names and designations in the list. The book shows what was in the minds of our intellectuals till late 1960s and finally General Zia fulfilled their desires. Print Line
Table of Contents
List of 177 Intellectuals participated in the Conference
Are we ready to map changes at people’s level in
the Punjab? Post Mughal Punjabi society is a different
story, British Punjab is altogether unusual while post colonial Punjab is also
changing. Let us try to explore Punjabi society in weekly radio show LOK LHAR
with Punjabi NovelistNain
Sukh& Professor Furrukh
Khanof LUMS Click & listen the discussion Radio Show lok Lhar : Social Changes & influences in the Punjabi Society
لوک
لہر 21 دسمبر2015
پنجابی
سماج وچ بدلاﺅ
کدی
سوچیا ہے پئی اساڈے آل دوال دی دنیا کدی بدلدی جارہی ہے؟
بجلی،
ریڈیو، ٹی وی، انٹرنیٹ، فون تے فیر موبائل ایہہ سب 19 ویں صدی دے پنجاب وچ نہیں
ہیگے سن پراج اینہاں تے اینہاں ناں جڑیاں چیزاں توں بغیر زندگی بارے اساں سوچ وی
نہیں سکدے۔
شہری
جندڑی دی چڑھتل دا زمانہ ہے کدی انساں رل مل رہندے سن، جوائنٹ فیملیاں وچ، پر ہن
اڈواڈ۔
اج
دا پنڈ وی بدلیا ہویا ہے۔ کدی کھیتی باڑی تے زراعت معیشت دی جان ہوندی سی پر اج
سارا زور سڑکاں، پلاں تے انڈر پاساں تے ہے۔
کدی
بندہ بندے دا دارو ہوندا سی پر اج دے بندے کول ویلا ہی نہیں؟
ایس
بھاچڑوچ بندہ گواچ گیا ہے؟
کیہہ
پنجابی سماج وچ آون والیاں ایہہ تیزیاں ساڈے حق وچ نیں یا نہیں
ایہہ
سب جانن لئی اساں اج دے پروگرام وچ دو پرونے سدے نیں۔ ہوسکدا ہے اوہ سانوں کوئی
راہ دکھاون۔
اینہاں
سیانیاں وچ اک تے لکھاری نیں تے دوجے پروفیسر صاحب۔
دوناں
دی گلاں سنو تے جے گواچی گاں لبھ جاوے تے مینوں وی دسناں۔
ساڈے
مجمان ایہہ نیں۔
(خالد
محمود (نین سکھ)۔ ایہہ سرگودھے دے نیں تے جا نگلی رہتل بارے وچ نظر رکھدے نیں تے
پنڈورہتل وی اینہاں دی ویکھی ہے۔ لہور بارے اینہاں مادھو لال حسین بارے نویکلا
ناول لکھیا سی ۔ایس وچ تساں لہودی بدلدی کہانی پڑھی ہوسی۔
فرخ
خان ۔ ایہہ سنیہ بسینہ علم یعنی Oral historyدے
جانو نیں۔ ناروال توں لے کے لمز تیک گھاٹ گھاٹ دا پانی پی چکے نیں۔
Learning from Iranian, Turkish & German Experiences
Saudi Arab is among the key players who launched International Sunni Alliance (ISA) along with 34 countries including Turkey and as par announcement it is an alliance to combat infamous ISIS. In many ways the misleading term "Sunni Alliance" is a new trap and KSA may face similar situation as faced by Iran in late 1960s. Interestingly France & Russia will ready to repeat their roles smartly from the other sides of fence. Will Pakistan take his part of the cake like it did during Bhutto times. Inclusion of French influence countries among the list of 34 is also an interesting episode.
Among 34 countries, as reported by Independentincluded the partially-recognised state of Palestine and the tiny African island state of Comoros, with an army of around 500 soldiers. It also include Muslim minority countries like Cote d’Ivoire and Benin with less than 39% and 25% Muslim population. Absence of Afghanistan and Central Asian States (Almost all are Sunni majority countries) also enough to deconstruct so-called "Sunni Alliance". Close ties of KSA and Britain as well as breaking of ice between Iran and US in last three years is an interesting development regarding Change of Players. Out of 59 Muslim countries more than 28 are out from this alliance and majority of these Muslim countries have Sunni majorities. Here i will not deconstruct the misleading terms "Sunni" and "Shia" often used in modern literature mischievously by the researchers, policy makers and think tanks.
In the book Nuclear Iran: The Birth of an Atomic State author narrated the story of Shah of Iran who wanted to become SHO in Middle East with the help of new boss , the US in late 1960s. But the boss appointed its hand pick SHO. Keeping in view legacy of Iran as important player in Central Asia, South Asia and Middle East along with its French connections in Africa the boss was not ready to give him a role of regional power. So in order to defame it, a story of Iranian Atomic Bomb was coined smartly. In response Iran with the help of Bin billa, Qaddafi formed a Muslim Allience of 25 countries known in history as OIC in 1969. But till the 2nd Conference held at Lhore in 1974 Iran was no more among leading countries. That is how KSA got SHO job. To push Iran in further isolation France and Russia (USSR) sponsored sect base revolution which clipped the wings.
If you have fish eye view of power politics of a village then you can easily understand international politics. Nation States (big and small) acts and reacts as par their economic and territorial interests.
The current efforts of KSA will help Turkey as it happened during Yamen crisis. Russians too realized extended role of Turkey and that is why Russia restrained to lip service regarding Jet crisis. KSA can learn from examples of post WW1 Turkey as well as post WW2 Germany & Japan and post 1970 Iran. Since 1923, Turkey prepared herself for internal transformation and similarly Germany played her cards well in 2nd half of 20th century. I wrote some pieces before and you may read them at New alliances are on the way New world alliances are On the Way??
Transformation from Oral to written, Rise of Market and formation of Nation State
Today we cannot think about a world without written Language but in reality at public level written form is a very recent phenomenon. Our ancient & medieval past at people's level was largely surrounded with oral traditions. Memory, Poetry, Dance and Paintings were major forms of expression. But rise of market gradually influenced all phenomenon. Expanded role of the market phenomenon made documentation essential and that was beginning of transformation from oral to written form. Currency and Capital replaced barter system which led to Nation State and it was beginning of new trend; language became lethal weapon and rest is history.
Role of US, Britain, USSR, India, China and our failures
Why we are still reluctant to analysis 1971 events from independent angles. I read many books, papers on that issue. I have a research book (gifted from a Bengali Hindu in 2009 when i visited Bangladesh) which showed a data of 5 million Bengali Hindus who had to migrate from Bangladesh. It was Mujib who introduced an amendment in enemy property law and targeted Bangladeshi Hindus in 1973. What West Pakistani Elite did is also a story which needs attention. Even we did not do much to understand international scene well. It was a time when China was ready to leave its isolation with the help of US. China was neighbor of both wings of Pakistan. What Britain was thinking? Pakistan realized its role till early February 1972 and Pakistan immediately left Common Wealth. International power brokers had an eye on cross border activities of India yet they kept silence due to other reasons. Newly formed Bangladeshi government and Indian PM Indra announced trial of Pakistani officers but they remained reluctant to do that. Bangalis living in West Pakistan were the major concern of Mujib Government along with China's veto of Bangladeshi membership in UN. Finally both India and Mujib retreated due to successive diplomacy of ZAB. In 2009 i met 4 people who were founder of freedom museum , created in 1996. They told me that including Mjib no government had interest in freedom movement of Bengalis against West Pakistan and we created the museum on our own. I did many interviews there, published few in Awami Jumhori Forum (People's Democratic Forum), A left journal of Lhore and Kamal Lohani explained how some West Pakistani officers strengthen Mujib and Awami League against Mollana Bhashani.The story is not as simple as we usually perceived in Sub-Continent. Here are few links to understand what was the situation at ground
US Declassified Documents
What was inside politics in US and who was who among various power players. How Pakistan became victim of US-China relations? Why C I A and Nixon were not on same page? Why the year 1971 was important and that is why US rejected support of Shah of Iran in late 1960s?
The diplomat monk
There were numerous players involved in the events of 1971 and they had different reasons for it. Hill tracks of Chittagong was a non Bengali area with Chinese decent yet in post 1972 Sh Mujieb imposed Bengali in their areas.
Less than two weeks before Bangladesh's Independence, the then US President Richard Nixon had called Henry A Kissinger twice on December 4, 1971, asking if warplanes had been sent to Pakistan.
“Did the Jordans [Jordanians] send [the] planes?” Nixon asked his National Security Adviser Kissinger in a second round of conversation that started at 12:15pm.
“17”, replied Kissinger.
Pakistan President Yahya Khan had “urgently” appealed to Jordan for a number of warplanes in the wake of the US congress amending the Foreign Assistance Act at the end of July to prevent the administration from giving Pakistan military assistance.
The US did not want to provide Pakistan with military assistance even under the “one-time exception” policy it had made in October 1970.
At that time the Jordanian military had a fleet of US-made Lockheed F-104 starfighters.
Nonetheless, Nixon and Kissinger continued to exert their influence to get military and economic assistance for Pakistan.
ADVERTISEMENT
Nixon did it for an obvious reason as US Senator Case put it in a question, “Did the US make any commitment to Pakistan on military assistance in connection with the arrangement for your [Nixon's] visit to Peking?”
The senator was quoted by National Security Council staff Harold H Saunders on his memo on “Military Assistance to Pakistan and the Trip to Peking” for Kissinger on July 19, 1971. The diplomatic relations of the US with China had been cut off for 25 years then.
Nixon successfully turned the Bangladesh war into an opportunity for the US to resume diplomatic relations with China.
Supporting Pakistan in the war provided Kissinger and Chinese Ambassador in Paris Huang Chan with a solid ground to initiate their discussion at their meeting on August 16. The meeting was arranged to schedule separate visits for Nixon and Kissinger to China.
“We are prevented by congress from giving military assistance but we understand it if other friends of Pakistan will give them the equipment they need,” Kissinger told Chan.
“Indian skilful propaganda” made “it next to impossible to continue military supply to Pakistan”, Kissinger continued.
“I told Huang that we would understand the furnishing of military equipment by the PRC [People's Republic of China] to Pakistan [they are doing it anyway].” Kissinger reported to Nixon about the meeting.
Kissinger also shared with Nixon Chan's view of India as “obviously interfering in the internal affairs of Pakistan and is carrying out subversive actions”.
The Paris meeting occurred over a month after Kissinger visited New Delhi on July 7, 1971.
“With [Indian] Foreign Minister Singh [Swaran Singh], I began the conversation by saying I felt I owed him as a point of honour an explanation of developments in regard to arms shipments for Pakistan since his visit to Washington,” reported Kissinger about his visit to Daniel J Murphy, military assistant to the secretary of defence.
Kissinger did meet Indian Prime Minister Indira Gandhi. “I took the same general line on India's importance without going into as much detail on the arms shipments,” he reported.
It is, perhaps, because of his awareness of the letter Gandhi had written to Nixon on August 9.
“Our government is greatly embarrassed that soon after our foreign minister's return from his Washington visit and despite the statements made by ambassador Keating in Bombay on April 16th and by the state departments spokesman on April 15th came the news of fresh supplies of US arms to Pakistan,” wrote Indira Gandhi.
Since the 1965 India-Pakistan war, the US refused to “supply or to license the export of lethal end-items for Pakistan” until “the so-called one-time exception” policy was made just ahead of 1971 war, in October 1970.
Under the exception, the US agreed to supply Pakistan with “300 armoured personnel carriers and approximately 20 aircraft”.
This arms dealing was dubbed “State Department's deception” by some US congress members.
Kissinger's memo on “Policy Options Toward Pakistan” for Nixon, prepared on April 28, 1971, was a proof. His first option was “Supporting whatever political and military program President Yahya chooses to pursue in the East”.
The second option was “On military assistance, we would have to defer all deliveries of ammunition, death-dealing equipment and spare parts…”.
Still, Kissinger asserted, “Our military supply, while relatively small and unlikely to affect the outcome of the fighting, is an important symbolic element in our posture.”
The symbolic element did have a “selective genocidal” impact on the people of East Pakistan (now Bangladesh), according to a March 29, 1971, telegram sent by Archer Kent Blood, then US consul general in Dhaka.
“Appalled At Possibility These Atrocities Are Being Committed With American Equipment,” the telegram's first few sentences included.
Two days later, on March 31, in another cable titled “Army Terror Campaign Continues in Dacca…”, Blood reported seeing “Two F-86's” taking off in the direction of Pabna following an Army Radio broadcast of Pakistani military facing some resistance there”.
The F-86, known as North American Sabre, is best known as the United States' first swept wing fighter.
However, the quantity of war weapons the US had supplied to the Pakistan military could not be known.
Still, on July 7, over lunch with “high level” dignitaries in New Delhi, Kissinger expressed his belief, “…$20 million of arms shipments…” “…would be forgotten in a couple of years.”
----------------------------------------
The diplomat monk
The Buddhist envoy who 'just cried in front of people abroad for Bangladesh' in 1971
For someone who all his life has believed and preached that Ahimsa Paramo Dharma or non-violence is the ultimate dharma, it is not easy to take up arms and go to war.
So, Pundit Ven Sangharaja Jyotipal Mohathero, after leaving the motherland for India like millions of others in April 1971, was looking for some other way to do something for the liberation of Bangladesh.
The Buddhist Bhikkhu (monk) found his path after he came to know that some of his close acquaintances in Laksam of Comilla were murdered by the Pakistan army.
He decided to launch a campaign among Buddhist countries to expose the Pakistan barbarity and drum up support for the cause of Bangalees.
As a representative of war-time Bangladesh government, he travelled to Sri Lanka, Thailand and Japan. During the high-profile visits, he never gave up his way of life as a Buddhist monk. Whenever abroad, he stayed in temples.
His campaign helped prove to the world that the spirit of the Bangalees' war was non-communal and people irrespective of religion and belief had stood up against the Pakistan occupation forces.
Apart from campaigning, Jyotipal used to visit Buddhists in different refugee camps to deliver speeches to boost their morale and teach them how to pass through such a difficult time.
ADVERTISEMENT
However, it took four decades for the state to honour the Buddhist monk for his role in the Liberation War. Jyotipal Mohathero was given Ekushey Award in 2010 and Independence Award in 2011 but both posthumously.
Born in Laksam in 1914, Jyotipal Mohathero was known to Pakistan government as he was elected president of Bouddha Kristi Prochar Sangha. He was also respected for different social activities like setting up schools and orphanages.
The orphanage he set up at Baria Gaon in Laksam was opened to refugees, including Muslims and Hindus, from the end of March until he left for India. He used to collect food and medicines from different sources for the sick refugees.
For all this he was blacklisted by the Pakistan military. The occupation force was annoyed with him as he dedicated his two books to persons who had left the country for India in early days of the war.
The Pakistan army moved to pick him up on April 16 but failed as freedom fighters had broken the bridge on their way to the village.
When he heard that the military was after him, he left his temple with the help of his students and reached Agartala on April 19.
It was in Agartala he learnt about the killing of some of his fellows and decided to launch his campaign.
On April 22, Jyotipal called Gopal Bhushan Chakma, an Indian government employee and his follower, and expressed his willingness to hold a press conference on East Pakistan crisis. Gopal invited journalists including reporters of Akash Bani, Ananda Bazar and Jugantor and correspondents of the foreign media.
At the press conference at Prachya Vidya Bihar, a monastery of Agartala, he described how Pakistan army was conducting genocide, burning houses and torturing women.
Sree Jyotipal Mohathero hands over $2,000 to then prime minister Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman to help the flood victims in 1974. Photo: Scan from Bangladesh Mukti Songrame
As a religious figure he got attention from journalists and the next day, international media published his interview with high priority. Akash Bani and Swadhin Bangla Betar Kendra repeatedly broadcast it.
The Mujibnagar government realised that the Buddhist monk would be the right person to persuade the Buddhist countries to recognise the new nation. Besides, he could inform the global Buddhist community about the Pakistan army's atrocities.
Bangladesh mission officials, especially Zahur Ahmed Chowdhury, HT Imam and Akbar Ali Khan, started a regular communication with the monk on behalf of the government.
Jyotipal issued another statement with updates on Pakistan army's brutalities and sent it through telegram to UN secretary general U Thant; Sri Lankan prime minister Sirimavo Bandaranaike; president and general secretary of World Fellowship of Buddhists and officials of Bouddha Sobhatritto Sangha.
Jyotipal got the results of his endeavour within a few days. The government of Sri Lanka and religious organisation World Fellowship of Buddhists expressed their worry over the situation in Bangladesh.
After this he took four more Buddhist monks with him and wrote a joint statement on May 12 as eyewitnesses of the massive torture by the Pakistan army.
At about the same time, Dhaka Betar, which was being operated by Pakistan junta, claimed said that the information of the Akash Bani and Swadhin Bangla Betar Kendra over the war was totally wrong.
To verify the statements of the Buddhist monks and others, a delegation of 35 foreign journalists came to Agartala. They especially sat with the Buddhist monks and recorded Jyotipal's speech.
This trip of journalists played a great role in exposing Pakistan Army's mayhem on innocent Bangalees, including minority community people. After this, International Buddhist community urged the Pakistan government to stop the attacks immediately.
To counter the statements of Jyotipal and his team, some pro-junta Buddhists claimed that their community had been living in East Pakistan peacefully. They alleged that monk Jyotipal had introduced Hindu refugees as Buddhists to foreign visitors.
In response, Jyotipal made an intelligent move. He told the Indian government as well as Bangladesh mission that he would like to set up a separate camp of Buddhist refugees so that the foreigners could identify them easily.
After getting nod, he built the camp at Tota Bari hill and at its entrance of he put up a signboard reading “Bouddha”.
This intelligent move established him as a vital figure in diplomatic campaigns for the Liberation War. Indian and Mujibnagar government decided to send him to Buddhist countries. He went to Delhi on July 8 and started preparation for campaign abroad.
On July 21, Jyotipal and another Buddhist activist Ven Sridharma Birio met Indian Prime Minister Indira Gandhi. She listened to them and before leaving said, "I am thinking what is to be done."
In the meantime, Bangladesh High Commission offered a fresh passport to him but under a different name. The Buddhist monk did not agree to accept the offer. Later, the high commission issued his passport using just one part of the name, Jyotipal.
Jyotipal and advocate Fakir Sahabuddin left for Sri Lanka from Delhi on August 7.
In Colombo, they got extensive support from the Ceylon Committee for Human Rights in East Bengal which had been working in favour of the Liberation War from the very beginning.
The committee had arranged two conferences where the two delegates presented the full picture of East Pakistan.
In five days, the duo met educationists, scholars, chiefs of the different government offices and Sri Lanka Buddhist Congress president Bipula Sar Thero, ministers and others.
The visit was extensively covered by all the news papers of the country.
On the last day of visit, they met five lawmakers in the Ganoparishad Bhaban where they described the total situation and requested them to stop the flying of Paksitani aircraft which in the guise of passenger planes were carrying soldiers and arms through Sri Lanka. It was only one flight route which was open for Pakistan to enter East Pakistan.
The lawmakers wrote a letter to Sirimavo Bandaranaike to take action in this regard.
Next day, after boarding his plane for Thailand, Jyotipal saw in the newspaper that the Sri Lankan government had restricted Pakistan aircraft landing in their airport. It was a huge setback for the Pakistan government.
The delegates reached Bangkok on August 11 and got extensive support from Bishwa Buddha Sobhatritto Sangha by sending messages to the Buddhist countries including China, Japan, Korea, Hong Kong, Vietnam, Louse, Nepal, Bhutan, and headquarters of Asia Buddhist Peace Conference in Mongolia.
After getting the message of the Sangha, Bhutan government sent a letter to Jyotipal thanking him for informing it the actual situation. The kingdom of Bhutan on December 6, 1971 became the first country to recognise Bangladesh.
From Thailand, the two-man team went to Japan on August 16. There, an organisation named Bangladesh Liberation Committee helped them a lot. It was led by a Japanese named Dr Prof Nara, who could speak Bangla.
Famous English daily The Mainchi and Japanese- Language newspaper Chugai Nip published interview of Jyotipal and Sahabuddin.
The two worked in Japan for seven days. Jyotipal then came back to India to participate in an international conference on behalf of Bangladesh. Sahabuddin went to Hong Kong, Malaysia and Singapore for campaigning.
After the conference, the monk came to his camp at Agartala on October 8 and stayed there until January 7, 1972. He returned home -- now a sovereign, independent country -- with his fifteen followers.
He was back to his Barai Gaon temple the next day. It was totally ruined by the Pakistan army. His library, which had hundreds of books, was destroyed too.
Jyotipal met Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman at his Dhanmondi residence on January 12. When Bangabandhu hugged Jyotipal and congratulated him, the Buddhist monk just said, “I did nothing for the country. I just cried in front of people abroad for Bangladesh.”
After serving the country and the society for another three decades by establishing many educational institutions and orphanages as well as monasteries, including World Peace Pagoda, Jyotipal Mohathero died on April 12, 2002.
REFERENCE
Books: Bangladesh Mukti Songrame by Sree Jyotipal Mohathero; Jyotirmoy Jyotipal by Prashata Kumar Barua.
12:00 AM, December 10, 2015 / LAST MODIFIED: 12:20 PM, December 12, 2015
PAKISTAN LYING, STILL: WAR CRIMES OF PAK MILITARY OFFICIALS
They did everything to block trial by Bangladesh
Inam Ahmed and Shakhawat Liton
The villainy of ZA Bhutto and his rogue country put Bangladesh at a serious disadvantage when it started preparing for the trial of the 195 War Criminals. As a new country without much international diplomatic clout and its attempts for UN membership vetoed by Pakistan's ally China, Bangladesh had to consider the fate of the Bangladeshis held hostage by Pakistan.
Not only did Pakistan commit genocide during the war of 1971, it acted like a rogue nation and held 203 Bangladeshis hostage as bargaining chips to stop trial of its 195 military officers for war crimes who were held as prisoners of war (POWs).
Besides it launched intensive diplomatic efforts including convincing China to veto Bangladesh's bid for UN membership and appealing to the International Court of Justice to stop trial of the 195 war criminals.
These POWs included one lieutenant general, five major generals, 20 brigadiers, four colonels, 40 lieutenant colonels, 81 majors, 41 captains and two lieutenants.
They included Lt-General Amir Abdullah Khan Niazi and Maj-Generals Nazar Hossain Shah, Mohammad Hossain Ansari, Mohammad Zamshed, Quazi Abdul Mazid Khan and Rao Farman Ali.
Pakistan also would not commit itself to the repatriation of about four lakh Bangalis held there in concentration camps in return for the release of its army officers. The International Rescue Committee (IRC) reported that many Bangladeshis were arrested in Pakistan just for their "alleged intent to leave Pakistan," and thousands were jailed without any charge, The New York Times reported. It also reported that the civilian Bangladeshis in Pakistan were facing serious discrimination and harassment and were being treated as "niggers."
ADVERTISEMENT
Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, who became president of Pakistan through a military coup in late December 1971, played all kinds of dirty tricks and brought in his full weight behind his international influence to block the trial of these military officers held as POWs. His diplomatic villainy blocked recognition of Bangladesh by the UN and other international forums.
After the Pakistan army surrendered to the joint forces of India and Mukti Fouz, some 93,000 Pakistan military men were taken POWs by the Indians who promised them safety and security according to the Geneva Convention. They were moved to India.
In fact, safety of the surrendering troops was a major concern for both Pakistan and India as Bangladesh was still not recognized by most countries and not a signatory to the Geneva Convention. As such fear grew that the surrendered Pakistani soldiers might face the wrath of the freedom fighters.
TRIAL PROCESS OF 195 PAKISTANI SOLDIERS BEGINS
Soon after victory, acting president of Bangladesh Syed Nazrul Islam on December 23, 1971 first declared that Bangladesh would ask India to hand over the Pakistani officers guilty of genocides for trials as war criminals.
This caused grave concern in Pakistan.
A day later, home minister HM Quamaruzzaman announced that Bangladesh had already arrested 30 top Pakistani civilian officials and would soon put them on trial for genocide.
Meanwhile, demand for justice was growing louder in Dhaka and on December 26, widows of seven Bangladeshi officers killed by the Pakistanis asked India to help Bangladesh try the Pakistani soldiers for their crimes. In response, Indian envoy Durga Prasad Dhar said: "India is examining its responsibilities [towards the POWs] under international law."
Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman returned from captivity on January 10, 1972 and announced that the killer Pakistani military men would be tried for war crimes.
Accordingly, the formal plan for trial came on March 29, 1972 when Bangladesh announced it would try some 1,100 Pakistani military prisoners including Niazi and Rao Forman Ali Khan.
A two-tier trial process was planned. National and international jurists to try major war criminals including the Pakistan army and local courts to try other war criminals, as The New York Times reported.
Just ahead of the first Dhaka visit of then Indian Prime Minister Indira Gandhi, India announced it would hand over all military prisoners against whom Bangladesh presented "prima facie cases" of atrocities.
On June 14, 1972, India as a first step towards its commitment agreed to deliver 150 POWs, including Niazi to Bangladesh for the trial.
Events progressed further as on April 17, 1973, Bangladesh and India issued a joint statement where it said “two governments are ready to seek a solution to all humanitarian problems through simultaneous repatriation of Pakistani prisoners of war and civilian internees, except those required by …Bangladesh for trial on criminal charges.”
Bangladesh started getting ready for the trials. For the local collaborators, the Bangladesh Collaborators (Special Tribunals) Order was announced.
But our constitution was amended to include Article 47 (3) in order for the trial of members “of any armed or defence or auxiliary forces” for genocide, crimes against humanity or war crimes. Accordingly, the International Crimes (Tribunals) Act, 1973 was announced on 20 July 1973 to try the 195 Pakistani war criminals.
PAKISTAN REACTS SHARPLY
Pakistan instead of trying its war criminals reacted sharply to Bangladesh's intent to hold trial and did everything including resorting to criminality to stop it.
Zulfikar Ali Bhutto in a statement on May 29, 1973 said if Bangladesh went ahead with the war crimes trials, Bangalis held in Pakistan would also be subjected to tribunals.
“We have no other alternative…We cannot stomach or consent to trials of prisoners of war in Bangladesh. It would cause revulsion here and we have to react accordingly,” he said.
He threatened that “it is now purely up to Mujibur Rahman. If he proceeds on his mad venture (of war trial), it will be the single biggest cause of instability on the subcontinent.”
Bhutto sent a letter to US President Richard Nixon who all along the war had supported Pakistan. “If the 'Bangla Desh' authorities went forward with these trials they would indeed have very serious repercussions in Pakistan,” he wrote. “There are over 400,000 Bengalis in West Pakistan. We have so far succeeded in ensuring that they are not maltreated in any way. But if the projected trials took place, they would generate such bitterness and resentment among our people that irreparable damage might be done to the prospects of establishing normal relations with India and 'Bangla Desh'.”
Bhutto then started visiting different countries to get their support to block the trial. In January 1972, he visited Iran, Turkey, Morocco, Tunisia, Algeria, Libya, Egypt and Syria to win their support in his favour. According to Kessing's Contemporary Archives, these countries favoured Pakistan's point of view and called for negotiations between Pakistan and Bangladesh to end repatriation of POWs without delay.
PAKISTAN GOES TO THE HAGUE
On May 11, 1973, Pakistan went to the International Court of Justice in The Hague with the request that India did not hand over the 195 POWs to Bangladesh.
In its appeal, Pakistan said: “It has an exclusive right to exercise jurisdiction over the 195 Pakistani nationals or any other number, now in Indian custody, and accused of committing acts of genocide in Pakistani territory, by virtue of the application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide of 9 December, 1948, and that no other government or authority is competent to exercise such jurisdiction.”
But when Pakistan and India started negotiating the fate of the 195, Pakistan told The Hague court to remove the case as it was in talks with India.
BHUTTO SEEKS CHINA'S VETO
Bhutto knew it was critical for Bangladesh to get UN membership. His sinister mind started working on how to use this as a trump card to release the 195 POWs.
In a press conference on August 10, 1972, Bhutto said Bangladesh believed "it had a kind of veto over the release of our prisoners."
"There is a veto in our hands also," he said.
Accordingly, Pakistan formally requested China to use its veto power to deprive Bangladesh UN membership. When Bangladesh applied to the United Nations, China cast its veto on August 25, 1972 for the first time in the Security Council. To the glee of Bhutto, Bangladesh was refused UN membership.
Bhutto also said Pakistan would recognise Bangladesh only if its prisoners were released.
In an interview with The New York Times on May 27, 1973, he said if Bangladesh carried out the trial of the 195 Pakistanis, Pakistan would also hold similar tribunals against the Bangladeshis trapped in Pakistan.
"Public opinion will demand trials [of Bangladeshis] here … We know that Bangalis passed on information during the war. There will be specific charges. How many will be tried, I cannot say," Bhutto told NYT.
And then, Pakistan government seized 203 Bengalis as "virtual hostages" for the 195 soldiers.
After much haggling, India and Pakistan signed the Delhi Accord on August 28, 1973for simultaneous repatriation of stranded Bangalis and Pakistanis. But the 203 Bangladesh hostages were kept out the repatriation process as Bangladesh desired to keep the 195 Pakistanis out of the process.
Enraged, Pakistan in the last week of April 1973 issued a statement saying: “Pakistani government rejects the right of the authorities in Dacca to try any among the prisoners of war on criminal charges, because the alleged criminal acts were committed in a part of Pakistan by citizens of Pakistan.”
After about a year of such intense drama, Bangladesh finally agreed to exchange all prisoners including the 195 POWs because it wanted to get back its trapped 4 lakh Bangalis and it also needed UN membership.
Its 203 citizens who were held hostage by Pakistan finally returned on March 24, 1974 in return for the 195 POWs.
Copyright:
Any unauthorised use or reproduction of The Daily Star content for commercial purposes is strictly prohibited and constitutes copyright infringement liable to legal action.----------------------------------------------------------------------------
