(This is part two of a four-part 'December' series that revisits significant historical events and policies, and how the lessons learned from them continue to be of relevance in present-day politics and society. Read part one here.)
Not many Indians, Pakistanis, or Bangladeshis would be familiar with the name Archer Blood. Even fewer would have heard of Scott Butcher. But anyone who has read the seminal book by Gary Bass like the co-author, will acquire a completely different perspective of the events of 1971 that culminated in General A K Niyazi and about 93,000 soldiers of the Pakistan Army laying down arms and surrendering before Lt General Jagjit Singh Aurora of the Indian Army in Dhaka on 16 December 1971.
That moment in history was the finest hour and crowning jewel in the life and career of Indira Gandhi. Her unwaveringly firm stand, her stoic determination despite rebuffs by Western powers and her bold, decisive leadership led to the creation of Bangladesh; albeit after the Pakistani army perpetrated a horrific genocide where millions were brutally killed in cold blood and more than a million women were systematically gang-raped by Pakistani soldiers. Most of the victims were Hindus. The genocide could have been prevented; or stopped soon after it started if Scott Butcher and Archer Blood had their way.
The book The Blood Telegram: Nixon, Kissinger and A Forgotten Genocide reveals in gory detail how US diplomats Blood and Butcher based in the American Consulate in Dhaka tried everything they could, including risking their careers by pleading with their bosses to compel Pakistan to stop the genocide. They sent cables to Washington urging the US to not pursue a “morally bankrupt” foreign policy. No one paid attention and their careers were ruined. Thanks to unflinching help from India, Mujibur Rehman was successful in formally announcing the creation of a sovereign nation called Bangladesh in December 1971. We will come to the details of how that happened in a while.
The US Couldn't Care Less About India
But recalling history is not just about nostalgia. It is also a reminder to starry-eyed Indians who think that the US is a great, trusted, and reliable 21st-century friend and strategic partner of India. No doubt, the US is both a friend and partner right now. But that is because the “national interests” of both India and the US converge on major issues. It would be naive to expect unconditional American help and support when interests will not converge. The events of 1971 are history, but also living testimony to that lesson for Indian policymakers. Back in 1971, the man who really mattered in America after President Richard Nixon was his National Security Advisor Henry Kissinger.
At that time, Nixon and Kissinger were focused on re-engaging with Mao Zedong and China to checkmate the Soviet Union. The Pakistan Army and its military dictator General Yahya Khan were playing a critical role as a secret conduit between the US and China. The US needed Pakistan. That apart, both Nixon and Kissinger had an inexcusable but intense personal dislike towards Indira Gandhi. So the cables sent by Butcher were ignored. The genocide in East Pakistan continued. When Blood persisted, Kissinger ensured he was recalled as Consul General in Dhaka. Kissinger also ensured Blood never got another promotion.
Two ironic things stand out right now: Henry Kissinger has finally died. Anyone who has read The Blood Telegram would not mourn his death and write gushing obituaries the way some have been writing. More ironic is the occasional hectoring that US diplomats and officials still indulge in while lecturing India about 'morals' and 'human rights'. At this moment in history, not only do the interests of India and the US converge, but both nations need each other. India needs American capital, defence supplies and technology to emerge as a $10 trillion economy in a decade with enough military firepower to discourage China. The US needs India to build alternative supply chains to deuce the unsustainable dependence on China.
More importantly, just as it engaged with China to checkmate its adversary and rival Soviet Union, it is deepening its engagement with India to checkmate the current adversary and rival China. As long as both countries are aware of all this and engage with eyes wide open, it is a win-win for both. But just to recall, interests did not converge in the past and may not converge in the future. In fact, there is a divergence right here and now. India prefers Sheikh Hasina and her Awami League to continue ruling Bangladesh. The alternative is Begum Khalida and her party BNP which happily cohabits with Islamist Jihadis, including terror outfits from Pakistan. For some inexplicable reason, the US establishment wants a regime change in Bangladesh. It couldn’t care less about India's concerns.
How Bangladesh Was Created
Right from 14 August 1947, when the new sovereign state of Pakistan was created, East Pakistan looked like an anomaly and an articulate construct. The only common element between the West and East was its adherence to Islam. In all other aspects including culture, cuisine, language and rituals, the two were a world apart. When the ruling class of Pakistan, based mostly out of Punjab, imposed Urdu, the Bengalis in the eastern wing revolted. The simmering tensions exploded after 1970 when Sheikh Mujibur Rehman and his Awami League won the General Elections and Mujibur staked his claim to be the prime minister. Far from accepting the people’s verdict, the PPP (Pakistan People's Party) led by Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto took help from the Army and imprisoned Mujibur.
The uprising began in earnest in East Pakistan as a newly formed “Mukti Bahini” took up arms for an independent country. Violence erupted and a flood of refugees started entering India. The Pakistan Army initially underestimated the extent of the uprising. Full of racist bravado, the Punjabi-dominated Army thought the “cowardly and inferior” Bengalis were just a nuisance. But the Mukti Bahini warriors proved to be a far bigger menace. Confident that the US and its allies would conveniently look the other way, the Pakistani Army decided to teach a lesson that “Bengalis” would remember for generations to come. Amidst all this, Blood and his junior colleagues at the Dhaka Consulate were sending cables to Washington warning of a fearful bloodshed. Their cables were ignored.
By early March 1971, Pakistan had lost its grip over the eastern wing. Massive protests had paralysed governance. The rebels kept attacking army personnel every now and then. The call for Bangladesh started growing in resonance. There was a clear divide between Bengali-speaking folks who were bent upon a separate nation and a minority of Bengalis who still supported Pakistan plus the “Urdu-speaking Razakars” who were willing to kill and die for Pakistan. For two weeks in March 1971, violence between the two groups intensified with the Razakars getting a taste of their own medicine.
The military brass in Rawalpindi decided enough was enough. General Tikka Khan was despatched to Dhaka to earn fame in history books as the “Butcher of Bengal”. On the intervening night of 25 March 1971, Operation Searchlight was launched after Mujibur Rehman was arrested and sent to West Pakistan. What followed was a carnage and genocide that went on till 16 December when the Pakistani army surrendered to India.
In those nine months, Pakistani soldiers with the active assistance of local Razakars brutally murdered between one million and three million Bengalis. Imams and Maulvis in Pakistan issued fatwas that deemed Hindu Bengali girls and women as “booty of war”. What followed was orchestrated gang rapes of mostly Hindu females not seen anywhere in the world in the 20th century; not even when the Jews were being massacred by the Nazis before, during and after the Second World War. In about 12 years, Hitler and his gang managed to kill six million Jews. Yahya Khan, Tikka Khan and their comrades killed three million in less than a year. But since the US is guilty of supporting this genocide, you won't find much mention of this in Western media, academia or history books.
The Stakes Continue to be High for India
In all this, Indira Gandhi stood alone. As refugees kept pouring in to escape rape and death, India found it almost impossible to cope with the situation. The crisis was unprecedented. Yet, America and her allies ignored the horrific genocide. Indira travelled to every Western capital to seek humanitarian intervention with no success.
During her trip to Washington, Nixon and Kissinger made it a point to abuse and try to humiliate her. But then she herself was a woman of iron and steel. She had already signed a Treaty with the Soviet Union in anticipation of war. And she got down to discussing the contours of the imminent war with General Sam Manekshaw, often defying his military advice.
Even before the third Indo-Pak war officially started in the first week of December, armed forces personnel of India had been helping the Mukti Bahini rebels. When the war did start, Lt General JFR Jacob, a Jew whose family had come from Iraq to India to flee persecution, was the Chief of Staff of the Eastern Command of the Indian Army whose task was to use military force to “create” Bangladesh. He and his fellow warriors did a brilliant job. Bangladesh became a reality on 16 December 1971.
There is so much to write on this that the authors can fill up a book. But then this a column. So let's end here with a note of irony. Even after Bangladesh became a reality, Pakistanis used to mock and deride it as a basket case. It was a basket case for a long time after it became a sovereign state, full of poverty, cyclones and military coups. But Bangladeshis have had the last laugh. The per capita income of Bangladesh is now about 50 per cent higher than that of Pakistan. But for India, the stakes are higher.
As mentioned earlier, for some inexplicable reason, the US establishment wants a regime change in Bangladesh and is even sanctioning and cancelling visas of Bangladeshis loyal to Sheikh Hasina whose father Mujibur was assassinated along with almost his entire family in 1975. If Sheikh Hasina and her party lose power, it is the “Islamist” BNP that wield real power, no matter who becomes prime minister. For India, that would be a nightmare. The only saving grace: the US is still ignoring Indian interests, but not as spitefully and as diabolically as Henry Kissinger did in the run-up to 16 December 1971.
(Yashwant Deshmukh & Sutanu Guru work with the CVoter Foundation. This is an opinion piece and the views expressed are the authors' own. The Quint neither endorses nor is responsible for them.)
(At The Quint, we question everything. Play an active role in shaping our journalism by becoming a member today.)