Genocide that time forgot

by Dilwar H Chowdhury
Blood Telegram
GARY J Bass in his recently published book, Blood Telegram: Nixon, Kissinger, and a Forgotten Genocide, maintains that the 1971
genocide in East Pakistan had all the features of holocaust except gas chamber. The Bangladesh genocide is not, however, the act
of one single mad man like Hitler. It had a larger scope that time forgot. Bass, an investigative American historian, chronicles in his
book some hitherto little known stories about the role American president Richard Nixon and his security adviser Henry Kissinger
played, backing this genocide. The book is based primarily on recently declassified White House and US Congress documents and
tape recording. Written from national perspective the book invokes American conscience.
I come from an age group that witnessed the genocide taking place. Indeed, many more witnessed it like me and wondered why
the American government, supposedly the bastion of the free world and liberty, embraced an autocrat Yahya and his act of
genocide. On the contrary, the USSR, allegedly the godparent of autocracy and communism, opposed it. The book exposes a
dreadful history of Cold War struggle for supremacy, defying conscience and humanity. It exposes the insatiable power hunger of
Nixon and Kissinger on the one hand and illustrates true patriotic character of another American, Archer Blood, the US consul
general in Dhaka.
Blood Telegram symbolises messages sent by Archer Blood to the US state department, bringing up the genocide and atrocities by
the Pakistan army in East Pakistan. Ironically, the consul generals last name, Blood, became synonymous with blood that was
spilled there. Anne-Marie Slaughter, professor of political science and international affairs at Princeton University, wrote in her
review of the book, Gary Bass has done it again, uncovering dark chapter in the historical record and binging it vividly to light,
forcing us to confront who we were then and who we are now. This is the magnificence of American democracy. Performance of a
government or a president in power always remains under microscopic scrutiny.
Blood Telegram, besides being the outcry of a conscientious person, leaves something for us to think about: Have we as a nation
only wailed over the genocide or also have despised the culture that caused this brutality? Are we able to critically examine the
roles religious leaders played and how others, neither of Bengali origin nor Muslim acted for the sake of humanity or for their moral
values?
Mere review of this book, analysis of events and an appraisal of American democratic culture are not the purpose of my inquiry. My
objective is to find out if our 1971 war and consequent genocide had any effect on our own moral and spiritual outlook as a nation.
However, findings in the book, Cold War scenario and regional geopolitical situation deserve occasional reference.
Blood sent a stream of telegrams listing atrocities and killing in Dhaka University on the 26th night and the mass graves. Bloods
telegrams stirred Nixon and Kissinger. They did not like to offend their Cold War ally Pakistan and its president Yahya. They tried
restraining Blood but he continued with his insistent telegrams upholding his position that genocide was in progress. Blood even
underscored that after the killing had begun Bengalis wrote off Pakistan from their mind. Nixon and Kissinger cautioned him against
befriending awful Bengalis. In defiance, he befriended one freedom fighter.
During the November 1970 Thanksgiving retreat at Camp David, Nixon wrote in his 1971-72 goals, President as moral leader ...
conscience of the nation. He had to resign on an immoral act of eavesdropping in 1974 and showed no sign of conscience while
his best friend and ally committed genocide.
China and the USSR had varying ideological and geopolitical goals. Nixon and Kissinger wanted to befriend China to balance the
USSRs regional influence. China and India fought a war in 1962 over a border dispute, while India and Pakistan fought a war on
Kashmir in 1965. Like enemys enemy is a friend, China and Pakistan were in decent terms. The United States could no longer
sustain Vietnam War and coming to terms with China was the only way to an honourable exit. Nixon and Kissinger considered
Pakistan and Yahya to be the best conduit of stealthy negotiations with China. Thus, they traded off China entry with Bengali
genocide. This is the real variation of American democracy. As Ronald Reagan, the 40th US president, articulated this in his first
inaugural speech, Government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem. Contrary to government position,
the general American public, media and mainstream administration largely opposed the genocide, Archer Blood being one of

those. Edward Kennedy, who led the outcry in the Senate declared, The story of East Bengal will surely be written as one of the
nightmares of modern times. Nixon and Kissinger continued their unyielding backing by delivering arms, ammunition, warhead and
aircraft to Pakistan.
Blood had all career incentive to keep quiet like Joseph S Farland, American ambassador in Islamabad, did. But he chose
otherwise. Nixon and Kissinger considered this as disloyalty and vowed revenge. In 1974 Nixon fell in Watergate scandal and
Kissinger outlived him by becoming the secretary of state under Gerald Ford. He blocked Bloods career path. Blood, frustrated
and saddened, decided to retire in 1982. His wife Margaret lamented that he was giving up a career he so wanted and the malice
had changed his lifes goal. Blood died in 2004 at the age of eighty-one. After his death the US embassy in Dhaka named its library
after him. Margaret commented, He was not robbed of everything, as they would have liked. Sadly enough, Blood was not there to
see the tribute paid to his work and valour. At least, he was honoured in the land that he adored.
Blood validated American freedom of speech. Do we esteem his love for Bengali or also value the spirit behind it? Is this not a
regular feature in our country to persecute journalist or for that matter anyone who voices a true story. Is it not a fact that we bully
foreign journalists for any objective review of our countrys policies or even ban the journal where it is published? Alas, we have to
count on someone else like Blood to use the liberal values of his countrys democracy to bare the truth. As if we are going to
excuse that our conscience had also been butchered by the Pakistan army. Our constitution guarantees freedom of expression,
movement and assembly. People vote a government to power to at least safeguard these fundamental rights. But how often
successive governments had destroyed the rights? The baton of power relay race only changed hands from Pakistani lords to
Bengali lords. Indeed, the successive elected governments never demonstrated that they are the solution to our moral problem. In
the word of Reagan, government is the problem. Do we have check and balances in place like the UK, US or other countries
practising liberal values of democracy?
A cruel turn of history
AT THIS stage, it is important to evaluate how much of Pakistan legacy we carry with us. Bangladesh came into being by a cruel
turn of history. Bangladesh is here because Pakistan was there. Suggesting that disintegration of Pakistan was inherent in the very
governmental organisation of the country. To understand its full significance, we must retract the trails leading to creation of
Pakistan and aftermath.
When Mohammad Ali Jinnah parted with the Congress and demanded a separate Muslims state from British rulers under a twonation theory, he encountered both agreement and disagreement from Muslims leaders of India. Dr Allama Iqbal, a lawyer and
philosopher and by passion a poet, aligned with Jinnah. Both Iqbal and Jinnah were highly educated and influenced by liberal
values of western democracy. Jinnah was secular while Iqbal religious. Abdul Gaffar Khan, spiritual and political leader of North
West Frontier Province, outright refuted Jinnahs theory. Hussian Ahmed Madani, a scholar from Deoband Dar-ul-ulum and leader
of Jamiat-e- ulamai Hind, was also critical of Jinnahs idea and contended that Pakistan, rather than protecting Islamic faith, will
endanger it. He contended that Prophet Muhammad (PBH) ruled Medina in the early days of Islam, under Medina constitution or
Medina Charter with Muslim, Christians, Jews and Pagans as parties to it. A similar charter could be feasible for India as well, he
claimed. Moulana Abul Kalam Azad, a Congress leader, rejected the idea of Jinnahs two-nation theory and remained in Congress.
Moulana Abul Ala Moududi, leader of Jamaat-e-Islami, supported Jinnahs theory but rejected his leadership. Jinnah was an Ismaili,
loving western attire and mannerism. His mentor was Dadabhai Naoroji, a prominent Indian political figure and from Persi
community. Moudodi thought Jinnah too un-Islamic to be the leader of a Muslim state. Moududi, however, migrated to Lahore as
Pakistan came into being. Among the Bengali leadership, AK Fazlul Huq, HS Suhrawardy, Maulana Bhashani, Khawaja
Nazimuddin and Nurul Amin were prominent. Being Muslim Leaguers Nazimuddin and Nurul Amin were acting as the extended
hand of the Muslim League headquartered in West Pakistan. However, none of them had any kind of religious obsession. Ethnicity
in Pakistan was: Bengali 56 per cent, Punjabi 25 per cent, Sindhi, Baloch and Pathan together 15 per cent and Urdu-speaking 4
per cent.
India, on the other hand, had 52 languages, numerous ethnic traditions and diverse indigenous customs, caste system,
untouchability, etc. Indias founding fathers were conscious of the challenges. India adopted its constitution within two years of
independence. Pakistan took nine years to do the same thing and within two years time the constitution was abrogated by Ayub
Khan imposing martial law in 1958. During the eleven years preceding martial law there were seven prime ministers. One

assassinated, one dismissed by illegitimate application of law by the president and upheld by chief Justice Munir under his
infamous judgment called Doctrine of Necessity. Another prime minister was thrown out within two months of assuming office and
yet another could not withstand the stress and died of heart attack. Seven prime ministers held office by an average of one year six
months.
Luis Mountbatten commonly called Lord Mountbatten was the last viceroy of British India. Pakistan could potentially appoint him as
the first governor general of the new state and could get the best of his experience and thus make an orderly beginning.
Mountbatten gave the first right of refusal to Pakistan but was rebuffed. India quickly grabbed the opportunity and appointed him
the first governor general. Lord Mountbatten came from the British Royal family, he had experience and influence. Thus, India
carried his weight along and was able to make a very orderly beginning. Pakistan appointed Jinnah as the first governor general,
knowing full well that his days were numbered. He developed respiratory problem (suspected lung cancer) and passed away the
following year. By then Pakistan was already under the grip of Punjabi feudal lords and bureaucrats turned politicians and army
powerbrokers. Many of the subsequent governor generals and the prime ministers came from that clique.
Initially Pakistan was being governed under the India Act 1935, a set of rules formulated by the departing British rulers, by no
means adequate to run a country and particularly two wings separated by one thousand miles of Indian Territory. The government
essentially was in the hands of the clique. East Pakistan in particular was ruled by its chief secretary, Aziz Ahmed. In 1948, Jinnah
paid his supposed farewell visit to East Pakistan. Seeing Jinnah afflicted by life reducing disease, grown irate and prone to
judgemental mistakes, Aziz Ahmed used the opportunity to implement the grand scheme of his mentors in West Pakistan. He
induced Jinnah to declare, Urdu and Urdu shall be the national language of Pakistan, which was then spoken by four percent of
countrys population and we all know about the aftermath. In two years time Nawabzada Liaqut Ali Khan, a dignified nawab turned
politician, the first prime minister was assassinated. He was an ardent follower of Jinnah with secular leaning and was the last hope
of Pakistans democracy and also the last hurdle for the clique to remove. Sensible Pakistanis wailed that democracy in Pakistan
and its prime minister were slaughtered by a single bullet. The mystery was never unravelled.
By this time numerous parochial forces cropped up, Moududi and his Jamaat-e-Islami being one of those forces. They branded
East Pakistani Bengalis as too much Bengali and too little Islamic. In 1953 Moududi incited a communal riot in Lahore against the
Quadiani sect of religious faith and tens of thousands of innocent people died. A military court found him guilty of murderous
activities and sentenced him to death. This was commuted to life term and soon thereafter pardoned even without being asked for
it.
People, seeing the oddities of a country separated by thousand miles of hostile territory and no common goal, yet claiming to be
united used to joke that Pakistan was together by, Islam, English and Pakistan International Airlines. Now, with the turn of events,
English replaced by Urdu and Moududi and his likeminded parties alienating Bengalis as less Islamic, the solitary survivor was,
PIA. Even PIAs roaring engines could not prevent emotional gap from widening. Once genocide had begun, the PIA link was
abundantly used for transportation of killer troops to the East. When hostility broke out India banned over-flights and because of
detour the gulf between East and West Pakistan increased several folds depending on which route the journey took. All flights,
however, remained fraught with danger of being shot down. Soon in the minds of the travellers, the acronym PIA transformed to an
anxious musing, Perhaps I Arrive.
General Sherman, a famous army commander in American Civil War, reflected, War is cruelty, and you cannot refine it. In the
Bangladesh war there had been cruelties from both sides, only scales differed. Many Biharis lost their lives as a result. And indeed,
you could not refine it.
Indian episode
THE American ambassador to Delhi, Kenneth Keating, supported Bloods viewpoint while Joseph S Farland, American
ambassador to Islamabad and immediate boss of Blood, refuted it. Farland was a great buddy of Yahya Khan, boozing together in
privacy. Farland believed Bengali Muslims and Hindus of India could not sustain any major hostility against Pakistan. Asked why he
believed so, he mused to Yahya in his ecstasy following the booze, You see one worships cow and the other eats it. Both laughed.
Contrary to Farlands theories, there was no such episode in India. Bengalis were well accepted. All political parties Congress and
non-congress alike rallied behind Indira Ghandi. Even her stark critique Jayaprakash Narayan, a pacifist, urged Indira to attack
Pakistan to stop the influx of refugees. It was no fun for India to lodge a war. It fought the China war in 1962 and the Pakistan war

in 1965. It was still reeling under the affliction of war. Besides, it had rising inflation and poverty was not within control. It was
overwhelmed by influx of refugees that soon rose to ten million. Food, shelter and drinking water for them were the challenges.
With the hostility rising between Pakistan and India, the US government threatened to stop economic aid and indeed slowed down
the aid. India appealed to the western world with no luck. The United Nations also was less than helpful. To feed ten million
refugees India needed about $900 million for one year. It could hardly muster $300 million.
In the backdrop of all these hardships, Indias founding fathers had already set long-term national goals in respect of education,
infrastructure, underprivileged community, research and development, agriculture and provision of appropriate law. True it is that
India had the cast system but it remained or remains at community levels, never undermining countrys national perspective.
Results of such vision were unfolding and especially as time passed it became more apparent. John Kenneth Galbraith, professor
of economics at Harvard University and later ambassador to India from 1961-1963, intrigued by these two countries, made a
profound study on the socio-economic perspective of these two countries. According his study, India aimed at austerity and
sustainable developments while Pakistan preferred a high cost high living society. We shall examine at a later stage how much of
these Pakistani traits had perpetrated our national aims.
Role of Muslim ummah
UMMAH in Arabic means collective community of Islamic people. In that sense, Ummah defies national boundaries. In 1971 there
were about forty countries with predominant Muslim population. Prominent among them were, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Syria,
Pakistan, Iran, Iraq, Turkey, Jordan, Algeria, Morocco, Indonesia, and Libya. Some of these countries were members of SEATO
and CENTO. India was not in that fold. India and Egypt were two very active participants of the Non-Aligned Movement. When
hostility broke out, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan, Iran and Turkey rallied behind Pakistan. Jordan and Iran even supplied combat
aircrafts and arms to Pakistan. It became apparent that geopolitical goals were predominant rather than Islamic Ummah, i.e.
consideration for Muslims in East Pakistan who were butchered. India was isolated by the so-called Islamic states. A resolution
hatched by the Nixon administration was brought to the UN General Assembly condemning Indian aggression. All the Islamic
countries voted for the resolution. They never spoke a word against Pakistani genocide, let alone condemning it.
Interestingly, Israel, an ally of the US, openly supported India and condemned Pakistani genocide. Israel politically recognised
Bangladesh statehood well before India did on December 6, 1971. The horror of holocaust still looming in their minds, Israelis
thought another holocaust was in progress. The orthodox Jews pressed the government to renounce the brutality. Incidentally, at a
much later date, the orthodox Jews staged a similar protest rally in Manhattan and lobbied with the US Congress against Bosnian
genocide and ethnic cleansing, resulting in a stern American action, that saved many Muslim lives. Kissinger, himself a Jew and
refugee migrant form Hitlers Germany had little in common with these Jews. General Jacob-farj-Rafael Jacob, chief of army staff,
Indian Eastern Command, a Jew whose family was the victim of holocaust in
Germany and migrated to India, vowed to thwart the Bengali genocide.
Conclusion
BANGLADESH is an offshoot of Pakistani craziness. West Pakistanis accepted
Bengalis as their fellow citizen and in the same breath branded them as lesser
beings. People of West Pakistan in the position of responsibility had very low level
of understanding. Nixon and Kissinger once suggested to Yahya that by destroying
East Pakistani resistance and winning the civil war he could leave a legacy same
as that of Abraham Lincoln. Yahya felt flattered. Lincoln emancipated the
oppressed and Yahya was oppressing the oppressed on behalf of the oppressors. Such was the craziness of the ruling clique that
they entrusted Yahya, who was alleged to begin his day with a sip of Black Dog whiskey and end his day in vulgarities, with the
mission of protecting Pakistan and Islam. As Yahiys doomsday was in sight, he vowed to fight to the life of last Muslim to save
Islam and Pakistan. Right across the border, three Indian generals, Manekshaw, Jacob and Aurora, sworn to save the rest of
Bengalis in East Pakistan. One was a Parsi, one a Jew the other a Sikh.
Purpose of reviving this story is to underscore the recurrence of same episode in Bangladesh. Successive governments have
alienated the righteous and honourable citizens and elevated the people with no moral standing. Greek political philosopher Plato
said 2500 years back, The price good men pay for indifference to public affairs is to be ruled by evil men. In 1954 the East Pakistan
Assembly contained 97 per cent of its members with legal background and a high level of understanding and now in Bangladesh
only about three per cent of legislators have similar level of political grooming to execute their lawmaking responsibilities. Good,
conscientious and honourable people feel insecure to participate in public affairs. So, many good men were driven out of politics and
public life to be replaced by evils. Great numbers of honourable and internationally acclaimed personalities are being persecuted

and crooks being acclaimed as patriots.

The wage-earners of Bangladesh bring in a staggering sum of foreign exchange every year. Annual trade statistics reveals that
significant portion of that is spent on import of luxuries. Foreign exchange earned by East Pakistani jute export and UK expatriate in
the 1960s were spent in creation of extravagances of Islamabad. By all indications Pakistani pattern of high cost high living society
was replicated in our society shunning austerity. The spirit of 1971 sacrifice created spectres of vulgar prodigals of our present
society.
Nixon, during one of his state department briefings, remarked, Pakistanis are straightforward and sometimes extremely stupid. We
inherited a share of that trait. We still quarrel, who declared independence, without realising we are an independent country already.
We need soul searching: if we really shunned a land of shame and sorrow and sought a land of principle and pride in Bangladesh or
its advent is only a cruel product of history.
Dilwar H Choudhury is a career banker and now retired. He worked under a multicultural environment in eight countries