The 1971 Bangladesh crisis which emerged from political chaos into a civil war leading to Indian military intervention for the liberation of East Pakistan into the new country of Bangladesh was a monumental event in the history of the South Asian sub-continent. The 1970 elections in then united Pakistan clearly were a victory for Mujib ur Rehman's Awami League in East Pakistan, and rightfully he should have been invited by the then President, General Yahya Khan to form the government. Instead political pressures and the reluctance of both Yahya and Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, the leader of the People's Party who won in West Pakistan, (but not enough to form a majority government) led to a confrontation between the Bengali people of East Pakistan and the military, which was predominantly from West Pakistan.
The resulting civil war and the killings on both sides were barbarian to say the least. The resentment within the Bengali people of East Pakistan had been brewing for decades before as they considered themselves are second class citizens and were in a sense alienated from the mainstream of Pakistan political structure. This is all the more surprising as during the period of the struggle for an Independent Pakistan, in the 1940's, it was the more politically minded Bangalis of what became East Pakistan were were staunch supporters of Mohammed Ali Jinnah, the founder of Pakistan.
India's intervention into East Pakistan was justified on the basis of helping the Bengali people achieve independence and put an end to the civil war. These were considered noble aims, and if one were to look at it independently, perhaps the right course for any neighboring country to take given the situation on the ground. As a Pakistani many of my fellow countrymen would consider me unpatriotic in admitting that the creation of Bangladesh was the result of the actions of not only the leadership of the time in West Pakistan, but also the result of years of policy, both political, social and economic, to treat East Pakistan differently to the rest of the country.
Today, in 2019, we look at the situation of Indian held Kashmir and while one cannot say there is an outright civil war, but there is no denying that there is widespread discontent with the Indian government and the presence of the Indian army. The argument that the curfews and detentions continue because there is a fear that 'miscreants' and 'terrorists' will take advantage of the lifting of the curfews to spread trouble is a false justification. With or without curfews the miscreants and terrorists will find a way to carry out what they wish. This does sound terribly close to what the Pakistan army would do in East Pakistan to justify the curfews and detentions in 1970.
It took Pakistanis time to realize that their policies and actions in what was former East Pakistan were wrong and those actions sowed the seeds of dissent upon which the independence of Bangladesh occurred. It was and is a lesson to countries that they must respect the wishes of its people from all ethnic and religious segments.
India has to accept that the executive suspension of an article of its constitution, which was done contrary to due process (see my older blog https://aqsher.blogspot.com/2019/08/modis-legal-pitfalls-on-art-370.html?m=1), does not swipe the problem away. This is a problem on which the UN has passed resolutions, its a problem on which both India and Pakistan have signed agreements, and in the end its a disputed territory. The Kashmiri leadership, which may not be the right leadership in the eyes of the ruling Indian BJP, is still the political voice of the people of Kashmir. Their detention is itself proof of India's own discomfort with their own position that the people of Kashmir have welcomed the decision that New Delhi has made.
India must learn from history; just as Pakistan thought decisions made in Islamabad would be welcomed Dhaka during the 1970's) similarly India must accept that it is the people of Kashmir themselves who have to make the determination of their own future. India has the assurance that even if the situation within Kashmir reached proportions of those akin to a civil war, Pakistan, having a smaller military would not intervene in a classical war type action. What India fears most is that as it loses it moral argument over its actions in Kashmir and the agitation against its military presence in Indian held Kashmir increases, Pakistan will have little option than to support groups within Indian Kashmir fighting to expel the Indian army. Today, unlike 1970, we have the word 'terrorist' in our political lexicon and this explains India's narrative against Pakistan that it supports terrorists. One could argue that any support from Pakistan to groups fighting the Indian army would be no different than India having supported the Mukhti Bahini who fought against the Pakistan army in Bangladesh!
There is growing international concern over India's human rights record in Kashmir and with the integration of Indian held Kashmir into India fears of a major resettlement of Hindus from India into Kashmir will be encouraged to change the demographics of Kashmir. Allegations abound that Indian forces have arrested close 6,000 people, while some sources suggest as much as 13,000 people in detention. The lock down of Indian Kashmir continues and there are genuine concerns of atrocities by the Indian army against Kashmiris. India's failure to allow human rights groups to visit the area, or indeed allow the international press free access within Indian Kashmir are all disturbing indicators that all is not well with the Indian action on Kashmir.
At the moment it would seem Pakistan is avoiding the more drastic steps it could take and concentrating on a diplomatic front to deal with the Kashmir issue. I suspect that Pakistan may also take a higher moral ground at some stage by suggesting that a referendum should be in both Indian held Kashmir and on the Pakistan side of Kashmir giving the people three choices, a) Join India, b) Join Pakistan and c) form and Independent Kashmir. While at the moment Pakistan may be less likely to consider this proposal, India would on the other hand oppose any referendum of any nature. In terms of creating a better position, albeit it politically and morally, even Pakistan proposing a three option referendum would really put the cat amongst the pigeons.
No comments:
Post a Comment