In 1971, India defeated Pakistan and divided it into two parts. This was the zenith of Indian military power and diplomacy. It is said that Atal Bihari Vajpayee gave the title of Durga to the then Prime Minister Indira Gandhi for this work. In the war of 1971, the world saw the amazing combat skills of the Indian Army and the Indian diplomacy led by Indira Gandhi. Even today, when the photographs of 93 thousand Pakistani soldiers surrendering in the 1971 war are seen, every Indian realizes his strength. But after the overthrow of Sheikh Hasina government in Bangladesh, that historical event is being evaluated once again. Journalist Madhu Kishwar has called Indira Gandhi’s blunder for liberating Bangladesh from Pakistan and creating a separate country in 1971. He has started a discussion on this topic by writing a long thread on the social media website X.
1-Can the war skills of the Indian Army and the diplomacy of Indira Gandhi ever be forgotten?
Noted Bangladeshi writer Haroon Habib once wrote that ‘the diplomatic and personal role of the former Indian Prime Minister in the Bangladesh Liberation War of 1971 is inseparable from the country’s history.’ About 14 years ago, Sheikh Hasina also posthumously honored Mrs. Gandhi with the Independence Award, Bangladesh’s highest award. She was the first foreigner to be honored with this honour. In this war, Indira Gandhi worked on three fronts – political, diplomatic and military.
On the one hand, Indira Gandhi supported the exiled military and guerrilla movement, Mukti Bahini, which was trained and funded by the Indian Army. On the advice of Field Marshal Manekshaw, there was some delay in attacking the Pakistani army. For which even today many military experts and diplomats criticize Indira. But Indira Gandhi did the right thing by agreeing with Manek Shaw. Which later emerged as a victory for the Indian Army. Making good use of the time he got to attack, Gandhi wrote letters to world leaders highlighting the plight of refugees. The massacre in Bangladesh awakened the conscience of the international community. However, America, a major ally of Pakistan, remained silent. Indira Gandhi herself did a 21-day tour of Germany, France, Britain, Belgium and America. In an article written in the Indian Express, Koomi Kapoor says that she had to face the wrath of President Nixon and his Secretary of State Henry Kissinger for highlighting the plight of East Pakistan in America. Later the Indian Army along with Mukti Bahini worked at lightning speed. It took only two weeks to win the war by capturing 93,000 Pakistani soldiers. Indira Gandhi was not afraid even when America sent its powerful seventh fleet to the Indian Ocean. After winning the war, the MPs stood up and clapped in the Parliament in honor of Indira Gandhi.
2- But what Madhu Kishwar is saying also has merit.
Madhu Kishwar writes that what I am saying is different from what you have been understanding till now regarding the birth of Bangladesh. Therefore, you have to understand this subject with an open mind. She says that since Nehru, our Prime Ministers (except Lal Bahadur Shastri) have played the game of geopolitical power very clumsily. They lacked basic understanding of Islam and were unaware of the factors weakening India. This step of Indira Gandhi caused irreparable damage to Hindus in the Indian subcontinent.
Kishwar writes that Pakistan was suffering economic losses by trying to maintain its occupation of East Pakistan as a colony. The people of East Pakistan considered the people of West Pakistan inferior to them as an inferior race. By liberating East Pakistan as a separate nation, India reduced Pakistan’s economic burden. The Pakistani armed forces were also under great stress due to the continuous rebellion of the Bengalis of East Pakistan. After the creation of Bangladesh, Pakistan was relieved of the economic and military burden of maintaining occupation of an area nearly 2000 miles away.
The war between East Pakistan and West Pakistan continued for 3 decades.
Kishwar writes that if Indira Gandhi had not intervened in favor of the Muslims of East Pakistan, Bangladeshis would have fought against the Pakistani army for decades. Since there were no good weapons in East Pakistan. Therefore this war would always go on. It would have been beneficial for India for the Muslims of West Pakistan to be in constant war with the Muslims of East Pakistan. This would have weakened the Pakistani army and made Pakistan bankrupt. Pakistanis do not get time or energy to attack India. Kishwar says that we should have intervened as protectors of East Pakistani Muslims instead of silently watching them kill each other.
Since Bangladesh was a Muslim majority state, Bengali Muslims continued to harbor a deep hatred against the Hindus living there after the partition of 1947. This is the reason why the Hindu population has decreased from 30% in 1947 to about 8% today, this is proof that the Muslims of East Pakistan are as intoxicated with the ideology of Jihad and infidel phobia as the Pakistanis.
As long as the Muslims of East Pakistan were fighting against Urdu dominance, they claimed their linguistic identity as Bengalis. But as soon as they achieved a separate country based on their linguistic identity, Pakistan managed to find a cheap way to control the politics of the breakaway nation by freeing radical Tablighis with petro-dollar funding from Arab countries. After this, the Suhrawardy legacy of genocidal hatred against the surviving Hindu infidels was revived.
4- Stop romanticizing the liberation of Bangladesh in 1971
India should come out of this pride that we have created Bangladesh. This is a big reason for not improving relations with Bangladesh. C Rajmohan writes that no matter how sad it is, Delhi should stop romanticizing the liberation of Bangladesh in 1971. Bangladesh is deeply divided over the interpretation of its history, a fact that Delhi cannot ignore. Many forces in Bangladesh do not agree with Sheikh Hasina’s story on the liberation of Bangladesh. The opposition in Bangladesh is taking advantage of this. Leaders of all parties except Bangladesh Awami League are anti-India. Khaleda Zia’s supporters still believe that Bangladesh should have remained with Pakistan.
The backlash against Sheikh Hasina’s tireless efforts to get her story across to the public was already visible, which is now visible in violence against Hindus.