Bangladesh War #6: The Aftermath

In this concluding blog, I’ll look at Gary Bass’ take from The Blood Telegram on the after-effects of the Bangladesh war on the different countries.

 

First up, Bangladesh itself. Its development would have been a challenge in any case, but things were even worse than normal:

“(It was made far worse by) the loss of so many people… the decimation of the ranks of the educated… the devastation of infrastructure… the widespread availability of leftover weapons from the insurgency, and the burden of getting the refugees back home.”

It was left, as one of Indira’s advisors said, as “a primordial slime. Out of this chaos, cosmos has to be created”. War crime tribunals were setup but they did nothing other than becoming a way to harass one’s political opponents. Mujib returned as the democratic leader, a lot of corruption followed, and in 1974, he seized emergency powers “gutting the constitution”. In turn he was assassinated during an army coup. It reminded me of that line from the Batman movie:

“You either die a hero, or you live long enough to see yourself become the villain.”

 

And Pakistan? They’d lost half their country and half their population. It was a shattering moment. Yahya was blamed for everything and had to resign. His successor, Bhutto, was viewed as one of the men whose “aggressive obduracy in the constitutional negotiations” had led to the eventual catastrophe. A far greater and long-term consequence continues to haunt us till today: Pakistanis began to believe that India was not “done hammering them”, that India would next try to split the remaining parts of Pakistan as well. And a desire for a revenge breakup of India started growing. Acutely aware of their military being much weaker, they decided to resort to terrorists as the vehicle. At first it may seem weird that Pakistan also concluded that the US had “betrayed” them. But when you think of it, it makes sense. All US actions were covert and behind the scenes. But Pakistan, as a Cold War ally had expected overt actions. Who’d helped open the channel with China? What did they get in return from the US? This combo (India being stronger, and the US unreliable) led them to decide that the only way to protect themselves was to get nuclear weapons.

 

Next up, the US. It didn’t look good for having supported a genocidal regime and standing “resolutely behind Pakistan’s murderous generals”. So the US chose to forget their role in the whole issue. Even today, the US will harp of mass killings in Bosnia and Rwanda, but never Bangladesh. It’s too inconvenient:

“Faraway, poor, brown – the place is all too easily ignored.”

Nixon, thanks to his “visceral hatred for India” from earlier times, ignored the genocide and blamed India for war and breaking another country. He and Kissinger even started called Indira as Hitler-like in her aggression! And all those American laws Nixon & Co broke in this episode? America simply didn’t care…

 

Finally, India. It remembers this as a famous victory. Not just militarily, but as a moral one. It thinks of this as “one of the world’s most successful cases of humanitarian intervention against genocide”. The US stance could have been behind-the-scene moves that wouldn’t have affected most Indians’ view of the US (favourable until at that time), but the aircraft carrier in the Bay of Bengal had been too visible. Too threatening. Indian (public) opinion towards America changed to “bad” and stayed that way for decades. Remember I mentioned that the aircraft carrier had nuclear weapons? Well, the incident nudged India to decide to get nuclear weapons – if a nuclear armed country would threaten one without those, it made sense to get them for oneself. (Sure, we might have gotten them anyway since China had them, but this episode made the decision a very popular one, by the time Pokhran tests eventually happened). Indira herself came out a hero, even a goddess (Durga):

“She had stood up to the cruel Pakistanis, the fanatical Chinese, and the arrogant Americans.”

It went to her head as we know all too well. India’s success with covert ops in Bangladesh led to similar attempts with the LTTE, with disastrous results.

 

If that didn’t feel like a satisfying ending (whatever that means), then perhaps one should remind oneself that this is real life, not a movie or story. And nations are involved in an “infinite game”…

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Europe #3 - Innsbruck

The last city we visited in Europe was Innsbruck in the Austrian Alps. After the cold and windy experience (at times) of Paris and Netherlands, Innsbruck was a wonderful change – it didn’t feel that cold, it was not windy all of which made it easy to walk around. Something absolutely necessary given how scenic the place is.   Since the hotel check-in time was much later in the day, we left the baggage and went to the Swarovski HQ-cum-museum about an hour by bus from Innsbruck. The crystal exhibits were brilliant – colorful, bright, shiny. Jewellery aside, it was a display of what one can do with crystals. While my wife and daughter loved the jewellery, I liked the superhero themed exhibits of Batman, Spiderman, the Hulk, and Star Wars. We didn’t buy anything there, though we did buy stuff in the Swarovski store in Innsbruck – jewellery, not the superhero stuff.   Innsbruck is a major tourist attraction during the skiing season but now in summer, we saw many groups of ...
Read more

Why we Deceive Ourselves

In their book, The Elephant in the Brain , the authors describe this weird aspect of deception that we practice: deceiving ourselves! That is so weird: “If our minds contain maps of our worlds, what good comes from having an inaccurate version of these maps?” The Sigmund Freud school of thought treats self-deception as a defense mechanism, “a way for the ego to protect itself”. The mind seeks to protect itself from anxiety and other negative emotions. Many object to this reasoning: since accurate information is so critical to our survival, surely distorting information would be dangerous. Wouldn’t the goal of protecting our self-esteem have been better achieved by making the brain’s self-esteem mechanism stronger instead? The new school of thought explains self-deception as “primarily outward-facing, manipulative, and ultimately self-serving”. This is based on Thomas Schelling’s work on game theory: “In a variety of scenarios, limiting or sabotaging yourself is the winn...
Read more

Chess is too Boring

“Chess has problems at the grandmaster level...They're not getting a great game”, wrote Christian Donlan . Amen to that: Anand and his challenger, Magnus Carlsen drew their first game in just 16 moves. It gets worse: games between the top 20 end in draws 60% of the time. And Donlan adds that “games often end in resignation when an actual victory starts to loom on the distant horizon.” That often means that the average player (or fan) often has no clue why one guy won (since he can’t see that far ahead)! Then there’s all that memorization (of openings, of end games and everything in between). All that memorization is sort of against the spirit of the game, says Zachary Burns, “We want it to be a game of creativity and positional play.” Many have tried to change the rules of the game in the past for these exact reasons, including Bobby Fischer with his Chess960 variant. More recently, David Sirlin tried to make things interesting via his variant, Chess 2. So what are his c...
Read more