Fall of Dhaka: Who Disintegrated Pakistan?

Abstract: 

In the following article I’ve tried to identify the causes and the malefactors behind the separation of East Pakistan. I’ve attempted to show that unlike the popular narratives found in Pakistani text books, and nationalist literature which solely blame Sheikh Mujeebur Rahman and India for the creation of Bangladesh,that the real cause behind this division was due to a long period of ‘alienation’ of the people of East Pakistan which turned them against West Pakistan.  Moreover I’ve shown that there were many opportunities to avert the creation of Bangladesh and maintain the status-quo, but all these opportunities were consciously crushed and rejected by the leaders of West Pakistan, which made the creation of Bangladesh inevitable.

It was on 16^th December 1971 that Pakistan was dismembered into two and Bangladesh was created. Muslims got freedom from the British in 1947 and Pakistan was created but the British mindset never left us. This mindset was to manifest itself in the form of those people of Pakistan who were supposed to protect and defend the nation, not rule it. The place where Muslim League was first formed in 1906, was Dhaka, aka East Pakistan. Within 24 years after the creation of Pakistan, people who were among the initiators of the Pakistan Movement were treated as the inferior race, traitors and were entirely ‘Othered’. Pakistan after its creation faced some instability. One of the factors responsible for this was the unfair treatment which was meted out to the Eastern Pakistanis. They even addressed this issue with the founder of Pakistan who acknowledged it. However, before he could take action against the injustice,  Quaid-e-Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah passed away. Instability became a permanent part of the history of Pakistan after Ayub Khan imposed the first Martial Law in 1958.

Despite the fact that Pakistan was created in the name of Islam and was supposed to become a pure Islamic State ruled according to the Shariah where all Muslims could live together as ‘Equal’ citizens regardless of their race, ethnicity and other factors, and non-Muslims too, but eventually after a few years of the death of Quaid-e-Azam the country fell into the hands of power-hungry conspirators.

The secular class of Pakistan argues that the separation of East Pakistan shows that the unity of West and East Pakistan was not based on Islam. Or that Islam cannot be considered as a binding force between the two. The argument is historically incorrect and completely unsubstantial, since during the British colonial period, the very Muslim League that was to demand for a separate land for Muslims was established in none other than Dhaka, and Bengalis played a major role in the creation of Pakistan. Leaders like Nawab Sir Saleemullah, Hussain Shaheed Suhrawardy, Moulvi Tamizuddin, and A.K Fazlul Haq who presented Pakistan Resolution, all played a major role in the creation of Pakistan.

Indeed the unifying force between the two distinct lands, separated physically by more than 1,000 miles was Islam, but the main reason why Pakistan was disintegrated was that Pakistan came into existence in the name of Islam and after the establishment of Pakistan, Islam was excluded from state affairs. Our secular class forgets that both General Ayub Khan and Yahya Khan were secular dictators who repressed Islamic groups and movements. When I say ‘Muslims got freedom from the British but the British mindset remained’, I am alluding to the mindset of Pakistan Army who ever since the creation of Pakistan, assumed itself as the true heir of Pakistan and ruled with coercive force of power, and in order to maintain power, just like the British, they went to every extent, be it repressing the civilians through force or with different exploitative policies or toppling governments.

Even though Quaid-e-Azam had made it clear that “Do not forget that the armed forces are the servants of the people. You do not make national policy; it is we, the civilians, who decide these issues and it is your duty to carry out these tasks with which you are entrusted”, the military intervention in state affairs became a recurring patter. In the 76 years of Pakistan’s history, 33 years comprise of military rules, and even in the remaining-40-ruling-years there was direct or indirect army intervention.

Whenever the causes of the separation of East Pakistan in 1971 are brought into question, some people allege Yahya Khan or Bhutto as the sole malefactors or some blame Indira Gandhi, Mujibur Rehman, and India’s attack on Pakistan. It is true that all of these people played their roles in this tragic event, but people who think Bhutto was the only culprit are outright deluded. Bhutto was only a politician by then, all power rested in the hands of Gen. Yahya Khan, who at the time was not only the Chief of Army Staff but also the President of Pakistan; there was a military rule going on in Pakistan. An English idiom explains it the best, ‘A bad carpenter blames its tools’. Nevertheless, the problems didn’t with Yahya Khan’s rule, but many years before him, the systemic subordination of East Pakistan began during the rule of Ayub Khan.

Despite the fact that East Pakistan consisted of 56% of the total population of Pakistan, when Ayub Khan came into power in 1958, the East had negligible political representation in the Centre and only “cooperative” Bengalis were appointed to political office and in Civil service their representation could be counted on the fingers of one’s hand. Same was the case in Pakistan Army. The representation of Bengalis in Pakistan’s army is said to be less than 10%.  Furthermore, according to a report “while average (per capita) income in the West was 32% higher than in the East in 1959-60, the disparity had almost doubled to 61% ten years later in 1969-70”. From 1968-69 there were 271 colleges in West Pakistan while only 162 in the East. About 200 million rupees were allocated for the development of Karachi and Islamabad each, while only a sum of 20 million rupees given for the development of the former-second-capital Dhaka.

East Pakistan’s total population was 75 million and the population of West Pakistan was 55 million, still in comparison the distribution of everything was unjust such as pertaining to social welfare there were 325 Rural Health Centres in West Pakistan while only 88 in the East. There were 12,400 doctors in the West while 7,600 in the East. Ensuing the ruthless policies of Ayub Khan, he was left with no option but to resign in 1969. But that didn’t end dictatorship as Yahya Khan imposed another Martial Law on 25 March, 1969. Yahya with his cunning tactics at first claimed that he would soon pass on the power to a democratically elected leader but he created such situations which didn’t let it be possible. When the free elections were held for both Constituent Assemblies and for Provincial assemblies, two parties dominated in Pakistan. Awami League party won 167 seats out of 169 and in the West Bhutto’s party won around 80 seats out of 140.

The Awami League had sufficient seats to become the majority in the constituent assembly. They had enough votes to form a central government and Yahya promised Mujibur Rehman that he would pass on power to him but it soon became clear that it was impossible given the fact that the military, civil services and all the large businesses were all in the hands of the West. In a meeting with Yahya, when Mujib asked if Yahya finds anything objectionable about the Six points, Yahya answered in the negative. Yet after the election, there was a fear amongst the ruling elite of West Pakistan that if Sheikh Mujib tried to impose the six-point constitution on the country, who would stop him? In response to this question, a trusted general of General Yahya (whose name has not been mentioned by Siddique Salik) said, “Don’t worry, we will never allow these black bastards to rule over us”.

The Awami party demanded autonomy for East Pakistan, but Yahya Khan could see what kind of economic and political strength his regime would lose if autonomy was given to East Pakistan so he postponed the scheduled Constituent Assembly and Bhutto too boycotted it, which led to protests in which according to a conservative estimate 172 people died because of army firing, on 1^st March. By now Bhutto and Yahya were on the same page, they were holding meet-ups and perhaps together planning to sideline East Pakistan.  Still the doors for negotiations surprisingly remained open from East Pakistan but eventually it became one of the causes of the separation from West Pakistan.  The paper by Edward S. Mason and Stephen Marglin summarizes and anticipates this aforementioned event as following:

“What started as a movement for economic autonomy within the framework of United Pakistan, has been irrevocably transformed by the wholesale slaughter of East Pakistani civilians into a movement that sooner or later will produce an independent East Pakistan…”

Even after these events Mujib still advocated for ‘United Pakistan’ with autonomy for each province. An article published in Dawn, Karachi on June 15, 1970, records Mujib’s plea as saying “we want to be brothers of West Pakistanis and not their slaves.” “We want to become equal citizens and not the bazaars of West Pakistan.” And the article notes: He [Mujeeb] said that his fight was against the exploiters who had concentrated the whole nation’s wealth in their hands. He said: “I want back due shares for all the people of Pakistan”.

Furthermore Mujib pointed at the height of discrimination towards the East Pakistanis such as by referring to facts like in the West there were 24,000 hospital beds while in the East the number of such beds were only 6,000 or that PIA was charging 90 paisa per pound for carrying goods to West Pakistan while the same airline was charging 180 paisa per pound for carrying goods to East from West Pakistan, etc. Things were getting heated up, Mujib was frustrated at how the constituent assembly was being deliberately postponed. He demanded for “immediate lifting of Martial Law, transfer of power to elected representatives, return of troops to the barracks, and an inquiry into the firing by army which has resulted in killings.”

Due to these developments East Pakistan was infuriated and its quest for equality acquired the tone of a radical nationalist movement, but rather than cooling down the situation and giving everyone their due rights, Yahya on 26^th March 1971, during a radio broadcast from Rawalpindi accused Mujib of treason and the army establishment imposed the operation “Searchlight” in East Pakistan and decided to resort to arms to put an end to the matter. “Although Yahya, denounced Mujib as traitor in his broadcasts of 26^th March and 28^th June, the details of the Awami League’s plans to secede were not revealed until much later when the ‘White Paper on the Crisis in East Pakistan’ was published by the government of Pakistan on 5 August. Tajuddin and the other Awami Leaguers, on the other hand, claimed that there was no breakdown in negotiations and the Army action was an act of treachery which forced them to go into exile, resist the Pakistan army, and declare independence”.

The atrocities committed by the army in East Pakistan are unique in their own right. The details of these horrors give goosebumps to the reader and makes one wonder how an army can inflict such torture on its people. Hamoodur Rahman Commision report was a judicial inquiry held under Chief Justice Hamoodur Rahman at the demand of the President of Pakistan to know about the reasons behind the failure in war and the fall of Dhaka. The report includes the testimonies of 213 witnesses, however the report was never disclosed. But after around 25 years when it was published it was revealed that many parts of it were destroyed and the 1 remaining part of it was published. We shouldn’t ask why the rest of the parts were destroyed as it should be clear to the reader by now. Nevertheless the only remaining part of the report sheds enough light to understand the atrocities that took place in East Pakistan and the reasons behind the failure during the war of 1971. The first chapter of the report deals with the ‘Moral Aspect’ behind the failure of Pakistan army. The chapter notes:

“… to the effect that due to corruption arising out of the performance of Martial Law duties, lust for wine and women and greed for lands and houses, a large number of senior Army Officers, particularly those occupying the highest positions, had not only lost the will to fight but also the professional competence necessary for taking the vital and critical decisions demanded of them for the successful prosecution of the war.”

And,

“…when Martial Law was imposed in the country once again in March 1969 by General Yahya Khan, and that there was indeed substance in the allegations that a considerable number of senior Army Officers had not only indulged in large scale acquisition of lands and houses and other commercial activities, but had also adopted highly immoral and licentious ways of life which seriously affected their professional capabilities and their qualities of leadership.”

Moreover:

“There is evidence to the effect that civilian shops and stores were broken into by the troops without preparing any record of what was taken and from where. The need for commandeering vehicles, foodstuffs, medicines and other essential supplies can certainly be appreciated, but this should have been done under a proper method of accounting so that compensation could be paid on return of normal conditions. As no such procedure was adopted, it led to a general feeling among the troops, including their officers that they were entitled to take whatever they wanted from wherever they liked. This appears to us to be the genesis of the looting alleged to have been indulged in by the Army in East Pakistan.”

And it continues:

“…this method of procurement seems to have been encouraged by senior commanders, including Lt. Gen Niazi, whose remarks on the very first day of his taking over command from Lt. Gen Tikka Khan have already been quoted by us in an earlier chapter, viz: “what have I been hearing about shortage of rations? Are not there any cows and goats in this country? This is enemy territory. Get what you want. This is what we used to do in Burma.”

Furthermore according to Gen. Niazi:

Lt. Gen. A.A.K. Niazi, apparently in an endeavor to put the blame on his predecessor, then Lt. Gen. Tikka Khan, stated that “military action was based on use of force primarily, and at many places indiscriminate use of force was resorted to which alienated the public against the Army. Damage done during those early days of the military action could never be repaired, and earned for the military leaders names such as “Changez Khan” and “Butcher of East Pakistan”.”

And finally:

“… evidence has come on the record regarding the ill repute of General Niazi in sex matters, and his indulgence in the smuggling of Pan… The remarks made by this last witness are highly significant: “The troops used to say that when the Commander (Lt. Gen. Niazi) was himself a raper, how could they be stopped. Gen. Niazi enjoyed the same reputation at Sialkot and Lahore.”

The report also records the misdeeds of the Bangladeshi Awaami National party against the ‘Pro-Pakistan’ element in East Pakistan. In March the Awaami national party with its separatist agenda and hatred for Pakistan “indulged in large scale massacres and rape against pro-Pakistan elements, in the towns of Dacca, Narayanganj, Chittagong, Chandraghona, Rangamati, Khulna, Dinajpur, Ghafargaoa, Kushtia, Ishurdi, Noakhali, Sylhet, Maulvi Bazaar, Rangpur, Saidpur, Jessore, Barisal, Mymensingh, Rajshahi, Pabna, Sirajgonj, Comilla, Brahman Baria, Bogra, Naugaon, Santahar, and several other smaller places.” And these atrocities were confirmed by the West Pakistanis and Biharis who were able to escape East Pakistan. “According to various estimates mentioned by Mr. Qutubuddin Aziz, between 100,000 and 500,000 persons were slaughtered during this period by the Awami League militants.”

A.A.K Niazi, the guy who took the Eastern Command after Tikka Khan, the guy who surrendered before the Indian army wrote a book by the name of “Mein ne hathiyar nahi dalay” in which he reveals the misdeeds of West Pakistan Army. Following are the translations of some excerpts from the book. Niazi writes:

(1) “To cover up his own incompetence, he (i.e General Tikka Khan) continued his policy of massacre, destruction of property, burning of land and terrorizing innocent people”.

(2) “Tikka Khan was given the title of butcher in both East Pakistan and Balochistan.”

(3) The indiscriminate use of force by General Tikka Khan pushed the Bengalis so far from where no return was possible. They became the enemies of West Pakistan.

 (4) “Tanks, machine guns, anti-tank guns and artillery were used completely and freely against their own people. This was probably the first and perhaps the last time the government used deadly weapons against its own people. Only the “colonial” powers carry out such senseless and violent acts against their subjects”.

Now let’s see what Sidique Salik, saw in East Pakistan. Siddique Salik reached East Pakistan in June, 1970. On his arrival at the airport of Dhaka, an army jeep approached him. What followed I present in Salik’s own words:

حوالدار نے مجھے اسمارٹ سا سلیوٹ کیا او رپاس سے گزرتے ہوئے ایک بنگالی لڑکے کو بھبک دار لہجے میں حکم دیا۔ ’’صاحب کا اٹیچی کیس جیب میں رکھو۔‘‘ سہمے ہوئے لڑکے کو یہ بھبک ناگوار تو گزری مگر اپنے ’’آقا‘‘ پر احتجاجی نظر ڈالتے ہوئے حکم بجا لایا… میں نے اپنا ہاتھ کوٹ کی جیب میں ڈالا اور چند سکے اس غریب لڑکے کو دینا چاہے۔ مگر حوالدار نے پرزور لہجے میں کہا ’’سر ان حرامزادوں کی عادت نہ بگاڑیے‘‘ میں نے مشورہ مان لیا… اور بنگالی لڑکا ایک نفرت بھری نگاہ مجھ پر ڈالتے ہوئے وہاں سے چلا گیا۔

This passage from Siddik Salik’s book shows the racist mentality of the army personnel in Dhaka. To them the Bengalis appeared as worthless ‘bastards’. This was the reawakening of the disgraceful mentality of British exploiters in the form of brown folks.

Now let’s see what advice Siddique Salik got from his fellow army men on his arrival to Dhaka:

گھر کے لیے ہرگز بھاری چیزیں نہ خریدنا کیا معلوم کب کن حالات میں یہاں سے بسترا گول کرنا پڑے۔ اپنا روپیہ پیسہ شہر کے کمرشل بینک کے بجائے (فوجی) چھائونی کے نیشنل بینک میں رکھوانا۔ اپنے پیش رو کے فلیٹ میں ٹکے رہنا۔ صندوق نما فلیٹ بڑا محفوظ ہے۔ اس میں کوئی شرپسند آسانی سے بم نہیں لڑھکاسکتا۔‘‘

This passage too goes on to prove that the army was only present in East Pakistan to exploit the Bengalis and they already had in their minds that their ruthless policies will eventually result in the separation of East Pakistan. This makes us question: ‘Was the separation of East Pakistan engineered by the army?’ “Yes”, is the answer! But this isn’t the only affirmation for this that we have.

Henry Kissinger the former US secretary and famous American diplomat in an interview in 2016 with “The Atlantic” revealed that in November 1971 Pakistan’s President and Army Chief had informed the President of the United States, Richard Nixon that Pakistan would separate from East Pakistan. Said Kissinger:

“After the opening to China via Pakistan, America engaged in increasingly urging Pakistan to grant autonomy to Bangladesh. In November, the Pakistani president agreed with Nixon to grant independence the following March.”

It’s shocking because India had not yet attacked Pakistan, and the President and COAS of Pakistan had already decided to break away from East Pakistan. Some people would say that this may be an attempt of conspiring against Pakistan on the part of America and that’s why Kissinger, being a former secretariat of the US, must have said so. In response we ask what benefit such a revelation could possibly bring to Kissinger or America after all these years? Kissinger revealed it after 49 years of the separation of East Pakistan. It might have been deemed a conspiracy if America or Kissinger had exclaimed right after the separation of East Pakistan. If Kissinger’s confessions are really untrue then why was it that when it was asked that Kissinger’s claims be investigated judicially, did the court of Pakistan refuse to carry out the process? Still let’s give them the benefit of the doubt since these are not the only testimonies we have.

Brigadier A.R Siddiqui is an important figure in our national history. He was the Director General of the ISPR of the then United Pakistan during the turbulent period of 1971. In an interview with Geo News aired on November 23, 2005, see what Siddiqui had to say in this interview:

’سوال: آپ نے کہا انٹیلی جنس بیورو کے چیف مسٹر رضوی کے کہنے پر یحییٰ خان مولانا بھاشانی کو انتخابات کے دوران ڈھائی کروڑ روپے دینے پر راضی ہوگئے تھے، مگر بعد میں وہ ڈھائی کروڑ روپے مولانا بھاشانی کو نہیں دیے۔ مولانا بھاشانی نے غصے میں آکر انتخابات کا بائیکاٹ کردیا جس کا سارا فائدہ مجیب الرحمن کو ہوا۔ کیونکہ مولانا بھاشانی نے فوج سے وعدہ کیا تھا کہ وہ انتخابات لڑیں گے دیہاتوں میں، اور مجیب الرحمن کے ووٹوں کو توڑیں گے، یہ کیا معاملہ تھا؟
اے آر صدیقی: ہاں یہ بالکل ہوا۔ بھاشانی صاحب سے بات ہوئی ہے۔ ان کا اب کوئی تحریری ثبوت تو میرے پاس نہیں ہے، مگر میری رائے ہے یہ۔
سوال: یہ آپ کو کس نے بتایا تھا؟
اے آر صدیقی: مجھے خود ایوب خان نے بتایا، اور لوگوں نے بتایا۔ ڈھائی کروڑ پہ بات ہوئی تھی۔ دیکھیں ہوا یہ تھا کہ اُس وقت صورت حال یہ تھی کہ Rural جو مشرقی پاکستان تھا اس پر بڑی حد تک بھاشانی صاحب کا غلبہ تھا، اور Urban جو ایسٹ پاکستان تھا اس پر مجیب الرحمن تھے۔ اگر بھاشانی صاحب الیکشن کا بائیکاٹ نہ کرتے تو وہ صورت حال پیدا نہ ہوتی جو یحییٰ خان اور بھاشانی کے درمیان مفاہمت ہوئی تھی، ایگریمنٹ ہوا تھا۔
سوال: ڈھائی کروڑ روپے کیوں نہیں دیے ان کو؟
اے آر صدیقی: بس وہ نہیں دیے حماقت یا حماقت پہ حماقت۔ شاید ان کے دل میں یہ ہو کہ وہ فیصلہ کرچکے تھے کہ مشرقی پاکستان کو الگ کرنا ہے۔‘‘

A.R Siddiqui also thinks the separation of East Pakistan was already planned, but these are not the only testimonies we have.

Shahid Kamrani was among those who migrated from the Indian state of Bihar to East Pakistan after the formation of Pakistan and then from East Pakistan to West Pakistan in 1971. He has written a book named “The Political Scenario of Sindh”. In this book, he writes about a meeting with the country’s leading journalist Mujeeb-ur-Rehman Shami in 1970. What happened in this meeting, see it in his own words.  Mr. Kamrani writes:

“One morning in Dhaka, a message was received that Mujeeb-ur-Rehman Shami, from “Zindagi”, wants to meet me… The next day I went to Purbani Hotel to see him. It was eleven o’clock… However, when the conversation started, he advised promptly: “Brother, use your pen for Sheikh Mujib. Support their policy, because that is how you people will benefit”. I asked, “How so? What do you mean?”. “I want to say…” said Shami, “we have started the work to separate this (Pakistani) arm. We have decided not to live in permanent slavery of Bengal. We will separate it from West Pakistan. So it is in your best interest to support the Bengalis”. I said (to Kamrani), “We are not against their interests, but we will definitely not be a party in the process of breaking up Pakistan”. “Then you will lose. There will be a lot of bloodshed.” The answer came from Shami.

(سندھ کا سیاسی منظرنامہ۔ از شاہد کامرانی۔ صفحہ47)

There is another shocking testimony in this book by Shahid Kamrani. Shahid Kamrani writes:

“The separation of East Pakistan took place on December 16, 1971, but on October 27, 1971, at eight o’clock in the morning at Dhaka airport, I was approached by a Captain of Inter-Services Public Relations who boarded the same PIA flight from East Pakistan, in which, while going up the stairs of the plane, he said to me:

“Good thing you are going to Karachi, otherwise you would have had to leave your Langothis in December and leave from here anyway.”

If even these 4 testimonies are not enough to satisfy you that the separation of East Pakistan was pre-planned then I have the testimony of another man. It is the testimony of the man who surrendered before the Indian army. Yes, none other than A.A.K Niazi. Niazi in his book “Mein ne hathiyar nahi dalay” writes:

انگریزی کی ضرب المثل ہے: بھیڑوں کی وہ فوج بہتر ہے جس کا سربراہ شیر ہو۔ یہ اس سے بہتر ہے کہ شیروں کی فوج پر بھیڑ سر براہ بن جائے۔ ہماری فوج شیروں کی فوج تھی لیکن اس کا سپریم کمانڈرایک بھیڑ تھا، اور اس کے ساتھ شامل چالیس چوروں کا ٹولہ یہاں جنگ نہیں کرنا چاہتا تھا، بلکہ مشرقی پاکستان کو الگ کر کے مغربی پاکستان میں مطلق العنان حکومت بنانے کے خواب دیکھ رہا تھا، اور یہ ساری منصوبہ بندی اس لیے کی گئی تھی ساری منصوبہ بندی اس لیے کی گئی تھی۔

One may ask whether there was something that could’ve been done different to secure ‘United Pakistan’ even after the Indian army had attacked Pakistan and East Pakistan had gone through all the malpractices at the hands of West Pakistani rulers? Was there a way to avert the surrender of Pakistan army before Indian command? The answer is ‘Yes!’ but only if Yahya Khan and Bhutto had accepted the ‘Polish Resolution’ proposed by the UN, but they didn’t, as highlighted above, because the separation of East Pakistan was pre-planned, and the rulers of West Pakistan had already decided to separate East Pakistan to secure themselves from any possibility of a Bengali rule. The Resolution provided for a direct transition of power from Islamabad to Dhaka; a withdrawal of the powers of Pakistan and India; and a return to the status quo ante bellum. It was decided that not a single prisoner of war will be kept on either side. There would be cease-fire. No surrender of Pakistan’s forces to the Indian Command would take place. And no Simla Agreement would have taken place, either. All they had to do was pass on power from Islamabad to Dhaka, but as said before, our people had already willingly planned to separate East Pakistan.

What were the consequences of all this? The Pakistan army surrendered before the Indian Army and became Prisoners of War. This way while they remained safe and secure, the innocent unarmed non-Bengali Muslims were left in the hands of the bloodthirsty, savage Mukti Bahini and Indian forces who captured every single non-Bengali Muslim and killed them with such brutality that it is beyond explanation. People who even had nothing to do with Pakistan army and people that were unarmed and were only wishful of a United Pakistan were also murdered with utmost brutality. Forget Muslims, those murderers weren’t even humans. Millions and millions of lives were lost, women were raped, infants were murdered and dragged for more humiliation. Many dead bodies were drowned in rivers and many were left to be eaten by vultures, millions were tortured to death by the Indian army and mainly Mukti Bahini, a Bengali terrorist military group of people trained and armed by India under RAW. No attempt was made from the end of West Pakistan to save these non-Bengali Muslims, among who were the people wishful of a United Pakistan. Millions of Biharis and other non-Bengali Muslims of different ethnicities were left to die and become martyrs while within some time the army men who had become Prisoners of War were safely released.

Following are some more remarks made on Yahya Khan by A.A.K Niazi:

غدارِ قوم ٹولے کے سربراہ کو جس طرح جھاڑ پونچھ کر اور فرشتہ بنا کر پیش کرنے کی کوشش ہوری ہے اس کا قوم ڈٹ کر مقابلہ کرے page 69 گی ۔

میرے پیچھے کون تھا؟ اس صدی کے محمد شاه رنگیلے نے بھی شراب و کباب میں غرق ہو کر محض یہ کہنا تھا ہنوز دلی دور است ۔ جبکہ اس پاکستانی رنگیلے نے تومشرقی پاکستان پر بھارتی حملے کی خبر ملنے کے بعد کھلم کھلا کہا page 70 کہ میں سوائے دعا کے کیا کرسکتاہوں۔

جنرل نیازی نے مزید لکھا:

کیا قوم نہیں جانتی کہ بنگلہ دیش کس نے بنایا۔ یحییٰ خان تم خود اس کے خالق ہو تم نے

(1) ون یونٹ توڑا

(2) تم نے ایک آدمی ایک ووٹ کا قانون بنایا

(3) تم نے (شیخ مجیب کو) چھے نکات کی بنیاد پرانتخابات لڑنے کی اجازت دی۔

(4) تم نے اپنے بنائے ہوئے لیگل فریم ورک آرڈر کی دھجیاں اڑائیں

(5) تم نے ہی مشرقی پاکستان کے انتخابات میں بے پناہ دھاندلی ہونے دی ۔ تم نے اسمبلی کا اجلاس نہ ہونے دیا۔

(6) وہ کون تھا جس نے فوجی ایکشن کا حکم دے کر نفرت کی بنیادرکھی؟

(7) کون تھا جس نے 25مارچ کے بعد پلٹ کر مشرقی پاکستان کا رخ نہیں کیا؟

تم کہتے ہو سب کچھ بھٹو نے کیا لیکن جناب والا بھٹوکوصرف صلاح کار کہا جاسکتا ہے۔ سوال یہ ہے

(1) کون اس وقت ملک کا صدرتھا؟

(2) کون کمانڈر انچیف تھا؟

(3) کون چیف مارشل لا ایڈمنسٹریٹر تھا؟

(4) کون تھا جس نے ملک ٹوٹتے ہوئے دیکھنے کے باوجود پولینڈ کی قرار داد نہ مانی؟ کیا اس سلسلے میں جنرل یحیٰی کے سوا کسی کا نام آسکتا ہے؟

Moreover Niazi writes:

انگریزی کی ضرب المثل ہے: بھیڑوں کی وہ فوج بہتر ہے جس کا سربراہ شیر ہو۔ یہ اس سے بہتر ہے کہ شیروں کی فوج پر بھیڑ سر براہ بن جائے۔ ہماری فوج شیروں کی فوج تھی لیکن اس کا سپریم کمانڈر ایک بھیڑ تھا، اور اس کے ساتھ شامل چالیس چوروں کا ٹولہ یہاں جنگ نہیں کرنا چاہتا تھا، بلکہ مشرقی پاکستان کو الگ کر کے مغربی پاکستان میں مطلق العنان حکومت بنانے کے خواب دیکھ رہا تھا، اور یہ ساری منصوبہ بندی اس لیے کی گئی تھی۔