This is for those who blame Bhutto for this tragedy. There have always been sain people present in the history of Pakistan, never they were listened and hard and resulted disasters for the country. In one interview of Yahya Khan the former dictator president telling the foreign correspondent that he knew Bengalis more than the Bengalis knew for themselves. This was the height of arrogance perhaps higher than Pharo’s arrogance and pride five thousand years ago.
**
Pakistanis do not learn from history**](http://www.dawn.com/2011/11/06/pakistanis-do-not-learn-from-history.html)**
Pakistan’s unfortunate history is replete with examples of folly. But nothing comes close to the debacle of 1971 in erstwhile East Pakistan in terms of the extent and scope of pursuing policies and making decisions that served no reasonable national purpose.**
**
After the December 1970 elections it should have been obvious to the martial law regime of Gen Yahya Khan that the Bengalis stood firmly behind the Awami League of Shaikh Mujibur Rehman. Instead of conceding the right of the majority to draft the constitution and to form the government, the West Pakistani elite, including civilian politicians, chose to try and militarily subjugate the people of East Bengal.**
**
In West Pakistan, our civil and military elite whipped up anti-Indian sentiment and convinced one part of the nation that the only issue in the country’s eastern wing was a secessionist movement backed by India.**
**
While West Pakistanis united behind the slogan of ‘Crush India’, the Bengalis charged the army with genocide, mobilised international support and, with the help of the Indian military, forced 90,000 soldiers and civilians to surrender.**
**
The ignominy of military defeat resulted not only in the permanent loss of East Pakistan, which became Bangladesh; it has left scars on Pakistani national psyche that to this day manifest in the shape of jihadist ideology. Instead of learning lessons from the previous folly, our jihadists now want to commit the folly of confronting the United States, replacing ‘crush India’ with the slogan ‘crush America’.**
**
In 1971, the governor of East Pakistan, my friend Vice-Admiral S.M. Ahsan joined Lt Gen Sahibzada Yaqub Khan, commander Eastern Command, in advising the rulers in Rawalpindi to choose the wise course and to avoid folly. Both Ahsan and Yaqub resigned after detailed exchanges with their superiors, in which their advice was rejected.**
**
Like the noble man he was, Ahsan gave the correct assessment and withdrew from the scene when he realised that his reasonable views had lost out to the unwise choices of men more powerful than him.**
**
Most nations try to learn from their past but we Pakistanis are determined not to do so. Few books have been published, analysing what went wrong and who did what in the greatest tragedy in the country’s history.**
**
One of these rarities is The Separation of East Pakistan by Hasan Zaheer. The book quotes Ahsan, explaining why he resigned after explaining in detail to all concerned that military action will result in unnecessary bloodshed and would not help in keeping the country united. “Throughout the meeting the president never once looked into my eyes,” the honourable vice-admiral said. “I could no longer consider his intentions devoid of guile or devoid of guilt.”**
**
Only time will tell if we still have men like Yaqub and Ahsan in our midst today, when folly rules supreme in all aspects of national policy as well as in opposition and media rhetoric. I do know that many senior military officers and diplomats are concerned about the dominance of jingoism, xenophobia and jihadism.**
**
Let us heed the warnings of these thoughtful people instead of merely paying tribute to them years later when their advice would no longer be able to avert disaster or to change anything.**
**
Why this failure to learn from history?**
**
Both civil and military leaderships have been blind to the past, with an innate inability to accept or admit that wrong has been done. But then it takes ‘big’ men of substance and moral integrity to concede, even to themselves, that multiple past errors are largely responsible for a persistent downward slide.**
Idhar hum Udhar tum (famous words of quaid e awam)...
quaid e awam Awwal played his role in dismemberment of Pakistan in Pakistan in 1971, and now quaid e awam saani is trying his best to bring the rest of the country on its knees by playing his role in destroying the economy of the country...
Idhar hum Udhar tum (famous words of quaid e awam)...
quaid e awam Awwal played his role in dismemberment of Pakistan in Pakistan in 1971, and now quaid e awam saani is trying his best to bring the rest of the country on its knees by playing his role in destroying the economy of the country...
I just forgot to write to avoid above rhetoric. I know that people like you would jump up and down without reading the whole content of the article. What you are saying is nothing to do with the discussion. Please comment on above article. The author is not a supporter of Bhutto. So avoid foolish rhetoric.
I just forgot to write to avoid above rhetoric. I know that people like you would jump up and down without reading the whole content of the article. What you are saying is nothing to do with the discussion. Please comment on above article. The author is not a supporter of Bhutto. So avoid foolish rhetoric.
Jiyala gibberish that doesn't even take into account what the original article is saying about the issue.
Please read the "red bold" part, when you shout "idhar ham udhar tum" and then form the next government people are bound to blame who???
First of all he did not single out Bhutto here. Politicians means all of west pakistani politicians, civil elite does not mean Bhutto here, so please don't mention his name here. All were included in this sin.
But the post is about two sane generals who advised not to start military operation, why Yahya Khan did not listen to his own people? Cowasjee is not fan of Bhutto, he could have singled out him. But in reality that was not the case.
First of all he did not single out Bhutto here. Politicians means all of west pakistani politicians, civil elite does not mean Bhutto here, so please don't mention his name here. All were included in this sin.
But the post is about two sane generals who advised not to start military operation, why Yahya Khan did not listen to his own people? Cowasjee is not fan of Bhutto, he could have singled out him. But in reality that was not the case.
Of course you are getting emotional here, ZAB's party wins majority in election in West side, "civilian elite" shout "idhar ham udhar tum" then who should be blamed? ANSWER: majority on west side, and who was majority again??? good question, isn't it?
Why don't you mqm lover explain here? What this article is all about? Please don't spread ethinic bs and hatred here. Thanks.
That is the best you can come with? Btw, if you use your ** BRAINS ** then i would be praising bhutto as mqm is taking out rallies for you know what! ;)
so... learning from the history, we should listen to Imran Khan and stop the military action in Northwest and Baluchistan (where the 'terrorists' are supposed to be 'backed by india')?
so... learning from the history, we should listen to Imran Khan and stop the military action in Northwest and Baluchistan (where the 'terrorists' are supposed to be 'backed by india')?
;)
That is the whole article is about. But I doubt if IK comes in power, can change anything. Because he is quiet on most impotrant issues including WOT and Baluchistan situation.
Of course you are getting emotional here, ZAB's party wins majority in election in West side, "civilian elite" shout "idhar ham udhar tum" then who should be blamed? ANSWER: majority on west side, and who was majority again??? good question, isn't it?
That is kind of meaningless phrase, as he was politician without power. Had Yahya Khan handed over government to Bengalis, perhaps breaking of country could have been avoided. That was two of his generals advising him. But he bleived in military superiority and started genocide.
That is kind of meaningless phrase, as he was politician without power. Had Yahya Khan handed over government to Bengalis, perhaps breaking of country could have been avoided. That was two of his generals advising him. But he bleived in military superiority and started genocide.
had "majority" in Pakistan (west) opposed Yahya Khan and not shouted "idhar ham udhar tum" our country may not have broken, had ZAB not assumed power after breaking up of Pakistan he wouldn't be getting blamed for the break up.
had "majority" in Pakistan (west) opposed Yahya Khan and not shouted "idhar ham udhar tum" our country may not have broken, had ZAB not assumed power after breaking up of Pakistan he wouldn't be getting blamed for the break up.
He won 81 out of 150 seats as far I know, therefore it was not so called "majority vote". Out of 81, 63 were from Punjab. Other parties also won almost 50% of the seats. You just can not blame one person who was not even in power. yeh fojyon ke purani aadat hay ke apna gunah hamesha doosron par daal detay hain, jesay woh aasman se utray howay frishtay hain.
It seems Yahya thought of blocking Mujib with Bhutto and further his rule.Mujib’s six point agenda was as good as asking for secession. And military operation like that of operation searchlight gave the final impetus that was needed, In whole equation west pakistani politicians miscalculated I for Indira factor:blush: