While India kept doing everything possible since 1947 to discredit the Two Nations Theory and break its arch rival, Pakistan itself was equally, if not more, responsible for its debacle in 1971. It was Indira Gandhi's huge strategic triumph from welcoming Bengali refugees to India, to Kashmiri plane highjack to Lahore, to banning over flights, to concluding a Defense Treaty with the USSR, and to visiting the world capitals to draw support. After the war, she declared they had taken "hazaar saalon ka badla". Ironically, the idiotic politico-military leadership of Pakistan played along the Indian design.
Yet, I would not give full credit to India for the independence of Bangladesh. The continued policy of discrimination towards East Pakistan by the center rendered the Two Nations theory not only meaningless but a burden on the Bengalis. It certainly was not India which planned 40% less budget allocation to East Pakistan from 1950 to 1970. The call for full autonomy, and then independence, was the natural outcome for the neglected and deprived Bengalis. Surely, India continued to provide the tools, and it would be foolish on the part of the Bengalis not to avail them under the circumstances. It was difficult to say where Sheikh Mujib put his bet---with India or Pakistan. But one thing was clear, he was an outright opportunist---he would go for the bread that was buttered.
Regarding ACC, I don't think everything was 'kana machir bho bho'. India was contacted and Nehru's reaction was negative, whatever the reason. There was no evidence that Commander Moazzem, who's threadbare initiative of freedom movement started in early 1950s, came in touch with Indian intelligence before his posting to Chittagong. It would be demeaning to Bengalis to assume that they were not capable of harboring the idea of freedom without Indian prodding. Major Ziaur Rahman was not an Indian agent when he declared "We revolt" after the Pakistani attack on the night of March 25, 1971. Even Z A Bhutto did not seem to have any Indian connection when he played his treacherous games to destroy Pakistan. It goes without saying that Bhutto was the main villain in the breakup of Pakistan.
I am not trying to defend Nehru, just explaining the reality. India has two faces---global and regional. Globally, it is a power; it is in the G-15. At the UN and other international forum it has a strong clout. In 1976, we cried at the UN for Farakka waters but got nothing under Indian dominance. In fact, Bangladesh was ridiculed with such derogatory remarks as, "Next time we will bring a few pitchers of water from the Ganges for Bangladesh." One time foes---US and China included---are eager for Indian collaboration, if not friendship, today. The one-billion strong country appears close to winning a permanent seat at the Security Council. True, the big country has bigger domestic problems. But the international community rarely look at them; they see what the country is worth.
That is one side of India. Regionally, it is purely dadagiri, policy of hegemony, guided by Indian/Nehru Doctrine. And, unfortunately, we are at the receiving end, thanks to our local dalals, that include the Awami administration.
Thanks for your patience. Sorry for irrelevance, if any.
From F M Aziz:
I have read with much interest the points made by Abu Obaid Bhai. I would like to add a point and comment on some issues touched by Obaid Bhai.
State sponsored intelligence agencies can be compared with organised criminal gangsters like the Mafia. However, one big difference is that these criminals with licenses have more resources and more power and can operate fearlessly with impunity. Both before and after committing any top-secret operation these agencies take a lot of measures to cover up their footsteps and deliberately leave behind false leads. One well known and widely used technique is spreading multiple versions of highly elaborate and complex, competing theories and plots. This allows them to deceive not only the man in the street, but intelligent academics and investigative journalists. I think that many of the points posted by Obaid Bhai falls into that category i.e. many of these theories were deliberately planted by RAW in a carefully orchestrated way to confuse Bangladeshis and prevent us from unearthing the truth. These ploys not only help to keep the debate alive, but they also keep the truth-seekers endlessly circling like a kana-machhi-bho-bho. When the intelligence operatives see that their planted red herrings are diverting the debate in the wrong direction and the focus of investigation away from real plot, they pat themselves on the back
The passage that I would like to comment is the one extracted below:
According to one version, Mujib went upto Kasba in Comilla but did not cross the border. Two aides of Moazzem, Steward Mujibur Rahman and Ali Reza, went to Agartala and contacted the Chief Minister. Prime Minister Nehru declined support at that stage. He was afraid of China, which was a close ally of Pakistan, and the debacle of the 1962 Indo-Chinese war was still fresh in his mind. As a respected non-aligned leader then, he did not want to take open criticisms for involving another country's break-up .
With due respect, I think that Obaid Bhai has failed to assess Nehru properly and he credits Nehru with more stature in the international arena than that he deserves. It is rather difficult to accept that Nehru would worry about getting involved in breaking up of Pakistan when he was not even afraid of provoking China by meddling in Tibetan affairs. Nehru was not afraid of openly defying UN calls for a plebiscite in Kashmir. In 1949, Nehru also carried out a military take-over of the independent state of Hyderabad, then ruled by the Nizam of Hyderabad, but called it a police action to deceive the world. The Nizamat of Hyderabad as a political entity was much older than the newly created Republic of India and in 1949, had a more substantial state apparatus than Kuwait in 1990.
While claiming to be an important member of the non-aligned movement Nehru was refusing to negotiate with China over the border dispute. Nehru while posing as an anti-imperialist kept insisting that on the issue of borders with China the imperial British legacy must be upheld and whatever the British forcefully annexed and added to India now belongs to India and China must accept the Mc McMahon line as the final word. In the light of these facts I think that Obaid Bhai is being unduly kind to Nehru: the type of kindness Nehru does not deserve.
Whether Nehru refused to meet Sheikh Mujib or not, is not that important for the us. As far as the current debate is concerned what is most important for Bangladeshi people right now, is what has been revealed by Basant Choudhury in his book Inside Bangladesh Today. That book establishes beyond any doubt and right from the horse's mouth, that right from 1947 Nehru and his inner circle has been planning in earnest, to re-establish Indian rule and control over what is now Bangladesh.
Obaid Bhai draws the conclusion that back in 1963, with the 1962 Debacle still fresh in his mind Nehru was afraid of China, and because of that fear, Nehru refused to support Mujib. I think that it is the wrong conclusion to draw in the light of the facts that are now available. In the aftermath of the 1963 Debacle, with his ego severely deflated, it would be normal for Nehru to desperately want to settle scores with China. He was afraid yes, but this time he was not planning to rely on his army to settle scores, but this time he opted for a clandestine Chanakkya-chaal. Instead of using armed forces Nehru beefed up his espionage network and strengthened his clandestine special operations capabilities and targeted Pakistan with these forces. By breaking up Pakistan and dealing a body blow to a strong and reliable Chinese ally Pakistan, Nehru was able to bag two birds with one stone. Contrary to the received wisdom that Mujib aproached Nehru and India, the reality was otherwise: under instruction from Nehru, Indian Intelligence agents approached Mujib and others who were in political terms outliers and fringe elements. If a ready-made Mujib was not available, then India could have easily 'created' another popular leader. As the old adage goes: 'the press creates, the press destroys' and the Indians by then owned or controlled more media assets in East Pakistan, than we can imagine possible. The situation today is not much different.
The initiative did not originate with Mujib and other secessionists but it was an Indian plan, lock stock and barrel. The Bangladeshi Muslims who were discontent were used as the powder for the gun: the gun was designed and manufactured in India under the direct control of RAW: and RAW reported to the prime minister. The ordinary people of Bangladesh became the cannon fodder and the highest price were paid by the poor and illiterate Bengali Hindus and Urdu-speaking Beharis. The poor Hindus of Bangladesh and the poor Behari refugees from India not only paid a vey high price , but they paid it twice: once in 1947 and again in 1971.
To understand the effect of the 1962 Debacle we need to step into Nehru's October-1962-Shoes. For megalomaniacal political leaders who believe that they were born to lead, a military defeat like the defeat of 1962 is unbearably painful and such a blow usually shortens the life-span of such leaders and they tend to die within a few years of such defeats. Nasser of Egypt survived about three years after the 1967 Debacle and Nehru was so heartbroken and emotionally devastated that he did not even survive two years after the 1962 Debacle, he died a year and seven months after the 1962 Debacle. After the death of Nehru, Krishna Mennon aka 'Nehru's Evil Genious' took charge of the operation.
The 1962 Indo-China War and the devastating defeat of India in that encounter was the key and seminal event in the South-Asian sub-continent after 1947. After 1962 a whole series of other action-plans were unleashed that ultimately lead to 1971 and the emergence of Bangladesh. I wonder how many people know that when the Six-Points was published by Awami League, thirteen of the seventeen Awami League district committees presidents resigned from Awami league. These Awami league leaders were not ultra-conservative Muslims, rather they were quite liberals and left of centre politicians. Yet they could see that Six-Point is a secessionist agenda and the overwhelming majority of the Muslims of then East Pakistan while unhappy over the discrimination issue did not want to secede from Pakistan. Anyone with even a rudimentary awareness of the political mood of East Pakistan in 1966, knew that the idea of seeking independence by colluding with India and Nehru was an extremely repugnant proposal to ninety-nine percent of the Muslims of Bangladesh. But, since 1966, so much has changed.
For example, in the days following the September1965 Indo-Pak War, the famous national poet Shamsur Rahman wrote anti-Indian and pro-Islamic poems, lamenting that masjids were damaged by Indian shelling. Yet the same poet few years later composed poems comparing the cry of the muezzin to that of a harlot's call for clients. For achieving such a massive makeover of a nation's mind-set we must give some credit to Pondit Nehru, Krisna Mennon and RAW. It would be wrong to give primary credit for these miraculous achievements to Sheikh Mujib and not place it where it belongs: on the other side of the border.
Neither Sheikh Mujib nor any of the other Muslim stalwarts of the independence movement were capable of such superhuman feats. If they were really capable of such feats, then Bangladesh would never have landed in the mess it is in today. Even if we do not like it, the devil must be given the credit that truly belongs to the evil devil.
I am emboldened to suggest an analogy to describe the unfortunate situation that is staring in the face of all patriotic Muslim Bangladeshis. A few years ago only those with nine lives. like the cat on Eveready dry battery-cells, would dare to make similar suggestions. But in the post Peelkhana Massacre Bangladesh, most people will be able to sympathise with the comparision.
By now many Bangladeshi Muslims should have realised that they were politically cuckolded. In the real world, when cuckolds realise that they have been cuckolded, some cuckolds decide to keep quiet and carry the shameful family secret to their graves. But we are dealing with political cuckoldry and no family honour is involved. Therefore, there is no need to keep quiet and carry on nurturing and caring for the political-baby, fathered by RAW, delivered by the midwife Indira Gandhi and registered on the birth and death registry book as the son of Sheikh Mujib. The majority of Bangladeshis once they realise the real story would like to see the records corrected and then move on to create a new political entity that does not have any genetical and philosophical links with the spirit of Akhand-Bharat, nor any links with the Sawdeshi-Anushilon ideology of Surya Sen. What we need to do, is create a New Bangladesh that reflects the values and aspirations of the majority of the population and reject the Nehru-Anushilon joint-venture legacy, that is nothing but an extension of Hindustan.
More recent events like the cold-blooded and ruthless Peelkhana Massacre will be remembered and recorded as the most significant event in the history of Bangladesh. Its effect will be far more far-reaching than anything that happened since the emergence of Bangladesh. Emboldened by the successful execution of over sixty army officers, the anti-Islamic elements inside Bangladesh egged on by their Indian Godfathers have embarked on more killings and executions. The killing process has now spread across the country and nobody feels safe in Bangladesh any longer, not even the members of the ruling party. Bangladesh has descended into an unbridled reign of terror. The only beneficiary of this chaotic political hell and social meltdown are the Indian political elites with hegemonic design over Bangladesh. The sooner we Bangladeshis realise this simple fact the better it will be for Bangladesh. The longer we take to realise this fact, staring right in front of our face, the longer the suffering of the people will continue.
Eternal vigilance is the price of freedom.
F M AzizOn Tue, Jan 8, 2013 at 11:05 AM, Isha Khan <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
------ Forwarded message ----------From: Zoglul Husain <email@example.com>
Date: Tue, Jan 8, 2013 at 1:37 AM
Subject: RE: Agartala Conspiracy Case and Sheikh Mujibur Rahman
To: Isha Khan <firstname.lastname@example.org>Cc: Abu Obaid Chowdhury <email@example.com>
Thanks to Obaid Chowdhury Bhai for his views. About Shaheed Lt Cdr Moazzem Hossain, I heard similar accounts and these are quite plausible, though evidence is difficult to find. I hope someday we would be able to recover our real history from the distortion and fabrication of the Indian hegemonists and their lackeys in BD.
Date: Mon, 7 Jan 2013 12:20:42 +0600From: firstname.lastname@example.org
Subject: Fwd: Agartala Conspiracy Case and Sheikh Mujibur Rahman
Dear Fazlul Aziz Bhai
Thank you for clarifying your position that you supported the independence of Bangladesh, but in the process you opposed Awami League's dependence on, or surrender to India, and you are right, it is very near my position that: We wanted independence for one reason, but India wanted to divide Pakistan for a different reason.
The issue needs to be analysed from the considerations of (i) 1757 Polashi War (or, actually, 'no-war' conspiracy), which you mentioned (ii) the independence movement to free India (or South Asia) from colonisation (iii) the Pakistan movement in British India and creation of Pakistan (iv) the anti-people policies of Pakistan Govt giving rise to aspiration of freedom amongst the people of the then East Pakistan (v) the Bangladesh independence movement, Pakistan govt's genocide in East Pakistan in 1971 leading to independence war and achievement of independence in 1971 (vi) the Indian policies and covert activities to divide, destroy and subjugate Pakistan and (vii) the correctness or incorrectness of the processes of achieving and defending the independence of Bangladesh.
These are of course time consuming discussions, which I intend to do when I find time. For now, what Isha Khan Bhai usually refers to as 'Memory Lane', I will refer to you the following:
"After the Congress sponsored agitation against the partition of Bengal (1905) an All India Muhammadan Educational Conference was held at Shahbag in Dhaka, capital of the then East Bengal and Assam Province in the year 1906. The conference was sponsored by Nawab Khwaja Salimullah the Nawab of Dhaka. The conference was inaugurated on 27 December 1906 and continued till 29 December 1906 as Conference on Education. The inaugural session was chaired by Nawab Justice Sharfuddin, the newly appointed justice of Calcutta High Court.
On 30 December 1906 political session of the conference took place. It was chaired by Nawab Viqar-ul-Mulk. In this session a motion to form an All India Muslim League (AIML) was proceeded. Initially a party styled as All India Muslim Confederacy was discussed. But, in the process the name All India Muslim League, proposed by Nawab Khawaja Sir Salimullah Bahadur and seconded by Hakim Azmal Khan, was resolved in the meeting. All delegates were registered as members of the proposed party led by Janab Muhsin-ul-mulk and Janab Wakar-ul-mulk was Joint Conveners.
AIML was first Muslim political party in the history of India. From the even date Muslims of all Indian provinces were under the mainstream political umbrella of Muslim League until independence achieved in the year 1947 under the leadership of Muslim League."
The above quote is from:
(please click to read) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_India_Muhammadan_Educational_Conference
(please click to see the picture of the participants of All India Muhammadan Educational Conference, which was held at Shahbag in Dhaka, capital of the then East Bengal and Assam Province in the year 1906. In this conference All India Muslim League (AIML) was formed with Janab Muhsin-ul-mulk (Nawab in Shimla, Himachal Pradesh) and Janab Wakar-ul-mulk (Nawab in Meerut, Uttar Pradesh) as Joint Conveners)
Very best wishes
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Isha Khan <email@example.com>
Date: Mon, Jan 7, 2013 at 12:16 PM
Subject: Fwd: Agartala Conspiracy Case and Sheikh Mujibur Rahman
------ Forwarded message ----------
Date: Mon, Jan 7, 2013 at 4:53 AM
Subject: Re: Agartala Conspiracy Case and Sheikh Mujibur RahmanI have been enjoying the enlightened debate on the Agartala Conspiracy Case (ACC). Thanks to all.The involvement of India, with its intelligence agency RAW, in Bangladesh affaires cannot be ignored. India's primary objective had been to break or weaken Pakistan, which was achieved in 1971. The secondary aim is to integrate Bangladesh with its northeastern region for political, economic and strategic reasons. .I would not give the entire credit of the creation of Bangladesh to India. As Zoglul Bhai always says, India helped us for one reason while the Bengalis fought for independence for another reason.It would be undermining the sacrifices made by our freedom fighters.Again, Pakistan is not a country to be trusted. In the facade of an Islamic swallow headed and self-seeking politico-military leadership of West Pakistan that helped the Indian design. Also, by giving full credit to India we would be ate, it had committed, one of the most heinous crimes in history against fellow Muslims. It is no better there today. Yet, I find some conscientious Pakistanis now speaking the truth about 1971, and strongly feel that they owe an apology to the Bangladeshis.I was born in a conservative and strong pro-Pakistan family, yet I believed that East Pakistan would be sooner or later, because the Two Nations theory became irrelevant. The TN theory was good for 30s and 40s for the realization of separate homelands for the Muslims. Over the years, however, it became illogical, impractical and useless due to the stupid, swallow-headed, self-seeking Pakistani leadership who never took Bengalis to be their equal. They forgot that it was these Bengalis who overwhelmingly voted for separate homeland in 1946, not them. True, India continued to add fuel the whole process, to suit its own agenda.The cumulative effect of deprivation and suffering found voice in late 60s in East Pakistan. For Bengalis, the nationwide anti.-Ayub movement turned to the demand for autonomy, and finally independence. Sheikh Mujib took advantage of the time and came out with the 6 Points. A couple of former Bengali CSPs, including AMA Muhit, made claims to pen the 6-Point. I even heard a suggestion that it was Altaf Gauhar, the powerful Information Secretary of President Ayub Khan, who masterminded the idea, under instruction from his boss, so that Mujib could be branded a separatist. By first reading, those points would appear absurd, but they had undergone many changes since. The agitated Bengalis liked them, without even realizing what the points contained and how they could be implemented. They were made to believe that only 6 Points could solve their problems with the Punjabis. Mujib became the voice for the Bengalis.At that juncture, Ayub decided to institute the ACC, perhaps to divert the attention of the nation from intense anti-Ayub agitation throughout Pakistan. I may give a little background to the ACC that I know.Bengali Lieutenant Commander Moazzem Hossain of Pakistan Navy initiated the independence movement from his drawing room in Karachi in early 50s. With a few low level officers and men of army, navy, airforce and civil service, he discussed the idea of forming a liberation army on the style of Indian National Army of Subhas Bose. The limitation of a serving military person did not take it far. He was out of the country for training for a few years. Upon return, he was posted to Chittagong in early 60s and restarted his secret contacts. With a view to seeking external help, he reportedly contacted the Indian intelligence in Dhaka which advised him to get political support. Few politicians took him seriously, some even called him a madcap. Commander Moazzem did not trust Sheikh Mujib, for whatever reasons, yet Mujib was said to be the only one to have reacted positively. It was then he decided to contact the Indian authorities directly.According to one version, Mujib went upto Kasba in Comilla but did not cross the border. Two aides of Moazzem, Steward Mujibur Rahman and Ali Reza, went to Agartala and contacted the Chief Minister. Prime Minister Nehru declined support at that stage. He was afraid of China, which was a close ally of Pakistan, and the debacle of the 1962 Indo-Chinese war was still fresh in his mind. As a respected non-aligned leader then, he did not want to take open criticisms for involving another country's break-up .It could be possible that Mujib did visit Agartala at some point. According to a senior army officer, Sheikh Hasina said to him that upon return from Agartala her father entered the house through back door the moment Pakistani intelligence came from the front. It could also be possible that today's Awami leaders want to give credit to their leader for the ACC---something like the declaration of independence of Bangladesh.Interestingly, Steward Mujib was killed by Awami elements immediately after the independece.Commander Moazzem was picked up from his residence in Dhaka in December 1967, helped by a Bengali intelligence officer Captain Nurul Islam Shishu (later General and Minister) and was detained. Despite extreme torture on him, the authorites could not get much information. When released after 14 months, he was physically broken and a stickman. Commander Moazzem was gunned down by the Pakistanis in front of his residence in Dhaka on March 26, 1971. He remained an unsung hero. Sheikh Mujib never talked about him, less his own role in the ACC became marginalized.Amidst the intense anti-government poetical movement, Ayub Khan decided to start the sedition case in June 1968, styled as the Agartala Conspiracy Case with a view to sensationalizing the issue. In the original charge sheet, Commander Moazzem was the Number One accused, most others being low level officials. However, the case "Moazzem vs. State" appeared ridiculous and weak. Ayub then came up with his supposed brilliant idea of implicating Sheikh Mujib in it, ostensibly to finish the Bengali leader once for all. It backfired. The entire East Pakistan, including such anti-Awami figures as Bhasani and Nurul Amin stood behind Sheikh Mujib and supported him. Mujib became a fairy tale hero. Ayub had to withdraw the case. We know the rest of the story.Sheikh Mujib definitely was an ambitious and opportunist leader. He sided with the Pakistanis when he found a promise of fulfilling his ambition with them. He went with the Indians when it suited his personal agenda of taking credits.Tere was also a duality in his character. Overtly, he portrayed himself to be a loving, generous and patriotic leader. Inside, he was unforgiving, non-tolerant of opposing voices and ruthlessly dangerous. Examples are too many to cite here.Regards,-----Original Message-----
From: Isha Khan <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Sent: Sat, Jan 5, 2013 10:32 pm
Subject: Re: Agartala Conspiracy Case and Sheikh Mujibur Rahman
Dear Zoglul Bhai
We are more in agreement than you realise. I concluded with the following statement: "The mistake was not for deciding to cut loose from Pakistan, but for being so naive and seeking to liberate Bangladesh with the support of the government of Hindustan."
India wanted to divide Pakistan not simply for geo-political reason. The Chanakya legacy of the Indian elite's mind-set also wanted to ensure that the separation should be a very bloody and vicious one. They wanted to show the world that Muslims cannot rule themselves and the Muslims of the sub-continent will be better off if they submit to the Indians. It was also necessary to show to the millions of Muslims in India that they are lucky indeed that they are citizens of India and not Pakistan. The Indians did everything in their power to ensure that the separation of Bangladesh from Pakistan should take place through the most bitter and vicious struggle possible so that the memory of those atrocities could be used to legitimise the suppression of islam in Bangladesh, just as the Zionists use the memory of the Nazi Holocaust to oppress the Palestinians and deprive them from their right of self determination and their right of return.We need to make a clear distinction of the population of Bangladesh. The Hindus of Bangladesh never wanted a separate and independent Bangladesh and if they are given the choice they will vote to a man for merger with India. No one should be surprised at this claim of mine. The Hindus of Bangladesh by forming an alliance called the Hindu-Bouddhya-Christian Parishad has publicly shown that they have no qualms in forming alliance with Christians and Buddhists against the Muslims of Bangladesh.The Muslims of Bangladesh should have excercised more caution and should not have conspired and schemed in league with Indian intelligence agents and politicians before 1971. The Muslim politicians and intellectuals of Bangladesh displayed extreme naivity when they decided to embrace the very same Indians who were refusing right of self dtermination to the Muslims of Kashmir. Do the Muslims of Bangladesh pray to a different Ilaha than the Kashmiri Muslims? What makes the Bengali Muslims more deserving of Indian Sympathy?It is rather unfortunate that a large section of the educated Bengali Muslim elite saw themselves more as Bengalis and less as Muslims and they did not even bother to find out how the Indian political regime were treating the Kashmiri Muslims. These Secular-Bengali-Muslims were so blinded by their hatred for islam that they were even oblivious to the fact that the Bengali Muslims in West bengal were facing far greater discrimination than the discrimination they faced within Pakistan. They totally forgot the extreme form of discrimination under the upper-caste Hindu Bengali bhadroloks before 1947. It was not wrong to seek a separate and independent Bangladesh, but to seek independence with the help of India was a totally imbecile and unforgivable course of action. What is happening inside Bangladesh today vindicates the fact that it was utterly foolish to seek independence with Indian help. What happened in Peelkhana should be enough to convince even the most Indophile and ultra-secular Bangladeshi Muslims, that given the opportunity India would love to rule the Muslims of Bangladesh with the same iron hand that they have been using against the Kashmiri Muslims for the last sixty years.However, I do not and cannot blame anyone for seeking Indian help after 25th March 1971. But those who schemed and conspired with India before 1971, cannot be and should not be forgiven, simply because of the fact that, had they not done so, the need for seeking Indian help in 1971, would not even have arisen.With best wishes and kind regards,
On Sun, Jan 6, 2013 at 12:30 PM, Isha Khan <email@example.com> wrote:
Zoglul Husain wrote:
Thank you for your views. I was commenting on the report of the Northeast Today, circulated by Isha Khan, about the acceptability of the narratives and stories of the report. I said that the event of Agartala visit was true, at least partially, as far as I understood, but the accounts in the report in this context need evidence to be acceptable.
You have, however, embarked on a different discussion altogether. You seem to be saying that Bangladesh movement was an Indian agenda, and so it was wrong to join the independence movement. But my views on the subject are different. I express it with one sentence, which is: We wanted independence for one reason, but India wanted to divide Pakistan for a different reason. It of course needs a long discussion to elaborate and explain, starting from 1757 if you like, as you have tended to do. No doubt, you have your arguments too. I leave the discussion for some other time.
On Sun, Jan 6, 2013 at 12:28 PM, Isha Khan <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
When the Agartala Conspiracy was initially announced most people of Bangladesh did not immediately assume that it was a ploy of the West Pakistani ruling elites to send Mujib behind bars, because he was the most vocal campaigner against discrimination. The civil and political environment in those days were not even remotely comparable to 1975 when Mujib got rid of Seraj Sikder with a press release that Sikder was shot while trying to escape from police custody. In late Sixties rule of law was very much alive and the political activists did not have to worry about summary execution without trial by law enforcement agents.
If the Government of Pakistan did not have foolproof evidence and a solid case against Sheikh Mujib, they would not have allowed the defendants to engage barristers from England as defence counsels. The proceedings of the tribunal were held in open court and national and international press were given free access to witness and report on the unfolding cortroom drama.
When more than one of the accused publicly admits that they were involved in a conspiracy and they support their statements with details of activities, meetings and contents of discussions held, there are no justifiable grounds for not believing the people who were involved and admit openly that they were involved. Room for expressing doubts could only exist if the accused were equally divided with one half claiming that there was a conspiracy and they took part in it and the other half made the counter claim that there were no conspiracy and those who claim of conspiracy are lying. So far none of those involved in the conspiracy has claimed that the co-conspirators who admitted involvement are guilty of outright and outrageous lies.
Contrary to what most Bangladeshis believed in 1969, the Agartala Conspiracy Mamla was not a Mithya Mamla. The real mithya element was the propaganda we all believed: the Agartala Mamla was mithya mamla and it was a Machiavellian ploy by the West Pakistanis to silence Mujib by putting him behind bar.
That the Government of Pakistan had a very robust case was revealed by Abdul Gaffar Choudhury in an article published in the London Janomot sometime in the mid Nineties. In that article AGC described how and why the procession towards the Kurmitola Cantonment was organised and how Lal-Moulana Bhasani was brought on board and why he agreed to lead the procession and march towards the Dhaka Kurmitola Cantonment where the tial was being held. To cut a long story short as soon as the Awami league leadership realised they were going to lose the case because of the overwhelming weight of evidence, they decided that the only option left is to prevent the trial from proceeding any further. The rule of law was stopped from taking its course by unleashing the rule of mob: a mob that has stirred up by concocting a false narrative. Some AL activists rushed to see Bhasani and were able to convince him that the case was fabricated case. The highly emotional popular leader Bhasani was easy to convince and did not posses the lawyers training to ask the pertinent questions. Bhasani agreed to lead the procession and the rest is history.
Even thogh AGC mentioned names of some AL leaders who went through the light bulb moment and decided to act, and the decision was to use Bhasani as the spearhead of their tactical human-procession weapon to stop the trial, the real mastermind behind these decisions were the Indian master planners of the Agartala Conspiracy.
The Agartala Conspiracy was not a conspiracy that was hatched inside the brains of Bangladeshi activists and politicians. With the benefit of hindsight it is fairly obvious that the Bagladeshi players were the pawns and the real master planners were agents of the Indian intelligence organisation RAW. An intelligence organisation that gets its agenda and marching orders from the prime minister of India. From the book by Basant Chaterjee (Inside Bangladesh Today) we now know that Pondit Nehru has been scheming since August 1947 to reclaim East Bengal and once again make it an integral part of Undivided India.The long-term master plan to recalim East Bengal was always there since August 1947, but the reclamation project suddenly became extreme urgent for the Indian Political High Command after the debacle of the 1962 Indo-China War. In that war India was utterly humiliated by the Chinese Army. The Indian defence completely collapsed and the Chinese were able to march down into the Assam plain without any Indian resistance whatsoever. The entire state machinery collapsed and panic set in. The Chinese were stunned and surprised and decided that enough is enough, a jesson has been taught and unilaterally withdrew their forces.The fact that Mujib was invited to Agartala in November 1963, a year after 1962 war, was not just a co-incidence and in fact carries great significance. The Bhagya-Bidhata of this Agartala Encounter was not Bango-bandhu Sheikh Mujib but Bango-phagus Pondit Nehru and the operational headquarter was not in Dhaka but in New Delhi. Mujib was only the unwitting twentieth century Mir Zafar. However, it is necessary to emphasise that if Mir Zafar knew beforehand that he will be kicked out by Robert Clive, two years later and that within a decade the Muslim ruling elites of Bengal will lose all their powers and priveleges, then Mir Zafar would not have committed Mir-Zafari in 1757. It is high time that the Bangladeshi ruling elite realise that 1971 was just another 1757 and the role and mantle of the East India Company on this occasion was taken over by All India Company.
In the age of Nawabs and Badshahs, East India Company could get what it wanted by swindling only a few people at the top. In the modern age of democracy and elected governments, alien powers need to swindle the entire voting population in order to achieve their goals. The Indian rulers based in Delhi successfully managed to swindle the majority of the people of Bangladesh in the latter half of Sixties. To dupe Mir Zafar East India Company sent agents dressed as purdah-nashin woman in palanquins to negotiate and finalise the deal. To dupe the majority of Bangladeshi Muslims the Indians had to devote much more time, work much harder and employ more resources. In the Indian game plan for East Bengal, the most crucial role was played by the Bangladeshi academics and journalists who consciously opted or unconsciously got ensnared, due to their lack of historical perspective and short-termism. The first shot in this Indian game plan was fired by Rehman Sobhan. Rehman Sobhan who was an economist at the Pakistan Institute of Development Economics was an extremely close and long-term associate of economist Amartya Sen. The timing of Sobhan's crucial paper is highly relevant. It was four years after the 1962 Indo-China war and one year after the 1965 Indo-Pak War. And Mujib was invited to India in November 1963, just one year after the 1962 Indo-China War. The entire East Bengal press and political activitists took the issue on board and soon it snowballed into a secessionist movemen. The movemnet was co-ordinated and guided behind the scene by RAW. Raw also provided unlimited financial, intelligence and material support.When America decided to build the Panama Canal in 1903, they also decided to create a new weaker and breakaway state Panama by breaking up Columbia and the process was begun by launching and funding a rebel group to liberate Panama from the despotic rulers of Columbia. Similarly, after the humiliating defeat in 1962, the Indian realised that if they ever have to fight against China again, they will need a better transport and logistic infrastructure. The Chicken Neck obstacle had to be removed and India needed to establish unfettered road, rail and-river right-of-way through East Bengal to North East Frontier and Arunachal. Creation of Bangladesh was the solution and Awami league under Sheikh Mujib was the answer to the Indian prayer. The Agartala Conspiracy was a tactical element in the long-term North-East Strategic Plan of India.The Bangladeshi Muslims are the ultimate sacrificial lambs in this Chanakya inspired game. It is not yet too late to stop behaving like lambs and start acting like Bengal Tigers and admit that we made a serious mistake in the Sixties. The mistake was not for deciding to cut loose from Pakistan, but for being so naive and seeking to liberate Bangladesh with the support of the government of Hindustan.The video link is provided as a prop to help you understand the mindset that informed the humiliated Indian Political and Military High Command in the Sixties.
On Thu, Jan 3, 2013 at 12:45 PM, Isha Khan <email@example.com> wrote:
Foyez Ahmed in his book, 'Agartala Mamla: Sheikh Mujib o Banglar Bidroho', Shahitya Prokash, Dhaka, 1994 has a statement from Shachindra Lal Sing, former Tripura Chief Minister where he said the Sheikh had visited Agartala in 1963.
On Thu, Jan 3, 2013 at 11:11 AM, Isha Khan <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
-------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Zoglul Husain <email@example.com>
Date: Wed, Jan 2, 2013 at 7:10 PM
Subject: RE: Agartala Conspiracy Case and Sheikh Mujibur Rahman
To: Isha Khan <firstname.lastname@example.org>
The link for the report of the Northeast Today should be:
However, it is difficult to know the truth of the Agartala conspiracy case, though it is known that it is partially true, but how much of it is true is difficult to ascertain.
Col Shawkat Ali LLB, Dy Speaker and one of the 35 accused in the case, claimed on 22 February 2011 in the parliament that the charges read out in the court were 'accurate'. He wrote two books on the case, one Bangla and one English. I don't know if he claimed the same in these books or whether these books were written before or after his statement in the parliament. And why out of the 35 accused in the case, all those who were living after independence of BD in 1971 or those living today including himself, did not claim it all these 40 years, is a question that is bound to arise.
Hasina claimed, as reported on 8 March 2010, that Mujib planned separation from Pakistan in 1969 in London. But why didn't she refer to Mujib's visit to Agartala in 1963? And again, why didn't she or anyone else say it all these years since independence? Please see:
Mujib planned separation from Pakistan in 1969: Hasina
As far as we know, Mujib on the night of 25 March 1971 neither gave any written nor any verbal declaration of independence, even after fervent request by Tajuddin. He also refused to go to India with others or join independence war, though he knew about the military crack down. He waited to surrender as per prior arrangements. In his speech of 7 March 1971, he finished the speech with 'Joy Bangla, Ji-e Pakistan'.
In the report of the Northeast Today, it said: 'Of course, Sheikh Mujibur Rahaman was not involved in the Agartala Conspiracy Case-though he was implicated and made Accused No-1 – but at that time he did not come to Tripura. He came only once and that was in 1963." This report contradicts Shawkat's claim of 'accuracy' in the charges. Intelligence officials, and some politicians in cases like these, cook many stories. We need evidence to accept these.
Date: Wed, 2 Jan 2013 12:04:01 +0600
Subject: Agartala Conspiracy Case and Sheikh Mujibur Rahman
Agartala Conspiracy Case and Sheikh Mujibur Rahman
Some historians/writers/concerned persons have wrote about it. In 2010, and on the anniversary of the withdrawal of Agartala conspiracy case a surviving conspirator and Deputy Speaker of the Parliament Colonel Shawkat Ali confessed to the parliament at a point of order that the charges read out to them were accurate, stating that they formed a Shangram Parishad under Sheikh Mujib for the secession of East Pakistan.
Sheikh Mujibur Rahman's Secret Visit to Agartala:
He came only once and that was in 1963. Though the specifics of his meetings with Tripura Chief Minister Sachindra Lal Singha will never be known because both Singha and Mujib are long dead and gone, there is nodoubt that the "Bangabandhu" was testing the waters to secure Indian help for his cause.Satya Deb, a former Class IV staff of Smarajit Chakrabarty, the then Sub Divisional Officer of Khowai, West Tripura is among the three living men who had seen Sheikh Mujibur Rahaman during that secret trip to Tripura."It was if I correctly remember in November 1963-according to some it was cool November 3 afternoon-when Sheikh Mujib crossed over the border", said Arun Bhattacharjee, then a clerk at the SDO Khowai office."The way all involved maintained hush-hush and the alacrity in which the entire visit was handled it became clear to us that it was a top secret visit by Sheikh Mujib.It was after a series of discussions with Mujib, Tripura Chief Minister Sachindra Lal Singh accompanied by Chief Secretary B Raman flew to New Delhi to meet Prime Minister Jawhar Lal Nehru."I met the Prime Minister personally as Chief Secretary stayed at the Foreign Secretary's office chamber. We discussed Indian helps for Mujib's movement.
"Ontoraler Sheikh Mujib" by Dr Kalidas Baidya (Swadhin Bongobhumi Movement leader), Kolkata, 2005 has the details of Mujib's connections with the Indian policy makers as early as 1950s.