The mystery of the Agartala visit
by Azizul Jalil
Most of the background and events leading to the war of liberation of 1971 are well-known. A mystery, however, remained whether Sheikh Mujibur Rahman went to Agartala to seek India's assistance to liberate East Pakistan and if so, when did he go?
Sheikh Mujib visited London in 1956 on his way back from a trip to the USA. I had the privilege to spend a day with him, taking him round to different places, including the British Museum and Hyde Park Corner. At a small private dinner attended by the Sheikh that evening, he was asked whether the Awami League was an all-Pakistan party. Sheikh Mujib replied that he had hung up a signboard of the party through Nawabzada Nasrullah Khan in Lahore- the Awami League, however, was an East Bengal political party. He spiritedly stated that one should really consider how long East Bengal should remain within Pakistan.
In his 'Unfinished Autobiography', one can see how from the early days of Pakistan he and the Awami League had waged a struggle for more autonomy for East Bengal. The idea of independence was simmering in his mind since the mid-fifties and he was waiting for the right time to push it. That opportunity finally came when the verdict of the 1970 national polls was utterly disregarded and the army was let loose on the people of East Pakistan on March 25, 1971. But even before that, in the early nineteen-sixties, attempts were made by him to hasten its freedom by using every opportunity and means, including external support.
Let us begin with my conversation with Abdul Khaleque, who was the Superintendant of Police in Kushtia in 1966-67 when I was the Deputy Commissioner. I went from Kushtia to the President's Secretariat in Rawalpindi. In early 1968, Khaleque came to Pindi for a conference with the Director of Central Intelligence. He was then the East Pakistan coordinator of the so-called Agartala Conspiracy Case. When he came to see me, I found him completely alienated from the actions of the government. In answer to my question whether there was any concrete evidence, he told me that there was none. It was the indiscrete talk by a few low-level Bengali army men that caught intelligence's attention. When I enquired whether anyone had gone to Agartala, he said only a couple of junior- commissioned officers had gone but the Indians did not wish to deal with them.
In early 2005, I met the first foreign secretary of Bangladesh, S. A. Karim, in Dhaka. I conveyed to him my information that Sheikh Mujib had not gone to Agartala to seek Indian help. He said Mujib had definitely gone but much earlier than thought-in 1963. The revised edition of his book, Sheikh Mujib: Triumph and Tragedy published by UPL in 2009 mentions the details of Mujib's journey and its outcome. The book in a footnote quotes one Muazzem Ahmed Choudhury, an old college friend of Mujibur Rahman, on Jawaharlal Nehru's ambivalent reply: 'We are prepared to help politically all democratic movements.' Karim's book also reports an interview in 1991 with Tripura Chief Minister, Sachin Sinha in which Nehru is said to have advised against any activity by Sheikh Mujib from Indian soil. Nehru was not desirous of undertaking any serious task so soon after India's humiliating defeat in the north-eastern border war with China in October 1962. Karim writes that the visit remained a well-kept secret and even after the independence, the participants involved in this episode were reticent to talk about it.
He also mentions that Shekh Mujib, in a discussion in 1974 with one Shamsuzzaman Khan said on condition that he would not be quoted until after twenty years that he did go to Agartala and had a useful discussion with the leaders there. He said it was not a conspiracy but 'our striving for independence.'
Since then, I have read Sashanka Banerjee's book titled 'India, Mujibur Rahman, Bangladesh Liberation and Pakistan' published in 2011 and an Indian media personality, Manas Pal's account in Bengal Newz of November 5, 2012. They also mention Sheikh Mujib's secret visit to Agartala but their and Karim's accounts vary in a few details.
Banerjee was a political officer in the Indian diplomatic mission in Dhaka in the early sixties, living next door to the Ittefaq office. He was surprised when on December 24, 1962 he was requested to visit the office of the Ittefaq editor, Tofazzal Hossain-popularly known as Manik Mia. At the office, he was introduced to Sheikh Mujib who handed over a confidential letter, which was to be sent to the Indian prime minister. The letter requesting Indian government's material support to Bangladesh's independence movement was forwarded to Delhi by cypher message. According to Banerjee, Sheikh Mujib's plan was to go to London, declare independence of East Pakistan and form a provisional government there.
Due to the absence of senior government leaders at the time, response to the letter got delayed. Mujib became impatient and decided to hasten India's response through the Tripura chief minister, Sinha. He, along with Manik Mia, secretly traveled to Tripura via Kulaura (Sylhet) in early 1963 and first reached the office-cum-residence of Samarjit Chakravarty, SDO Khowai. Samarjit had recorded the visit in his diary on a page, which showed the date-Feb. 5, 1962: 'Today at about 1300 hrs, one Mr. Mujibur Rahman with Amir Hossain and T. Choudhury arrived here from Ashrambari. They were sent to Agartala under instruction from DM.' In view of references to the post India-China border war of October 1962 in all discussions; it is possible that Samarjit was using a year-old diary. That note is the only available records of the Sheikh's Agartala visit, until the Indian intelligence or the prime minister's office declassify their old archive.
Sinha urgently went to Delhi to convey Sheikh Mujib's request. Nehru's opinion was that the moment was inopportune and he was not clear what material help was requested from India. He also wondered if Sheikh Mujib then had sufficient following among the Bengali people for a mass uprising. A frustrated Mujib decided to proceed no further and return to East Pakistan. While the matter was referred to in the Agartala Conspiracy Case trials in 1968-69, it was not pursued due to lack of any concrete evidence in respect of Sheikh Mujib.
After long fifty years, information on the visit is coming out. It would be appropriate now to consider whether Sheikh Mujib's plan in the early-sixties was a practical proposition even if Nehru had decided to bless it. Would it have received the national and international support and sympathy that the Bangladesh's independence struggle eventually received in 1971?
The move might have been premature. India, whose help was critical, was not ready to assist. I believe that Indian reluctance to support in 1963 was based on some or all of the following considerations: Firstly, there was no evidence that the people of East Pakistan were prepared at the time for such a sudden and abrupt separation from Pakistan.
Secondly, most East Pakistanis had an adverse opinion of India and its intentions. The older generations had not forgotten the communal riots before and after the partition of India and the attitude of the Hindu Mahasabha and the right-wing of the Congress.
Thirdly, Pakistan was solidly in the US camp and recipient of heavy economic and military aid from the US. It had a sufficiently strong army. Ayub Khan was still enjoying a high stature, both nationally and internationally. Fourthly, the Indo-Pakistan war of 1965, which showed how defenseless East Pakistan was from Indian aggression, had not taken place. And lastly, no coherent program of autonomy had yet been announced. Awami League's radical Six-point demands for autonomy and a democratic, political framework for inter-wing relationship on the basis of a possible confederation came only in 1966.
Thus, the objective conditions for a successful attempt by East Pakistanis for their liberation were not obtaining in 1963. Nehru's benign neglect of East Pakistan's national aspirations was perhaps a blessing in disguise. Mujib was statesmanlike, thereafter, in his constitutional step-by-step approach from 1966 on. He organized the people and the Awami League, relentlessly carried on a political movement for complete autonomy and succeeded in liberating the country.
-------- Forwarded message ----------From: Zoglul Husain <zoglul@hotmail.co.uk>
Date: Mon, Jan 14, 2013 at 7:49 AM
Subject: RE: Agartala Conspiracy Case and Sheikh Mujibur Rahman
To: Isha Khan <bdmailer@gmail.com>
It is quite heartening to know that Fazlul Aziz Bhai is fully agreed to Obaid Bhai's interpretation of the independence of Bangladesh issue. He also recently agreed with me that 'we wanted independence for one reason, but India wanted to divide Pakistan for another reason'.
But I think his overall outlook about independence is somewhat different from both Obaid Bhai's and mine. If he is saying that those who wanted independence were all gullible to Indian intelligence operation, or were fooled by them, then I think his interpretation is problematic. His assessment of Bhashani, or even Mujib, is also problematic. Bhashani was aware of Indian hegemonism all the time and he was one of the leading proponents of independence. He was a great patriot. Mujib never wanted independence, at least I have not seen any convincing evidence of it, though he made various postures and used bargain chips to become a Prime Minister in a confederation of Pakistan (India is a federal constitutional republic). His 6-point programme was the programme of confederation, his 7 March 1971 speech ended with 'Joy Bangla, Ji-e Pakistan' and on the night of 25 March 1971 he didn't join the independence war, but willingly surrendered to Pakistan army as per prior arrangements.On the other hand, Pakistan govt was an oppressive govt and, as we all know, oppression is not supported by Islam. Their (govt's) genocide in East Pakistan in 1971 was not to defend Islam. It was a worst crime, which cannot be supported by Islam. Islam does not support the oppression of any of regimes anywhere in the world, including the Muslim majority countries.As regards Pakistan, originally, in the Lahore resolution of 1940, moved by AK Fazlul Huq, Pakistan was conceived as two 'independent states' (which in 1946 was changed to 'state'), one in the east and one in the west. In 1946, Suhrawardi (Chief Minister of Bengal) and Abul Hashim represented majority Muslim view that the independent Muslim state in the east should consist of the whole of Bengal, the whole of then Assam and an adjacent part of the district of Purnea in Bihar which had a Muslim majority. But the Hindu Mahasabha and the Congress foiled it. The Muslim League could not prevent the partitions of Bengal and the Punjab.Fazlul Aziz Bhai's views on Rabindranath and Anushilon Shamiti are also problematic and actually not tenable in my view. Rabindranath did not join independence movement against the British rule, he promoted cooperation with it, his feudal interest led him to oppose partition of Bengal in 1905 and the Dhaka University, and he was not above communal feelings against the Muslims, but he was, in general, humanitarian, a great poet, composer and litterateur and a person of many great qualities.Anushilon Shamiti, Jugantor, Khudiram, Surja Sen played great roles in the independence movement against the British rule. It is true, the Anushilon shamiti started as a Hindu group, but it did not stay there. These need long historical discussion. Both Khudiram and Surjya Sen are great names in the anti-British independence movement, remembering that one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. They inspired millions, including the Muslims, in the freedom movement against colonial rule.We see that Siraj-ud-daula had Hindus with him, again Mir Jafar had Hindus with him. In the movement for freedom from colony, both Hindus and Muslims fought for freedom. On the other side, both Hindus and Muslims were in the British army in India. Again, both Hindus and Muslims were involved in the first independence war in 1857 ('Sipoy Mutiny').In the recent wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, Muslims were on both sides of the wars. Doesn't that make Fazlul Aziz Bhai's views null and void in his approach to politics?Personally I support religion. All major religions oppose oppression and injustice. It can be shown that colonial empires were not conquest of one religion over another, though religion was preached in the colonies. The decolonisation movements were also not religious movements, though religion played a part. The same things can be said about WWI and WWII. These were in the main imperialist wars, not religious wars, though Turkey gave a call of 'Jihad' in WWI (and the British Indian army, which fought against Turkey in WWI had many Muslim soldiers in its ranks). In these wars, domination and plunder were the main agenda i.e. the agenda of imperialism, not conquest of one religion over another.Indian hegemonism is not a religious issue, though religion can play a part. It is like imperialism, it is in the main domination and plunder. In India, 75% people are 'Dalits' (formerly called 'untouchables') and semi-'Dalits'. Aren't both Hindus and Muslims oppressed by the Indian govt? In Bangladesh, both Muslims and Hindus are being oppressed by the Govt. Our fight against Indian hegemonism is to safeguard our independence and sovereignty, our national resources and our national interest.We want all patriots, irrespective of gender, religion, ethnicity, nationality, etc. to join the struggle to save the country. We will unite, we will win!
Date: Sun, 13 Jan 2013 13:09:47 +0600
Subject: Re: Agartala Conspiracy Case and Sheikh Mujibur Rahman
From: bdmailer@gmail.com
To:
From Fazlul Aziz:
I fully agree, and so will most Bangladeshis with the obesrvation made by Obaid Bhai: "The first job is to unite ourselves and get out of the Indian influence and its so called "Radar Screen". We also need to clearly and unequivocally decide on the factor that has both direct relevance and the mobilising power to unite us, in our current fight against the existential threat to the survival and continuation of Bangladesh as an independent and sovereign (?) political entity. If we fail to do so, we are going to wiped off the map, as an independent state. I will try to establish my case using three oft quoted short observations: Geography is destiny; History is destiny; Demography is destiny.
First of all I need to assure Obaid Bhai that I am neither a specialist nor an expert, but I see myself as a patriotic Bangladeshi. To me Bangladesh is a very specific piece of territory defined by an internationally recognised boundary that was drawn on the basis of a very specific criteria. The specific criteria was the religious faith of the the majority of the population then living inside, what is today known as Bangladesh.The boundary that defines Bangladesh was drawn in 1947 on the basis of the popular mandate asserted during the 1946 Indian Election. The boundary of Bangladesh was drawn by the inclusion of all the Muslim majority contigous mauzas of Bengal and Assam.
A nation state has two essential defining elements: a territory and a population with a certain characteristics that differentiates them from the surrounding and neighbouring population. The unique distinction that is the raison d etre for Bangladesh is the islamic faith of the people of Bangladesh. The Bengali Muslims voted overwhelmingly in favour of their Muslim identity and that was the basis and justification for the creation in 1947, and the only raison d etre for its existence and continuation. Both Sheikh Mujib and Bhasani not only voted as Muslims in 1946, but they also campaigned very hard for it. Sheikh Mujibar Rahman went even further, he spent many weeks before the partition of 1947, camapigning in Behar encouraging the Behari Muslims to migrate to East Bengal!!!
It would be futile to disagree with Obaid Bhai's view that Pakistani political, civil and military leaders were also responsible for the 1971 war and all the harmful and devastating consequences that followed from it. But, I would not go as far as and hold them more responsible for the debacle, than the Indians. The idiotic Pakistanis played into the Indian game plan, because they were more interested in material and worldly moolas. The Indians on the other hand, were inspired by ultra-nationalistic goals and were absolutely ruthless and insensitive in their attidude towards Muslims. They were also insensitive towards the sufferings of poor Hindus. Indians implemented their policies and plans in a highly callous and calcultaed fashion which they knew well in advance, will cause untold sufferings for millions of poor and lower caste Hindus of Bangladesh.
In my opinion East Pakistani secular academics and left-leaning pro-Indian Muslims also played their part and scored goals for India without even realising whose game they were playing. Many Bangladeshis are now realising that the following statement that you made also applies to many Bangladesi leaders including Sheikh Mujibar Rahman and Abdul Hamid Bhasani: "Ironically, the idiotic politico-military leadership of Pakistan played along the Indian design."
In support of the above assertion I do not need to go far for evidence, and I will do it by using materials you have kindly posted. You have noted quite rightly that after the war Indira Gandhi boasted: "hazaar saalon ka badla". Please also note that she did not say twenty-four years (1947-1971, since the creation of Pakistan); she did not say sixty-five years (1906-1071, since Muslim League was formed in Dhaka); but she said hazaro saal' : and that can only mean she was thinking of badla against Muslims, and the audience for this braggadocio was exclusively the Hindus of the sub-continent. This badla was not only against the Muslims of Pakistan, this badla was also against the Muslims of Bangladesh, who Indira was supposed to have liberated. But, "Ironically, the idiotic politico-military leadership of Pakistan"--- and the equally idiotic Swadeshi-Anushilon manipulated political leaders of Bangladesh --- "played along the Indian design."
The post 1965 War, secessionist movement of Awami League was led and manipulated, behind the scene by the Swadeshi-Anushilon inspired Hindus of Bangladesh with the material and technical support of RAW. One early proof is provided by the fact that the song Amar Shonar Bangla was adopted as the campaign song of the cessationist movement and Surya Sen was selected as the mascot for mobilising the youth. Both these Hindu-icons are recycled materials from the early twentieth century Swadeshi-Anushilon terrorist movements of the Bengali Hindus aginst the creation of a separate Muslim majority province with Dhaka as its capital. Can you think of anything more idiotic than the teachers and students of Dhaka University adopting a song by Tagore, the anti-Muslim Hindu who tried his best to prevent the establishment of Dhaka University! How else can you explain the adoption of the very song that Tagore composed to undo the Partition of 1905? How on earth can anybody other than an idiot, hold a person in high esteem, who would not even allow them to join his organisation as ordinary members!!! It reminds me of the English joke, 'Turkeys voting for Christmas'.
For the turkeys of Bangladesh, Christmas has at last arrived. On the first day of Christmas the army-officer-turkeys in Peelkhana were slaughtered; on the second day of Christmas more army officer turkeys were hanged; on the third day of Christmas the Chief Whip of BNP MP turkey was beaten-up and floored in Shere-Banglanagar by Daroga Biplob Kumar Das; on the fourth day of Christmas Mahmudur Rahman was jailed and tortured; on the fifth day of Christmas War Crime Tribunal was constituted; and so on until; on the twelfth day of Christmas __________ was slaughtered ( please write you name in capital letter in the blank space, if you happen to be a Muslim who believe in an independent Bangladesh with all vestiges of Indian influence banished from Bangladesh).
There was a time, when to save ourselves from a vicious enemy attack, the majority had to unite as an ethnic group defined by the Bengali language. Now, the time has come, when we can only save ourselves by uniting as an ethnic group defined by our religion: Islam. I need to emphasise, that when i say 'we Bangladeshis' I am referring to the identity of the majority: which is Bengali-speaking Muslims and in 1971, we had no choice but to alienate the Urdu-speaking people living in Bangladesh. Today, faced with another vicious enemy attack, we the majority can only save ourselves by uniting as Bengali Muslims. When the majority are forced to choose minorities are alienated: in 1971 the alienated group was the Urdu-speaking Muslims, and this time the alenated group will be the Bengai-speaking Hindus. If the Bengali Hindus are alienated, then they are to blame given their recent behaviours and chauvinistic attitudes towards practicing Muslims. They are to blame for embracing with unbridled enthusiasm, the Bush-Blair anti-Islamic global campaign, launched against Muslims under the false pretence of war Against Terror.
Today, we as Bangladeshis are facing an existential crisis. We are fighting an existential and historical struggle and Bangladesh cannot exist as an independent country, if islam is removed as an ingredient of the political recipe that defines Bangladesh. It was the islamic identity of the people that was the only factor that was responsible for the emergence of the demarcated territory that is now shown on the map of the world as Bangladesh.
The Bengali Hindus who under the leadership of Masterda Surya Sen formed the Anushilon organisation were inspired by the leader of the eighteenth century ruthless Marhatta leader Shivaji. Shivaji was not a Bengali-speaking Hindu and yet the Bengali Hindus think that it is OK or them as Hindus to blindly follow a Marhatta-speaking, but the Bengali Muslims should be persecuted for even daring to Urdu-speaking Muslims. Any Muslim who accepts and acts on such oulandish hateful diktats of the Bengali Hindus, does not even deserve to be called a Muslim.
"Is there a greater hero, a greater saint, a greater bhakta and a greater king than Shivaji? Shivaji was the very embodiment of a born ruler of men as typified in our great Epics. He was the type of the real son of India representing the true consciousness of the nation. It was he who showed what the future of India is going to be sooner or later, a group of independent units under one umbrella as it were, under one supreme imperial suzerainty." - Swami Vivekananda
The best operational definition of politics that I ever came across states that, "Politics is the mobilisation of bias." And the best bias for mobilising the overwhelming majority of Bangladeshis is our bias and love for our Great Prophet and Leader Hazrath Muhammad (SWM). If at this moment of dire existential crisis we fail to unite under the banner of our Rasool-Allah (swm), we might as well say good-bye to Islam and bye-bye to Bangladesh.
With best wishes and many thanks. We must realise that, we either hang together against the Swadeshi-Anushilon inspired enemies of Bangladesh, or we are going to hang separately from the gibbets they are preparing for us with the support of Hindustan. I am quite confident that they will be very fair in the execution of their Shivaji-inspired plan and will not show any discrimination or mercy.
F M Aziz
On Sat, Jan 12, 2013 at 12:18 PM, Isha Khan <bdmailer@gmail.com> wrote:
Thanks Aziz Bhai for your valuable comments. I am not much of a knowledgeable person, yet I cannot go with you the whole way.
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.'Might' has always dictated the 'right'. Few question what the US does around the world in the name of war on terror, freedom, democracy and human rights. Opposing voices remain muted or silenced. Mahathirs, Ahmedinajats and Chavezes remain in the minority. Israel, supported by the US, is getting away with all the crimes against Muslims. The tiny state continued to defy the umpteen UN resolutions since 1949. Bush and Blair got away with destroying Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan and killing hundreds of thousands in the process.
It does not mean we should bow our heads before the mighty for unjustified reasons. If the people are united and the causes are just, outside forces will have trouble in forcing its way. Besides, power equation keep changing. If onetime untouchable Myanmar can be a darling of big powers today, why not Bangladesh? Pragmatic strategy and shrewd diplomacy can bring meaningful friends and alliances. The first job is to unite ourselves and get out of the Indian influence and its so called "Radar Screen". While we cannot ignore the west, we need to look more to the east for friends.
Thanks for your patience. Sorry for irrelevance, if any.
Obaid...
On Wed, Jan 9, 2013 at 12:43 PM, Isha Khan <bdmailer@gmail.com> wrote:
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 Aziz
On Tue, Jan 8, 2013 at 11:05 AM, Isha Khan <bdmailer@gmail.com> wrote:
------ Forwarded message ----------
From: Zoglul Husain <zoglul@hotmail.co.uk>
Date: Tue, Jan 8, 2013 at 1:37 AM
Subject: RE: Agartala Conspiracy Case and Sheikh Mujibur Rahman
To: Isha Khan <bdmailer@gmail.com>Cc: Abu Obaid Chowdhury <alaldulal@aol.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: bdmailer@gmail.com
Subject: Fwd: Agartala Conspiracy Case and Sheikh Mujibur Rahman
To:
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)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Muslimleague.jpg
Very best wishes
Zoglul Bhai
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Isha Khan <bdmailer@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, Jan 7, 2013 at 12:16 PM
Subject: Fwd: Agartala Conspiracy Case and Sheikh Mujibur Rahman
To:
------ Forwarded message ----------
From: <alaldulal@aol.com>
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 <bdmailer@gmail.com>
To: undisclosed-recipients:;
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 <bdmailer@gmail.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 <bdmailer@gmail.com> wrote:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XstW0q0efY4
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
[Message clipped]
__._,_.___
