Adil Najam
As the fourth part of our series on the events of 1971, we are reposting this post which was first published at ATP on December 16, 2006. We are reposting it with all the original comments since they, as a whole, are very much part of the conversation we all need to have with ourselves. The previous three parts of the series can be read here, here and here.
Today is December 16.
Today Bangladesh will mark its 35th ‘Victory Day.’
Most Pakistanis will go about their lives, not remembering or not wanting to remember. We should remember – and learn – from the significance of this date.
Not because it marks a ‘defeat’ but because it marks the end of a dream, 24 years of mistakes, horrible bloodshed, traumatic agony, and shameful atrocities. The constructed mythologies of what happened, why, and who is to be blamed need to be questioned. Tough questions have to be asked. And unpleasant answers have to be braced for. We need to honestly confront our own history, for our own sake.
But right now, the goal of this post is different. We at ATP just wish to extend a hand of friendship to our Bangladeshi friends. May the memories we make in our future be very different (and more pleasant) than the scars we carry from our past.
There is much – too much – that I wish to say; but cannot find words for. So let me do what I always do when I am at a loss of words. Let me quote Faiz Ahmad Faiz, who in his memorable 1974 poem ‘Dhaka say wapsi par’ (On Return from Dhaka) expressed what I wish to say so much better than I ever could.
We share with you here the original poem in Urdu, a version in ‘Roman Urdu,’ a wonderful English translation of the poem by the late Agha Shahid Ali in his book The Rebel’s Silhouette
ham ke Thehre ajnabi itni mulaaqaatoN ke baad
phir baneiN ge aashna kitni madaaraatoN ke baadkab nazar meiN aaye gi be daaGh sabze ki bahaar
khoon ke dhabe dhuleiN ge kitni barsaatoN ke baadthe bahut bedard lamhe khat’m-e-dard-e-ishq ke
theiN bahut bemeh’r subheiN meh’rbaaN raatoN ke baaddil to chaaha par shikast-e-dil ne moh’lat hi na di
kuchh gile shikwe bhi kar lete manaajaatoN ke baadun se jo kehne gaye the “Faiz” jaaN sadqe kiye
an kahi hi reh gayi woh baat sab baatoN ke baad
After those many encounters, that easy intimacy,
. we are strangers now —
After how many meetings will we be that close again?When will we again see a spring of unstained green?
After how many monsoons will the blood be washed
. from the branches?So relentless was the end of love, so heartless —
After the nights of tenderness, the dawns were pitiless,
. so pitiless.And so crushed was the heart that though it wished
. it found no chance —
after the entreaties, after the despair — for us to
. quarrel once again as old friends.Faiz, what you’d gone to say, ready to offer everything,
. even your life —
those healing words remained unspoken after all else had
. been said.
Aamir Sahib, noone or me is making this an issue of Punajbabi I was talking about colonization by Punjab and these are two different things.
Aamir sahib things were pretty clear. 6 points, victory of Najeeb and defeat of PPP in WP, ZAB refused to give power to Mujeeb etc etc. Its pretty lame to blame mujeeb or bengalis for same mistake. For 71 case, we had that excuse but what now? do you think things got change? Read the 6 points of najeeb and you would realize that we are still facing same issue with smaller provinces. Now one now would blame to Sind,sarhad and balochistan that they are being spoilt brats but wouldn’t dare to accept the reality tht Punjab is still sucking the resources of ther provinces by several means whether in form of Fedral govt or by injecting different so called development projects.
salam
i agree with Aamir H. the fault we have is that we never accepted our faults!everyone wanted to be a dynasty from field marshals till the Generals that had “Rani’s” escorting them.We are all to blame!!accept it we cant say india did it or Mujib coz we gave them every loose delivery an they just hit us outta the park!if we had gud bowlers along with the best batsman then things wud hv been diff!i give credit to Bhutto (who i guess was wrongly implicated in the events) but he did rebuild the country after the fall of dhaka!constitution steel mills nuke program an makin pakistans name in islamic world by calling islamic summit of 1974.But again our army pounced back yet by our own islamic leaders more concerned abt callin Ahmadis non muslim an all!was that the issue facing pakistan?no but it was a religious issue much like the ethnic issue on which Mujib capitalised along with india!again not to blame but ourselves!today Musharaf is doing the same as Bhutto was doing an again we are crying but at the cost of Pakistan!whos losing? our youth us the ppl not Mush not Mullahs not any one its Pakistan thats losing!we can blame 100 Ayubs Yahyas Zias Mushs but wats the remedy!we have to think about that!is it PML N or PML Q PPP or MMA!yet have to find ppl that have some vision an policy like Bhutto(dun get me wrong im not supporting PPP) but i admitt he had something that ppl lacked an was uprooted by us as we just want to be slaves and chant abt the system corruptions an dun dare enuff to take the bull by horns!
Bangladesh is our failure but the sad tale is we never accepted it an put blame on Mujib and India!
Keep ur friends close and enemies even closer is said fer the right reasons!
I tend to agree with Aamir H’s analysis.
Breakup of Pakistan was a complex issue. One single event, individual or institution cannot be held responsible for it. There were several events, many individuals and several institutions that contributed to the ultimate demise.
It’s like a bonfire. You set up several logs, large and small, twigs and whatever and then you show it spark. Boom! Up goes the fire. 1971 was a huge bonfire.
AAmir Sahib, guys like Ayub Khan,Yahya Khan and Bhutto,Niazi were NOT mohajirs and these guys are main culprit of Dhakkka Fall. Karachi was the capitol but it doesn’t mean Karachi was being run by Mohajirs.
Looking at Mujeeb’s six points I very much doubt that language was the main factor. It seems economics were more at play.