Adil Najam
This post continues our series on the events of 1971. The previous three parts of the series can be read here, here, here and here.
It has always surprised me that in all our discussions of the traumas of 1971 the name of Gen. Agha Muhammad Yahya Khan much less frequently than it perhaps should given his role. He presided over the beginnings of a military campaign against what were (then) his own people, what escalated into a full-fledged civil war, eventually an international war, and finally the breakup of the country.
Indeed the complexities were great, there were many other individuals involved, and the roots of all that happened went much further and deeper than just the events of 1971. Yet, Gen. Yahya Khan was in command – of military as well as civilian operations – in those moments of ignominy. But still, for some reason his mentions tend to be fleeting. Although never flattering, there is a sense that we want to move away from the topic of Gen. Yahya Khan as soon as we can; possibly to get to that perennial favorite topic: Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto.
In watching this video (from July 31, 1971) this thought struck me again. I realized that at least I had never before seen a recording of him speaking at length. This particularly interview was particularly disturbing also for its content. The arrogance that he was known for and the sense that he as indeed out of touch with what was happening in the country are all too evidently on display:
“If a Head of State is out of touch with any part of his country, I don’t think he has any damn right to remain Head of the State… the moment I find I am out of touch – out of touch with my people – I shall quit… I know East Pakistan more than East Pakistanis know themselves… I am not out of touch. I know exactly hat is happening.”
Equally disturbing is the bit where towards the end he rants about Ireland. This is more disturbing because this is a commentary not only on 1971 but on today. It is all too often that when confronted with evidence of problems within our own polity and society our gut instinct is to (a) highlight how “we are not alone in doing whatever is being condemned” and (b) to argue that since others do it too, therefore it must not really be that bad!
Such discourse has always disturbed me because on the one hand it holds ourselves to the lowest possible standards and on the other hand it it comes across as a sign of being in denial. I hope readers will hear this part of the video (at the end) with care and think hard about how we ourselves sound exactly the same when we make similar arguments about denial!
Equally disturbing is to know that those who followed this soldier, were equally incompetent.
Zia, Musharraf…. to name a few. Musharraf speaks with the same bluster and arrogance. And that bluster led to Kargil.
Agha has the unique record of being declared “Usurper”, albeit post facto in the famous Asma Jilani case. Hopefully, the Courts may find enough grounds to declare the other 3, the same. Post Facto is OK.
And while Agha was a capable officer, he was a disaster in 1965. Similarly, he was a honest man and died as a pauper, he was a collection of everything wrong.
But that does not mean we should now hang everything on him. It would be injustice to history.
Similarly too, it does not mean that we should blame ZAB (he deserves much blame for much else) as well. That too will be injustice to history.
True, both of them were culpable in the debacle along with many others, but the grounds were laid long before they got to the helm. Long before. I am not sure either could have stopped the train, it was locomotion with no brakes.
East Pakistan was “lost” on January 2, 1965. The legitimately elected President of Pakistan, Fatima Jinnah’s election was stolen. When good folks from EP woke up and discovered that even if they could not win by picking Ms. Jinnah from the West, the West was not only wrong, they were never going to be reasonable.
And we denied East Pakistanis equity and justice.
We were all unreasonable.
And thus after 1971, Pakistan swung to the hard right. No more debauch and drunkards. Consequently, while the riots in 50s against the Qadianis were beaten back, in the 70’s the grounds were ready.
Which in turn made the evil usurper possible. And so when the time came, I for Infidel and K for Kalashnikov was simply “ready, set, go”. Lock and load!
Which brings us to today.
So, a straight line exists between language riots and imposition of Urdu language and the madness of today.
The real “Ignominy We Ignore” is in not admitting that Urdu did us in. It cascaded series of events, in which a minority of a minority, imposed its will and denied the majority it’s legitimate rights.
It was not the language itself, but a tool to deny equity and justice. And tool that was to be used again and again.
So, I ask yet again, were those language riots worth it?
Somehow we always forget Yahya. Despite the fact that he caused more harm than anyone else, he is just missed out as people focus either on Ayub before him or Bhutto after him. It was Yahya who was in power of both civil and military and it was his bias and feelings that split Pakistan, whatever teh role of others at the end of day the buck stopped at him. AND HE FAILED.
why has the media especially the tv channels ignored the deliberate and targeted killing of punjabis in balochistan??professors,doctors and traders of punjabi origin have been viciously been killed for the last few years but no news channel or ngo has highlighted or even reported this murder.all the channels rush to cover the atrocities against the balochs but is the murder of a punjabi not a murder?? are punjabis not human in today’s pakistan?? why this deliberate and defening silence?atp should atleast try to cover this side of the story as well.
While watching this video I thought i was the only one who found great resemblance of Niaza with Musharraf. But after reading comments i realized i was not the only one.