BANGLA DESH : THE BURDEN IS TOO HEAVY FOR US
THE WEEKLY RADIANCE (Delhi) October 3, 1971
By S.F. Sinha, Senior Advocate, Supreme Court
In several of my articles I had ventured to write that time and tide wait for none and we should, without waiting for a nod of assent from any quarter, extricate ourselves from the quandry we have landed ourselves in. We should never have opened the flood-gates, but if, unfortunately and by mistake, we did we must somehow retrieve the position. The mock heroics of the Jan Sangh and the R.S.S. should not unnerve us.
It is easy to say that we shall spend our last ounce of blood for the Bangladesh but charity must begin at home and, if I may add, it must unless we have enough and to spare, spend at home. Have we enough even to feed ourselves? Is not the rise in the prices. breaking the back of the common man ? It must always be borne in mind that the common man is the back-bone of the country. The Jan Sangh and the R.S.S. may look to Big Business to fill their coffers. The Communists, with their spiritual home in Soviet Russia, may replenish their depleted resources in ways only known to them, but the claims of the common man, who earns his bread with the sweat of his brows, are paramount. He looks askance at this perverse charity—all at his cost.
In my first Article I emphasized that the imaginary Victories of the Caesar’s and Napoleon’s or Sultan Saladin’s and Tarik Bin Ziad’s of Bangla Desh may fill the Columns -of the newspapers of this country—almost all tendentious, mostly full of embellishments—have ceased to cut any ice now. Since then others have come out with the same view. The latest is Mr. JJ. Singh, a most sincere, a most frank, level headed and conscientious leader, whose article appears in the Amrita Bazar Patrika of September 9, 1971. This is high Authority, but the view is fortified by the letter of Mr. Krishna Bhatia from Washington, which appears in “The Hindustan Times” of the one date under the caption. It indicates that "the wave of sympathy, genuine or feigned, is also on the wane and the time may soon come when Bangladesh may find itself marooned on an iceberg, the edges of which are being washed away festively by time, distance and other natural forces •of erosion. I also said that Mr. Edward Kennedy whom we lionized as though he were not Edward, but John Kennedy come back to life, no longer talks in superlatives. I wondered how and why it happened and in such a short time. Mr. Bhatia furnishes a complete answer and I would like to quote a few extracts from his letter:
(y) “Yet the question that followed the speech revealed distressingly what little impact it had on the audience”.
(z) “But nearly 500 Americans half of whom were presumably newsmen, were interested in other subjects. Of over 25 questions they asked the Senator only four relating to what he had spoken about”.
(a) “One questioner was interested in knowing who the young Senator would choose for his companions should he be shipwrecked on a desert island”.
Which means that they did not take Mr. Edward Kennedy seriously. Not only that. They treated him with disdain.
(b) “Even the few questions about the sub-continent "they asked revealed that the real focus of their interest was far away from what Islamabad was doing. One wanted to know if the refugees camps in West Bengal represented greater human misery than Palestine”.
A very pertinent question indeed for various reasons; the tragedy of Palestine was by no human standard, less harrowing than that of East Bengal. Whatever the Jan Sangh and R.S.S. and the heroes of Bangladesh now comfortably lodged in this country, May the memory of Deir Yassen cannot be obliterated. Nothing further is from my mind than to extenuate the misdeeds of the army in East Bengal.
But tyranny must be condemned wherever it is committed—in Palestine by the Jews or in Chad by Christians on the vast majority of the population who happen to be Muslims or by the Army in East Bengal. Virtue or vice, good or evil has no geographical limitations. It must also be mentioned that though the Bangladesh heroes have denied it, it is established that they practiced untold barbarities upon the U.P. and Behari Muslims. They sought refuge in the bordering Nepal, whose enlightened ruler extended to them due kindness, but is now confronted with the problem how ta send them back.
Mr. Kennedy must have felt particularly perturbed because in 1967, he was one of the strongest supporters of the Jews, even though they were the worst sinners.
The climax was reached as indicated by the following:
“Another said it was all right about the Senator getting so distressed over Bengali children, but what about the children at home, who are being exposed to drugs. The remaining question was a crude attempt to get Senator Kennedy to describe Mrs. Gandhi as a left-wing Communist”.
Is not it from.the sublimity to the ridiculous? This only means that charity must begin at home, a point I have been pressing hard all along. The crushing burden of the refugees is eating out the very vitals of our existence. The problem be solved immediately even if it involves a revision, or modification or variation of our present policy.
The American attitude is reflected not only in the treatment accorded to Mr. Edward Kennedy by the audience at » the National Liberal Club, but still more, by the way the speech was ignored by the news editors also by the television net-works. So completely has New Delhi alienated the U.S.A. on this issue that, according to Mr. Krishna Bhatia, the Washington correspondent of the Hindustan Times, the proposed visit of Mrs. Gandhi to that great country, may prove fruitless. Of course, she will be received with due courtesy, the protocol will be meticulously observed, but that is all. The communists, the card holders and fellow travellers may condemn the U.S.A. and extol the Soviet, but experience tells us that, whatever its failings, America is a staunch friend and faithful ally, the contrary Russia is mercurial and a most undependable friend. The fate of Hungary and Czechoslavakia bears ample testimony to it. The fate of the Arab World does the same. I would also like to ask the Communists, and also the Rashtravadis whose attitude is determined not by the love of Bangladesh, because it consists mostly of Muslims whom they detest but by the hate of Pakistan, and still more, by the desire to oust Mrs. Gandhi.
What have they to say to the plain speaking of Mrs. Bandranaik, the Premier of Ceylon ? She has not budged an. inch. The rebuff Mr. Swaran Singh had in Nepal was still more humiliating. The Nepal’s semi-official paper repudiated the interpretation he had placed on the outcome of the discus¬sions.
Ceylon is a Buddhist State; it is not Indonesia, Malaya, or a part of the Islamic belt. His Majesty, the King Of Nepal is a devout Hindu. Even the Rashtravadis dare not point against him the accusing finger. A word about Mr. Nixon. The recent Gallup poll does not show that his popularity is on the wane. What should we expect from the Soviet ? Whatever the window dressing, the terms of the Ind-Soviet treaty rule out the possibility of New Delhi according recognition to Bangladesh. It may as it does sup¬ply arms to the guerrillas. But how long ?
War are not won by the avalanche of propaganda of which the Bangladesh heroes seem to be past masters. The. fate of Biafra bears ample testimony to it. It is also true
that guerrillas do not and cannot win a War. As Mr-
Manekekar the former Resident Editor of “The Times of India”, at Delhi, said on September 8, 1971. Wars are won in. the battle-field. Despite all the aid given by the Vatican and the entire Catholic World, nothing could stand in the way of Yakubo Gowan’s success. Indeed, not only did he inflict a most crushing defeat on the secessionists of Biafra, but showed the Pontiff his proper place. Yakubo Gowan did in Nigeria, what, centuries ago Abraham Lincoln had done in America.
That man, one of the greatest the World has ever
Produced, will not have America cut into two. Secession does not pay; this is the lesson history has taught us. Whatever the initial mistake, Mrs. Gandhi thoroughly condemned an adventurist policy. Even in March when the odds were not so heavy, she never thought of it. Today the dice is so heavy loaded that adventurism or recklessness is absolutely out of question. Before the Ind-Soviet treaty, various factors dictated this policy of caution, America and China, respect for World opinion. Today that treaty has put an embargo on it at least for all practical purposes.
The next question is how and how long we shall stand the strain of feeding, clothing and supporting the sea of humanity? How long shall we treat them as honored and welcome guests at the cost of the children of the soil? The flood has rendered hundreds and thousands in U.P., Bihar, and Bengal homeless and destitute. They have a prior claim. I remember very well that during and immediately after the holocaust of 1947, Pandit Gobind Ballabh Pant whose practical sense of reality never forsook him, told the refugees at Dehradun that India was alive to their needs and claims, but they could not be placed higher than those of the children of the soil. New Delhi should always bear in mind the weighty words of wise counsel of that great statesman. What has it done for the flood stricken people who have lost their all ? A great deal no doubt, but not comparable to our sacrifices for the refugees Mr. Chavan’s recent speech at Calcutta has given rise to great misgivings in the minds of the refugees also in the mind of the Bengalis generally.
A friend of mine, member of the English bar from West Bengal told me the other day that the lot of the refugees was unenviable. To use his own words “the refugee camps are camps of sorrow. On the analogy of the Chinese “River of sorrow”, he added “if the advice of Mr. Chavan is followed the camps will be camps of misery”. I felt so shocked that I felt like blurting out. “This is the unkindest cut of all”
But, the remark did not come to me as a surprise. I too feel that the refugees will not be grateful or friendly to us, whether they stay or go back. They dare not speak out their minds frankly. Are they not unreliable? Not only the Jan Sangh-and the R.S.S. but even Mrs. Nandini Sayapathi and Mr. Chandrajit Yadav would have come down heavily upon them.
“The Times of India” of September 12, 1971 publishes the letters of Mr. G. I. Vingese which has sounded a note of warning. The warning proceeds from an unimpeachable quarter and must be given due consideration.
I disagree with the view that since India has signed a treaty with the Soviet Union, it can openly help the Mukti Bahini without inviting retaliation from Pakistan. Under the Indo-Soviet Treaty India might get arms from the Soviet Union. Likewise Pakistan may also get aid from the U.S.A. and possibly from China
Therefore the Bangladesh screw has to be tightened slowly without bringing ourselves in direct confrontation with Pakistan and at the same time a face-saving formula should be held out whereby the Military Junta may arrive at a compromise with Mujibur Rahman’s followers. In my opinion it would be indevisable for us to insist that only a solution on our own terms is acceptable to us.
This is what I have been insisting upon. President Yahya offered to talk to Mrs. Gandhi, but the offer was spumed. He was incensed. The present ruler of Bangladesh is saying the same. We seize the opportunity.
I wonder India has released the implications of a free Bangladesh. The entire burden of keeping afloat a starving war-ravaged country will fall on India without the international community doing much in the matter.
This is common sense. Mrs. Gandhi realizes this and refuses, therefore, to be stamped by people usually holding views so divergent as Mr. Krishna Menon and Mr. Atal Behari Bajpayee, united today by the common bond of hatred of Pakistan. Her hands must be strengthened against the onslaughts inspired by blind passion and inveterate prejudice.
Before I close I would like to say a word about an important matter. The Bangladesh has, over the months, strained the nerves of the Muslims in this country. They feel that they dare not speak out their minds freely even, if, in their view Bangladesh is wrong. What is permissible, they say, to Guru Golwalkar, or Guru Shankaraeharya or the Hindu Sabha—they have opposed the recognition of Bangladesh is not permissible to them. Leave aside the Jan Sangh and the Rashtravadis, even the super patriots of the Congress, people like Mrs. Nandini Sayapathi and Mr. Chandrajit Yadav, will cry for their heads on charger. Should they speak out their minds?
I have deemed it necessary to invite the attention of the Prime Minister to this, owing to some recent developments. The Urdu papers in U.P. and Bihar resented the attack on U.P. and Bihari Muslims by the Bengali Muslims. They deplored the attitude of the so-called Nationalist Press, but were not surprised because if they knew that barring The Hindustan Times, all are steeped in prejudice against the Muslims.
They disbelieved the Bangladesh heroes and rightly so, because their own kith and kin had suffered. They could not disbelieve their own eyes.
By S.F. Sinha, Senior Advocate, Supreme Court
In several of my articles I had ventured to write that time and tide wait for none and we should, without waiting for a nod of assent from any quarter, extricate ourselves from the quandry we have landed ourselves in. We should never have opened the flood-gates, but if, unfortunately and by mistake, we did we must somehow retrieve the position. The mock heroics of the Jan Sangh and the R.S.S. should not unnerve us.
It is easy to say that we shall spend our last ounce of blood for the Bangladesh but charity must begin at home and, if I may add, it must unless we have enough and to spare, spend at home. Have we enough even to feed ourselves? Is not the rise in the prices. breaking the back of the common man ? It must always be borne in mind that the common man is the back-bone of the country. The Jan Sangh and the R.S.S. may look to Big Business to fill their coffers. The Communists, with their spiritual home in Soviet Russia, may replenish their depleted resources in ways only known to them, but the claims of the common man, who earns his bread with the sweat of his brows, are paramount. He looks askance at this perverse charity—all at his cost.
In my first Article I emphasized that the imaginary Victories of the Caesar’s and Napoleon’s or Sultan Saladin’s and Tarik Bin Ziad’s of Bangla Desh may fill the Columns -of the newspapers of this country—almost all tendentious, mostly full of embellishments—have ceased to cut any ice now. Since then others have come out with the same view. The latest is Mr. JJ. Singh, a most sincere, a most frank, level headed and conscientious leader, whose article appears in the Amrita Bazar Patrika of September 9, 1971. This is high Authority, but the view is fortified by the letter of Mr. Krishna Bhatia from Washington, which appears in “The Hindustan Times” of the one date under the caption. It indicates that "the wave of sympathy, genuine or feigned, is also on the wane and the time may soon come when Bangladesh may find itself marooned on an iceberg, the edges of which are being washed away festively by time, distance and other natural forces •of erosion. I also said that Mr. Edward Kennedy whom we lionized as though he were not Edward, but John Kennedy come back to life, no longer talks in superlatives. I wondered how and why it happened and in such a short time. Mr. Bhatia furnishes a complete answer and I would like to quote a few extracts from his letter:
(y) “Yet the question that followed the speech revealed distressingly what little impact it had on the audience”.
(z) “But nearly 500 Americans half of whom were presumably newsmen, were interested in other subjects. Of over 25 questions they asked the Senator only four relating to what he had spoken about”.
(a) “One questioner was interested in knowing who the young Senator would choose for his companions should he be shipwrecked on a desert island”.
Which means that they did not take Mr. Edward Kennedy seriously. Not only that. They treated him with disdain.
(b) “Even the few questions about the sub-continent "they asked revealed that the real focus of their interest was far away from what Islamabad was doing. One wanted to know if the refugees camps in West Bengal represented greater human misery than Palestine”.
A very pertinent question indeed for various reasons; the tragedy of Palestine was by no human standard, less harrowing than that of East Bengal. Whatever the Jan Sangh and R.S.S. and the heroes of Bangladesh now comfortably lodged in this country, May the memory of Deir Yassen cannot be obliterated. Nothing further is from my mind than to extenuate the misdeeds of the army in East Bengal.
But tyranny must be condemned wherever it is committed—in Palestine by the Jews or in Chad by Christians on the vast majority of the population who happen to be Muslims or by the Army in East Bengal. Virtue or vice, good or evil has no geographical limitations. It must also be mentioned that though the Bangladesh heroes have denied it, it is established that they practiced untold barbarities upon the U.P. and Behari Muslims. They sought refuge in the bordering Nepal, whose enlightened ruler extended to them due kindness, but is now confronted with the problem how ta send them back.
Mr. Kennedy must have felt particularly perturbed because in 1967, he was one of the strongest supporters of the Jews, even though they were the worst sinners.
The climax was reached as indicated by the following:
“Another said it was all right about the Senator getting so distressed over Bengali children, but what about the children at home, who are being exposed to drugs. The remaining question was a crude attempt to get Senator Kennedy to describe Mrs. Gandhi as a left-wing Communist”.
Is not it from.the sublimity to the ridiculous? This only means that charity must begin at home, a point I have been pressing hard all along. The crushing burden of the refugees is eating out the very vitals of our existence. The problem be solved immediately even if it involves a revision, or modification or variation of our present policy.
The American attitude is reflected not only in the treatment accorded to Mr. Edward Kennedy by the audience at » the National Liberal Club, but still more, by the way the speech was ignored by the news editors also by the television net-works. So completely has New Delhi alienated the U.S.A. on this issue that, according to Mr. Krishna Bhatia, the Washington correspondent of the Hindustan Times, the proposed visit of Mrs. Gandhi to that great country, may prove fruitless. Of course, she will be received with due courtesy, the protocol will be meticulously observed, but that is all. The communists, the card holders and fellow travellers may condemn the U.S.A. and extol the Soviet, but experience tells us that, whatever its failings, America is a staunch friend and faithful ally, the contrary Russia is mercurial and a most undependable friend. The fate of Hungary and Czechoslavakia bears ample testimony to it. The fate of the Arab World does the same. I would also like to ask the Communists, and also the Rashtravadis whose attitude is determined not by the love of Bangladesh, because it consists mostly of Muslims whom they detest but by the hate of Pakistan, and still more, by the desire to oust Mrs. Gandhi.
What have they to say to the plain speaking of Mrs. Bandranaik, the Premier of Ceylon ? She has not budged an. inch. The rebuff Mr. Swaran Singh had in Nepal was still more humiliating. The Nepal’s semi-official paper repudiated the interpretation he had placed on the outcome of the discus¬sions.
Ceylon is a Buddhist State; it is not Indonesia, Malaya, or a part of the Islamic belt. His Majesty, the King Of Nepal is a devout Hindu. Even the Rashtravadis dare not point against him the accusing finger. A word about Mr. Nixon. The recent Gallup poll does not show that his popularity is on the wane. What should we expect from the Soviet ? Whatever the window dressing, the terms of the Ind-Soviet treaty rule out the possibility of New Delhi according recognition to Bangladesh. It may as it does sup¬ply arms to the guerrillas. But how long ?
War are not won by the avalanche of propaganda of which the Bangladesh heroes seem to be past masters. The. fate of Biafra bears ample testimony to it. It is also true
that guerrillas do not and cannot win a War. As Mr-
Manekekar the former Resident Editor of “The Times of India”, at Delhi, said on September 8, 1971. Wars are won in. the battle-field. Despite all the aid given by the Vatican and the entire Catholic World, nothing could stand in the way of Yakubo Gowan’s success. Indeed, not only did he inflict a most crushing defeat on the secessionists of Biafra, but showed the Pontiff his proper place. Yakubo Gowan did in Nigeria, what, centuries ago Abraham Lincoln had done in America.
That man, one of the greatest the World has ever
Produced, will not have America cut into two. Secession does not pay; this is the lesson history has taught us. Whatever the initial mistake, Mrs. Gandhi thoroughly condemned an adventurist policy. Even in March when the odds were not so heavy, she never thought of it. Today the dice is so heavy loaded that adventurism or recklessness is absolutely out of question. Before the Ind-Soviet treaty, various factors dictated this policy of caution, America and China, respect for World opinion. Today that treaty has put an embargo on it at least for all practical purposes.
The next question is how and how long we shall stand the strain of feeding, clothing and supporting the sea of humanity? How long shall we treat them as honored and welcome guests at the cost of the children of the soil? The flood has rendered hundreds and thousands in U.P., Bihar, and Bengal homeless and destitute. They have a prior claim. I remember very well that during and immediately after the holocaust of 1947, Pandit Gobind Ballabh Pant whose practical sense of reality never forsook him, told the refugees at Dehradun that India was alive to their needs and claims, but they could not be placed higher than those of the children of the soil. New Delhi should always bear in mind the weighty words of wise counsel of that great statesman. What has it done for the flood stricken people who have lost their all ? A great deal no doubt, but not comparable to our sacrifices for the refugees Mr. Chavan’s recent speech at Calcutta has given rise to great misgivings in the minds of the refugees also in the mind of the Bengalis generally.
A friend of mine, member of the English bar from West Bengal told me the other day that the lot of the refugees was unenviable. To use his own words “the refugee camps are camps of sorrow. On the analogy of the Chinese “River of sorrow”, he added “if the advice of Mr. Chavan is followed the camps will be camps of misery”. I felt so shocked that I felt like blurting out. “This is the unkindest cut of all”
But, the remark did not come to me as a surprise. I too feel that the refugees will not be grateful or friendly to us, whether they stay or go back. They dare not speak out their minds frankly. Are they not unreliable? Not only the Jan Sangh-and the R.S.S. but even Mrs. Nandini Sayapathi and Mr. Chandrajit Yadav would have come down heavily upon them.
“The Times of India” of September 12, 1971 publishes the letters of Mr. G. I. Vingese which has sounded a note of warning. The warning proceeds from an unimpeachable quarter and must be given due consideration.
I disagree with the view that since India has signed a treaty with the Soviet Union, it can openly help the Mukti Bahini without inviting retaliation from Pakistan. Under the Indo-Soviet Treaty India might get arms from the Soviet Union. Likewise Pakistan may also get aid from the U.S.A. and possibly from China
Therefore the Bangladesh screw has to be tightened slowly without bringing ourselves in direct confrontation with Pakistan and at the same time a face-saving formula should be held out whereby the Military Junta may arrive at a compromise with Mujibur Rahman’s followers. In my opinion it would be indevisable for us to insist that only a solution on our own terms is acceptable to us.
This is what I have been insisting upon. President Yahya offered to talk to Mrs. Gandhi, but the offer was spumed. He was incensed. The present ruler of Bangladesh is saying the same. We seize the opportunity.
I wonder India has released the implications of a free Bangladesh. The entire burden of keeping afloat a starving war-ravaged country will fall on India without the international community doing much in the matter.
This is common sense. Mrs. Gandhi realizes this and refuses, therefore, to be stamped by people usually holding views so divergent as Mr. Krishna Menon and Mr. Atal Behari Bajpayee, united today by the common bond of hatred of Pakistan. Her hands must be strengthened against the onslaughts inspired by blind passion and inveterate prejudice.
Before I close I would like to say a word about an important matter. The Bangladesh has, over the months, strained the nerves of the Muslims in this country. They feel that they dare not speak out their minds freely even, if, in their view Bangladesh is wrong. What is permissible, they say, to Guru Golwalkar, or Guru Shankaraeharya or the Hindu Sabha—they have opposed the recognition of Bangladesh is not permissible to them. Leave aside the Jan Sangh and the Rashtravadis, even the super patriots of the Congress, people like Mrs. Nandini Sayapathi and Mr. Chandrajit Yadav, will cry for their heads on charger. Should they speak out their minds?
I have deemed it necessary to invite the attention of the Prime Minister to this, owing to some recent developments. The Urdu papers in U.P. and Bihar resented the attack on U.P. and Bihari Muslims by the Bengali Muslims. They deplored the attitude of the so-called Nationalist Press, but were not surprised because if they knew that barring The Hindustan Times, all are steeped in prejudice against the Muslims.
They disbelieved the Bangladesh heroes and rightly so, because their own kith and kin had suffered. They could not disbelieve their own eyes.
Posts
0 Comments :
Post a Comment