Latest news with #ProvisionalGovernment
Indian Express
3 days ago
- Politics
- Indian Express
In Bangladesh, India must reach out to those it long ignored
As elections have already been announced in Bangladesh, India needs to be extra careful. We need to consider that, as of now, except Bhutan, India has no real friend in the neighbourhood, and everyone is playing the China card. But how India infuriated its last friend, Bangladesh, is a case study in insensitive handling. It is an open secret that India was completely outwitted by the US, supposedly an ally against China, after the regime change in Bangladesh last August. We now need to review our age-old approach to Bangladesh politics. What bugs Bangladeshis the most is the Indian narrative, which remains completely unchanged over 55 years, irrespective of governments, that India liberated them, almost single-handedly, in 1971. This infuriates most Bangladeshis, who know how valiantly their local mukti joddhas fought Pakistan and treacherous razakars, sacrificing nearly 3 lakh lives. A section of them says that India dismembered Pakistan in its own geopolitical interest, not for altruism. India earned the rancour of General Ziaur Rahman by magnifying the role of Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, who was far away, interned in Pakistan. It was Zia who declared Independence and the formation of the Provisional Government on March 27, 1971. Along with General MAG Osmani, he led their determined band to fight a superior army inside East Pakistan till the Indian forces entered in December. Zia's BNP (Bangladesh Nationalist Party), which ruled the country for several years, was no great friend of India, and India also reciprocated with equal hostility. Indians, who are shocked at the desecration of Mujib's statues and memories, were never told how corrupt his regime had become from 1973, and what led to his tragic assassination in 1975. Besides, it is naive of India to expect Bangladesh to be indebted forever. When battling American imperialism and brutality in the 1960s and 1970s, Vietnam received its maximum support from China. But today, it considers China its greatest enemy, while America is a lifeline trading partner. When the whole world accused Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina of rigging elections and flagged India's support, we did not retract or alter our position. Our logic was that Hasina was secular and pro-India in a country where anti-Indianism is the staple diet of politics, and Islamist forces were trying to drag the country back towards Pakistan. The rise of the Hindu right in India alarmed Bangladeshis, who didn't take the Hasina government's kowtowing to PM Modi and alleged one-sided deal with the Adanis lightly. Her sanctuary in India is only adding fuel to the fire. Despite the disgruntlement against her regime, India went on to indulge Hasina as she tightened her authoritarianism. Most Indians hardly knew or discussed her increasing repression, the mysterious disappearances of dissenters, the internment of countless opposition supporters, brutal police firings and the special torture chambers that her government reportedly devised. So volatile was the situation that during PM Modi's last visit in March 2021, police shot dead 12 people as violent country-wide protests burst out. The indications were clear, but we chose not to hear. We do not seem to have taken up 'track II' dialogues with other forces in Bangladesh. The anarchy that followed the 'July revolution' led to condemnable attacks on Hindus, who were close to Sheikh Hasina's regime. However, many Muslim Awami League members also lost their lives. It is best not to get rattled by Muhammad Yunus's anti-India statements. His attempts to use China against India would rebound with the American 'deep state' that foisted him. Each of his actions does not call for any instant reaction, as hurting Bangladesh economically would alienate the voters who will actually decide the fate of the country next April. Yunus's posturing, however aggressive, represents turbulence from below, and also reveals his own lurking ambitions to be politically relevant after the elections as well. India must reach out to the Awami League's opposition to soften their anger. The ban on the party has orphaned its large, committed vote-bank and has blanked out the Centre-Left in Bangladeshi politics. Right now, the BNP, under its new leader, Tarique Rahman, Zia's son, appears to be the best organised. It has Islamist sympathies, but is viewed as centrist and mature. It may now expand its reach to woo committed Awami League voters who fundamentally stand against the Islamic Right. Till now, anti-India Islamic parties could never sweep the polls — they lent support to others — not even when President Muhammad Ershad encouraged them. Now, they are split between rival parties — Jamaat-e-Islami, Bangladesh Khelafat Majlis, Hefazat-e-Islam, Islami Oikya Jote, Tarikat and the Muslim League. Despite Yunus's support, it is doubtful that the new Jatiyo Nagarik Party will be able to win without a formidable mass base. It is time for India to look beyond the Awami League. It is time to project a fresh, positive image to Bangladeshi voters and work on the best option. The writer is a former Rajya Sabha MP
Irish Times
26-05-2025
- Politics
- Irish Times
Civil War was won using local knowledge and very good political and military leadership, new book argues.
In April 1923 the Irish Civil War was effectively over. The anti-Treaty IRA's commander-in-chief Liam Lynch, who had sought to prolong the war long after it was a lost cause, was shot dead in the Knockmealdown Mountains on April 10th. Some days earlier most of the anti-Treaty executive had been rounded up and incarcerated. A secret National Army missive from the time concluded that it was the 'beginning of the end as far as the irregular campaign is concerned'. It is an established historical fact that the Free State could not have won the Civil War without British aid. It was two British 18 pounder guns that started the war when they were fired on the anti-Treaty garrison occupying the Four Courts in June 1922. Serving Irish colonel and author Dr Gareth Prendergast discovered details in Winston Churchill's gargantuan archive about the scale of British military aid to the pro-Treaty side. READ MORE A note dated September 2nd, 1922 details the inventory sent to the Provisional Government (it wasn't the Free State Government until December 1922) down to the last bullet, 4,745,848 to be precise along with 27,400 rifles, 6,606 revolvers, 246 Lewis machine guns and nine 18 pounder guns with 2,160 shells. In addition, the Free State forces were given nearly 15,000 rifles which belonged to the Royal Irish Constabulary (RIC). Even that was not enough with the Free State side demanding 10,000 more rifles in February 1923 complaining that many of the RIC weapons they received were 'very much used' and they were down to a bare inventory. Churchill, as secretary of state for the colonies, was in charge of ensuring the Anglo-Irish Treaty was implemented. Supplying the National Army from the mountains of surplus equipment left after the first World War was a much cheaper and more politically palatable way of enforcing the Treaty than the alternative which he contemplated in the aftermath of the assassination of the former head of the British army, Field Marshal Sir Henry Wilson MP, in June 1922. Then Churchill was seized with a 'feverish impetuosity', according to accounts while erroneously blaming the anti-Treaty side for the assassination. He contemplated shelling the Four Courts from Royal Navy guns. He was talked down from his high dudgeon by General Sir Nevil Macready, the officer commanding British forces in Ireland, who recognised that restarting the War of Independence would only suck his country into a morass from which it had extracted itself with great reputational damage. Freedom, though, isn't free. With the war moving towards its inevitable conclusion, the British thought it prudent on April 16th, 1923 to send what might be considered in modern parlance as a 'gentle reminder' to its Free State equivalent that it owed it money for two Rolls Royce armoured cars and a pair of Vickers guns and equipment. The sum involved £5,301,19,10d is the equivalent today of €435,000. The invoice was sent by Lord Devonshire, Churchill's successor as secretary of state for the colonies, who assumed the role in October 1922. He reminded the Irish governor-general Tim Healy that the cars had been delivered in October of the previous year by 'special arrangement' and on the basis they would be paid for in cash. Rolls Royce armoured cars were a valuable addition to the National Army's arsenal. They were ideal for urban environments as the anti-Treaty IRA's small arms fire were ineffective against them. One, the Slievenamon, accompanied Michael Collins on his fateful last trip which ended at Beal na Bláth. It was rescued, refurbished in 2011 and put on display at the Curragh Military Museum. There is no evidence that the invoice was ever paid, according to Prendergast whose book Clear, Hold, Build: How the Free State won the Irish Civil War is an examination of how the National Army successfully defeated the anti-Treaty IRA in just 11 months. The received historical wisdom is that the Pro-Treaty side won the war because of British support and the National Army's ability to very quickly recruit ex-first World War servicemen to the cause. Prendergast posits that it is not as simple as that and that the Civil War was won by very good political and military leadership. History is replete with examples where dominant powers lose despite superior manpower and equipment mostly because, without the support of the people, they are bound to fail. Though the military doctrine of counter-insurgency of clear, hold, build wasn't properly formed at the time, he believed the National Army adopted an exemplar of it by clearing areas of anti-Treaty fighters, holding those areas against counterattacks and at the same time building a consensus in favour of the Irish Free State. This was achieved despite the evident brutality of much of the Free State government's actions which included the execution of 81 Republican prisoners. The National Army succeeded where the British had failed in turning the rebels out of their strongholds because, unlike the British, they knew the terrain, the hideouts and the people involved. The anti-Treaty IRA had alienated the people by its destruction of vital infrastructure most notably roads and railways; the National Army won the confidence of the people by repairing the damage. The book has attracted a lot of interest in the US military which is still developing its counterinsurgency strategy after its disaster in Iraq when it won an easy military victory, declared mission accomplished only to be a hit by an insurgency which lasted years. None other than General David Petraeus, who orchestrated the 'surge' in Iraq in 2007 that was deemed a success after years of chaos has endorsed the book as an 'exceptionally readable case study'.
