Latest news with #WestPakistani
India.com
11-08-2025
- Politics
- India.com
When Nixon Vowed A ‘Violent' US Response If India Attacked Pakistan
New Delhi: Less than four months after the guns fell silent in the India-Pakistan war, a closed-door meeting took place in March 1972 in the Oval Office. Then U.S. President Richard Nixon sat with his National Security Advisor Henry Kissinger. Across from them was Aziz Ahmed, secretary-general of Pakistan's foreign ministry, accompanied by senior American and Pakistani officials. The bitterness of December 1971 was lingering. The discussions revealed how far the United States was prepared to go to reassure Pakistan of its support. Kissinger opened the meeting by recalling the difficult period they had endured together during the war. 'We went through tragic days together in December,' he said, as cited by The Indian Express, adding that Pakistan enjoyed the goodwill of the United States. He was of the opinion that the next six months would be critical for Islamabad. He believed that an Indian attack was unlikely before President Nixon's upcoming summit in Moscow, or even for some time afterward. Then came an assurance. 'We will not let Pakistan down. If there is another attack, we will react violently,' Kissinger told the Pakistani side, according to the daily. He explained that the Indian ambassador had already been informed that Washington could not cut off military aid to Pakistan unless India agreed to halt its acceptance of Soviet military support. The suspended $87 million in aid would not be restored, but Nixon's stance toward Pakistan was described as one of 'very warm feelings'. Ahmed reportedly responded with concern over India's military posture. He claimed that New Delhi had moved three Army divisions to the West Pakistani border. He also mentioned that Indian Army chief General Sam Manekshaw had travelled to Moscow, possibly to secure equipment to replace losses from the recent conflict. According to Ahmed, the daily reported, India might be preparing either to put pressure on Pakistan during negotiations or to launch a more serious offensive. There were even suggestions that India could attempt to seize 'Azad' (Pakistan-occupied) Kashmir, although Chinese assessments indicated such a move would be unlikely before Nixon's Moscow visit. The warmth between Washington and Islamabad in this period was not confined to words. Months earlier, on March 17, 1971, US Secretary of State William P. Rogers had sent a memorandum to Nixon titled 'President Bhutto's Proposals for Closer Military Collaboration'. The memo outlined a series of offers from Pakistan that highlighted its strategic importance to the United States. The memo said Pakistan was prepared to provide port access and tracking station facilities along the Arabian Sea, including locations at Jiwani, Gwadar, Sonmiani Bay, Karachi and the coastal areas to the south and east of the city. Gwadar, in particular, as per the report, was flagged as a potential deep-water port that could significantly boost the economic development of the surrounding region. Access for American forces would be granted on an 'as-needed' basis, with no plans for large numbers of U.S. personnel to be stationed in the country. Then Pakistan's Defence Secretary Ghias Uddin Ahmed told U.S. officials that the war with India had created a new strategic environment. Having suffered defeat with India backed by the Soviet Union, Pakistan now faced urgent security challenges. While insisting that Islamabad had no intention of attacking India, he argued that the country needed credible deterrence. He spoke of exploring closer defense ties with Iran and Turkey and improving relations with Afghanistan. Ghias also pointed to growing Soviet naval cooperation with India, citing facilities at Visakhapatnam and in the Andaman Islands. In his view, these gave Moscow an enhanced naval presence in the region. In a separate meeting on February 3, 1972, Nixon sat with Kissinger and U.S. ambassador to India Kenneth Keating. The President's assessment of the subcontinent was characteristically blunt. 'Neither country should be a country. They are too poor and too bloodthirsty,' The Indian Express quotes him as saying. Ambassador Keating suggested that a regional framework similar to the European Economic Community could provide stability. Nixon expressed the belief that India should focus on its real challenge, which he saw as China. 'India should not waste its resources fighting Pakistan,' he said. He admitted that he had been too lenient with then Prime Minister Indira Gandhi during her visit to Washington and that, if the United States had wanted to restrain India, it should have taken a tougher line. 'I have always defended India,' Nixon maintained, stressing that India had a friend in the White House. The United States' outreach to China, he said, was motivated by its own strategic goals and was not directed against India. Turning to Kissinger, according to the report, Nixon asked for agreement on his assertion that America remained India's best friend. Kissinger responded carefully, 'That is true. But we must move at a measured pace.' Preserved in the U.S. State Department Archives, the conversations from those months paint a vivid picture of a Washington balancing Cold War strategy with its deep ties to Pakistan, even in the immediate aftermath of a war that had redrawn the map of South Asia.
Indian Express
10-08-2025
- Politics
- Indian Express
When US promised not to let Pakistan down: ‘If there is another attack, we will react violently'
Post Operation Sindoor, Pakistan Army Chief General Asim Munir was hosted by the United States and, if news reports are correct, he is again headed to America for a second visit in three months. The US has always maintained friendly relations with Pakistan, even during conflicts with India, and this was amply demonstrated before and after the 1971 war. There were active attempts by the US at the highest level of President Richard Nixon and his advisor on national security affairs, Henry Kissinger, to channel military aid to Pakistan through Jordan and Iran. In this week's column, we look at how, post the 1971 war, the US reassured Pakistan that it would stand by it if India initiated any military action against what was then West Pakistan, and also considered a Pakistani offer of military bases on Pakistani soil for the US. The memorandum of a conversation in the US State Department Archives for March 29, 1972, records a meeting where Nixon, Kissinger, and Aziz Ahmed, secretary-general of Pakistan's Foreign Ministry, and many others participated. Kissinger referred to how 'we went through tragic days together in December (1971)' and said that Pakistan enjoyed the US' goodwill. He further said it was important for Pakistan to get through the next six months, and felt that it was inconceivable that there would be an Indian attack before the forthcoming summit meeting in Moscow, or even for some time after that. 'Dr. Kissinger continued that the President makes the policy, and 'we won't let Pakistan down. If there is another attack, we will react violently'. He noted that we have told the Indian Ambassador that we cannot cut off military aid to Pakistan unless India is prepared to forego Soviet military aid. We have said that we will not restore the $87 million of aid that had been suspended,' the memorandum records Kissinger as saying. He went on to say that the US did not believe that one country should have the right to impose its will on its neighbours. 'The President has very warm feelings for Pakistan,' he added. Aziz Ahmed expressed concerns that India had moved three Army divisions to the West Pakistani border. 'General Manekshaw has gone to Moscow, presumably to seek equipment to replace India's war losses. India is going ahead—with whatever plans it has-either exerting pressure on Pakistan for the negotiations or for a more serious attack. There has been some thought that the Indians would seize Azad Kashmir. The Chinese, however, felt that an attack on Azad Kashmir would be unlikely until after President Nixon's visit to Moscow,' he said. On March 17, 1971, US Secretary of State William P Rogers wrote a memorandum to President Nixon titled 'President Bhutto's Proposals for Closer Military Collaboration'. This memo discussed specific proposals, which involved: The memo further quotes the Pakistani Defence Secretary Ghias Uddin Ahmed as suggesting that Pakistani military facilities could be made available to the US if that country wished. 'He said this would include facilities on land or at ports. With regard to the latter, he mentioned locations along the Arabian Sea coast, including (from west to east) Jiwani, Gwadar, Sonmiani Bay, Karachi, and the area south and east of Karachi. He thought the US might be interested in developing a port such as at Gwadar, which would be important for the economic development of that region of Pakistan,' the memo notes. The reason for this approach, Ghias said, was that Pakistan now faced an entirely new situation after the recent war, when it had suffered defeat by India with Soviet collaboration. The Pakistani Government was increasingly concerned about the intentions of both the Soviets and the Indians. 'Pakistan needed to bolster up its defenses in order to provide some credible deterrent. Ghias acknowledged that Pakistan was now only a small fraction compared to India in size and strength. He went on [to say] that Pakistan could not contemplate attacking India, but it needed some assurance about its defense. In this regard, he thought Pakistan would be looking to closer defense collaboration with Iran and Turkey, and seeking to improve its relations with Afghanistan,' the memo says. Ghias also referred to close Soviet collaboration with Indians both at the port of Visakhapatnam and on the Andaman Islands, which he interpreted as providing important naval facilities for the USSR. A month earlier, on February 3, 1972, President Nixon had a meeting with the US Ambassador to India, Kenneth Keating, and Henry Kissinger. Referring to India and Pakistan, President Nixon said, 'Neither country should be a country. They are too poor, too bloodthirsty'. Ambassador Keating responded, 'Yes, there should be a regional solution, like the EEC (European Economic Community)'. President Nixon was of the opinion that India shouldn't waste its resources fighting Pakistan and that China was India's bigger problem. 'Let me give you my view. I'll tell you what I'll do. I am afraid they'll leak it, so of course we can't announce it. Let me tell you where we went wrong. I was too soft on Mrs. Gandhi. When she was here. I led her on. If we were going to restrain them at all, we should have been tougher. I am not mad at Mrs. Gandhi. She has not had a better friend in this office than me. I have taken the line that India should have to compete with the PRC. I have always defended India,' he said. Nixon went on to say that India has a friend in the White House. 'They should know this. We are going to China for reasons of our own. We took action on India because our law requires it. In reality, we are India's best friend. Right, Henry?,' he said. Henry Kissinger gave a guarded reply, reflecting his pro-Pakistan stance. 'That is true. But we must move at a measured pace,' he said.
News18
17-07-2025
- Politics
- News18
Rabindranath Tagore Has No Place In ‘New' Bangladesh
Last Updated: Rabindranath Tagore's association with East Bengal was a deeply intertwined one and it can hardly be eradicated The vandalisation of the historic Rabindra Kachharibari in Shahjadpur, Sirajganj, last week proves that Mohammed Yunus's interim regime and its functioning has entrapped Bangladesh like a curse. Since August 2024, there has been a concerted attempt to erase and decimate cultural and intellectual symbols that had sustained the struggle for identity and cultural assertion in East Bengal during the dark days of West Pakistan's occupation. The symbols of Bangladesh's Liberation War and of its creation were attacked, leaving Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujib's Dhanmondi House gutted and bulldozed and the memorials to the Liberation War vandalised. Similarly, the attack on the Rabindra Kachharibari Museum in Sirajganj is a clear assault on those cultural symbols and icons that have inspired, sustained and defined Bangladesh's aspiration to remain distinct from the sapping tentacles of Pakistan and its proxies who wish to erase, beyond redemption, Bangladesh's cultural and linguistic identity and core. Gurudev Rabindranath Tagore, till the other day, was the tallest cultural icon of Bangladesh. In a sense, he still continues to be an icon, for the beleaguered and imprisoned intelligentsia of that country. For generations his poems, songs, essays and thoughts have sustained the East Bengali intelligentsia. He stood as a perennial source of solace in the dark days of the struggle against a marauding West Pakistani dispensation which was determined to erase the Bengali identity and texture in East Pakistan. That unfinished agenda of Pakistan, stymied by the Liberation War and the formation of Bangladesh, has now been set rolling. Pakistan's proxies such as the Jamaat, Hefazat-e-Islam and other lesser-known radical outfits, propping up the Yunus regime, are in overdrive now to destroy Bangladesh's cultural symbols and icons. The Bangladesh that these forces envisage will be dark and monotonous. It will be shorn of colours, devoid of elevating thoughts and emotions, bereft of all music which has flowed out of the soil of Bengal, representing her soul and its deeper aspirations. They want a Bangladesh in which Tagore will be an outcast, fit to be dumped and relegated as haram. The students who organised and participated in the August protest and insisted that they represented a 'new" Bangladesh, have been complicit in this demolition of Bangladesh's cultural symbols. Realising that their path to survival is through the creation of a political identity and outfit, these youth leaders have joined hands with radicals in order to gain and maintain a political space. An assault on Gurudev Rabindranath Tagore's persona and legacy is thus the surest way to gain political space and legitimacy in Bangladesh today. The attack on the Rabindra Kachharibari has been passed off as a spontaneous reaction to a local dispute and yet the manner in which an organised and armed mob invaded the sacred premises, hardly lends credence to that alibi. It was as if the vandals were lying ready, awaiting an opportunity to attack the Museum. Prof Yunus's Bengali Nobel Laureate friends and admirers, led by Prof Amartya Sen and Prof Abhijit Banerjee, or famous Bengali writers like Amitava Ghosh, ought to educate him on the imperative of protecting Tagore's legacy in Bangladesh. Some of them as self-styled 'global citizens", have been conspicuously silent on the happenings in Bangladesh. Their silence on attacks such as these, their passivity when Hindus were being bullied and assaulted under the Yunus's regime's watch, is especially astounding and stunning. Rabindranath Tagore's association with East Bengal was a deeply intertwined one and it can hardly be eradicated. Despite seeing it as a task that stood completely opposite to his nature, Tagore deftly managed their landed properties, primarily in East Bengal, that fell to his lot to handle. Some of his most enduring poems, stories and essays were composed and written while he was in East Bengal. But Tagore was no dreamy poet and rent-extracting landowner. The 'zamindar" Rabindranath Tagore was a unique personality. He stood completely apart from the genre of his time. Leading Bengali litterateur, poet and essayist of the Tagore era Pramatha Chaudhuri (1868-1946), observes that as a zamindar Tagore was as unique as he was as a poet. The welfare of the cultivators, village reform and development, improvement of local infrastructure, public health, roads, education constantly preoccupied Tagore on his sojourn in East Bengal in places like Silaidaha, Patisar, Sirajganj, places in which he had estates and houses. It was in Patisar that he put his entire Nobel Prize money of then Rs. 1 lakh to start a cooperative bank for the benefit of peasants and cultivators. His travels, stay and work as a zamindar and poet in East Bengal, span a period of nearly five decades. The vandals of Sirajganj or their ideological patrons would hardly know of this past or care for it. In their 'new Bangladesh" both Tagore and his anthem are to be exiled. In a captivating Bengali tract 'Zamindar Rabindranath," veteran journalist Amitabha Choudhuri tells us that Tagore did not go to rural Bengal with a zamindari mindset, he went there and took up the responsibility as a worker for his country's welfare, as a 'swadesh-hitaishi." The ryots were surprised to see a 'Babumoshai" who did not fit the usual image of an extractor and entertainer. Tagore came as their guardian and carer. He worked to make these ryots and those dependent on him self-reliant. He strove to awaken their inner strength – atmashakti and to make them stakeholders in the mission of enriching Bengal's unique soil. Tagore developed most of his ideas of rural development and empowerment during these years. In Shilaidaha, for instance, Choudhuri writes, he set up, in memory of his father Maharshi Debendranath Tagore, the Maharshi free dispensary which treated the rural poor through homeopathy, Ayurvedic and allopathic medicines. Quinine would be distributed for free and Tagore would himself treat patients at times. In Patisar, Tagore established a large hospital. The first ever health cooperative in India to be started was the one set up by Tagore in his estate in East Bengal. Writing to Pramatha Chaudhuri in 1917, Tagore observed how the hospital was catering to a large population beyond his estate and benefiting them. 'This joy rises above all my wants," Tagore wrote to Pramatha Chaudhuri. Gurudev's letters during this period describing the work in his estate, indicate, writes Amitabha Choudhuri, that Tagore worked with the aim of establishing a 'dharma-rajya" among the peasants and never calculated his losses and gains. He was pledged to their welfare alone. In every village in his estate Tagore founded a free school and in Patisar came up a minor school which later became high school. Village roads were improved, drinking water arrangements were made and the villagers were imparted training in weaving. Tagore's varied initiatives saw a visible improvement in the condition of the people. In later years Gurudev would recall the deep satisfaction that this work gave him. He kept an open house for the cultivators and peasants. His doors were never closed for them. They in turn adored and admired him. 'For one who grew up cloistered in the corners of a room, to me the experience of a village was new. But this work has given me great satisfaction; it enthused me, I acquired the joys of carving out a new path…" Gurudev wrote years later. Reams can be written on his work among the people of East Bengal. top videos View all Who knows, perhaps the Rabindra Kachharibari vandals are descendants of those same families who must have once benefited from Gurudev's benign presence and work? Who knows, perhaps Mohammed Yunus's ancestors were cultivators and ryots in Tagore's estate. Who knows, perhaps they were the recipient of his elevating vision and of his sublime action. But that memory is being forcibly erased, the possibility of it being resisted. In the 'new Bangladesh" that the self-styled August 'revolutionaries" wish to create, Rabindranath Tagore has no place. He is being driven out. The author is chairman, Dr Syama Prasad Mookerjee Research Foundation, and a member of the National Executive Committee, BJP. The views expressed are personal and solely those of the author. They do not necessarily reflect News18's views view comments Location : New Delhi, India, India First Published: June 20, 2025, 18:01 IST News opinion Opinion | Rabindranath Tagore Has No Place In 'New' Bangladesh Disclaimer: Comments reflect users' views, not News18's. Please keep discussions respectful and constructive. Abusive, defamatory, or illegal comments will be removed. News18 may disable any comment at its discretion. By posting, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
NDTV
11-05-2025
- Politics
- NDTV
Explained: The Rise And Fall Of Sheikh Hasina's Bangladesh Awami League
New Delhi: The party that once led Bangladesh to liberation now finds itself outlawed on the very soil it helped set free. The Awami League, once the torchbearer of Bangladesh's independence, has been banned under the Anti-Terrorism Act by the country's interim government led by Muhammad Yunus. Citing threats to national security and an ongoing war crimes investigation, the administration has outlawed all party activities. Former Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina's party, which ruled the country for over a decade until her ouster in a mass uprising last year, has been accused of orchestrating violent crackdowns during the July-August 2024 student-led protests that killed close to 1,500 protestors. The Awami League Born out of discontent with the ruling West Pakistani elite, the Awami League was founded on June 23, 1949, in Dhaka. Then called the 'East Pakistan Awami Muslim League', it was a breakaway faction of the Muslim League. The party emerged as a secular, progressive voice for the Bengali population in then East Pakistan. Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, a young student activist, became one of its key leaders and later its most iconic figure. The party played a major role in the 1952 Language Movement, demanding Bengali be recognised as one of Pakistan's state languages. It grew its base among students, intellectuals, and rural voters through its populist and regional identity politics. 1970 Pakistan Elections In the 1970 general elections of Pakistan, the Awami League, under Mujibur Rahman's leadership, swept the East Pakistani seats and won a majority (160 out of 162). West Pakistan refused to hand over power to Mujibur Rahman, triggering political unrest and a brutal crackdown known as 'Operation Searchlight'. 1971: Formation Of Bangladesh On March 26, 1971, after political negotiations failed, Bangladesh declared independence. Awami League led the freedom movement. Mujibur Rahman was arrested by Pakistani forces. The Awami League-led Mukti Bahini (Liberation Army), backed by India, waged a successful liberation struggle that went on from March to December. Rahman was later released after the war ended. Bangladesh gained independence on 16 December, 1971, with the help of India. Mujibur Rahman was the first President and Prime Minister of the nation. Considered the founding father of Bangladesh, he was hailed as the ' Bangabandhu ' -- Friend of Bengal. 1975: Mujibur Rahman's Assassination The Awami League government struggled with post-war reconstruction, famine, and rising discontent. In 1975, Mujibur Rahman introduced one-party rule through BAKSAL (Bangladesh Krishak Sramik Awami League), a move that many felt betrayed the ideals of democracy. Months later, on August 15, Mujibur Rahman and most of his family were assassinated in a military coup. The Awami League lost its footing in the military-led regimes of Ziaur Rahman and later Hussain Muhammad Ershad. 1981: Return Of Sheikh Hasina In 1981, Sheikh Hasina, Mujibur Rahman's exiled daughter, returned to Bangladesh and assumed leadership of the party. Through the 1980s, she rebuilt the Awami League from the ground up, allying with student groups, civil society and pro-democracy voices. The party played a key role in the 1990 movement that ended Ershad's dictatorship. In 1996, the Awami League returned to power after 21 years when Hasina became Prime Minister. Her first term was marked by peace deals with tribal groups and infrastructure investment. 2001: Political Turbulence After losing power in 2001, the Awami League accused the BNP-Jamaat alliance of political repression. In 2007, a military-backed caretaker government took over, arresting both Hasina and BNP leader Khaleda Zia under corruption charges. 2009-2023: The Hasina Era The real shift came after 2009, when Sheikh Hasina began her uninterrupted 15-year rule -- making her the longest-serving prime minister in Bangladesh's history. Human rights groups and opposition leaders alleged that her government used authoritarian tactics to cling to power. Elections were marred by allegations of vote rigging, opposition crackdowns became common, and the media faced increasing censorship. Critics accused the Awami League of turning into what it once fought against -- a centralised force intolerant of dissent. She ruled until her ouster in 2024. 2024: Student Uprising In July and August 2024, students across the country launched mass protests triggered by fuel price hikes, youth unemployment, and corruption allegations. According to the United Nations, over 1,400 protesters died in police crackdown instructed by Hasina's Awami League. Sheikh Hasina's government collapsed in August 2024, following pressure from civil society, opposition groups, and defectors within her own party. She resigned on August 5, 2024, and fled the country. By September, an interim administration led by Nobel Laureate Muhammad Yunus was in place. Now, the Awami League has not only been removed from power, it has been criminalised and banned under the Anti-Terrorism Act.
