Feature Img
Indira-Nixon meet in Oval Office, 1971.
Indira-Nixon meet in Oval Office, 1971.

The decision to award Indira Gandhi, PM of India in 1971 is a very positive one. It recognises her role as an ally in Bangladesh’s war of independence. The award not only recognises her role in that critical year but also recognises the close proximity of two histories, Indian and Bangladeshi. The two countries didn’t fight a common war though they had a common enemy and the results were victories for both. It is in knowing that while there were two different objectives but a common purpose that should drive away many misconceptions about who helped whom and why. Both served each other’s interest and both should remain obliged to each other.

* * *

Disagreements as to whose war it was have been with us for long but there is little doubt that Indira Gandhi fought her war better than all others. She was enormously lucky too that Pakistan under the Generals had decided to act so unintelligently during her reign and gave her the opportunity to bring home the greatest trophy any Indian PM could hope for politically — the break up of Pakistan.

However, the conclusion of the situation was never certain and it is to her credit that she managed to bring home the shield after the battle against all odds. She served India brilliantly and in doing so also helped Bangladesh achieve its own objective.

* * *

Was Indira prepared for what happened in Dhaka in March? There is little to suggest that she did as research says that Bangladeshi partisans fighting Pakistan in the days of April who crossed over to seek support from India were turned away by local officials saying that they had no order from their authorities. Agartala and other areas which received the first burst of refugees were totally unprepared and the system was immediately overwhelmed.

Most significantly, when Tajuddin Ahmed and his fellow traveller Amirul Islam reached India, they were taken into custody and only after their identity was confirmed that Tajuddin was flown to Delhi to meet Indira Gandhi for what was to be a fateful meeting. It was here that the decision to support the Bangladesh cause must have been taken and this encounter was certainly historic. Any record of what transpired between the two is available but it must be with the Indians and one wishes it was given to us as a memento of shared history.

* * *

Indira faced several challenges both within and outside India. Within her political circle, a major pressure came from her West Bengal supporters who wanted immediate intervention. Other voices lent their muscle to this demand but she withstood it and one reason of course that India was not ready to strike. Her army brass including its chief Gen. Sam Maneckshaw had informed that an effective attack was not possible at once and the level of logistical support that was needed to ensure a quick victory was missing.

She moved her Commerce Secretary K.B. Lal to Defence, with the specific task of preparing the army for an intervention, obviously later in the year. However, it was clear that India was getting ready for what was its momentous year in its encounter with Pakistan.

* * *

The 1971 war was an international one involving the superpowers though not directly. It was a time of high cold war between the Russians and the Americans with a half superpower China complicating matters by weighing in against the Soviets and thus the US and its long time ally, Pakistan. India was not friendly with the US and its old fashioned faith in socialism in the tradition of her father suited her friendship with the USSR, both strategic and emotional.

One can never say how she read the US but she certainly knew that they were not her allies in 1971. However, unlike Pakistan she didn’t expect any direct intervention by them. US State department documents show that they considered the birth of Bangladesh as inevitable what with the geopolitics including participation of India. It was worries that India may keep going and occupy a large chunk of Pakistan in case of a war in the Indo-Pak border. The US also feared that due to unavoidable situations, the bigger powers may get involved in an unwelcome South Asian war.

* * *

Indira also had issues at home particularly within her decision making groups which was largely made up on pro-Soviet bureaucrats like PN Haksar, KN Kaul, DP Dhar, etc. There was also a pro-US group particularly in the Indian foreign ministry who tried to contest the Soviets but given the war situation, the Soviets were India’s ally. After the Indo-Soviet Treaty was signed, the preparation went full steam. Indira also went on a trip to the West to drum up global support for its incoming intervention.

In the US it was an odd situation, with huge popular goodwill for the Bangladesh cause but lack of the same from the White House led by President Nixon and his Adviser Henry Kissinger. They had decided to support Pakistan as it was brokering a goodwill visit to China which had long term positive impact for the US. It was a nationalist and patriotic decision on their part and while the support could have been expressed more maturely, the US didn’t cheer on Pakistan either. This is how international politics looks.

* * *

The headache of everyone concerned was China. India and its army and security apparatus were paranoid about China and did everything to avoid a 1962 situation when China wrong-footed Indian intelligence and the army and took a chunk of India away. The US really didn’t understand Chinese intent as it had been away from international politics for long so there was huge anxiety from them too. The Russian of course were always hostile to China, its socialist enemy and tried to make sure that it didn’t get a foot inside the region. India meanwhile planned an attack in December to ensure that China didn’t cross the mountains to help Pakistan by attacking India.

* * *

Indira Gandhi also had to handle her Mujibnagar allies, not a homogenous group with all kinds of internal contradictions. Her support to PM Tajuddin Ahmed was total because she knew that the Mujibnagar government must appear solid as the face of Bangladeshi nationalism. There were several rebellious initiatives from within Mujibnagar aimed at the PM, who was a brilliant PM in exile but not a popular leader within the party.

Khandaker Mushtaq Ahmed’s attempt to contact the US and try to create a space for himself was because of anti-Tajuddin sentiments rather than any treacherous ones. Indira ensured that nothing disturbed her rally and nobody rained on her parade by keeping a tight watch on them all and tight rein to match. For example when Mushtaq was about to leave, he was stopped from travelling.

* * *

But Indira didn’t have enough confidence in Mujibnagar and set up the Bangladesh Liberation Army, Mujibbahini as it was popularly known. It was drawn up of students and youth activists led by one Gen. Ovan, a man who later supervised the raising of the Rakkhi Bahini in Bangladesh. This was done without the knowledge of Tajuddin Ahmed and his allies and many deeply resented it but Indira was buying insurance against the not so dependable allies of 1971. And to her it was India’s war and not anyone else’s.

* * *

So there she was, guiding India to its finest hour. She had reined in her squabbling bureaucrats and generals and put them under one flag. She effectively neutralised the US moves and ensured that China couldn’t do much even if they wanted to. She organised Russian support for her cause and later at the UN to forestall a Cease Fire resolution before the war was won. She supported the Mujibnagar government despite its internal conflicts, looked after its refugees turning them into the biggest argument for intervention and even raised a paramilitary directly under Indian comma to make sure no pie was burnt. She made sure she won the war.

* * *

It is for this reason that we also won our war. We fought two fundamentally different wars but it was fought together. India came first to her, thank heavens and her totally unemotional approach delivered the goods. In the process the enemy was vanquished and in doing so, with our help, so was ours.

The award recognises her contribution, her place in history and her capacity to mange such a complex regional war which has inputted so much into the birth of Bangladesh.

Afsan Chowdhury is a journalist and researcher.

Afsan ChowdhuryAfsan Chowdhury is a bdnews24.com columnist.

15 Responses to “Bangladesh honours Indira Gandhi’s 1971 war”

  1. moon

    Thanks Mr. Afsan for this wonderful article.

    For others, let us learn to honour and pay respect to one who has had contribution for our country in some form. Just the other day we were after Prof Yunus and today Indira.

    Why are we behaving like a nonsense after 1971?

    Thanks to all.

    • Ali

      If we can separate facts from emotion, and deal with facts alone, only then will we be able to agree that nothing in this world comes free!

      These two personalities cannot be compared and juxtaposed. They are unique in their own way. We surely are not after Indira, neither are we after Prof Yunus. He has moved forward leaving us far behind.

  2. Golam Arshad

    Afsan: Please check for me what was the comment of Prime Minister Indira Gandhi on August 15 TRAGEDY? Was there any official motion of condolence at the Indian Lok Shava on the tragedy of August 15, 1975?
    Did the Government of India then in 1975 15th. August, made any move to snap ties with the Government of Khondoker Mushtaq Ahmed? I look forward for your kind response! Good job!!

  3. shiplu

    Can somebody compare between 1971’s help from India and the relationship afterward to date? good-better-best? Bad-worse-worst? Is the relationship a party and a country? Or a country and country?

    • Ali

      First to neutralise another, next to gain strong foothold in a BIG market.

      Both are achieved! Rest is status quo; and to just carry forward for the next opportunity; may be in bits and pieces.

      Now we are not even worthy of bullets, just stones would do.
      (ref: recent news item).

  4. Sidhartha Ghosh

    What a superb and consummate understanding and assessment…and, might I add, quite accurate too!!!

    Many, many kudos, Sir!

    Warmest Regards,
    Sidhartha Ghosh
    Kolkata, INDIA.

  5. Alam Mahmud

    Being a new generation reader, I intend to put forward certain comments that I am sure bdbews24.com is not going to publish:

    1. History should be read/assessed with facts not with emotions. We are affected by emotions. It’s not honouring the friend, but bowing down to the demigod.

    2. To me, Bangladesh is a by-product of Indo-Pak rivalry which was magnified by the atrocities of Pak hot-headed generals.

    3. According to major general DK Palit, a veteran Indian military personnel, 1971 war was over before the battles was won. Indians didn’t win the battles but won the war. If you go through the world famous military events of that time, Bangladesh War of Liberation has no mention, but the Indo-Pak War 1971 is highlighted.

    4. It is in their interest to disintegrate Pakisan, they intervened and we were lucky to get a new nation. What Sheikh Mujib actually wanted is still a mystery.

    5. We must celebrate and honour the friends but not at the cost of our own existence.

    6. Bangladesh could have been an independent state in 1947, had there been a dominant leadership at that time. Like a parentless boy we entered into the orphanage of Jinnah’s two-nation theory.

    7. Last but not the least, I think the incumbent has been too much pally pally with India. The romance of 71 is no more relevant today. There are changes in people’s mind as well.

    8. It would be better to select a middle path to deal with India.

    • Bangladesh generation

      I endorse your observations. These are the hard facts which we cannot bypass. However, it has been a popular way in our world to criticise the two-nation theory without understanding the context of that time. We have to understand why the people of this part then overwhelmingly supported the Muslim League in 1946 elections who had earlier supported Congress in 1937 elections — a huge shift within couple of years.

      Today again we see such discrimination. Take the example from Viqarunnissa School. Six teachers from a minority community was recruited at the cost of the majority. This year four persons got opportunity to enter civil service, administration service, from Sylhet division and all are from a minority community.

      These are parts of history and we have to respond it from a realistic point. The scenario on the other hand of the Muslims of the West Bengal could be reviewed also. Anyway thanks again for the comments.


        @Bangladesh generation: Dada, why don’t you cough up clearly and say clearly that you don’t like selection of Hindus in those posts and hate the liberal Muslims of Bangladesh who did such an awful thing?!

        Please come to Paschim Banga and see for yourself before making seditious comments. After all, no Muslim or any other human born in a minority community of post-1947 India was chased out of home and hearth, or converted forcefully.

    • Towfique

      Agree with point 6, but totally disagree with point 2, as it amounts to total ignorance and denial of our long history of independence. Given this background it is no wonder that you question Sheikh Mujib’s goal as a mystery.

    • Golam Arshad

      Hi to the new generation of leaders, thinkers and doers: Yes! you are absolutely right. It is a give and take world, and will remain so .. we should pursue and harness, relationship based on mutual trust and RESPECT! Move ON 2011!!

  6. jasim

    Dear Sir,

    Inarguably you are the best columnist of Bangladesh.


  7. Towfique

    No doubt, India came first to Indira, yet it seems to be very narrow an approach to understand her perspective in supporting Bangladesh cause.

    It really is humiliating for Indira and, more obviously so for Bangladesh, to accept that ‘…..it was India’s war and not anyone else’s.’

    What about India’s generous support, including shelter, for our so many freedom fighters (not only the Mujib Bahnini that came into operation very late) for almost the entire nine-month period? What about Indian government support for millions of refugees let alone the supports of Indian people? The greatest cause and moral strength of India to stand against Pakistan was the unity between its government and own people in the question of Bangladesh and, most of all, Bengalis’ aspirations for freedom and independence against an artificial and repressive state Pakistan.

    It was not a war for India driven by only to defeat its arch-enemy Pakistan, as the author tried to portray it. We can never forget and deny that it was not a traditional war to defeat an enemy; it was a war of the people where military hardware and strategies, and any of India’s civil and military interests were secondary. It was basically a war of Bengalis, where India could not but extend its support for a win. The very techno-eccentric approach of the writer is a denial of our own war for Bangladesh, which again would not have been so effective without India’s help.

    Who knows what the writer is pointing to?

  8. russel ahmed

    Thanks Mr. Afsan for detailing this great lady and her contribution. Bangladesh feels proud after giving the award. We finally have duly honoured Indira Gandhi.

Comments are closed.