Calling out the culprit

International human rights activists and their ilk were basking in a sense of immense satisfaction following the successful symposium on genocide, titled ‘Recognising Bangladesh's Genocide’. The event, held at the School of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS), University of London, was organised in association with the Bangladesh High Commission, London, and the European Bangladesh Forum (EBF). EBF is the Bangladeshi diaspora in Europe that is actively engaged in creating public awareness about the atrocities committed by the Pakistanis in Bangladesh in 1971 during the country's liberation struggle.

The successful event was chaired by Ansar Ahmadullah, the President of the EBF's UK chapter, and was addressed by several individuals, including Chris Blackburn, a senior British journalist, Harry van Bommel, an ex-MP from the Netherlands, Claudia Wadlich, a well-known human rights activist from Germany, Sheikh Mohammad Shahriar Mosharraf, a senior diplomat of the Bangladesh High Commission in London, Ayesha Siddiqa, a Pakistani British citizen and senior fellow in the Department of War Studies at King's College, UK, Dr Tazeen Murshid, a fellow at the Centre for Development Research and Cooperation (DRC-Global), Charles Wallace, a visiting fellow at the South Asian Institute of SOAS, Reza Hosseinbor Irani, a Baluch human rights activist, and several other experts in this field from other parts of Europe. However, the event's success was marked by the presence of Sir Peter Shore, a British MP who happened to be the Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Select Committee during the 1971 crisis and had also placed a motion in the British Parliament condemning the Pakistani excesses during the Liberation War.

Significantly, the speakers at the symposium unanimously agreed that Cold War politics and realpolitik prevented the recognition of a proven genocide on the international stage. They further highlighted the abject failure of the UN and other international bodies to adhere to their own principles and objectives that the world was expected to follow. The speakers reiterated the heinous atrocities and genocide committed by Pakistan, killing millions of Bangladeshis and perpetrating rape and other crimes against humanity. They exhorted the international community, stating that it was time to hold Pakistan accountable for their inhumane highhandedness. The speakers further implored for the international community to put pressure on Pakistan by rallying together, cutting across all religious and ethnic lines, for immediate recognition of the genocide.

Crucially, the participants felt that the purpose of the symposium was to inform European policymakers, human rights activists, and academics about the ongoing campaign to demand international recognition of the genocide of 1971. A resolution adopted at the end of the event highlighted Britain's role and said that the UK had played a significant role in the liberation struggle and insinuated that it needed to play its part again to meet the demand for international recognition. This move augured very well with the audience around the world.

Analysing the event, it appears that it appropriately aroused public opinion and drew the attention of the international community. This was needed to keep alive the very thought of inhuman atrocities committed by Pakistan. It also provides succour to the families of the victims of the genocide. A large section of the international community is still active with the campaign, and the present generation, especially in Bangladesh, is constantly reminded of the dark and condemnable acts carried out most brutally by the Pakistani occupation forces. This assumes more significance as even after nearly 52 years of genocide, the issue is still burning bright and perhaps acting as a deterrent for potential offenders of crimes against humanity.

In this context, it is imperative to note that the Nuremberg trials, post-World War II, held the Nazis accountable, and later, in the nineties, those committing war crimes against humanity in Bosnia-Herzegovina were taken to task. Against this backdrop, Pakistan, under no circumstance, can be left off the hook for its acts of genocide.

This is an election year in Bangladesh, and there are also indications of elections in two Pakistani provinces in the near future, provided the standoff between the judiciary and the political establishment is resolved. The recent reiteration of the urgent demand for recognition of the genocide in Bangladesh in 1971 is likely to figure in the canvassing, especially in Bangladesh. Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina, showing exemplary courage and defying any international pressure, particularly from the Islamic world, carried out death sentences to those who had collaborated with Pakistani forces in the '71 genocide. The recently held event, in all likelihood, will strengthen the pro-liberation and anti-Pakistan forces in Dhaka. As for Pakistan, it is already on the defensive mode on the charges of carrying out the genocide. The present generation of Pakistanis and a powerful section of historians and sociologists have already started blaming the dictatorial regimes for the mindless genocide leading to the dismembering of its eastern flank. This trend was not visible sometime back. The last Pakistani Army Chief, General Qamar Ahmad Bajwa, on the occasion of laying down office (November 23, 2022), blamed the political leadership for the creation of Bangladesh, clearly absolving the army. Such thoughtless statements, bereft of any scholarship, cannot alter the bloody history unleashed by Pakistan leading to the birth of a new nation.

The recently held symposium in London has further opened the wounds, which will heal, albeit partially, only if the demand for declaring and recognising the genocide committed by none other than Pakistan in 1971 is met. The demand is legitimate, and it was discussed threadbare at the very heart of Europe. It is time for Europe and other Western affluent countries to mount pressure on Pakistan to apologise for the genocide. They have to make a call, and now. Any further delay would mean Europe still adheres to its policy of discrimination and double standards when it has to deal with a country that is geographically not situated in Europe. The continent should perhaps look fair by its actions than by its looks.

The writer is an IPS officer, Adviser NatStrat, security analyst and a former National Security Advisor in Mauritius. Views expressed are personal