HINDUSTAN STANDARD, SEPTEMBER 9, 1971
BANGLADESH IMAGE IN EUROPE
MRS. GANDHI TO FACE WESTERN INHIBITIONS
From S. Nihal Singh
Mrs. Gandhi’s projected visit to West Europe and the USA next month is an appropriate backdrop to size up where India stands today on Bangladesh. More than five months after the West Pakistan army went into East Bengal to subdue the people the diplomatic front presents a strange picture. Far from being an outcast in the international community General Yahya Khan is well on his way to winning acceptability.
Simple Device
To understand the West’s view of Bangladesh one must accept the fact that Pakistan has succeeded in a measure in presenting the issue as an Indo-Pakistan problem. This was achieved by the simple device of raising tension between the two countries up to a pitch and for the West the tragedy of Bangladesh was quickly submerged by the danger of an Indo-Pakistan overtones are more apparent to the West then the Bangladesh struggle.
The brutality and scale of the West Pakistan army’s repression in East Bengal hit the west not when they happened but weeks and months later. It was only when millions of refugees poured into India and there was the fearful prospect of a mass cholera epidemic that the horror and tragedy of the Pakistani military intervention was brought home to the West. The refugees continued to make headlines for a time but then the interest waned, to be revived momentarily by the defection of East Bengalis in Pakistan’s diplomatic service. There is much sympathy for the suffering of the people of East Bengal and some sympathy for India’s burdens in coping with the continuing stream of refugees. But the west is only half convinced of the inevitability of Pakistan’s break-up, even those who accept that an independent East Bengal will come into being are not quite clear about the time scale in which it will occur. Meanwhile General Yahya is still President of both the wings of Pakistan and they have to do business with him.
However, there has been a change in Whitehall’s approach to the Bangladesh problem a change indicated not so much by what has been said but by what has been left unsaid. This change is reflected by the new official mood- that Whitehall has gone far enough in censuring Islamabad and would rather mend its fences with President Yahya. It has been left to Labor M.P.s like Mr. Peter Shore and church leaders and fiery editorial writers to call a spade a spade-and to bring before the British public the new danger of a colossal famine in East Pakistan.
To add to these inhibitions of the West and a central part of these inhibitions is that the west does not wish to see the break-up of Pakistanis the Indo-Soviet treaty. Even before the treaty was sprung upon the world most West Europeans tended to regard India as being in the Soviet camp but the treaty served to remove the lingering doubts in their minds about India’s non-aligned posture. With both China and the USA ranged on Islamabad’s side. West European chancelleries have become models of eaution.
This picture implies that during her visit to the West Mrs. Gandhi will be offered tea and sympathy and perhaps a little help for the refugees but not much more. British and French officials have been vying with one another in praising Mrs. Gandhi’s restraint in the face of the temptations of an Indian military intervention in East Bengal but such praise will be cold comfort to her. Her visit to West European capitals can only confirm the fact that India will have to bear the brunt of the refugee problem that New Delhi will receive little help in pulling its chestnuts out of the fire.
It is indeed on the diplomatic from that Mrs. Gandhi’s projected tour will stand or fall. In spite of the Pakistan military ruler’s actions in East Bengal the world’s nation States will not judge them by a moral yardstick but by their own national interests. And Pakistan has almost succeeded in converting an indefensible position into something of a diplomatic victory.
Seeming Anxiety
Pakistan’s enthusiastic endorsement of the proposal to station U.N. observers on both sides of the East Bengal border gave Islamabad’s stand an appearance of seeming anxiety to seek the return of the refugees from India. And President Yahya has cleverly made Lt. Gen. Tikka Khan a scapegoat (for the benefit of the Western world) for all the blood that has been willfully spilled in East Bengal. He has now capped the symbolic act of the appointment of a civilian Governor with the announcement of an amnesty.
All these acts serve a diplomatic purpose. They are meant to achieve two objectives to persuade the Aid to Pakistan consortium to turn on the tap again and to try to wash away the sins of East Bengal before the opening of the U.N. General Assembly session. Judging by the reaction President Yahya’s recent moves have had in the West Pakistan stands a fair chance of achieving these objectives in a measure.
Partly, the likely success of Pakistan’s strategy will be helped by the West’s desire to believe that President Yahya has at last chosen the right path. Few in the West will stop to ask what difference a civilian. Governor will make in East Pakistan’s circumstances with the military authorities continuing to maintain their iron grips. Nor will many pay much attention to the fact that the refugees cannot return home on the strength of a paper promise with conditions as they are in East Bengal. Western interest in having U. N. observers on the Indian side of the border is primarily to discourage Indian help for the Bangladesh guerrillas. This help is not sufficient to till the balance in the guerrillas favor but it is sufficient to implicate India in the eves of many countries.
More Credible
Mrs. Gandhi will discover during her European sojourn that although India has been a victim of circumstances she is having to fight a rearguard action. Partly this must be blamed on New Delhi’s ad hoc policy in meeting the crisis there seems to be no coherent approach to the problems thrown up by Bangladesh.
Mrs. Gandhi, therefore has her task cut for her. She can hope to make an impression only if she shows decisiveness. What needs to be stressed are the essentials and not the peripheral matters that can cloud the central issue. It would help in improving India’s image if New Delhi were to know its own mind. It would serve little purpose to declare that the Indo-Soviet treaty has not changed India’s policy of non alignment. The West has drawn its own conclusions and is not likely to alter them on the strength of statements. Indeed, India’s posture would tie more credible in the West if Mrs. Gandhi were to say that she has had to go into a treaty relationship with the Russians for compelling domestic reasons to give a psychological boost to the morale of the Indian people at a particularly- trying time.
Secondly, legalistic arguments are not likely to help India. The essentials of the Bangladesh crisis are there for all impartial observers to see and it would be useful to stress them. They are that a holocaust has been brought about by the actions of Pakistan’s military rulers on India’s eastern frontier and a crisis with which India has had nothing to do has spilled over into the country in the shape of millions of refugees.
If the West expects India to do nothing in the circumstances, it is being particularly short-sighted. Unlike the West India cannot avert its gaze from the problem. It is too near home and too intensely felt. If Mrs. Gandhi talks to the Western leaders she meets in such terms she will win their respect if not their concurrence. Let us accept the fact that India and the West do not view Bangladesh from the same standpoint and will not do so.