HINDUSTAN STANDARD, SEPTEMBER 27, 1971
BANGLADESH HAS BECOME AN INTERNATIONAL ISSUE
By Nitish Chakravarty
The recent international conference on Bangladesh in New Delhi has yielded no dramatic results. This is no index of its achievements or the lack of them. Indeed it would have been naive to expect spectacular results to flow from a gathering of men welded together by nothing other a commonly shared concern for Bangladesh. The main purpose of the conference was to stir the conscience of the world community. The extent to which it succeeds in this would determine its usefulness.
Not only have Governments across the world tended to be indifferent about the gruesome tragedy in Bangladesh even at non-official levels not enough has been done to ostracize the ruling junta at Islamabad. By bringing together men and women of various races in condemning the Pakistani atrocities, the conference has served a useful purpose. It has highlighted the fact that regardless of the indifference of their Governments, numerous individuals in many countries are deeply disturbed at the happenings in Bangladesh.
Expectations that the conference might produce results readily translatable into tangible action were aroused perhaps by the talk about all international brigade. The publication of a letter of the French author Mr. Andre Malraux, to a friend brought the probability of such a brigade into focus. Mr. Malraux, who has fought oppressors with arms in different parts of the world thinks it futile to expect that the Pakistani hordes can be repulsed with mere resolutions.
Even a pacifist like Mr. Jayaprakash Narayan is persuaded that armed help to the Mukti Bahini can alone help it liberate Bangladesh. In his presidential address to the conference he therefore threw up the suggestion for a brigade like the one which fought against the Spanish fascists in the 1930s. The suggestion found a quick echo in Mr. B. P. Koirala a former Nepalese Prime Minister and life-long fighter for democratic rule in his country.
It is not surprising that the idea did not evoke wider interest. One reason for it is that the possibility of raising an armed international brigade was never carefully processed during the preparatory stages of the conference. It is perhaps too much to expect men of divergent backgrounds to take a momentous decision like this after less than 72 hours deliberation.
The participants differed not only on the wisdom of raising an armed brigade there were some to whom resort to arms on any plea is totally indefensible. Worse still many anticipants are still opposed to the concept of a sovereign Bangladesh outside the Pakistani fold. Each national group if not every individual differed on the solution of the Bangladesh crisis.
Such shortcomings are probably inherent in a conference organized at relatively short notice by a non-official preparatory committee which had little else than sparks of sympathy expressed by individuals to fall back upon in choosing the invitees. National bodies in defense of Bangladesh have not yet sprung up in many countries, hence the preparatory committee had to base its invitations on individual contacts. In the process chaff could not always be shifted from grain.
The cool attitude of the Government of India perhaps created some misgivings abroad about the character of the conference. These misgivings were accentuated by the virtual dissociation of the Congress (R) with it. If they suspicion that the conference might turn into an anti-Government forum was the reason the deliberations certainly did not confirm it. The anxiety of the Congress (R) and the CPI not to share a platform with the Jana Sangh even on an issue like Bangladesh will perhaps give a handle to India’s enemies to twist facts. The Government of India however, did nothing to make things difficult for the organizers and in fact a Union Minister Mr. Shah Nawaz Khan occupied a rear seat at the inauguration ceremony.
The conference can perhaps lay little claim to distinction in term of the number of participants. About 60 persons from 23 countries travelled to New Delhi to attend it. But what it lacked in numbers was amply compensated by the high stature of some of the participants. The presence of sizable contingents from the United States and Britain was proof that the policies of the Nixon Administration or the Tory Government do not have the backing of the entire people.
In spite of their hesitation to involve themselves in what may turn out to be a second Vietnam many Americans have been deeply moved by the Bangladesh outrage. Both the American and British delegates would like their Governments to adopt a positive attitude so that the Islamabad clique mends its ways. The French delegation though not as large was unequivocal in pleading for all-out help to the Bangladesh people.
The conference attracted participants from all six continents but Asia was relatively poorly represented Barring India and Bangladesh participants came from only seven Asian nations. The most striking fact about many of the Asian delegations was their unqualified support to the Bangladesh cause. Quite expectedly a high level delegation from Nepal upheld Bangladesh’s right to exist as a sovereign nation. The Ceylonese delegation was equally forth right in denouncing the Pakistani regime.
Even the Malaysian participants recognized the emergence of Bangladesh as an independent nation State. Somewhat different was the view of the two man team from Indonesia. A former Indonesian foreign Minister Dr. Mohammed Roem and an erstwhile leader of the Indonesian delegation at the U.N. Dr. Abou Hanifa thought Bangladesh a fit enough case for the United Nations to intervene. But they would not commit themselves on its right to exist as a sovereign nation.
Perhaps the most disappointing though not surprising was the stand taken by the participants from the Arab world. Few in number and perhaps of a representative character the Arab participants described themselves as observers and not as delegates. Their principal spokesman Dr. Clovis Maksoud spoke with a good deal of vehemence against the negation of human rights and human dignity in Bangladesh but carefully kept away from saying anything that might be construed as support to the liberation movement. The Arabs suggested that any solution would have to be within the framework of Pakistan.
Despite the lack of unanimity on the solution of the Bangladesh issue the conference has succeeded in focusing world attention on the unparalleled tragedy. The condemnation by representatives from different countries of the genocide against the Bangladesh people cannot but stir the conscience of decent people everywhere. Whether this will spur stoically silent governments into action is a different matter.
The Pakistani ruling clique will obviously find no comfort in the fact that citizens of 24 countries have unanimously demanded the release of Sheikh Mujibur Rahman whom it has dubbed a traitor. Evidence of its uneasiness is provided by the attempt of Pakistani missions in different countries to pressurize people against participation in the New Delhi conference. The setting up of an international committee of friends of Bangladesh will strengthen the light for liberty. Though the process is slow and agonizing the building up of international opinion cannot but serve the cause of Bangladesh.