The Options on Bangladesh-2
Stakes Are High Dangers of Adventurism
There was at no time any chance of Big Powers pressurizing Pakistan into a political settlement which the Awami League and the elite of this country with their philosophy of dependence tended to attribute to Big Powers’ capabilities they never had. No nation in the world had ever collapsed because of economic pressures generated by a repressive regime fighting a colonial war in a distant area.
No partisan war has ever been won in a matter of months or for that matter without major external developments contributing to its victory. The Chinese do not appear to be in a mood to intervene in the Bangladesh crisis, according to some China specialists, Militarily any attempt on the part of India to apply pressure on Pakistan to bring about the liberation of Bangladesh, though likely to escalate into a war, is not an unmanageable proposition. All these propositions are exactly opposite of what are being conveyed to our people day after day in the columns of most of our newspapers.
Before we consider the policy for the period ahead, let us look back and admit our mistakes in the last three months. Once it is realized that our policy making and our perceptions have led us to grievous errors, a beginning can be made to revise our assumptions and take a fresh look at our options. Though a few in our country warned that military juntas do not voluntarily transfer power to elected Governments here was no contingency planning on our part to cover this likely development in Bangladesh.
In the first few days and weeks when exaggerated accounts were being published of Pakistan’s difficulties and Mukti Fauj’s exploits, there were voices which cautioned that this picture was too good to be true and there was every likelihood of the developments affecting our security. These warnings were not taken seriously. When our economic pundits, who know very little about the economics of limited war operations, talked about the impending collapse of the Pakistani economy, contrary views that these calculations were based on superficial and totally untenable assumptions were ignored. We talked of political settlement day in and day out knowing full well that it was not on the cards at all.
It is now known that late in March and in the first week of April, Pakistan had only two divisions of troops in Bangladesh. Pakistan was worried, according to some observers, who were in West Pakistan at that time, about the likely Indian reaction. It is only after it became clear that India did not intend to apply pressure on West Pakistan borders, they could move additional two and half divisions to Bangladesh to re-establish their control fully.
This behavior of India may be contrasted with what Prime Minister Nehru did in 1950 when Pakistan stepped up tension on Kashmir border and riots in East Bengal increased the flow of refugees into India. He moved the Indian armored division to the border and warned Pakistan about the possibility of war. The threat was credible enough and the result was the Nehru-Liaquat Pact. But this credible threat and the fundamental political posture underlying it was eroded over a period of time by the behavioral pattern of our bureaucracy.
This erosion of credibility was accelerated by our Army’s poor performance in Sela in 1962 and our confused behavior in April, 1965 emboldened Ayub Khan to attack in August-September, 1965.
Adventurism is to get into a hazardous situation without forethought, competence or equipment to meet such an unfamiliar situation. War is an option to all sovereign States. It is not necessary to talk about it nor is it necessary to announce to the world that we are either afraid or reluctant or have deep emotional blocks about it within our mind. Communication of such hesitation and emotional blocks to our adversary is the surest way of inducing him to escalate the situation.
Adventurism is of two categories-adventurism by rash action and adventurism by drift – and both are equally dangerous. The way to avoid adventurism is not to refuse to talk or consider any particular option, but to proceed to discuss the whole spectrum of option in a calm, unemotional and deliberate way.
Therefore, the Prime Minister’s warning about adventurism has come in very timely. It is, however, unfortunate that her warning has been given a deliberate twist and been narrowly interpreted to mean only adventurism by rash action. But today the risk is more in the other category of adventurism by drift. – K. SUBRAHMANYAM
Reference: Hindustan Standard, 11.07.1971