Who’s Afraid of Sarmila Bose?

Chris Blackburn

Chris Blackburn

Chris Blackburn is a political analyst and writer based in the UK. He worked as a junior team member for the US National Intelligence Conference and Exposition (Intelcon 2005), which was organised by Slade Gorton and Jamie Gorelick; who were both members of the US National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States (9/11 Commission).

The Bangladeshi International Crimes Tribunals are seen by many in the American-Anglo alliance as being a nuisance. The genocide allegedly committed by Pakistan’s military and its collaborators during the 1971 Liberation War is seen as a Cold War by-product which should be left well alone.

During the Bush era, right wing American institutes like the Heritage Foundation and the Hudson Institute have been downplaying accusations of Pakistan’s war crimes because they believe they are detrimental to US-Pakistani interests. A few years ago some US academics, who are closely linked to US and Pakistan’s foreign policy, argued that the tribunals are being supported by old Communists with no public backing. Nonsense, the majority of Bangladesh support it.

The US institutes have a long history of cozying up with Islamic extremists in Pakistan. Some of these think-tanks played a crucial role for drumming up Congressional support for aiding the Mujahedeen during the Soviet-Afghan war. We often think of Charlie Wilson as being the lead figure in garnishing support behind the back of the impotent CIA. This myth was consolidated after the release of the 2007 blockbuster Charlie Wilson’s War, but a lot less is known about figures such as Andrew Eiva and his Federation for American Afghan Action, which was based at the Heritage Foundation alongside other groups. Eiva helped spearhead the US right-wing into action against the Soviet menace.

How does all this affect the International Crimes Tribunals in Bangladesh? Last week I recieved an e-mail which contained information about a recent book event which is being sponsored by the Woodrow Wilson Center. The event was held in honour of Dr Sarmila Bose and her new work Dead Reckoning: Memories of the 1971 Bangladesh War.

Dr. Bose has a bad reputation in South Asia; questions have been raised about her academic objectivity and questionable bias in her attempts to rewrite modern South Asian history. In June 2005, Dr. Bose was invited to deliver an academic paper at a two-day conference in Washington D.C at the request of the United States Department of State. In the paper she claimed that sections of Bangladesh and Indian society had deliberately exaggerated war crimes allegations.

In October 2005, she wrote an article called ‘Anatomy of Violence: Analysis of Civil War in East Pakistan in 1971’ in the Economic and Political Weekly which echoed her lecture she gave at US State Department. The article caused a stir to say the least. Bangladeshi and Indian historians called it a ‘whitewash’ some have even called it a fabrication which leaned too closely to Bose’s seeming professional sympathy for Pakistan’s military. She’s even lavished praise on Musharraf in Pakistani newspapers.

Before her seminal article, on the alleged embellishment of war crimes in Bangladesh, she wrote a widely circulated opinion piece with W. B. Milam, former US Ambassador to Pakistan, for the Christian Science Monitor in April, 2005. Bose was a relative unknown at this point. The article was called ‘The Right Stuff: F-16s to Pakistan is Wise Decision.’ It was after the series of articles in 2005, Bose’s star rose to the ascendant professionally. But her links to the US political establishment and the effect on her work has been called into question.

Nayanika Mookherjee wrote about Bose and her affiliations in 2006. He argued that an academic helping to flog F16s to Pakistan after a US embargo on the delivery is surely a cause for concern about her objectivity. Lobbying by academics is seen as an occupational hazard. London School of Economics (LSE) is currently experiencing the humiliation of being aligned with tyrants for the sake of realpolitik.

Western academia have shown that they can often have a negative effect on foreign policy due to lobbying; this behaviour should be put under the microscope. Dr. Bose also gave a lecture on Bangladesh’s ‘claims’ of war crimes for The Pakistan Society at the LSE in 2007. She has become an establishment figure in the West. She was also present at high-level talks on Pakistan at The Ditchley Foundation, Oxfordshire in 2007 with security and intelligence figures from Pakistan and the West.

The Bangladeshi tribunal will inevitably be seen, by many on the Left, as a trial on the bankrupt politics of foreign policy realism. The testimony of Bose could provide western figures with an excuse to pull the plug on the tribunals. The tribunals in Dhaka are important because they can help shape the region and international relations forever. Justice must be done and it must be transparent.

profilepic

Chris Blackburn is a political analyst and writer based in the UK. He worked as a junior team member for the US National Intelligence Conference and Exposition (Intelcon 2005), which was organised by Slade Gorton and Jamie Gorelick; who were both members of the US National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States (9/11 Commission). He then went on to become a track leader for the Intelligence Summit 2006, which focused on the deteriorating security situation in Bangladesh and South Asia. Chris has briefed journalists on extremist movements and terrorism. He has also worked with productions teams from BBC’s Panorama and Channel 4’s Dispatches. He has also written for David Horowitz’s Frontpagemag.com, The Spittoon, The Weekly Durdesh and others.


23 Responses to “Who’s Afraid of Sarmila Bose?”

  1. Highway

    Sorry, this is the first time we became to know about Sarmila Bose, as a country people will study more if we get more info about her and will observe about her activities.

    Dear readers

    Pls advs us more info about the subjects so it will be more helpful for discussion

  2. Khondkar A Saleque

    Dr Shamila Bose or anyone can not rewrite the history.The glorious liberation war of Bangladesh is the fall out of one of the worst genocide carried out on the unarmed civilians of Bangladesh Murer , rape looting and aresenal are so well documented that it will not be any problem to establish war crimes in any tribunal. There are several living evidences.No one must make any unholy attempt to create any confusion about our glorious liberation war>We Bangladeshis could have liberated our dear motherland in 1971 even without India’s active assistance.We must remember that American administration, Chinese Government and Arab World actively supported Pakistan in carrying out genocide in Bangladesh.
    When we view about Dr Bose and others now and their efforts to question our liberation war we must explore what they are upto? What are the purposes ? Whose interest these will serve?

  3. Md Golam Mostofa

    She is making a false propaganda against the liberation war of Bangladesh and She is doing a very good job to ruin the original history of Bangladesh. History is a very dangerous thing and it will give everybody what he deserves. However her presentations and so called scholarly reports are baseless and most of the writings are delivered without any proof and I think scholars on south Asian history and knowledgeable people from west has denied what Bose has claimed and she will be treated as a historian who is trying to distort the history of Bangladesh liberation war. We will remember her as rouge historian nothing else.

  4. Masud

    History is written by victor. Behind the scene many truth remain covered. In search of true history i think the book will be precious. To reach the ultimate truth we need more research that will be unbiased.

  5. fugstar

    Who pays you for writing this rubbish Chris Blackburn, its a very shallow attack on perceived identity of author, not an argument.

    This isnt about how white people see things or can manipulate events im afraid, though i see thats your industry. Its about reflecting on trauma and washing the blood from our eyes.

    Didnt know about the f16s to pakistan link. I’m not particularly interested in military affairs like you are but weren’t they already paid for?

    Interesting for you to throw that in there to beef up a “Bose = american imperialism” argument. A little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing.

  6. Chris Blackburn

    Fug,

    Pakistan was denied the F16’s because of its nuclear proliferation network and the strategic blunder of invading Kargil with Arab-Afghans and Pakistani militant groups in 1999. A reckless move condemned by the international community. The invasion was planned by Musharraf.

    Iran, EU and Russia were also concerned about Pakistan’s support for militancy during this period. The US embargo was to stop Pakistan’s military from potentially starting a nuclear war with India as the F16’s had advanced systems and would reduce India’s advantage. Analysts had judged that once both powers had nuclear weapons there would be some kind of détente-a stalemate. Pakistan, not having a logical or rational strategic outlook, chose lunacy.

    After 9/11, the Pakistan lobby made the argument to US congressional leaders and the Bush regime that the ultra-nationalists in Pakistan’s military felt insecure in regards to India. They said that if they received the F16’s they would be in a better position to get rid and reduce the militants/proxies/foreign legion which Pakistan supported.

    They didn’t keep to their side of the bargain and kept using groups like Hizbul Mujahideen, Lashker-e-Taiba, Hekmatyar’s Hizb i Islam and others.

    On Bose, it’s perfectly just to question her career advancement and support from Washington D.C. and the Government of Pakistan. Pakistan doesn’t want to be tarred with being a country linked to, “genocide,” Nizami’s words not mine.

    I also write about militancy which is emanating from Pakistan. I use Indian sources heavily. People are entitled to question if I’m connected to India or if I’m pushing their agenda. But, argue the facts. If you can’t handle the conclusions then find another forum.

    Cheers,

    Chris

  7. fugstar

    Brother,

    You are easy to handle, you are in the terrorism industry, this kinda amakes your testimony or production of facts non credible on any matter of fear, blood letting and understanding.

    I’m not interested in maximising the value of pacistani military spend, nor in spreading fatuous whiteous indignation, or indulging in us/pak crap. My thinking is that pakistan lost the right to be called pakistan when it did 71.

    Im more intrigued by alignment of interests, biases and perversions that has produced you writing in this space.

    indian danda
    drunken retard bandwidth of secular moving on atheist end of the awami league
    uncle same
    terror industry.

    I echo Masud about victor history.

    Bose isnt that important, but there is growing dissensus in bangladesh with the monolithic narrative of liberation virtue. we arent interested in parochial blood capitalism.

  8. Chris Blackburn

    Fug,

    I want all extremists in South Asia to be exposed for sowing hate. They’re holding the region back, socially and economicaly, they’re also directly causing problems for British Muslims and our security.

    It doesn’t matter, whever it be Hindu nationalists picking fights with defenceless Muslims, far-right nationalists within the BNP (Lutfozzaman Babar) acting like they are the ISI or genocidal Islamists like Jamaat. Their backwardness and hatred must stop. South Asia deserves to breath.

    Terrorism industry? What are you talking about? Fug, you used to have fairly good arguments which raised pertinent questions about post-colonialism. Now your just full of crap. It’s like listening to Ken Livingstone, who also has a poor grasp of Edward Siad’s Orientalism, on crack cocaine.

    Jamaat is f**ked in Bangladesh. Good riddance. They are a bad advertisment for Islamism.

  9. Muhammad

    I would like to congratulate Sarmila Bose for starting a real debate about the 1971 war casualties. The war was a terrible thing and the Pakistan Army was mostly responsible for starting the unjust and unnecessary war. There were many atrocities commited by the army and their Bengali supporters. The mukti bahini (freedom fighters) also committed atrocities after the war. Many women were raped, particularly by the Pakistan army. But I have been really embarrassed for a long time listening to inteligent men and women claiming that 3 million people were killed by the Pakistanis and their supportes during the war. The 3 million figure equates to 11,000 people every day for 9 months. To me this is completely absurd. Hitler’s war machine with legendary German efficiency killed 6 million Jews in 6 years but the third rate incompetent Army with mostly British trained leaders managed to kill 3 milion in 9 months. Its a really absurd idea.

    Some people may view that challenging the 3 million figure is some how same as supporting Pakistan or an attempt to help the people being currently under war crimes investigation and possible trial in the near future. I would say, in my case, this is not my motivation. But actually people maynot believe my motivation. This is actually the point.

    Attempt to rubbish Sarmila Bose by a selective use of information that tried to imply her possible links with and sympathy for Pakistan is designed to discredit her so that people don’t read her book thinking its nt worth the effort. Some people have also suggested that seh has been paid by the Paksitanis which she denies. We will never know her motivation or whether she has been paid by the Pakistais to write her new book the Dead Reckoning and as such the focus should not be to discredit her by suggesting that she has done this through her sympathy for Pakistan or that she may have been paid. The approach to discredit her in this way is designed to make people feel how could she write such a history if she was not paid to do that as the genocide, mass rape and 3 million killed are so well established facts.

    I think our focus should be on the book,what she wrote, the methodology she utilised and the arguments she maked. If her book is of quality then no rubbishing will stop people from reading and being influenced by her conclusions Those who are outraged by her book should concentrate on tearing her research and arguments apart and bringing fresh evidence to show how they have calculated the 3 million killed figure and the number of rapes, etc.

    Lets debate, argue, research and get nearer the truth!

  10. fugstar

    Muhammad, agreed.

    People of dubious intent impute too much into contestations of the awami mythodology on this, otherwise rational people go ape on this and hold very very scarey and vengeful views. The article above is a simple product of war on terror discourse, which has powerful language but doesnt really count as knowledge.

    As bangladeshi public discourse on this matter hones and refines, i think there will be great strides forward.

    we should incorporate the good aspects fo Bose’s work into the new understanding on multiple levels.

    Chris, you are not really an honest or sincere broker in this debacle anyway are you?

    You can delude yourself and a view others who are overcome with sorrow and rage, but its quite clear from your CV, institutional allegience and totally obfuscatory what you are about.

    Its a shame that some bangladeshis cut and paste your article in other places, because its conceptually hollow think tank fodder. Its heat not light. What you arent interested is journeying closer to the truth, its an instrumental punch and judy show to you.

    I’m ordering the book, i look forward to reading your review of it. Another good one is bengali language movement to bangladesh by afia and anwar dil, both anthropologists one bengali one punjabi, both interestind in the future of the three countries and understanding, neither of them are partisan hacks.

  11. Chris Blackburn

    Muhammed and Fugstar,

    I agree. Her work should be debated. I haven’t read the book. But, I’m not debating the contents. I’m bringing her background to light.

    I’m pointing out that her previous work and methodology has been called into question.

    Looking at Bose’s professional career is a key aspect of determining her objectivity in such a highly contentious debate. The war crimes issue has been seized on by elements within the US and Pakistan. Pakistan’s interests have often been put before others in the region, often to the US’s detriment, and it’s not fair. However, that impunity is hopefully at an end.

    The US State Department should have been more careful when it held a seminar to promote Bose’s views. There was little balance, if any. If Bangladesh had an expensive lobby system, like Pakistan, they should have leant on Congress for an inquiry into the episode.

    Is Bose even an expert in war crimes? No! She’s been an assistant editor of a Bengali newspaper group which has a long history of hating communism in West Bengal. She’s a political writer. I’m a political writer too. We write about the politics of international relations.

    I’m glad people are posting my work. If I hadn’t wrote this piece she’d still be seen as a flawless academic with Harvard and Oxford credentials. She’s Pakistan and Jamaat-e-Islami’s dream. Now we know her methodology and background raise serious questions about her objectivity.

    My CV shows that I have worked tirelessly to defend people and seek justice from some of the greatest human rights abusers in contemporary history. A record I am extremely proud of. I haven’t shyed away from exposing my own government and the United States from being involved in nurturing the franchise of extremism. The terrorism industry of which you speak often does. I have sympathy with Pakistan in some regards. They certainly weren’t alone in raising Islamist lunatics to create murder and mayhem.

    I didn’t support the 9/11 families because I wanted wars in the Middle East or elswhere. I wanted to help people get justice. I supported the families, like the millions of innocent Bangladeshis, because they did not deserve to be murdered. My motive are that naive and simple.

    War crimes are always highly political, they get spun here and there. But, I know I will always be on the side of the victims- the defenceless. The amount of victims in Bangladesh in 1971 is irrelevant. There is enough evidence to prove the genocide; from foreign and domestic sources. Jamaat leaders in custody are now admitting this. If you have any dignity or sense of humanity you’d accept that. Spinning it as “victor’s justice” does a disservice to the dead.

    South Asia needs to end the cycle of hatred, but must not let the main culprits escape justice. Pakistan has to be made to deal with its demons because the spectre is haunting the region and spilling out across the globe. It’s about responsibility. Pakistan and others can’t hide behind accusations of Indian propaganda and anti-Pakistani hysteria forever.

  12. fugstar

    No, you aren’t simple and you aren’t naive. thats clear for anyone to see.

    I don’t think you have any moral high ground or position of greater justice seeking to be able to make statements about what you don’t know, and can’t know. You have no part in the dialogue other than to add a white gloss and perpetuate confusion.

    I think your analysis of saidian thought is quite telling as to the epistemic injustice you commit with every lopsided keystroke that you make on this issue.

    Bose’s work does not exonerate any of the parties and pirates, it complicates matters for the vengeful and bloody minded, state-sponsored, self serving and monolithic common sense reproduced around the issue.

    To write it off in your infantalising fashion is pure sock puppetry.

  13. Muhammad

    Chris

    I agree with you that Sarmila’s work is a ‘Pakistan and Jamaat-e-Islami’s dream’ but that does not mean that she is wrong in undertaking her studies. Or that she should not have written the book or the earlier papers based on the conclusions that she reached because that may help the Pakistanis or the Jamaatis. If she was inspired, for whatever reasons to undertake studies into the 1971 war casualties then its up to her and its her business. I actually congratulate her for undertaking the research and creating a challenge to the dominant discourse, which I find baseless and ridiculous. As I said before, I have been embarrassed for a long time seeing and hearing intelligent people using the 3 million dead and 2-400,000 rapes. I was in Bangladesh during war and, as a nine years old child, fully supported the liberation struggle. I know from my experience and awareness of the feelings and views of the general public who supported the Mukti Bahinis by feeding them, providing intelligence and keeping secrets for them that the vast majority of the people of the then East Pakistan was for our liberation. I listened to the clandestine radio station called Shadin Bangla Betar Kendra most evenings and many people with radios were glued to the station. Songs and reports played by the radio station would boil our blood. I still remember many of the songs played and some of them are partially still in my memory.

    In early or mid-1990s I found myself defending Taslima Nasreen when many people in Bangladesh and Bangladeshi origin in the UK were calling for her death. They said she lied and was paid by India to write her book Shame. I said to many friends that human beings have different personalities and if she felt outraged by reports of Muslim attacking Hindus in Bangladesh (even if the media reports are not fully accurate) then she has every right to express that feeling in any legal form she feels fit. Some even said that she was part of a Zionist, Hindu and Christian plot to undermine Islam. But I defended her because regardless of her motives, which we will never know exactly, the outrage that she expressed could have been expressed by anyone else imbued with a sense of human equality and ready to defend a vulnerable minority community perceived to be under attacked. In the UK I grew up seeing many white people defending us against racist violence and fighting for equality so that we can work and live in dignity.

    With regard to Sarmila, I feel people should concentrate on refuting her arguments and conclusions rather than pre-empt everything by pointing out, probably, out of context pieces of information and show her in a bad light so people judge her before reading the book. This is an effective method utilised by people, organisations, government, etc., but I tell you its not going to work with Sarmila. All the attacks and arguments against her research that I have seen so far, even those relatively sophisticated ones, are just not good enough. Sarmila’s opponents will have to produce better arguments and evidence.

    The 1971 liberation war was an unjust and unnecessary war imposed by the Pakistani army whose leadership was part of the British Indian Army and trained by the British – some of them fought in the Second World War. Many people in Bangladesh lost their lives during the 1971 Liberation War and many women were raped. We really need scholars and researchers to undertake more impartial studies so that we can have more accurate account of the outragious war imposed on Bangladeshi people by the Pakistan Army. In this and I really don’t think supporting a ridiculous dominant narrative, which you seem to be doing by your attack on Sarmila’s credibility will help ‘South Asia… to end the cycle of hatred’

    I have just got Sarmila’s book today and will be reading it this week.

  14. Chris Blackburn

    Muhammed,

    I don’t dispute that people should critically evaluate dominant narratives. Critical theory can help reform politics and society by looking at policy, propaganda and narratives closer under a microscope. Dissent and critical thinking is helpful- but a pain for those in power.

    I think that free speech is critical to good democracy and responsible civil society. We should be free to debate and argue. However, Bose’s previous work has shown a clear bias in favour of Pakistan, which is both startling and suspicious.

    I’m perfectly justified in pointing out that she is now entrenched in the Anglo-American foreign policy establishment. Her career blossomed after she wrote articles critical of Bangladeshi claims of war crimes and her support for former-President Musharraf. She got a free ride at the US State Department and another at the Woodrow Wilson Centre. Why wasn’t there balance especially on such a contentious issue?

    So, how is that out of context? It’s essential to understanding Bose’s narrative. To leave her alone as the esteemed scholar is fraud when she’s been crafted and sculpted since 2005.

  15. Muhammad

    Chris

    This will be my last contribution to this debate in this forum. In the many pieces that you wrote you stated your reasons for undertaking this particular venture. Similarly, Sarmila also states why she decided to undertake a study into the 1971 war casualties. Obviously you do not believe her and make a number of points, which I am sure are out of context, and a number of allegations such as ‘Her career blossomed after she wrote articles critical of Bangladeshi claims of war crimes and her support for former-President Musharraf’. By this you try to damage her reputation so that people suspect what she wrote. You also state that you have used many Indian sources to make your points. Anybody can tell you that when it comes to Pakistan one should be very careful if the information / allegations are coming from Indian sources and also vice versa.

    You state that ‘Dr. Bose has a bad reputation in South Asia; questions have been raised about her academic objectivity and questionable bias in her attempts to rewrite modern South Asian history’. I have never known of an historian, scholar, philosopher or any other writers whose views, interpretations and ideas have not be criticized by some others and sometimes the criticisms have been very virulent emotionally and sometimes academically rigor. According to who does ‘Dr. Bose has a bad reputation in South Asia’? I have read some of the criticisms against Sarmila, including that of Nayanika Mookherjee, but although she makes some important observations and draws our attention to some problems in Sarmila’s research, they still not enough to dent her main conclusions. Further, you claim that ‘Bose’s previous work has shown a clear bias in favour of Pakistan, which is both startling and suspicious’. When I read her previous work I was also perturbed by her readiness to accept views expressed by Pakistani army officers as against Bangladeshi freedom fighters or victims of rape. However, the way she freely stated what Pakistani army officers had told her tells me that perhaps she was a little naïve to accept their views as more true than what came from the other side. However, if she was devious and had a secret agenda then she would have sophisticatedly avoided direct references to Pakistani army sources and would have covered her track.

    We don’t know why you are involved in this venture. You give noble reasons for your involvement. How do we know they are true? Perhaps you have been paid by someone – many Muslims might think you have been paid by the CIA, MOSSAD, RAW and individual Zionists. Muslims always make such allegations against people like you and others from Muslim backgrounds who join with non- Muslims to criticize Muslims. In some cases their suspicions maybe true and some cases they may be untrue. But these accusations are all pure speculations and easy conclusions. Sarmila also gives noble reasons for her undertakings. It is in this context that I suggest that the best approach would be to focus on her research and conclusions and try to find faults with them, otherwise support and opposition to Sarmila will become non-objective and religious sect like. What she says may be true or false or partially true or false regardless of her motivation. In your article on Who’s Afraid of Sarmila Bose? you never discussed her research, methodologies or conclusions. You only state and claim things. Actually your article and subsequent comments on this issue are, as far as I can judge, are designed to scare and create suspicions in people’s mind about Sarmila and her work rather than to make a fair assessment of her work and background.

    Thanks for having me and good luck to all those who aims at getting to the truth!

  16. fugstar

    I am reading the book these days and its fascinating, shaming and choking.

    All could benefit from poring over these pages and reflecting on the wisdom they have received with a slightly more critical eye. The reactionary ethnic nationalist response from some on the internet only goes to confirm her characterisation of liberation storytelling.

    linking to south asia analysis, trying to get a grip on where she is coming from i found this, which your readers might like to look at. Its certainly more educative than any article that i have read on this site.

    http://politicsinspires.org/2010/11/will-pakistan-exist-in-2050-will-india/

  17. Asit Guin

    Madam Sarmila Bose is a practitioner of descriptive history. Descriptive history is nothing but story of ghosts (Bhuter Kirtan) and different ghosts become important in different phases of time. History should not be descriptive. History should be analytical, with a full illustration of law of cause and effect.
    What is the cause of 1971 struggle? Pak army denied to transfer power to the elected majority of parliament, the Awami league. Jinnah was in problem with brute majority of the Hindus; so he was in need of partition for his empowerment. But after partition, Pakistan faced the problem of Bengali majority. In Pakistan, any democratic election is bound to put Pakistan under Bengali-influenced government. Pak army wanted to get rid of that. So the whole scam.
    What is the effect of 1971 war? The Bangladesh itself; No new ghostly discovery can dilute this cause-effect analysis of history.
    If Bihari ghosts speak of one kind of story, 1965 riot victims will say another story. In 1965, Bengali Hindu dominated cotton mills were destroyed and cotton mill worker were killed mainly by Bihari Muslim rioters. Thus west pak cotton mills established their business.
    Let Madam Bose be happy with her ghosts. Let Ghosts of Pakistan also be happy. Those who died for Bangladesh, their death are martyrdom. Those who died for Pakistan, their death are a matter of joke, because “united” Pakistan disappeared. The Bihari ghosts are posthumous jokers also.
    Human being dies one day; nobody remains alive in this world for ever; however, all deaths are not equal. When one dies in the arm of grateful fatherland, death ends; prison wall breaks; finally with death, life begins. But not with all the deaths; when one dies in his act of enmity against the people’s verdict, their death becomes a death without proper cause. When they were alive, they were alive for nothing, and when they died, they died for nothing; this nothing is nothing but “united Pakistan”.

  18. SALEEM

    Dr Sarmila has done a great job by discovering the truth and cleaning the face of history with objective research. History is thankful to her.

  19. Fazal Khan

    I’m a bengali.I lived through 1971.I would like to congratulate MS Bose for her efforts.She will wind up being crucified by many and used as an excuse by Pakistani junta.Serious research needs to be done.Someone needs to do it.

  20. Jawad

    Sharmilla has the blood line of Brave Fighters.She is grand daughter of legend SARAT CHANDAR BOSE a reknowmned n respected freedom fighter of India.TRUTH is in her blood.She has dared to unearth that hidden TRUTH which might have gone under the dust of lies spread over the years.This claim of Military Genocide is complete RUBBISH.Being a member of this glorious Army i know Pakistan Army cant afford to do such like adventures considering its very strict discipline.There could have been collateral damage for which nobody accuses of Genocide.Dr Bose is an Indian but she has brushed away any inherent anti Pak notion which is there in Indian social fabric.This speaks of her raising above prejudices while writing a research book.If there is anyone to be seen as a model of character n dignity its Dr Bose who has risen from the clutches of perpetual lies to swim against the tide…..BRAVO Dr Bose

  21. Khondkar A saleque

    Mr Jawad ,
    I do not understand why you like to ignore a historical fact. Pakistan Army has definitely carried out mass killing [planned Genocide] , raping and arsenal over the 9 months of the liberation war in 1971. As teenage freedom fighter I have seen some of it in Khulna , Bagerat areas from March -till June and around Dhaka from September till December. Some Bangladeshis forming Shanti Bahini , Albadar, Al-Shams abetted them. Severa of my close friends and relatives got killed . I wonder whether you are Bangladeshi. I bleive that no self respecting Bangladeshi can ignore the henious acts of Pakistani occupation force.
    It does not matter who Sharmila Bose is.She has put even the great SC Boses memory to shame .
    Please do not try to dishnour the supreme sacrifice of our freedom fighters in the month of December. It hurts.

  22. Akash

    Sarmila Bose is no “friend” of Bangladesh or India and claims of her impartiality are rubbish. She has been associated with the Pakistani establishment for years and is used as a propagandist. Her brazen denial of justice and established norms of research are by now well known. Being related to somebody famous is no guarantor of her being some expert. She has just leveraged her name to make a living by peddling revanchist claims bought only by jingoistic Pakistanis who wish to live in denial and not admit to the brutality of their bigoted establishment

  23. asit guin

    Madam Sarmila Bose is a practitioner of descriptive history. Descriptive history is nothing but story of ghosts (Bhuter Kirtan); different ghosts become important in different phases of time. History should not be descriptive. History should be analytical, with a full illustration of law of cause and effect. What is the cause of 1971 struggle? Pak army denied to transfer power to the elected majority of parliament, the Awami league. Jinnah was in problem with brute majority of the Hindus; so he was in need of partition for his empowerment. But after partition, Pakistan faced the problem of Bengali majority. In Pakistan, any democratic election is bound to put Pakistan under Bengali-influenced government. Pak army wanted to get rid of that. So the whole scam. What is the effect of 1971 war? The Bangladesh itself; No new ghostly discovery can dilute this cause-effect analysis of history. If Bihari ghosts speak of one kind of story, 1964 riot victims will say another story. In 1964, Bengali Hindu dominated cotton mills were destroyed and cotton mill worker were killed mainly by Bihari Muslim rioters. Thus west Pak cotton mills established their business. Let Madam Bose be happy with her ghosts. Let Ghosts of Pakistan also be happy. Those who died for Bangladesh, their death are martyrdom. Those who died for Pakistan, their deaths are a matter of joke, because “united” Pakistan disappeared. The Bihari ghosts are posthumous jokers also. Human being dies one day; nobody remains alive in this world for ever; however, all deaths are not equal. When one dies in the arm of grateful fatherland, death ends; prison wall breaks; finally with death, life begins. But not with all the deaths; when one dies in his act of enmity against the people’s verdict, their death becomes a death without proper cause. When they were alive, they were alive for nothing, and when they died, they died for nothing; this nothing is nothing but “united Pakistan”.

Comments are closed.