The word “Pakistan” in Urdu signifies “the sacred land.” This term originates from the Islamic belief that Muslims are blessed by Allah, while non-Muslims are considered “maleun” or cursed. British loyalist Syed Ahmed Khan (the only Indian in the special commission set up after the 1857 revolt to examine the confiscation of Indians’ property) used this concept to give birth to the Two-Nation Theory. Later, based on this, Allama Iqbal raised the demand for a separate country for the Muslims of undivided Bharat. This was the same time when revolutionaries like Binoy Bose and Bhagat Singh were sacrificing their lives for the nation.
By reading this far, one might assume that the Pakistan movement started in North India. In reality, the animosity towards Hindus was so profound that Islamists attacked Hindus in Chittagong in 1931, following the Chittagong Armory Raid. This was solely because the case’s investigating officer, Khan Bahadur Ahsanullah, had been killed by Hindu revolutionaries. A similar situation unfolded in Kanpur when Hindus initiated a hartal (strike) to protest the executions of Bhagat Singh, Rajguru, and Sukhdev, leading to six days of intense communal violence.
The political seeds of Pakistan were sown in Dhaka in 1906, with the formation of the All India Muslim League. Like his ancestors, who collaborated with the British to crush the 1857 Revolt in Dhaka, Nawab Salimullah of Dhaka played a crucial role in this, dealing a blow to the Swadeshi movement. Under his leadership, the Muslims of East Bengal initiated the “Swajati” movement as a counter to Swadeshi. This led to riots in Comilla, Mymensingh, and Dhaka, bringing them into direct conflict with the Anushilan Samiti, who were uncompromisingly fighting for Bharat’s independence.
Salimullah also encouraged Muslims from East Bengal to migrate and settle in Assam. This remains the primary reason for Assam’s changing demography, posing a significant threat to the state even today. In fact, had Netaji not brought down the Muslim League Government in 1938, Assam would likely be a part of Bangladesh today. Another prominent East Bengal Muslim leader, “Sher-e-Bangla” A.K. Fazlul Haq, presented the Lahore Resolution that spearheaded Pakistan’s creation. His later opposition to Pakistan stemmed only from the realization that Assam would not be included in the new Muslim nation.
It is also important to remember that the city chosen for Direct Action Day was Kolkata, not Lahore or Karachi. In instigating this Hindu massacre, one of the prominent figures was Khawaja Nazimuddin of Dhaka’s Nawab family. However, due to the brave resistance led by Shyama Prasad Mukherjee and Gopal Mukherjee, West Bengal, like Assam, remained in India. As a last resort, Sheikh Mujib’s political mentor, the then Prime Minister of Bengal H.S. Suhrawardy, proposed the sinister hoax of creating an Independent United Bengal, comprising all of Bengal, Assam, and parts of Bihar. Jinnah, clear about the implications, expressed hope for cordial relations with this Muslim-majority country. Despite all efforts, they ended in failure—with broken hearts.
Understanding this historical context is crucial; otherwise, one might be surprised by the present-day camaraderie between Bangladeshis and Pakistanis. Ultimately, these are the same people whose ancestors killed and raped over three million Bengalis just fifty years ago. To date, Pakistan has never officially apologized for this massacre, which stands as one of the largest in the post-World War II era. One may ask: how can a Bangladeshi Muslim forget all these sacrifices? In reality, the 1971 war would not have occurred if Mujib’s Six-Point Agenda had been accepted. The war should only be seen as a step towards establishing the Lahore Resolution. If true liberation was the goal, Sheikh Mujib would not have embraced Bhutto in Dhaka within just three years of the bloody massacre.
Mujib always wanted a confederation with Pakistan. The “Bangladesh demand” was only a bargaining chip to become Pakistan’s Prime Minister. In reality, Pakistan’s war was not with Mujib. It was with the Phanindra Nath Banerjee-trained Mukti Bahini and Tajuddin Ahmed’s Mujibnagar Sarkar, while COAS Manekshaw and his men delivered the final blow. In fact, the Seven-Point Agreement signed between Indira Gandhi and Tajuddin Ahmed, the first PM of Bangladesh, angered Mujib. The name “Bangladesh” itself was not coined by Mujib, but by Awami League leader Swapan Chowdhury.
Another misconception surrounds the 1952 Bhasha Andolan, often credited to Mujib or martyrs like Rafique and Barkat. But it was the eminent Bengali parliamentarian Dhirendra Nath Dutta who initiated the movement inside Pakistan’s Parliament in 1948. While his name is forgotten by many, Pakistanis never forgot. Consequently, Dutta was arrested during the 1971 war and murdered inside the Comilla Cantonment. Today, few people remember his contribution.
Despite the sacrifices, Hindu leaders in what was then East Pakistan soon realized that the new country would be nothing more than another Pakistan. This became even more evident when Sheikh Mujib, hailed by many as the “Epitome of Bengali Nationalism,” transformed the Ramna Race Course into Suhrawardy Udyan instead of restoring the Ramna Mandir destroyed by Pakistani forces. This was a tribute to his mentor, the “Butcher of Kolkata.” Mujib, who was himself involved in the Great Calcutta Killings, wrote that Kolkata’s Muslims were prepared to sacrifice everything to bring the city into Pakistan. Therefore, it is not surprising that Mahfuz Alam, a student leader in the interim government, has posted new maps of Bangladesh on social media encompassing Kolkata and surrounding areas.
So, where did India err? After India’s victory in 1971, Indira Gandhi released 93,000 Pakistani soldiers in exchange for Sheikh Mujib, without negotiating a more favorable deal. Upon returning to Dhaka, Mujib ensured the immediate withdrawal of Indian forces. He took no steps to guarantee the return and rehabilitation of Hindu refugees in Bangladesh. Soon after, the Bangladesh (Adaptation of Existing Laws) Order, 1972 was passed, ensuring the continuity of Pakistani laws in the newly formed country. This sealed the fate of Bangladeshi Hindus.
Recognizing this grim reality, Hindu leader Kalidas Baidya repeatedly wrote to Indira Gandhi, urging support for the Bongobhumi movement, aimed at creating a separate country for Bangladeshi Hindus. However, Mrs. Gandhi remained unresponsive. Had she acted, the “Chicken Neck” problem could have been resolved earlier, providing the Northeast with a sea route via Chittagong. Today, we see Younis inviting China into Bangladesh and proclaiming it as the “Guardian of the Ocean.”
Although Mujib tried to appease Islamist forces, he and his entire family—except his two daughters—were killed by them. Afterward, Ziaur Rahman took control and initiated Bangladesh’s Islamization process. Later, in 1988, Bangladesh was officially declared the “Islamic Republic of Bangladesh” under Hussein Muhammad Ershad. In this game of Islamic politics, Sheikh Hasina merely served as a secular facade for Bangladesh. Under her rule, the country witnessed the murders of ex-Muslim bloggers and repeated attacks on Hindus. Sadly, Narendra Modi, often considered the epitome of Hindutva by his followers, placed his trust in this deceptive secular image.
According to The Diplomat, Bangladesh remained the primary source of illegal immigration and demographic change in India. It was the same country to which, under Modi, India ceded 10,000 acres through a land swap agreement. This was India’s second lost opportunity to resolve the Chicken Neck issue. In 2015, while India signed this unfortunate deal, Major General M.A. Matin published his book “Bangladesher Sadhinota Songram: 1757–1947”, portraying Pakistan as Bangladesh’s ideological predecessor. Today, when speakers like Md. Shakhawat and Mr. Samsuddin commemorate Jinnah’s death anniversary in Dhaka by saying, “Without Pakistan, Bangladesh too would not exist,” we must recall that these sentiments had already started surfacing a decade ago.
The year 2021 played a critical role in this progression. For the first time in Indian history, Khalistanis hoisted their flag over the Red Fort on Republic Day. A few months later, during Narendra Modi’s visit to Bangladesh for its 50th Independence anniversary, he faced violent protests from Hefazat-e-Islam, Hasina’s ally. Subsequently, anti-Hindu pogroms erupted in both parts of Bengal—in West Bengal in May and Bangladesh in October. In November, Bangladeshi and Pakistani youth met in Lahore to commemorate their forefathers’ joint struggle for Pakistan. Three days later, The Times of India reported that Pakistan was trying to destabilize Bangladesh. A significant, malevolent plot to destroy India was gaining traction. Yet, India’s Prime Minister remained silent. Whatever crises India now faces on its Eastern borders, their seeds were sown right before our eyes.
Love jihad, land jihad, and Hindu killings have intensified in Bangladesh since Hasina’s ousting. In protest, Hindu leader Chinmay Prabhu has been unlawfully detained without trial. From suspicious radio signals hinting at ISI-backed plots to Bangladesh rebuilding World War II military airbases, alarming developments are emerging near India’s Siliguri Corridor. The situation has worsened after a Bangladeshi terrorist Jashimuddin Rahmani Hafi ( Ansarullah Bangla Team) called upon Mamata Banerjee to “free Bengal from Modi’s rule” and threatened to “cut the chicken’s neck,” which was followed by anti-Hindu riots in Malda and Murshidabad. Meanwhile, a close associate of Younis’s government publicly called for capturing the Northeast during a potential Indo-Pak war, further escalating tensions.
Since 1946, India has lost many chances to resolve the Chicken Neck and Northeast issues. Initially, it ceded Thakurgaon-Panchagarh and the Chittagong Hill Tracts to Pakistan. Despite later opportunities, these areas were never reclaimed. The Hindu-majority Khulna region, which India rightfully deserved, was also conceded to Pakistan. According to the 1941 census, Hindus, who made up nearly 50% of Bengal’s population, received just over 35% of Bengal. The number would be even lower if one includes Sylhet, which could have remained in India if the referendum had not been manipulated.
It is crucial to recognize that India cannot be a world leader if its own territories remain under constant threat. When India gained independence, a similar situation existed in Hyderabad, where Islamist Razakars were engaged in killing and raping Hindus, plundering resources, and posing a serious threat to the South-Central Indian connection. Although Hyderabad was older and more internationally recognized than Bangladesh, India undertook military action to integrate it. Just like Hyderabad, Bangladesh is also surrounded by India on all sides. The issue that began with Hasina denying the U.S. access to St. Martin Island has opened pandora’s box for India. It’s high time for India to act—before China or the U.S. seizes the opportunity.
A stitch in time saves nine.
