document_title: Urban planning in Australia

question_text: when did australia experience most of its urbanisation

text: Urban planning in Australia

text: History[edit]

text: Urban planning in Australia has evolved since early British colonial settlement, and has been heavily influenced by contemporary planning movements in Britain, the United States of America and western Europe.[1] However, over the past century, distinctly Australian responses and solutions to Australian urban issues have developed.

text: The British Colonial Period (1788–1901)[edit]

text: The first examples of town planning in Australia occurred during the early phases of the Colonial era, where critical decisions locked in 'path dependency' for the future form of cities.[2] Typically this involved colonial Governors undertaking surveying for land grants and subdivisions, and making executive decisions on the location and construction of roads, rail transport, water supply and other basic infrastructure to support early penal and military settlements. Primacy was given to the functional and practical needs of Colonial administration, as opposed to more lofty civic or aesthetic ideals.[3]

text: Despite these humble, utilitarian beginnings, there were places where clear planning and design for settlements occurred. One of the earliest forms of a planned settlement in Australia involved the work of Colonel William Light, a Colonial Surveyor and the Surveyor-General for the colony of South Australia, in planning and designing the original city centre grid for Adelaide in 1837. While Light's plan was not entirely realised, it is widely regarded as a fine achievement of colonial era civic design.[4]

text: Rapid colonial expansion in the 19th century, matched by economic growth, resulted in Australia becoming one of the most highly urbanised nations in the world. For example, by 1861, 40% of Sydney's residents lived in suburbs.[5] This trend towards urbanisation was established early and continued into the 20th century.

text: Early 20th century[edit]

text: Australia's rapid urbanization meant urban planning became an increasingly important issue.

text: Early town planners focused on the orderly planning of cities, closely following international contemporary town planning and urban reform movements (especially from the UK), where urban planning aimed to improve urban health, efficiency and aesthetics.[6]

text: This concern with civic improvement was expressed in many ways, with citizen groups forming in Australian cities to advocate healthier, more beautiful cities.[7] In Sydney, this desire to improve planning found its expression through a Royal Commission into the Improvement of Sydney and its Suburbs, which commenced in 1908, focusing on transportation, slum clearance, the future growth of Sydney, and aesthetics.[8] The Garden City movement, founded by Ebenezer Howard in the UK, was also influential and was adopted as a design strategy in several areas of Australian cities (such as in Daceyville in south eastern Sydney).

text: One of the earliest international contributions made by Australia to urban planning theory and practice resulted from the international competition held to design Australia's new federal capital, Canberra, which was held between 1911 and 1912. The winning design was submitted by American architects Walter Burley Griffin and Marion Mahony Griffin, with the design reflecting state of the art planning concepts from the time. Whilst Canberra was actually constructed some time after the competition, it still represented an early international example of a planned city.

text: The Post World War II period (1945+)[edit]

text: Australian cities and urban centres, particularly capital cities, experienced significant growth after World War II, which was largely driven by a combination of rapid economic expansion, high birth rates and unparalleled levels of immigration, particularly from western Europe and, from the 1970s, south east Asia. Furthermore, increasing ownership of the motor car, combined with cheap fuel, resulted in an explosion in the urban form of many Australian urban centres.[9] Many cities were rapidly transformed from modest, medium density centres, supported by public transport, to a suburban, car dominated city with large, residential dormitory suburbs. As a consequence, population and land use become increasingly dispersed. For example, in 1840 40% of Sydney's residents lived in suburbs, while by the 1960s this figure had risen to over 70%.[10]

text: Metropolitan planning[edit]

text: Australia's long period of post war economic growth resulted in Federal and State governments developing metropolitan plans in an attempt to address some of the negative aspects associated with urban growth.[11] Typically, many capital cities engaged in creating metropolitan wide spatial plans to guide development over long periods of up to 20 years or more. Particular focus was given to land release on the Rural-urban fringe, establishing a hierarchy of urban centres, the construction of new public housing estates and a preference towards building car based infrastructure (such as new highways, etc.). Examples include the Sydney County of Cumberland Plan of 1948 (regarded as the first metropolitan plan for Sydney) and the Sydney Region Outline Plan of 1968.

text: From the early 1970s the Australian Federal Government became directly involved in urban policy with the Whitlam Labour government establishing for the first time a federal Department of Urban and Regional Development.[12] Federal government involvement included taking care of sewage servicing backlogs in major metropolitan centres, the establishment of growth centres and new towns to foster de-centralization, funding infrastructure and public housing.

text: Australian Planning Frameworks[edit]

text: Urban planning in Australia is a distinct, defined profession, represented by a peak industry group called the Planning Institute of Australia. Similarly, urban planning activities in Australia are codified in law, with a significant body of legislation and case law guiding planning principles and decisions.[13]

text: Australia's federal system of governance, the nationwide Australian Government, the six states and two territories have their own urban planning laws and procedures resulting in separate systems of planning and land use management, including separate administrative departments that oversee and regulate planning and land use activities.[14] Consequently, there is no single urban planning system for Australia – rather, there are a number of planning systems that operate largely independently of each other along state based lines.[15]

text: Australian Federal Government[edit]

text: Urban planning is not specifically referred to in the Constitution of Australia as a Federal Government responsibility. Nevertheless, the Federal Government is increasingly playing a role in the urban planning process in Australia, mainly through the regulation of development on areas that are of national environmental significance, or through actual development activities on federal land. Examples of this are where the Federal Government has actively sought to provide strategic guidance and direction in urban policy, starting with the Whitlam Labour Government in the early 1970s, the Building Better Cities Program of the mid-1990s,[16] and, most recently, with the release of a National Urban Policy in 2011. The National Urban Policy was released by the Minister for Infrastructure in 2011 and establishes for the first time the Australian Government's overarching goals for the nation's cities and how to make them more productive and sustainable.[17]

text: The principal piece of Commonwealth legislation impacting urban planning decisions is the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 which establishes a framework for assessing impacts on threatened species of national significance, world heritage sites, nuclear actions, and national heritage places, amongst other considerations.[18]

text: New South Wales[edit]

text: Land use planning in New South Wales (NSW) is principally controlled under the provisions of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (EP&A Act). The EP&A Act establishes a number of key planning considerations in NSW, including:

text:
The role of the Minister for Planning in NSW, as well as the administrative functions of the New South Wales Department of Planning;
Strategic plan making functions, either through a State Environmental Planning Policy, Local Environmental Plan or Development Control Plan;
Environmental assessment functions: and
The role of the Greater Sydney Commission.[19]

text: In addition to the legislative framework governing land use and urban planning in New South Wales, the Minister for Planning, through the Department of Planning and Infrastructure, publishes a Metropolitan Plan for Sydney, along with Regional Strategies for the Far North Coast, Mid North Coast, Lower Hunter, Illawarra, Sydney to Canberra Corridor, and Murray regions. Whilst not provided for explicitly in the EP&A Act, these strategic planning documents provide a basis for more detailed planning at the Local Government Council, and sub-regional levels (especially in the Sydney Metropolitan Area).

text: Given that urban planning in NSW is codified through specific legislation, there is a dedicated Land and Environment Court of New South Wales to deal with urban planning disputes. Typically, these most urban planning cases heard by the Land and Environment Court deal with development assessment matters.

text: Western Australia[edit]

text: In Western Australia urban planning is primarily directed by the Western Australian Planning Commission, a statutory authority of the Government of Western Australia. and implementing legislation is the The Environmental Protection Act 1986 and the Planning and Development Act 2005.

text: Challenges[edit]

text: Population growth and demographic change[edit]

text: Population growth and demographic change is a key consideration for Australian urban planning. Data in the 2006 census in Australia indicates that over 75% of all Australians live in 17 cities each with a population size of over 100,000.[20] The five largest cities of Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane, Perth and Adelaide contain the majority (60.8%) of urban Australians.[20]

text: According to projections from the Australian Bureau of Statistics and the Department of the Treasury (Australia) it is anticipated that Australia's population will continue growing and will reach 35 million by 2050. It is estimated that 72% of this growth will occur in cities.[20] The Department of the Treasury produced an Intergenerational Report in 2010 which predicts that there will be 8.1 million Australians over the age of 65 years by 2050. This compares to 2.6 million in 2006.[20] This prediction for an aging population in Australia is attributed to low fertility rates and increasing life expectancy.[21]

text: At the same time it is predicted that households will increase from 7.4 million in 2001 to 10.2 million in 2026 while decline of household size is expected from 2.6 in 2001 to 2.3 in 2026.[20] The composition and size of households varies across Australian cities. A significant proportion of population growth since 2000 has been attributed to overseas immigration to Australia. In 2007–08 the Australian Bureau of Statistics data records that migration contributed 60% of population growth.[22] Long term migration to Australia has meant that 24% of the population was born overseas.[22] The majority of these migrants live in the major cities.[23]

text: As well as overseas migration some cities are also experiencing internal movement. In 2007–08 New South Wales experienced a net loss of 19,831 whereas Queensland had a net gain of 18,388.[24]

text: The structure of households within urban cities in Australia has also changed. There is an increasing trend towards couple only, lone parent and single person households with only a marginal increase in parents with children.[25] Despite the trend towards smaller households Australian cities still showed growth in couples with children that was above the overall Australian average. Consequently, cities are still the place where the next generation Australian will be raised.[25]

text: These demographic changes, in particular the population ageing and increase in smaller households, is leading to a greater demand in urban planning for housing and also different types of housing overall. Some metropolitan areas are experiencing housing shortages, particularly with regards to the provision of affordable accommodation. It is also placing pressure on housing affordability where there is only a single income.[26]

text: Sustainability[edit]

text: Trends in population growth, transport emissions, energy usage, waste management, urban development, rainfall patterns and extreme weather events (such as droughts, heat waves, severe storms, bushfires, extensive flooding) are highlighting the need for increasing focus on sustainability in Australian cities.

text: Transport emissions have been reported as one of strongest areas of emissions growth in Australia, which is a consequence of the distance separating many land uses, and of the underlying low density form of many Australian metropolitan areas. Private car use has continued to increase which is leading to greater levels of city congestion and urban air quality challenges.[27] The cost of congestion to the Australia economy was estimated at $9.4 billion in 2005 with a prediction of a rise in cost to $20 billion by 2020 unless the issue is addressed.[28]

text: Research indicates that while the total levels of key pollutants in cities has fallen over the last ten years as a result of improved fuel and emissions standards, particulate air pollution and ozone levels remain above the national air quality standard.[29]

text: Rates of recycling nationally have increased, however waste generation has also increased over the period 2002–03 to 2006–07 by 31%. This exceeds the population increase of 5.6% over the same period.[29] As a result, this has placed pressure on governments to adequate plan for landfill and associated waste management facilities in metropolitan areas.

text: Data on rainfall patterns in eastern and southwest Australia, where the major cities are located, indicates a decline in the annual rate of rainfall per decade of up to 50 mm since 1950.[27] This is providing challenges in terms of both availability and the quality of water supplies, particularly when combined with population growth.

text: At the planning level basic aspects of sustainable housing design such as raising density, mixed use, promoting mixed use development, and encouraging transit oriented development to increase trips made by public transport have been progressively adopted as policy responses in Australian cities.[30]

text: Sustainable building codes such as the Victoria's Green Star (Australia) rating and New South Wales' BASIX sustainability assessment tool are being applied to new developments to improve energy and water conservation at the individual building scale.[30]

text: Further improvements in waste, water, energy and onsite food production are being progressively seen as a necessary and significant part of planning for urban sustainability in Australian cities.[31]

text: Water sensitive urban design[edit]

text: Water-sensitive urban design (WSUD) has evolved to become a framework for integrating the management of urban water within the practice of sustainable urban design in Australia.[32] Water sensitive design aims to ensure that the management of urban water occurs with sensitivity towards natural water systems and the broader ecosystem that the water systems support.[33]

text: Within the frame-work planners consider:

text:
protecting natural systems and water quality through filtration and retention and removal of pollutants close to their source;[34]
integration of the potable drinking water covering both the piped system from catchments outside the urban area as well as water itself treated to drinking water standard;[32]
sewerage which encompasses the pipe system for handling the collection and transport of wastewater to treatment plants;[32] and
Integrated storm water drainage and treatment/re-use as part of the urban landscape.[35]

text: WSUD incorporates planning and design as it relates to the building and landscape architecture on site and also in the context of wider local and regional initiatives.[36]

text: Urban renewal and consolidation[edit]

text: Urban renewal and consolidation is changing the character of Australian cities. Planning strategies have focused on containing the outward physical sprawl of cities whilst at the same time emphasis has been placed on redeveloping the inner city and older employment zones as new residential spaces.[37]

text: A new inner urban city middle class has emerged which has driven the renovation and restoration of the housing stock formally owned by older inner city working class communities.[37] The transformation of these areas has predominantly seen the end of these areas being viewed as places of social disadvantage.[37]

text: In parallel to the renovation of the housing stock there has also been a revitalization of disused industrial and commercial spaces such as warehouses and docklands and these have been transformed into new residential, commercial and recreational spaces often with high density development.[37] Examples include the Docklands development in Melbourne, Green Square, Victoria Park and Barrangaroo in Sydney and South Bank in Brisbane.

text: High density living in Australian cities is limited to the inner urban cores of major metropolitan areas, and is substantially less dense than comparable cities in Asia and Europe. Typically most urban housing development focused on a single one level house (although this is changing) on a separate block of land. There has been a small amount of low rise apartments in inner city areas since the 1930s but this started to change since the introduction of Strata Title legislation in the 1960s.[38] The Strata Title legislation enabled individuals to own individual apartments in a multi-apartment block on a single piece of land. Before this apartment blocks were predominantly owned as a single property by landlords.

text: The introduction of Strata Titles also enabled easier financing arrangements for individuals wishing to purchase a single apartment. Strata titles cover both apartments as well as attached dwellings such as town houses where these have been developed on a single title of land.

text: Once introduced Strata Titling facilitated the redevelopment, particularly in valuable areas or often close to transport infrastructure, of older housing on larger pieces of land which were replaced with apartment blocks.[38]

text: Going forward this style of higher density housing is expected to play a large part in meeting housing needs for the changing demographics of an aging population and smaller households in Australian cities.[39] For example, the Sydney Metropolitan Plan 2036 has a growth target of 70% of all new housing to be in the existing urban footprint, with 80% of all housing to be within a 20-minute commute of a major centre. To facilitate this, the Minister for Planning in NSW released an Urban Renewal Planning Policy to specifically deliver urban renewal in key sites in the Sydney Metropolitan area.

text: Climate Change[edit]

text: Climate change is an important factor in the decision making process for urban planning in Australia because of the highly urbanised population prone to extreme weather patterns. Australia's urban areas are susceptible to changes in the climate because of the physical construction of the built environment, infrastructure, and its ecological correlation with the urban ecosystem.[40] Over 80% of the Australian population lives in the coastal area of Australia and many on the fringe of bush land and rivers making them vulnerable to the effects of climate change. These effects include sea level rise, increased storm surges resulting in coastal erosion, strong winds, intense rainfall causing flash flooding and bushfires due to increased temperatures.[41] The Australian Federal Government is in the process of developing climate adaptation and mitigation strategies along with risk assessment analysis initiatives to urban planning.[40]

text: Historically urban planning has been the role of the state, regional and local governments but since December 2009 the Australian Federal Government has re-engaged in a strategic decision making process to prepare for climate change. The Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency (DCCEE) has developed adaption programs and risk assessments.[41] A risk assessment has been calculated for possible effects on urban areas due to climate change and replacement values for transport, industrial, residential and commercial infrastructure runs into billions of dollars.[42] Therefore, avoidance of future risk is the most cost-effective approach to urban planning.[41]

text: The options for coastal and riverside management to deal with sea level rise and storm surges fall into three categories; "retreat", "accommodate" and "protect".[43] "Retreat" entails relocating coastal and riverside infrastructure that are high risk of damage from extreme weather patterns, as well as designing buildings and infrastructures in new locations away from potential risk areas.[43] "Accommodate" means adapting the existing built environments to effectively cope with the changing conditions such as Island raising through adding sand to beaches and raising infrastructure and buildings near the coast and riverside. "Protect" involves building sea walls and levees to prevent damage from storm surges and sea level rise.[44]

text: There are a number of simple but effective adaptation options possible at a local scale to deal with intense rainfall and temperature rises. These include reducing impervious surfaces to allow for water infiltration, tree planting in urban areas to reduce the "heat island effect" and constructing transport facilities away from flood areas. Designing buildings with natural ventilation and building insulation will also help with increasing temperatures. While the only possible solution to bushfires might be to increase fire breaks between the houses and bush land.[43]

text: Heritage and Conservation[edit]

text: Politicians, planners and the community came to see the value of heritage buildings in Australia only recently in the 1970s.[45] Laws and policies are now in place to conserve and protect historic buildings across Australia. The Green Ban is a key aspect in the initiation of these regulations especially the impact it had on proposed urban development in the city of Sydney.[46]

text: In the early twentieth century there was no historic sense of preservation with regard to the built environment and people were happy to see the old replaced by the new. Then in the 1970s came the Green Bans movement imposed by builders labourers across Australia, being particularly prominent in Sydney.[46] The Green Ban was created to defend the demolition of older style buildings that were to make way for new developments of skyscrapers, shopping precincts and luxury apartments. It was initiated by the builders labourers that were hired to construct these new buildings and was the first of its kind around the world.[46] The key element of the movement came from the New South Wales Builders Labourers Federation (NSWBLF) which consisted of over 100 union members that belonged to the Communist Party of Australia. The most famous union leaders of the NSWBLF were Bob Pringle, Joe Owens and Jack Mundey. Many critics of the union disputed that they were denying workers employment but the union responded that they wanted to build but in a way that enhanced the built environment, such as schools and houses for the everyday person not buildings based on developers' needs.[47] Among the 40 green bans imposed in NSW, The Rocks in Sydney was the most significant areas saved. The green ban prevented the demolition of some of the oldest buildings in Australia and beautiful foreshore parks which were going to be replaced by concrete, glass office blocks.[46]

text: States and territories of Australia have since implemented heritage acts and have heritage frameworks in place to protect buildings and places of cultural significance.[45] On a national scale in 1999 the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act was introduced which outlines a National Heritage List (NHL).[48] The NHL is in place to protect "exceptional natural and cultural places that contribute to Australia's national identity".[49] Since then measurements of heritage have evolved and in 2011, there are 113 places listed of iconic heritage value to the whole of Australia, which include the Sydney Opera House, Melbourne Cricket Ground and Anzac Parade in Canberra.[50]

text: Urban planning in Australia in the 21st century now has very strict guidelines to follow and heritage is of fundamental significance in the decision making process before any construction takes place. As developers now know there will always be people watching and ready to protect Australia's cultural history.

text: Community Participation[edit]

text: The Australian government has begun to see community engagement in the decision making process of urban planning of fundamental importance. Due to this engagement local governments have looked for ways to design urban infrastructure in a way that helps to encourage social cohesion. However, there is still room for developing a method that uses community involvement more effectively. Community participation has also created many barriers along the way by preventing urban planning projects from proceeding.[51]

text: Previously, urban planning in Australia quite often did not involve the community and projects went ahead to construct residential buildings that were crammed into small areas and did not provide space for recreation and socialising. Recently this approach has changed and planners have realised the importance of creating an urban environment that encourages social behavior among its residents.[52] These new designs incorporate active living and recreational areas that provide for social connectivity and wellbeing. This new approach has come through feedback from the community showing the positive effects of their involvement.[52]

text: In 2008, the Australian federal government headed by former Prime Minister Kevin Rudd inaugurated the Department of Infrastructure and Transport to work with the newly established Major Cities Unit (MCU)in an effort to involve the community to develop urban environments into more productive and sustainable places.[52] From then on the MCU has been researching ways to develop policies that improve urban planning to make cities more socially inclusive and encouraging the community to actively participate in the decision making process.[53] In May 2011, national urban new policies were released by the Minister for Infrastructure and Transport, Anthony Albanese which promised to: "enhance the livability of cities by promoting better urban design, planning and affordable access to recreational, cultural and community facilities." [54]

text: There is still a need to develop more effective participation from the community. Often the participants do not represent the views of the whole community and disadvantaged groups such as the poor and minorities do not get a fair say in the urban planning process.[55]

text: Integrating Land Use and Public Transport[edit]

text: Australia's urban transport system could become under increasing demand as the population grows and Australia moves to a more environmentally friendly urban system. Some of Australia's urban problems such as road congestion and pollution could be solved by the improvement of public transport, as it is a crucial aspect in creating a functional, sustainable city.[56] The urban structure of Australian cities consists of dispersed suburbs and dense central building districts which creates immense planning challenges for decision makers.[56] Urban planners now realise the need to integrate active and sustainable public transport with destinations accessible to alternative modes of transport such as cycling and walking to encourage people to reduce the stress of cars on the roads.[57]

text: Road transport contributes to 88% of all transport emissions and the cities of Australia are congested not only by automobiles but the parking lots they use.[58] In March 2006, 75% of adults in Australian cities travelled to work or study by private automobile in comparison to 19% that used public transport and 5% that walked or cycled.[59] Reducing private automobile dependence will improve the pollution problem and free up land to build more needed infrastructure such as schools, houses and hospitals. To encourage Australians to use public transport research suggests it should be more efficient (timely, reliable, and accessible) and affordable.[60]

text: The Australian Transport Council has found that the current networks of buses and trains in Australian cities need to be integrated with effective land use.[61] At the moment buses and trains run along the same routes competing with each other. Ideally trains are used to travel long distances, with a high passenger capacity and avoid the traffic signals. Buses should be in place as an intermediary for fast inner city train networks and for passengers to access surrounding suburbs not suitable for trains.[56] Land use integration would mean that urban planners design infrastructure around public transport to enable the public to have access to transport within close walking distance from their home or work.[61] Some urban planners and policy makers think there is a need to remove car parks, build upon current transport infrastructure to create a more efficient[citation needed] system that facilitates urban regeneration.[61]


document_title: Bangladesh Liberation War

question_text: who headed the indian army during the bangladesh liberation war 1971

question_tokens: who headed the indian army during the bangladesh liberation war 1971

root

text: Bangladesh Liberation War

text: Background[edit]

text: Prior to the Partition of British India, the Lahore Resolution initially envisaged separate Muslim-majority states in the eastern and northwestern zones of British India. A proposal for an independent United Bengal was mooted by Prime Minister Huseyn Shaheed Suhrawardy in 1946, but was opposed by the colonial authorities. The East Pakistan Renaissance Society advocated the creation of a sovereign state in eastern British India. Eventually, political negotiations led, in August 1947, to the official birth of two states, Pakistan and India,[20] giving presumably permanent homes for Muslims and Hindus respectively following the departure of the British. The Dominion of Pakistan comprised two geographically and culturally separate areas to the east and the west with India in between.[21] The western zone was popularly (and for a period, also officially) termed West Pakistan and the eastern zone (modern-day Bangladesh) was initially termed East Bengal and later, East Pakistan. Although the population of the two zones was close to equal, political power was concentrated in West Pakistan and it was widely perceived that East Pakistan was being exploited economically, leading to many grievances. Administration of two discontinuous territories was also seen as a challenge.[22] On 25 March 1971, after an election won by an East Pakistani political party (the Awami League) was ignored by the ruling (West Pakistani) establishment, rising political discontent and cultural nationalism in East Pakistan was met by brutal[23] suppressive force from the ruling elite of the West Pakistan establishment,[24] in what came to be termed Operation Searchlight.[25] The violent crackdown by Pakistan Army[26] led to Awami League leader Sheikh Mujibur Rahman declaring East Pakistan's independence as the state of Bangladesh on 26 March 1971.[27] Most Bengalis threw their support behind this move although Islamists and Biharis opposed this and sided with the Pakistan Army instead.[28] Pakistani President Agha Muhammad Yahya Khan ordered the Pakistani military to restore the Pakistani government's authority, beginning the civil war.[27] The war led to a sea of refugees (estimated at the time to be about 10 million)[29][30] flooding into the eastern provinces of India.[31] Facing a mounting humanitarian and economic crisis, India started actively aiding and organising the Bangladeshi resistance army known as the Mukti Bahini.

tag: p

text: Language controversy[edit]

text: In 1948, Governor-General Muhammad Ali Jinnah declared that "Urdu, and only Urdu" would be the federal language of Pakistan.[32][33] However, Urdu was historically prevalent only in the north, central, and western region of the subcontinent; whereas in East Bengal, the native language was Bengali, one of the two most easterly branches of the Indo-European languages.[34] The Bengali-speaking people of Pakistan constituted over 30% of the country's population. The government stand was widely viewed as an attempt to suppress the culture of the eastern wing. The people of East Bengal demanded that their language be given federal status alongside Urdu and English. The Language Movement began in 1948, as civil society protested the removal of the Bengali script from currency and stamps, which were in place since the British Raj. The movement reached its climax in 1952, when on 21 February, the police fired on protesting students and civilians, causing several deaths. The day is revered in Bangladesh as the Language Movement Day. Later, in memory of the deaths in 1952, UNESCO declared 21 February as International Mother Language Day in November 1999.[35]

text: Disparities[edit]

text: Although East Pakistan had a larger population, West Pakistan dominated the divided country politically and received more money from the common budget.

text:
Year
Spending on West Pakistan (in millions of Pakistani rupees)
Spending on East Pakistan (in millions of Pakistani rupees)
Amount spent on East as percentage of West

1950–55
11,290
5,240
46.4

1955–60
16,550
5,240
31.7

1960–65
33,550
14,040
41.8

1965–70
51,950
21,410
41.2

Total
113,340
45,930
40.5

Source: Reports of the Advisory Panels for the Fourth Five Year Plan 1970–75, Vol. I,
published by the planning commission of Pakistan.

tag: table

text: Bengalis were under-represented in the Pakistan military. Officers of Bengali origin in the different wings of the armed forces made up just 5% of overall force by 1965; of these, only a few were in command positions, with the majority in technical or administrative posts.[36] West Pakistanis believed that Bengalis were not "martially inclined" unlike Pashtuns and Punjabis; the "Martial races" notion was dismissed as ridiculous and humiliating by Bengalis.[36] Moreover, despite huge defence spending, East Pakistan received none of the benefits, such as contracts, purchasing and military support jobs. The Indo-Pakistani War of 1965 over Kashmir also highlighted the sense of military insecurity among Bengalis, as only an under-strength infantry division and 15 combat aircraft without tank support were in East Pakistan to thwart any Indian retaliations during the conflict.[37][38]

text: Religious and cultural differences[edit]

text: The only common bond between the two Pakistani wings was religion. But there were differences even in religious practices. Bengali Muslims tended to be less conservative in religious zeal, and had come to accept their Hindu minority and neighbours despite some communal clashes.[39] Many Bengali Muslims strongly objected to the Islamist paradigm imposed by the Pakistani state.[40] Most members of West Pakistan's ruling elite also belonged to a liberal society, yet understood a common faith as the mobilising factor behind Pakistan's creation and the subsuming of Pakistan's multiple identities into one.[40]

text: Cultural and linguistic differences between the two wings outweighed any religious unity. The Bengalis were very proud of their culture and language which with its Devnagari script and Sanskrit vocabulary was unacceptable to the West Pakistani elite who considered it to smack of Hindu culture.[41]

text: The Bangladeshi liberation struggle against Pakistan was led by secular leaders.[42] With this reality and the feeling of Islamic solidarity in the background, Islamists in East Pakistan viewed Bengali nationalism as unacceptable and instead sided with the Pakistani Army's efforts to crush the Bengali independence movement.[43] Secularists hailed the Bangladeshi victory as the triumph of secular Bengali nationalism over religion-centred Pakistani nationalism.[44]

text: Most of the politically-active ulama of East Pakistan either remained neutral or sided with the Pakistani state, since they perceived the break-up of Pakistan as a loss for Islam.[45]

text: Political differences[edit]

text: Although East Pakistan accounted for a slight majority of the country's population,[46] political power remained in the hands of West Pakistanis. Since a straightforward system of representation based on population would have concentrated political power in East Pakistan, the West Pakistani establishment came up with the "One Unit" scheme, where all of West Pakistan was considered one province. This was solely to counterbalance the East wing's votes.

text: After the assassination of Liaquat Ali Khan, Pakistan's first prime minister, in 1951, political power began to devolve to the new President of Pakistan, which replaced the office of Governor General when Pakistan became a republic, and, eventually, the military. The nominal elected chief executive, the Prime Minister, was frequently sacked by the establishment, acting through the President.

text: The East Pakistanis observed that the West Pakistani establishment would swiftly depose any East Pakistanis elected Prime Minister of Pakistan, such as Khawaja Nazimuddin, Mohammad Ali Bogra, or Huseyn Shaheed Suhrawardy. Their suspicions were further aggravated by the military dictatorships of Ayub Khan (27 October 1958 – 25 March 1969) and Yahya Khan (25 March 1969 – 20 December 1971), both West Pakistanis. The situation reached a climax in 1970, when the Bangladesh Awami League, the largest East Pakistani political party, led by Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, won a landslide victory in the national elections. The party won 167 of the 169 seats allotted to East Pakistan, and thus a majority of the 313 seats in the National Assembly. This gave the Awami League the constitutional right to form a government. However, Zulfikar Ali Bhutto (a former Foreign Minister), the leader of the Pakistan Peoples Party, refused to allow Rahman to become the Prime Minister of Pakistan.[47] Instead, he proposed the idea of having two Prime Ministers, one for each wing. The proposal elicited outrage in the east wing, already chafing under the other constitutional innovation, the "One Unit scheme". Bhutto also refused to accept Rahman's Six Points. On 3 March 1971, the two leaders of the two wings along with the President General Yahya Khan met in Dacca to decide the fate of the country. After their discussions yielded no satisfactory results, Sheikh Mujibur Rahman called for a nationwide strike. Bhutto feared a civil war, therefore, he sent his trusted companion, Mubashir Hassan.[47] A message was conveyed, and Rahman decided to meet Bhutto.[47] Upon his arrival, Rahman met with Bhutto and both agreed to form a coalition government with Rahman as Premier and Bhutto as President.[47] However, the military was unaware of these developments, and Bhutto increased his pressure on Rahman to reach a decision.[47]

text: On 7 March 1971, Sheikh Mujibur Rahman (soon to be the prime minister) delivered a speech at the Racecourse Ground (now called the Suhrawardy Udyan). In this speech he mentioned a further four-point condition to consider at the National Assembly Meeting on 25 March:

text:
The immediate lifting of martial law.
Immediate withdrawal of all military personnel to their barracks.
An inquiry into the loss of life.
Immediate transfer of power to the elected representative of the people before the assembly meeting 25 March.

tag: ul

text: He urged his people to turn every house into a fort of resistance. He closed his speech saying, "Our struggle is for our freedom. Our struggle is for our independence." This speech is considered the main event that inspired the nation to fight for its independence. General Tikka Khan was flown into Dacca to become Governor of East Bengal. East-Pakistani judges, including Justice Siddique, refused to swear him in.

text: Between 10 and 13 March, Pakistan International Airlines cancelled all their international routes to urgently fly "government passengers" to Dacca. These "government passengers" were almost all Pakistani soldiers in civilian dress. MV Swat, a ship of the Pakistan Navy carrying ammunition and soldiers, was harboured in Chittagong Port, but the Bengali workers and sailors at the port refused to unload the ship. A unit of East Pakistan Rifles refused to obey commands to fire on the Bengali demonstrators, beginning a mutiny among the Bengali soldiers.

text: Response to the 1970 cyclone[edit]

text: The 1970 Bhola cyclone made landfall on the East Pakistan coastline during the evening of 12 November, around the same time as a local high tide,[48] killing an estimated 300,000 to 500,000 people. Though the exact death toll is not known, it is considered the deadliest tropical cyclone on record.[49] A week after the landfall, President Khan conceded that his government had made "slips" and "mistakes" in its handling of the relief efforts due to a lack of understanding of the magnitude of the disaster.[50]

text: A statement released by eleven political leaders in East Pakistan ten days after the cyclone hit charged the government with "gross neglect, callous and utter indifference". They also accused the president of playing down the magnitude of the problem in news coverage.[51] On 19 November, students held a march in Dacca protesting the slowness of the government's response.[52] Abdul Hamid Khan Bhashani addressed a rally of 50,000 people on 24 November, where he accused the president of inefficiency and demanded his resignation.

text: As the conflict between East and West Pakistan developed in March, the Dacca offices of the two government organisations directly involved in relief efforts were closed for at least two weeks, first by a general strike and then by a ban on government work in East Pakistan by the Awami League. With this increase in tension, foreign personnel were evacuated over fears of violence. Relief work continued in the field, but long-term planning was curtailed.[53] This conflict widened into the Bangladesh Liberation War in December and concluded with the creation of Bangladesh. This was one of the first times that a natural event helped trigger a civil war.[54]

text: Operation Searchlight[edit]

text: A planned military pacification carried out by the Pakistan Army – codenamed Operation Searchlight – started on 25 March to curb the Bengali independence movement[25] by taking control of the major cities on 26 March, and then eliminating all opposition, political or military,[55] within one month. The Pakistani state claimed to justify starting Operation Searchlight on the basis of anti-Bihari violence by Bengalis in early March.[56]

text: Before the beginning of the operation, all foreign journalists were systematically deported from East Pakistan.[57]

text: The main phase of Operation Searchlight ended with the fall of the last major town in Bengali hands in mid-May. The operation also began the 1971 Bangladesh genocide. These systematic killings served only to enrage the Bengalis, which ultimately resulted in the secession of East Pakistan later in the same year. Bangladeshi media and reference books in English have published casualty figures which vary greatly, from 5,000–35,000 in Dacca, and 200,000–3,000,000 for Bangladesh as a whole[58], although independent researchers, including the British Medical Journal, have put forward the figure ranging from between 125,000 and 505,000.[59] American political scientist Rudolph Rummel puts total deaths at 1.5 million.[60] The atrocities have been referred to as acts of genocide.[61]

text: According to the Asia Times,[62]

text: At a meeting of the military top brass, Yahya Khan declared: "Kill 3 million of them and the rest will eat out of our hands." Accordingly, on the night of 25 March, the Pakistani Army launched Operation Searchlight to "crush" Bengali resistance in which Bengali members of military services were disarmed and killed, students and the intelligentsia systematically liquidated and able-bodied Bengali males just picked up and gunned down.

text: Although the violence focused on the provincial capital, Dacca, it also affected all parts of East Pakistan. Residential halls of the University of Dacca were particularly targeted. The only Hindu residential hall – Jagannath Hall – was destroyed by the Pakistani armed forces, and an estimated 600 to 700 of its residents were murdered. The Pakistani army denied any cold blooded killings at the university, though the Hamoodur Rahman Commission in Pakistan concluded that overwhelming force was used at the university. This fact, and the massacre at Jagannath Hall and nearby student dormitories of Dacca University, are corroborated by a videotape secretly filmed by Professor Nurul Ula of the East Pakistan University of Engineering and Technology, whose residence was directly opposite the student dormitories.[63]

text: The scale of the atrocities was first made clear in the West when Anthony Mascarenhas, a Pakistani journalist who had been sent to the province by the military authorities to write a story favourable to Pakistan's actions, instead fled to the United Kingdom and, on 13 June 1971, published an article in The Sunday Times describing the systematic killings by the military. The BBC wrote: "There is little doubt that Mascarenhas' reportage played its part in ending the war. It helped turn world opinion against Pakistan and encouraged India to play a decisive role", with Indian Prime Minister Indira Gandhi herself stating that Mascarenhas' article has led her "to prepare the ground for India's armed intervention".[64]

text: Hindu areas suffered particularly heavy blows. By midnight, Dacca was burning, especially the Hindu-dominated eastern part of the city. Time magazine reported on 2 August 1971, "The Hindus, who account for three-fourths of the refugees and a majority of the dead, have borne the brunt of the Pakistani military hatred."[65]

text: Sheikh Mujibur Rahman was arrested by the Pakistani Army. Yahya Khan appointed Brigadier (later General) Rahimuddin Khan to preside over a special tribunal prosecuting Rahman with multiple charges. The tribunal's sentence was never made public, but Yahya caused the verdict to be held in abeyance in any case. Other Awami League leaders were arrested as well, while a few fled Dacca to avoid arrest. The Awami League was banned by General Yahya Khan.[66]

text: Declaration of independence[edit]

text: The violence unleashed by the Pakistani forces on 25 March 1971 proved the last straw to the efforts to negotiate a settlement. Following these outrages, Sheikh Mujibur Rahman signed an official declaration that read:

text: Today Bangladesh is a sovereign and independent country. On Thursday night, West Pakistani armed forces suddenly attacked the police barracks at Razarbagh and the EPR headquarters at Pilkhana in Dacca. Many innocent and unarmed have been killed in Dhaka city and other places of Bangladesh. Violent clashes between E.P.R. and Police on the one hand and the armed forces of Pakistan on the other, are going on. The Bengalis are fighting the enemy with great courage for an independent Bangladesh. May Allah aid us in our fight for freedom. Joy Bangla [May Bangladesh be victorious].

text: Sheikh Mujib also called upon the people to resist the occupation forces through a radio message. Rahman was arrested on the night of 25–26 March 1971 at about 1:30 am (as per Radio Pakistan's news on 29 March 1971).

text: A telegram containing the text of Sheikh Mujibur Rahman's declaration reached some students in Chittagong. The message was translated to Bengali by Dr. Manjula Anwar. The students failed to secure permission from higher authorities to broadcast the message from the nearby Agrabad Station of Pakistan Broadcasting Corporation. However, the message was read several times by the independent Swadhin Bangla Betar Kendro Radio established by some rebel Bangali Radio workers in Kalurghat. Major Ziaur Rahman was requested to provide security of the station and he also read the Declaration on 27 March 1971.[68] Major Ziaur Rahman broadcast announcement of the declaration of independence on behalf of Sheikh Mujibur Rahman.

text: This is Swadhin Bangla Betar Kendra. I, Major Ziaur Rahman, at the direction of Bangobondhu Mujibur Rahman, hereby declare that Independent People's Republic of Bangladesh has been established. At his direction, I have taken the command as the temporary Head of the Republic. In the name of Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, I call upon all Bengalees to rise against the attack by the West Pakistani Army. We shall fight to the last to free our motherland. Victory is, by the Grace of Allah, ours. Joy Bangla.[69]

text: The Kalurghat Radio Station's transmission capability was limited, but the message was picked up by a Japanese ship in the Bay of Bengal. It was then re-transmitted by Radio Australia[70] and later by the British Broadcasting Corporation.

text: M. A. Hannan, an Awami League leader from Chittagong, is said to have made the first announcement of the declaration of independence over the radio on 26 March 1971.[71]

text: 26 March 1971 is considered the official Independence Day of Bangladesh, and the name Bangladesh was in effect henceforth. In July 1971, Indian Prime Minister Indira Gandhi openly referred to the former East Pakistan as Bangladesh.[72] Some Pakistani and Indian officials continued to use the name "East Pakistan" until 16 December 1971.

text: Liberation war[edit]

text: March–June[edit]

text: At first, resistance was spontaneous and disorganised, and was not expected to be prolonged.[73] However, when the Pakistani Army cracked down upon the population, resistance grew. The Mukti Bahini became increasingly active. The Pakistani military sought to quell them, but increasing numbers of Bengali soldiers defected to this underground "Bangladesh army". These Bengali units slowly merged into the Mukti Bahini and bolstered their weaponry with supplies from India. Pakistan responded by airlifting in two infantry divisions and reorganising their forces. They also raised paramilitary forces of Razakars, Al-Badrs and Al-Shams (who were mostly members of the Muslim League and other Islamist groups), as well as other Bengalis who opposed independence, and Bihari Muslims who had settled during the time of partition.

text: On 17 April 1971, a provisional government was formed in Meherpur District in western Bangladesh bordering India with Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, who was in prison in Pakistan, as President, Syed Nazrul Islam as Acting President, Tajuddin Ahmad as Prime Minister, and General Muhammad Ataul Ghani Osmani as Commander-in-Chief, Bangladesh Forces. As fighting grew between the occupation army and the Bengali Mukti Bahini, an estimated 10 million Bengalis sought refuge in the Indian states of Assam and West Bengal.[74]

text: June–September[edit]

text: Bangladesh forces command was set up on 11 July, with Col. M. A. G. Osmani as commander-in-chief (C-in-C) with the status of Cabinet Minister, Lt. Col., Abdur Rabb as chief of Staff (COS), Group Captain A K Khandker as Deputy Chief of Staff (DCOS) and Major A R Chowdhury as Assistant Chief of Staff (ACOS).

text: General Osmani had differences of opinion with the Indian leadership regarding the role of the Mukti Bahini in the conflict. Indian leadership initially envisioned Bengali forces to be trained into a small elite guerrilla force of 8,000 members, led by the surviving East Bengal Regiment soldiers operating in small cells around Bangladesh to facilitate the eventual Indian intervention,[75] but with the Bangladesh government in exile, General Osmani favoured a different strategy:[76][77]

text:
Bengali conventional forces would occupy lodgment areas inside Bangladesh and then the Bangladesh government would request international diplomatic recognition and intervention. Initially Mymensingh was picked for this operation, but Gen. Osmani later settled on Sylhet.
Sending the maximum number to guerrillas inside Bangladesh as soon as possible with the following objectives:[78][79]

Increasing Pakistani casualties through raids and ambush.
Cripple economic activity by hitting power stations, railway lines, storage depots and communication networks.
Destroy Pakistan army mobility by blowing up bridges/culverts, fuel depots, trains and river crafts.
The strategic objective was to make the Pakistanis spread their forces inside the province, so attacks could be made on isolated Pakistani detachments.

text: Bangladesh was divided into eleven sectors in July,[80] each with a commander chosen from defected officers of the Pakistani army who joined the Mukti Bahini to conduct guerrilla operations and train fighters. Most of their training camps were situated near the border area and were operated with assistance from India. The 10th Sector was directly placed under the Commander in Chief (C-in-C) General M. A. G. Osmani and included the Naval Commandos and C-in-C's special force.[81] Three brigades (11 Battalions) were raised for conventional warfare; a large guerrilla force (estimated at 100,000) was trained.[82]

text: Three brigades (eight infantry battalions and three artillery batteries) were put into action between July and September.[83] During June and July, Mukti Bahini had regrouped across the border with Indian aid through Operation Jackpot and began sending 2000–5000 guerrillas across the border,[84] the so-called Monsoon Offensive, which for various reasons (lack of proper training, supply shortage, lack of a proper support network inside Bangladesh) failed to achieve its objectives.[85][86][87] Bengali regular forces also attacked BOPs in Mymensingh, Comilla and Sylhet, but the results were mixed. Pakistani authorities concluded that they had successfully contained the Monsoon Offensive, which proved a near-accurate observation.[88][89]

text: Guerrilla operations, which slackened during the training phase, picked up after August. Economic and military targets in Dacca were attacked. The major success story was Operation Jackpot, in which naval commandos mined and blew up berthed ships in Chittagong, Mongla, Narayanganj and Chandpur on 15 August 1971.[90][91]

text: October–December[edit]

text: Bangladeshi conventional forces attacked border outposts. Kamalpur, Belonia and the Battle of Boyra are a few examples. 90 out of 370 BOPs fell to Bengali forces. Guerrilla attacks intensified, as did Pakistani and Razakar reprisals on civilian populations. Pakistani forces were reinforced by eight battalions from West Pakistan. The Bangladeshi independence fighters even managed to temporarily capture airstrips at Lalmonirhat and Shalutikar.[2] Both of these were used for flying in supplies and arms from India. Pakistan sent another five battalions from West Pakistan as reinforcements.

text: Indian involvement[edit]

text: Prime Minister Indira Gandhi had concluded that instead of taking in millions of refugees, it was economical to go to war against Pakistan.[92] As early as 28 April 1971, the Indian Cabinet had asked General Manekshaw (Chairman of the Chiefs of Staff Committee) to “Go into East Pakistan”.[93] Hostile relations in the past between India and Pakistan added to India's decision to intervene in Pakistan's civil war. Resultantly, the Indian government decided to support the creation of a separate state for ethnic Bengalis by supporting the Mukti Bahini. For this, RAW, helped to organise, train and arm these insurgents. Consequently, the Mukti Bahini succeeded in harassing Pakistani military in East Pakistan, thus creating conditions conducive for a full-scale Indian military intervention in early December.[92] Thus, wary of the growing involvement of India[why?], the Pakistan Air Force (PAF) launched a pre-emptive strike on Indian Air Force bases on 3 December 1971. The attack was modelled on the Israeli Air Force's Operation Focus during the Six-Day War, and intended to neutralise the Indian Air Force planes on the ground. The strike was seen by India as an open act of unprovoked aggression. This marked the official start of the Indo-Pakistani War.

text: As a response to the attack, both India and Pakistan formally acknowledged the "existence of a state of war between the two countries", even though neither government had formally issued a declaration of war.[94]

text: Three Indian corps were involved in the liberation of East Pakistan. They were supported by nearly three brigades of Mukti Bahini fighting alongside them, and many more fighting irregularly. This was far superior to the Pakistani army of three divisions.[95] The Indians quickly overran the country, selectively engaging or bypassing heavily defended strongholds. Pakistani forces were unable to effectively counter the Indian attack, as they had been deployed in small units around the border to counter guerrilla attacks by the Mukti Bahini.[96] Unable to defend Dacca, the Pakistanis surrendered on 16 December 1971.

text: Indian Involvement cont'd: The debate[edit]

text: The debate of Indian involvement in this war has been a source of tension and underlying conflict between India and Bangladesh since the emergence of the war itself. This section examines the role of India in this war by exploring the ways in which India largely contributed to the war and to what extent this aided the Bangladeshis. In exploring the latter, one can see that there are several ways in which India aided Bangladesh. For one, India was largely responsible for building the Mukti Bahini from a group of inexperienced rebel fighters to an army formidable enough to fight against the Pakistani army. When the war first broke out it in 1971, the initial state of the Bengali rebels can be understood from the remark of one Bengali rebel officer, who complained that "No one in the Bangladesh cabinet knows anything about war". [97] This construed the dire situation of the army before India’s intervention. The Mukti Bahini was recounted as being “Without any supplies or assistance”. If a weapon became unserviceable the soldier carrying that weapon became useless, since he could not be given another weapon. There was a complete dearth of a “Modern communication system to be in constant touch with troops in different battle locations”. This is evidenced in that the Mukti Bahini’s position was threatened at Kumira, but the army had received the message three hours late because of the poor communication system. [98] Indira Gandhi’s government escalated its backing for the Bengali uprising from July 1970 onwards. Indira Gandhi, Prime Minister of India at the time, when asked if India stimulated the Liberation War, had candidly said that “If you want to go way back, we helped the Mukti Bahini. So, if you consider it all as beginning with that aid and from that moment, yes- we were the ones to start it.” [99] As the war progressed, the involvement of the Indian Army in this war intensified and with each stage improved Mukti Bahini. Initially, the Indian army was directly ordered to help the Mukti Bahini, involving India’s top generals This is evident in the Indian army’s training and sponsoring of the Bengali rebels who comprised Mukti Bahini, which was badly outnumbered, many bearing only knives and hand grenades, reluctant to attack Pakistani army units. Even the better-armed insurgents were outmatched by Pakistan’s artillery and air force. Durga Prasad Dhar, confidant of Indira Gandhi who was a chief architect of the Indian intervention in the war, aided Bengali exiles in London to purchase weapons in Belgium and ship them to the guerrillas in East Pakistan. [100] The Indian Army was thoroughly enmeshed in the guerilla warfare, as shown by a report to Indira Gandhi's government from an Indian team touring the border states of Assam and Tripura in the early 1970s. Furthermore, India's Border Security Force provided cover when the Bengali rebels attacked towns of Pakistan army positions. Under fire, the guerrillas relied on India's force to provide support or re-supply them with ammunition. The Bengalis, in desperation, used children as soldiers- these children were untrained and inexperienced. However, under the eye of the Indian army, these child soldiers were taken for special and regular military training, and the Indian government planned youth training, consisting of political indoctrination and guerilla warfare. Many of the youth camps were run by India's Border Security Force, with the military training given by the Indian army. To fight an effective riverine campaign, the rebels – accustomed to their homeland of marshes and water-wars, needed to be taught about camouflage and crawling. [101]

text: This is where the debate comes in. On the other side of the argument there is evidence that shows this aid may have not been as adequate as many historians believe. The rebels were simply not getting enough. Furthermore, the guerillas, often fighting with weapons captured from Pakistan desperately wanted more arms and ammunition from India. The rebel officers pleaded for heavy artillery, anti-aircraft rounds, and anti-tank grenades. They required Rifles, mortars, walkie-talkies, field telephone sets, maps, medical kits, binoculars, etc. However, ‘India seemed more worried about the embarrassment that would inevitably follow when Indian weapons were captured during the fighting and thus was hesitant in expediting the deployment of arms to the rebels. [102]

text: The Bengali rebels also questioned Indian supervision. India was unaware and unprepared of the Bangladeshi situation. [103]

text: In a Bangladeshi assessment of the war, a top Awami League leader, MR Chowdhury, lambasted the performance of the Indian army. Chowdhury argued that “Never was such a heroic force neglected so much as the Mukti Fouz. The rebels got only ten rounds of ammunition a day, and this was far from adequate. Officers waited for days to get ammunition for a raid. Senior officers lacked weapons, and most of the rebels were short on rations, uniforms, Pakistani cash (necessary for missions inside East Pakistan), tents, soaps, and shoes." Mr Chowdhury further said: “I have seen our (Mukti Bahini) sector commanders have to roam like beggars to procure medicine from various sources for their ailing men. We were assured that the ‘Friends’ (the Indian army) promised to look after the basic necessities of our (Bengali) men, but the bare truth is that our men never get what they require.” [104]

text: Air and naval war[edit]

text: The Indian Air Force carried out several sorties against Pakistan, and within a week, IAF aircraft dominated the skies of East Pakistan. It achieved near-total air supremacy by the end of the first week as the entire Pakistani air contingent in the east, PAF No.14 Squadron, was grounded because of Indian and Bangladesh airstrikes at Tejgaon, Kurmitolla, Lal Munir Hat and Shamsher Nagar. Sea Hawks from the carrier INS Vikrant also struck Chittagong, Barisal and Cox's Bazar, destroying the eastern wing of the Pakistan Navy and effectively blockading the East Pakistan ports, thereby cutting off any escape routes for the stranded Pakistani soldiers. The nascent Bangladesh Navy (comprising officers and sailors who defected from the Pakistani Navy) aided the Indians in the marine warfare, carrying out attacks, most notably Operation Jackpot.[105]

text: Surrender and aftermath[edit]

text: On 16 December 1971, Lt. Gen Amir Abdullah Khan Niazi, CO of Pakistan Army forces located in East Pakistan signed the Instrument of Surrender. At the time of surrender only a few countries had provided diplomatic recognition to the new nation. Over 93,000 Pakistani troops surrendered to the Indian forces & Bangladesh Liberation forces, making it the largest surrender since World War II,[8][106] although the Pakistani Army had fought gallantly according to Indian Army Chief Sam Manekshaw.[107] Bangladesh sought admission in the UN with most voting in its favour, but China vetoed this as Pakistan was its key ally.[108] The United States, also a key ally of Pakistan, was one of the last nations to accord Bangladesh recognition.[109] To ensure a smooth transition, in 1972 the Simla Agreement was signed between India and Pakistan. The treaty ensured that Pakistan recognised the independence of Bangladesh in exchange for the return of the Pakistani PoWs. India treated all the PoWs in strict accordance with the Geneva Convention, rule 1925.[110] It released more than 93,000 Pakistani PoWs in five months.[8] Further, as a gesture of goodwill, nearly 200 soldiers who were sought for war crimes by Bengalis were also pardoned by India. The accord also gave back 13,000 km2 (5,019 sq mi) of land that Indian troops had seized in West Pakistan during the war, though India retained a few strategic areas;[111] most notably Kargil (which would in turn again be the focal point for a war between the two nations in 1999). This was done as a measure of promoting "lasting peace" and was acknowledged by many observers as a sign of maturity by India. However, some in India[112] felt that the treaty had been too lenient to Bhutto, who had pleaded for leniency, arguing that the fragile democracy in Pakistan would crumble if the accord was perceived as being overly harsh by Pakistanis.

text: Reaction in West Pakistan to the war[edit]

text: Reaction to the defeat and dismemberment of half the nation was a shocking loss to top military and civilians alike. Few had expected that they would lose the formal war in under a fortnight, and there was also unsettlement over what was perceived as a meek surrender of the army in East Pakistan. Yahya Khan's dictatorship collapsed and gave way to Bhutto, who took the opportunity to rise to power. General Niazi, who surrendered along with 93,000 troops, was viewed with suspicion and contempt upon his return to Pakistan. He was shunned and branded a traitor. The war also exposed the shortcomings of Pakistan's declared strategic doctrine that the "defence of East Pakistan lay in West Pakistan".[113][114]

text: Atrocities[edit]

text: During the war there were widespread killings and other atrocities – including the displacement of civilians in Bangladesh (East Pakistan at the time) and widespread violations of human rights began with the start of Operation Searchlight on 25 March 1971. Members of the Pakistani military and supporting Islamist militias from Jamaat e Islami killed an estimated 300,000[64] to 3,000,000 people and raped between 200,000 and 400,000 Bangladeshi women in a systematic campaign of genocidal rape.[115][116][117] Some Islamic clerics issued fatwas in support of raping Bengali women, especially Hindu women, as they considered the conflict a holy war.[118] During the war, a fatwa in Pakistan declared that the Bengali freedom fighters were Hindus and that their women could be taken as "the booty of war".[119]

text: A large section of the intellectual community of Bangladesh were murdered, mostly by the Al-Shams and Al-Badr forces,[120] at the instruction of the Pakistani Army.[121] Just two days before the surrender, on 14 December 1971, Pakistan Army and Razakar militia (local collaborators) picked up at least 100 physicians, professors, writers and engineers in Dacca, and murdered them, leaving the dead bodies in a mass grave.[122]

text: Many mass graves have been discovered in Bangladesh.[123] The first night of war on Bengalis, which is documented in telegrams from the American Consulate in Dacca to the United States State Department, saw indiscriminate killings of students of Dacca University and other civilians.[124] Numerous women were tortured, raped and killed during the war; the exact numbers are not known and are a subject of debate. The widespread rape of Bangladeshi women led to birth of thousands of war babies.[125][126][127] The Pakistan Army also kept numerous Bengali women as sex-slaves inside the Dacca Cantonment. Most of the girls were captured from Dacca University and private homes.[128] There was significant sectarian violence not only perpetrated and encouraged by the Pakistani army,[129] but also by Bengali nationalists against non-Bengali minorities, especially Biharis.[130] In June 1971, Bihari representatives stated that 500,000 Biharis were killed by Bengalis.[131] R.J. Rummel gives a prudent estimate of 150,000 killed.[132]

text: On 16 December 2002, the George Washington University's National Security Archive published a collection of declassified documents, consisting mostly of communications between US embassy officials and United States Information Service centres in Dacca and India, and officials in Washington, D.C.[124] These documents show that US officials working in diplomatic institutions within Bangladesh used the terms "selective genocide"[133] and "genocide" (see The Blood Telegram) for information on events they had knowledge of at the time. Genocide is the term that is still used to describe the event in almost every major publication and newspaper in Bangladesh,[134][135] although in Pakistan, the accusations against Pakistani forces continue to be disputed.

text: Foreign reaction[edit]

text: Following Sheikh Mujibur Rahman's declaration of independence in March 1971, a worldwide campaign was undertaken by the Provisional Government of Bangladesh to drum up political support for the independence of East Pakistan as well as humanitarian support for the Bengali people.

text: Indian Prime Minister Indira Gandhi provided extensive diplomatic and political support to the Bangladesh movement. She toured many countries in a bid to create awareness of the Pakistani atrocities against Bengalis. This effort was to prove vital later during the war, in framing the world's context of the war and to justify military action by India.[138] Also, following Pakistan's defeat, it ensured prompt recognition of the newly independent state of Bangladesh.

text: United Nations[edit]

text: Though the United Nations condemned the human rights violations during and following Operation Searchlight, it failed to defuse the situation politically before the start of the war.

text: Following India's entry into the war, Pakistan, fearing certain defeat, made urgent appeals to the United Nations to intervene and force India to agree to a ceasefire. The UN Security Council assembled on 4 December 1971 to discuss the hostilities in South Asia. After lengthy discussions on 7 December, the United States made a resolution for "immediate cease-fire and withdrawal of troops". While supported by the majority, the USSR vetoed the resolution twice. In light of the Pakistani atrocities against Bengalis, the United Kingdom and France abstained on the resolution.[94][139]

text: On 12 December, with Pakistan facing imminent defeat, the United States requested that the Security Council be reconvened. Pakistan's Deputy Prime Minister and Foreign Minister, Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, was rushed to New York City to make the case for a resolution on the cease fire. The council continued deliberations for four days. By the time proposals were finalised, Pakistan's forces in the East had surrendered and the war had ended, making the measures merely academic. Bhutto, frustrated by the failure of the resolution and the inaction of the United Nations, ripped up his speech and left the council.[139]

text: Most UN member nations were quick to recognise Bangladesh within months of its independence.[138]

text: Bhutan[edit]

text: As the Bangladesh Liberation War approached the defeat of the Pakistan Army, the Himalayan kingdom of Bhutan became the first state in the world to recognise the newly independent country on 6 December 1971.[140] Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, the first President of Bangladesh visited Bhutan to attend the coronation of Jigme Singye Wangchuck, the fourth King of Bhutan in June 1974.

text: US and USSR[edit]

text: The US government stood by its old ally Pakistan[141] both politically and materially. US President Richard Nixon and his National Security Advisor Henry Kissinger feared Soviet expansion into South and Southeast Asia. Pakistan was a close ally of the People's Republic of China, with whom Nixon had been negotiating a rapprochement and which he intended to visit in February 1972. Nixon feared that an Indian invasion of West Pakistan would mean total Soviet domination of the region, and that it would seriously undermine the global position of the United States and the regional position of America's new tacit ally, China. To demonstrate to China the bona fides of the United States as an ally, and in direct violation of the US Congress-imposed sanctions on Pakistan, Nixon sent military supplies to Pakistan and routed them through Jordan and Iran,[142] while also encouraging China to increase its arms supplies to Pakistan. The Nixon administration also ignored reports it received of the genocidal activities of the Pakistani Army in East Pakistan, most notably the Blood telegram.[143]

text: Nixon denied getting involved in the situation, saying that it was an internal matter of Pakistan, but when Pakistan's defeat seemed certain, Nixon sent the aircraft carrier USS Enterprise to the Bay of Bengal,[144] a move deemed by the Indians as a nuclear threat. Enterprise arrived on station on 11 December 1971. On 6 and 13 December, the Soviet Navy dispatched two groups of ships, armed with nuclear missiles, from Vladivostok; they trailed US Task Force 74 in the Indian Ocean from 18 December until 7 January 1972.[145] [146][147]

text: The Soviet Union supported Bangladesh and Indian armies, as well as the Mukti Bahini during the war, recognising that the independence of Bangladesh would weaken the position of its rivals – the United States and China. It gave assurances to India that if a confrontation with the United States or China developed, the USSR would take countermeasures. This was enshrined in the Indo-Soviet friendship treaty signed in August 1971. The Soviets also sent a nuclear submarine to ward off the threat posed by USS Enterprise in the Indian Ocean.[148][149]

text: At the end of the war, the Warsaw Pact countries were among the first to recognise Bangladesh. The Soviet Union accorded recognition to Bangladesh on 25 January 1972.[150] The United States delayed recognition for some months, before according it on 8 April 1972.[151]

text: China[edit]

text: As a long-standing ally of Pakistan, the People's Republic of China reacted with alarm to the evolving situation in East Pakistan and the prospect of India invading West Pakistan and Pakistani-controlled Kashmir. Believing that just such an Indian attack was imminent, Nixon encouraged China to mobilise its armed forces along its border with India to discourage it. The Chinese did not, however, respond to this encouragement, because unlike the 1962 Sino-Indian War when India was caught entirely unaware, this time the Indian Army was prepared and had deployed eight mountain divisions to the Sino-Indian border to guard against such an eventuality.[94] China instead threw its weight behind demands for an immediate ceasefire.

text: When Bangladesh applied for membership to the United Nations in 1972, China vetoed their application[152] because two United Nations resolutions regarding the repatriation of Pakistani prisoners of war and civilians had not yet been implemented.[153] China was also among the last countries to recognise independent Bangladesh, refusing to do so until 31 August 1975.[138][152]

text: In popular culture[edit]