The genocide of Bengalis in what is now the independent nation of Bangladesh by the Pakistani Army and its supporters in 1971 is perhaps the least researched and acknowledged of all the post-World War II genocides that occurred in different countries. Donald Beachler, in his "The politics of genocide scholarship: the case of Bangladesh," published in, Nov 2007 stresses that "[n]o book-length study of the genocide in Bangladesh has been published in the United States; essays about it have appeared in some collections on genocide not in others." Beachler could find only one scholarly study titled "Atrocities against humanity during the liberation war in Bangladesh" by Akmam, Wadratul (2002), which addresses the Bangladesh Genocide.
Not only has the Bangladesh Genocide received the least attention, but the historical context of the 1971 Liberation War and the Genocide have been systematically distorted and denied by academics, journalists, and politicians on the right and pro-Maoist left.
Why denying Genocide?
Charny (2001) and Charny and Fromer (1990) coined the term 'Innocence-and-Self-Righteousness denial' to identify opportunist deniers. According to Charny (2001), the 'Innocence-and-Self-Righteousness,' the deniers "claim that they only intend to ascertain the truth. They "do not believe that human beings could have been so evil as the descriptions of the genocide imply." And they espouse 'forgive and forget' approach as genocide "took place a long time ago." However, Charny warns about the fake innocent denials, which in "many instances of ...are not at all innocent, but are the full-blown lies of deniers who are attempting to look like honest scholars and peace-promoting people. Such deniers, as Charny also argues, "… may more simply be out for their personal gain, economic advantage, or even more simply career advantage..."
As it concerns the denying of the Bangladesh Genocide, two notable deniers seem to fit the profile of 'Innocence-and-Self-Righteousness' are Sarmila Bose (2005 , 2011 ) and David Bergman (2012 , 2014 ).
Sarmila Bose, the self-righteous innocent denier
While Bose (2005) rightly notes the lack of systematic study of the violent conflicts during the Liberation War or Mukti Juddho, she intentionally uses the term "civil war" to highlight the internal strife that led to the conflict. The term “civil war” allegedly came from Henry Kissinger. Nayanika Mookherjee (2006) dismisses Bose’s use of the term 'civil war' and argues that such nomenclature as an attempt to "deflect the attention from its genocidal connotation" of the Pakistan military atrocities.
Bose defends her article as being "a systematic analysis of the context and nature of violence in the conflict of 1971." Yet, she deliberately twists evidence by emphasizing atrocities on Biharis to discount the extent of the Pakistani army's Genocide and the rapes of Bengalis. Ms. Bose continues to deny the genocidal acts of the Pakistani military and its collaborators in a 2011 book. Bose ignores Brownmiller (1975) , Jahan (2004) , Chaudhury (1972) , numerous reports, documentaries, victims' testimonies and selectively draws references and reports from Pakistani sources and uses the interviews of former Pakistani military commanders.
For instance, Brownmiller, a well-cited and authoritative book on violence against women, reports that the number of rapes committed by the Pakistani military ranges from as low as 200,000 to as high as 400,000. Jahan describes the horrific violence by the Pakistan army. Chaudhury provides a vivid illustration of the sufferings of the victims of rapes. A documentary broadcasted by the US-based NBC news network on February 20, 1972, shows a government shelter where many rape victims had babies (often referred to as war babies) and narrates, "It's the women who are silent, women like Sheeba…sixteen years old, widow and pregnant with a child of a Pakistani soldier." Shahriar Kabir (2007) also presents in a documentary the testimonies of the victims of rapes by the Pakistani military and its collaborators. None seem to matter in Sarmila Bose's tenacious defense of the Pakistani military's brutal action against Bengalis.
David Bergman, the seeker truth, and self-righteous innocent denier
David Bergman, a disputed journalist, fits in Charny’s self-righteous innocent denier category. For instance, in a 2012 blog post, Bergman writes that “crimes were committed by both sides during the war” in the 1971 war. In another opinion piece in 2014, Bergman claims an innocent motive by asserting
“…it is important that journalists and independent researchers do assess the accuracy of this iconic figure of three million. This is not in order to minimise the extent of atrocities committed by the Pakistan military and its collaborators which were undoubtedly very significant, but for the purposes of a more accurate representation of history that is not in thrall to partisan interests.”
In both writings, Bergman claims journalistic and scholarly motives to discount the extent of Pakistani brutality on the Bengalis, largely borrowing from Sisson and Rose (1990). Beachler (2007) labels Sisson and Rose as Genocide deniers. According to Beachler, Session and Rose not only “denied a genocide took place” but also provided controversial death counts based on Pakistani accounts. Beachler (p. 486-87) elaborates as follows:
“They [Sission and Rose] cited the book Witness to Surrender by Siddiq Salik published in Karachi in 1977, as supporting their assertion, but they appear to have been truly convinced by their interviews with the military officers involved in Operation Searchlight. Their corroboration of Salik’s book seemed to close the case for Sisson and Rose. Either they were unaware of the evidence pointing to genocide in Bangladesh or they chose to disregard it without ever informing the reader of their reasons for doing so.”
But what are Bose and Bergman's motivations behind Genocide denials?
A person's credibility provides access to opportunities, and access to opportunities allows access to opportunities for financial, social, and political gains. Bose and Bergman derive their credibility from their association, affiliation, and, perhaps most importantly, their names. Sharmila Bose's name, sounding like a Hindu and the Hindus being one of the main targets of the Pakistan Genocide, appears to give her compassionate credibility among her readers. Why would a person of Hindu origin defend Pakistani atrocities? David Bergman, sounding Jewish name and Jews being the victims of the worst Genocide in the 20th century, provides him a shield to satisfy the Islamists and Pakistan as a credible seeker of truth. Again, why would a person of Jewish ancestry defend a group of Islamic extremists who desire their demise? Also, both Bose and Bergman derive their credibility by being connected to prominent families involved in India and Bangladesh's independence movements. Sarmila Bose is the grandniece of India's revered Independence movement leader, Subhas Chandra Bose. David Bergman is the son-in-law of a prominent leader of Bangladesh's independent movement, Dr. Kamal Hossain. Sarmila Bose's financial motivation is exposed in her defense of the Pakistani cause. She and William Milam, a former U.S. Ambassador to Bangladesh and Pakistan, defended the sale of F-16 fighter jets to Pakistan. Milam and Bose also defended Pakistan as a stable Muslim democracy while also praising former military ruler General Musharraf as a modernizer. While David Bergman’s financial motivation is unknown, a prominent Bangladesh editor with who Bergman worked questions his journalistic ethics.
Genocide denial-albeit innocent, is the act of revisionism and set dangerous historical context
Charny (2001) stresses that any form of denial, even the seemingly innocent denial, must be rejected and exposed. The impact of such revisionism “is no less vicious and dangerous than denials generated by anti-Semitism, or anti-Armenianism, or a generic anti-life position of celebrating the deaths of any victims of mass murder.” According to Charny, innocent deniers, such as Sharmila Bose and David as Bergman, purportedly engage in “a vicious form of intellectual and moral dishonesty” and equate them to accomplices and bystanders “who, in the course of actual events of genocide, enable and allow the actual perpetrators to execute the genocide.”
ABM Nasir, Ph.D. is the Professor of Economics,
North Carolina Central University. He can be reached at
[email protected]