For over a century, the British ruled over a vast swath of South Asia that today includes three of the world’s ten most populous countries: India (#1), Pakistan (#5), and Bangladesh (#8).
In 1947, the British departed, and the subcontinent was partitioned into two states: India, with a Hindu majority, and Pakistan, created as a homeland for South Asia’s Muslims. In 1971, East Pakistan broke away to form the independent nation of Bangladesh.
When the Pakistani government became alarmed by growing Bangladeshi demands for autonomy and independence, it responded as many regimes have before and since: it sent in the army. What followed was a campaign of mass killing and rape that left at least 300,000 civilians dead*, hundreds of thousands of women assaulted, and an estimated ten million refugees fleeing into India.
Unsurprisingly, this did little to persuade Bangladeshis to remain part of Pakistan. Eventually, Bangladeshi independence fighters secured Indian support, and together they defeated the Pakistani army. East Pakistan emerged as the independent state of Bangladesh.
Anam Zakaria grew up in Pakistan decades after these events, and much of the book is devoted to reconciling the often conflicting Pakistani, Bangladeshi, and Indian narratives surrounding 1971. She examines both official state histories and the oral testimony of people who lived through the period.
In Pakistan, 1971 is often remembered as a tragic national rupture instigated by the country’s nemesis, India. There is comparatively little discussion of East Pakistani grievances over political representation, economic inequality, or language policy. Instead, Pakistani narratives frequently emphasize the region’s Hindu influences. Zakaria notes that she herself grew up believing Bangladesh was predominantly Hindu. In reality, like Pakistan, Bangladesh is overwhelmingly Muslim, though it once had a much larger Hindu minority, many of whom were driven out during and after the conflict and had their property expropriated.
Today, deep resentment toward Pakistan remains in Bangladesh. Travel between the two countries is still difficult; Zakaria notes that Pakistanis visiting Bangladesh often require formal invitations. During her travels, she was repeatedly told that many Bangladeshis would never forgive Pakistan for what had happened in 1971. At the same time, she observed that Bangladeshis still often view Pakistan as a fellow Muslim nation. During cricket matches between India and Pakistan, many Bangladeshis still cheer for Pakistan.
Bangladesh remains a poor country, and some of the book’s most affecting passages concern the long shadow the war cast over ordinary lives. Zakaria interviews one woman whose family was killed by the Pakistani army. She survived only because a Muslim man discovered her alive among a field of corpses. Because her family had been Hindu, he felt it would be wrong to raise her as a Muslim, so he arranged for a local Hindu family to take her in.
The family that adopted her was desperately poor, and she never received an education. Her adult life has been marked by precarious, low-wage work in the informal economy. At one point she found employment as a cook in a hotel, only to lose the job after her employers learned she was Hindu. Near the end of the interview, she reflects on how differently her life might have unfolded had her parents not been murdered. There is, she says, no conceivable reparations Pakistan could pay that would restore what was taken from her.
There is obviously truth in this perspective, but from a policy standpoint some form of reconciliation still seems necessary. Pakistan and Bangladesh would benefit from closer relations, and the first step toward that would likely be a fuller Pakistani acknowledgment of the abuses committed in 1971. One obstacle has been that many of those responsible remained alive and influential within Pakistan for decades afterward. As that generation passes from the scene, there may be an opportunity for younger Pakistanis to develop a more honest account of their country’s history and pursue reconciliation with Bangladesh.
Overall, I found 1971 deeply interesting. I knew very little about Bangladesh beforehand, and now know at least a little more. My main criticism concerns Zakaria’s style. Much of the book is written in the first person and structured around interviews with participants and survivors, with substantial space devoted to personal anecdotes only loosely connected to the central narrative. At times, it reads very much like a work written by someone trained in anthropology - which, in fairness, it was. Still, that is a relatively minor complaint. Overall, I appreciated Zakaria’s intellectual honesty, her willingness to question official state narratives, and the care she shows toward the memories of survivors.
---
* Wikipedia gives the number of dead as 300,000 - 3 million. Zakaria notes that the Pakistani government has been accused of grossly under