Tehelka.comArchive.tehelka.comtehelkahindi.com tehelkafoundation.org criticalfutures.org

Search for archived stories here...


    SocialTwist Tell-a-Friend
    From Tehelka Magazine, Vol 8, Issue 32, Dated 13 Aug 2011
    CULTURE & SOCIETY  
    BOOKS

    She Does Not Know Best

    Sarmila Bose’s irrational biases and hubris spoil all her research into the 1971 Bangladesh war, says Urvashi Butalia

    Political costs General Abdul Siddiqui bayonets a collaborator of the Pakistani Army during the 1971 war

    Political costs General Abdul Siddiqui bayonets a collaborator of the Pakistani Army during the 1971 war

    Photo: Corbis

    IN HER BOOK, Sarmila Bose explains how she arrived at its title. Dead reckoning, she says, was a term used by war-time pilots to describe how by going in a direction for a certain time in a certain way, one could arrive at the destination. She likens this to her own journey in exploring the 1971 liberation war of Bangladesh — being rigorous in research, using evidence and corroboration, attempting to chart a straight and true path.

    There’s little doubt that Bose has done considerable research and that her interviews include people from all sides — the Bangladeshi fighters, those for unity and those for independence, Pakistani army personnel, families of those dead, Bihari and other Hindus and more. This wealth of material had the makings of a nuanced and empathetic account. But here’s where the book disappoints.

    Whether dealing with the March 1971 military action or the Dhaka University attack or Operation Searchlight, Bose poses the fundamental query of how come the Bengalis say one thing (and sometimes more than one thing, and often these are conflicting), the Pakistanis another (and there are conflicts here too) and the Indians (when she has managed to talk to them) a third. Where does the truth really lie?

    As questions go, this isn’t unusual (the author surprisingly seems to think it is) — virtually all studies of war and conflict question how different versions of the ‘truth’ come to be, how, at such times, people’s memories of the same incident differ, often in radical ways, and also how situations are never what they seem, nor is the promise of a ‘clean’ nationalism ever fulfilled. What is unusual are the conclusions Bose seems to reach from many of these inquiries.

    Dead Reckoning: Memories of the 1971 Bangladesh WarSarmila Bose Hachette India
250 pp; Rs 495

    Dead Reckoning: Memories of the 1971 Bangladesh WarSarmila Bose Hachette India
    250 pp; Rs 495

    For her, Bangladeshi nationalism was a flawed nationalism — look at the state of the nation today — and in the end it was, tragically, his own people who killed Bangladesh’s founding father Sheikh Mujibur Rahman. But she fails to ask the obvious question: how does that exonerate Pakistani aggression? She speaks to Pakistani officers who say they were restrained, often surprised by the hostility to them, that they did not commit genocide, their armies did not rape — or at least not in as large numbers as has been claimed — and she unproblematically believes them on the strength of what they say, an all-too obvious bias that gives the lie to the claim of non partisanship.

    For me, some of her arguments intrigue but they do not hold: all nationalisms are flawed, attacking armies often make themselves out to be innocent, but even Bose’s focus on restraint and smaller numbers than has so far been believed cannot take away from, say, the systematic killings at Dhaka University, or the evidence of rape provided by women. Arithmetic is not everything, and whether or not 1971 was a liberation struggle or a civil war depends on the perspective from which you look at that history. Bose’s bias here is painfully evident in the language she deploys — Bangla deshi accounts are labelled “claims”, Pakistani officers’ accounts are straightforward accounts (see pp 142-45).

    There's also an odd kind of hubris. All scholars who think they are bringing something new to a certain history express dissatisfaction with what has gone before. But I’ve known very few — perhaps none — who claim their work is not only unique, as Bose does, because it addresses ignored aspects, but that it’ll remain so for all time to come. No doubt there will be other studies that will add to the knowledge, but hers, she says, will stand apart. “Two vital elements that breathe life into this book will be missing” she writes. “The people who lived out the conflict at the ground level will have passed away, and future authors will not have the inexpressible connection that I have with 1971.” Bose’s book may be many things, but unique and non-partisan it is not. The pity is that it could so well have been.

    urvashi.butalia@gmail.com

    Related

    Waiting for Fate
    6 Strategies to sell your book that your publisher doesn’t know
    A babu takes stock

    SocialTwist Tell-a-Friend
    From Tehelka Magazine, Vol 8, Issue 32, Dated 13 Aug 2011
 

ADVERTISEMENT


ADVERTISEMENT


  About Us | Advertise With Us | Print Subscriptions | Syndication | Terms of Service | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Contact Us | Bouquets & Brickbats