On February 09, 2025 the 16th Karachi Literature Festival held a session titled “Pakistan-Bangladesh Relations: A Reset”, featuring Ikram Sehgal and Senator Mushahid Hussain Syed and moderated by Dr Salma Malik. Unfortunately, Senator Mushahid was unable to attend the session.
Dr Salma Malik, Moderator
Asalam-o-Alikum, everyone, and a very warm welcome to you all. Today’s first working session starts on the right tone, with Ikram Sehgal Sahib talking to us about a very important and fascinating topic, one that is very close to his heart and to the hearts of many of us sitting in this audience. A lot of us share some combined history—we have families, we have love, and we have an affiliation with a country that was once ours.
That country is now an independent nation, flourishing and emerging as a major economic hub in the coming days. Bangladesh is up and coming, but we share a lot of good and difficult history. And I think there could be no one better than Ikram Sehgal Sahib, who has personal, family, professional, and friendly ties with Bangladesh to share his insights with us in this one-hour session. Sehgal Sahib, when we were sitting and just exchanging notes on how to discuss this important topic, you brought up a subject regarding Quaid-e-Azam’s vision before Partition. If you, please speak on that first as a setting note for our further conversation.
Ikram Sehgal, Co-Chairman Pathfinder Group
Bismillah ir-Rahman ir-Rahim, first of all, Salma, I’ll start with something you just said, you mentioned that it was once ours. I would say it still is ours. It is still our country. Now, with the Quaid-e-Azam’s vision. Quaid-eAzam had an extraordinary strategic mind, no one was born in this region, at least, with the kind of strategic vision that he had. I will digress a little bit into how Pakistan came into being.
On the 8th of May, 1942, Congress, Gandhi, and Nehru announced the ‘Quit India Movement’, and demanded that the British should quit India. At that time, Singapore had fallen, Rommel’s forces were at the gates of Cairo, and the Japanese were at India’s doorstep. So, the British Empire was in total disarray. It was a very difficult period for the British, and this Quit India Movement further shook them. There was a lot of pressure on the Quaid-e-Azam to align with the Quit India Movement. However, on the 25th of May, 1942, Quaid-e-Azam said, “No, we will not be part of the Quit India Movement. We will ask for independence afterwards, but for now, Muslims should join the British armed forces in large numbers.” As a result, while Muslims initially made up about 21–22% of the British armed forces in India, they ultimately became 40%.
To give you an idea of the scale, 2.5 million Indians eventually joined the British armed forces during World War II. Out of them, almost 40%, around a million, were Muslims. So, when the independence of India was going on, it was the British armed forces that insisted that Muslims must be given their rights. But people tend to forget this. Out of those Muslims, and I am giving you the statistics, 80,000 Muslims died fighting for the British during World War II. Many Hindus and other Indians also died, but the key point is that this was a strategic decision by Quaid-e-Azam.
The second strategic decision that he took was when Suhrawardy, Fazal-ul-Haq, and Abul Hashim went to him in 1946 and said, “We should go for two independent sovereign states, and we should go for a United Bengal.” If we had United Bengal with us, we would have the Calcutta port, we would have Assam, and we would have entire East Pakistan. Quaid-eAzam gave a ‘go-ahead’ in 1946. Many people didn’t know that United Bengal was a part of Mountbatten’s plan. Another part of this strategy was that the Quaid went to Tara Singh and said, “You are asking for Sikhistan. Go for Khalistan, and we will have no borders between us.”
Imagine if Khalistan had become part of Pakistan at that time, the Kashmir problem would have been solved by itself. That was strategy. Of course, it didn’t work out. There were ways they worked around it, and the Indian National Congress said that even if a few people voted against it in the Bengal Assembly, they would reject the concept of a United Bengal. That ended the possibility of a United Bengal, and what Quaid-e-Azam ultimately got was what he called a moth-eaten, truncated Pakistan.
What I’m trying to say is that he brought a strategic vision. Today, whatever Pakistan was, it was the finest experiment of nationhood in its time. But I’m not going into the history of what led to disparity, discrimination, and so on. The only thing I will say is that it failed. The one thing that it immensely affected was in 1965. In 1965, there were 18 Divisions in what was then West Pakistan, while there was only one Division plus one Brigade in East Pakistan.
All the major squadrons of the Air Force, except for one squadron, were stationed in West Pakistan. In East Pakistan, there was just one small fleet, consisting of mostly patrol boats. I was just telling Salma before we came in that in 1965, when the Tashkent Peace Treaty was signed on January 5th, there were Tashkent riots in Pakistan. But they did not take part in West Pakistan; they took part in East Pakistan. This is history. I am not telling you something that is not history; it is history.
The protests happened in East Pakistan because people felt abandoned. They said, “You have left us defenseless.” There were two deeply flawed ideas within the military establishment. The first was the belief that the defense of the East lies in the West. The second was the notion that Afghanistan provides Pakistan with strategic depth. These were the two biggest misconceptions I have ever come across.
Dr Salma Malik, Moderator
Now, let me come to the next question, and I guess that feeds into this sentiment. There is a particular notion coming from Bangladesh that the defense of Pakistan lies in the defense of Bangladesh and that any attack on Pakistan is an attack on Bangladesh as well. This is one notion. The other factor is what you have just explained, the way West Pakistan’s defense outlook was limited. But then, we also have the fear of the Bengali youth and mindset.
The Bengali people have a fiercely independent, intellectually motivated mindset, which the white man feared in 1857, and translated or kind of passed on that fear to the independent decolonised states. The fact that you just explained in 1965, the grievance of the Bengali, the East Pakistani side, that we had been left defenseless. And now we see 2024 happening where you have this spontaneous indigenous uprising in Bangladesh, and the youth advocated for a change or a reset of Bengali politics. So, how do you think this moment of reckoning, this moment of transformation, can be preserved into something far more beautiful that is unfolding today? Why should we fear this? Why can’t we embrace the fact that these are independent-minded people who stand for the right notion? Why is there so much fear of speaking the truth and standing up for the truth?
Ikram Sehgal, Guest Speaker
The fear lies among those who forget that it was their fear that led to 1971, and their survival exists on that same fear. They will keep talking about various aspects of 1971, but I believe it is time to move on. 1971 was not a good episode; it was a dark period, and a lot of bad things happened. There were periods full of bloodshed, killings, and destruction. However, the Indians did Pakistan a great favor in 2021. Before that, they launched a propaganda campaign against Pakistan, claiming various atrocities committed by Pakistanis in 1971 in Bangladesh. Now, you can imagine that some people were totally kept pent up because Indians were completely dominating Bangladesh. So, the Bengali youth were not prepared to simply accept ewhat the Indians were saying. They viewed it as exaggerated. Things happened, yes, but the one thing that must be understood is: Let live. We need to have faith in the Muslims of that area that they will be part of the vision our forefathers, like Quaid and AK Fazalullah and Suhrawardy, had.
Again and again, we must say: Two countries, one nation. If we truly believe in this, we must take concrete steps. First, take away the visa restrictions. Many countries offer visas on arrival—why not extend the same to Bangladeshis? And in return, Bangladesh should offer the same to Pakistanis. Second, remove tariffs. If goods are transported between Pakistan and Bangladesh, there should be no customs duty. Implement Free Trade agreements (FTA), which can improve prospects for trade, investment, and services. One must remember that before 1971, the entire eastern Indian region depended on Pakistani textiles, which entered East Pakistan without duty. If Pakistani textiles return to that market, they will have a massive customer base—the same market that has now been taken over by the Chinese. We should look forward to building relationships.
Finally, the last thing I would say is the biggest guarantee: In 1971, there were three lightly equipped army divisions fighting in East Pakistan. By December, most reinforcements were flown in with only light weapons. They had no heavy equipment, no Armor, and no artillery. They were defending against a hostile population under extremely difficult conditions. So, why does Bangladesh today need 10 divisions, including the best part of an armoured division? Bangladesh now has 10 divisions. If I were a Pakistani leader, I would say that an attack on Bangladesh is an attack on Pakistan. And I would urge Bangladesh to say the same: An attack on Pakistan is an attack on Bangladesh. If this is done, it will force a strategic repositioning of the Indian armed forces. This shift will relieve pressure on both Pakistan and Bangladesh because the Indians will be compelled to redistribute their forces. Five of those Infantry Divisions in Bangladesh, along with two armoured brigades are within 10 miles of India’s key lines of communication, from Kolkata to Shillong, from Darjeeling to Akhaura, from Agartala to Sylhet, and beyond. They are within 10 miles; you can interdict those communications at the time, the same way our north-south communication lines work.
Dr Salma Malik, Moderator
Sorry, I’m cutting your chain of thought, I would also like to point out here that, in a conversation with a Bengali military leader, one thing he pointed out very fascinatingly was that the loss of East Pakistan and the fact that there was a lowgrade communication and diplomacy between these two countries for a while, Pakistan ended up losing its ‘Look East’ policy. So, Pakistan doesn’t have a Look East vision. That can also be harnessed when we are looking at having a combined zone and the notion that you are pointing out—two countries, one nation. And where you have the military outlook that you’re pointing towards, we can also then revisit and review how a foreign policy virtuous can be as a result of this.
Ikram Sehgal, Guest Speaker
I think we have a first-class foreign policy establishment. I feel that they have not been given the head they should have. They should have been given the power to make independent decisions. I can name ambassador after ambassador after ambassador— superb people who were in foreign policy. I think if they have a clear vision, this is not a question of ‘Look East’ or look that thing. Today, you know, we can decouple ourselves from India. We only needed India so that we could, let’s say, have access to Bangladesh or Southeast Asia. But if they’re not going to give us access, they’re not even going to play cricket matches with us. So, it’s a big country, it’s a huge country, it’s terrific potential. We should wish them the best of luck and say, ‘Okay, fine.’ We can build relations with Central Asia, and the Middle East, Europe and Africa, we can access the world.
So, I think once you have a strategic direction given to the foreign policy establishment, you should leave it to their expertise and potential to do the right thing by Pakistan. And don’t think we’re going to go and teach the military tactics. Similarly, I don’t think you can go and teach the diplomats diplomacy. So, I think experts should be allowed to perform their roles. A general strategic vision must be laid out. And within the strategic vision, it is their job to design and implement policies effectively.
Dr Salma Malik, Moderator
Because we do have this tendency, either we just rush into things too fast, or we become too slow in calculating and figuring out, ‘Is this the right moment for the intervention or not?’ I think one should follow the gut feeling and see the notion that this is the right moment, let’s do it. Investing in human capital is very important. And while at it, I must acknowledge and thank some of our friends who have travelled from different cities and Bangladesh, and who are sitting here in the audience. Thank you so much for joining us for this session today and taking time out. My next question to you is a bit personal.
From Chand (Moon) to the first prisoner of war Lieutenant who escapes from Indian imprisonment and, instead of accolades, gets a lot of sanctioning and a lot of controversy, and ends up embracing controversy to the fact that you have a very precious part of your family buried in Bangladesh. How did this long journey come out? This is not the journey of one Chand here. This is also the journey of two nations getting mature in understanding that these are realities that we must embrace and live with. Have you understood the nuanced notion behind today’s Pakistan and Bangladesh, or are we still stuck? As you said that we need to go past 1971, would we keep on revisiting it?
Ikram Sehgal, Guest Speaker
You see, I was not given a visa to visit Bangladesh for about 10 years. Ultimately, I spoke to some friends of mine, and I said, “I wanted to go visit my only sister’s grave buried in Bangladesh, in Dhaka, in Banani graveyard.” So, I requested a visa, and I got the visa very quickly, within one day. And on the night of December 23rd, I flew into Dhaka. I was purely on a private visit. My mother was Bengali, and my father was from Sialkot. I had also requested to visit my battalion; my father raised the second battalion of the East Bengal Regiment on February 7th, 1949. I was also commissioned into that battalion in October 1965 at the age of 19. And I visited them again officially in 2008 in Dhaka. They were allowed to visit, but obviously, there were security considerations. So even before I reached Dhaka, I was told, “Yes, you will be able to go, but we will get the logistics together”.
I did not know where that unit was, but by some coincidence, that unit was in the same place—in Jessore. I was pleasantly surprised when I landed there. They told me that not only will you go to Jessore, but you will also visit the National Defense College (NDC) in Dhaka as you have lectured there for many years. I visited the people that I lectured as they were instructors at the Command and Staff College in Dhaka. But the high point was meeting the Chief Advisor, Muhammad Yunus, which was a total surprise for me. It was arranged and I met him for an hour and a half, the meeting was supposed to be for 45 minutes.
It was a very emotional happening because when I went to Jessore, I met the Division Commander and the Brigade Commander, who took me around showing my father’s photographs. I had been there at the same location as a three-year-old, and I was at the same location as a 19-year-old. General Yaqub was a linguist; he knew 17 languages. And I do remember him addressing Bengali troops at a station parade in Chittagong. His entire speech went over the heads of all the Bengalis because it was delivered in such high-fluent Bengali that none of them understood what he was speaking.
Let me tell you, the bad relations between Pakistan and Bangladesh lasted only until 1977, when Mujib was assassinated, and then the relations improved significantly. And of course, Mr. Rafiuzzaman is here, Ambassador, and he will tell you that from the time of Zia, first when he proposed SAARC, then General Shah, and later Khaleda Zia, and even during Hasina Wajid’s first tenure, there was a tremendous relationship between the two prime ministers—Wajid and Mian Nawaz Sharif which, by the way, still lasts for whatever it’s worth today. The problem only started when she came into power for the second time in 2009, returning with the help of India. She then became increasingly beholden to India, and these last 15-17 years have been the worst period for that relationship.
I do remember going with Mian Nawaz Sharif for a conference of D-8 to Dhaka, and at that time, there was an India-Pakistan cricket match going on. He was very upset because he was told that he should not go to the stadium due to potential anti-Pakistan demonstrations. Then Mr. Sartaj Aziz asked me, “Is this true?” I said, “No, it’s not true.” So, we went to the old Dhaka stadium, which was right in the center of Dhaka. We walked up, and it was very strange as we went up the stairs, then behind, there was a way, and the first thing we saw was the girls’ enclosure.When he was walking there, the entire girls’ enclosure and we saw most of them had “Chand Tara” (moon and star) painted on their cheeks. He just stopped there, stunned. I still remember. And then when he walked in and it was open, there were no boxes, and he was cheered by the crowd. By some coincidence, Saeed Anwar and Aamir Sohail were going berserk at that time against the Indian team. I do remember that as a very high point.
So, I think it is not a question of whether we had a good relationship. Now, the question of “3 million.” That’s bunkum, frankly speaking. It has been methodically and scientifically studied and analyzed. That was nothing. Among those who died, there were also a lot of Biharis.
Dr Salma Malik, Moderator
There’s a very strong factor that Pakistan and Bangladesh share and that is the shared population, the Biharis, as we commonly call them, who are Pakistani nationals now sitting in Bangladesh. Let’s do the nomenclature for the sake of political currency. Do we think that there could be an amicable, better settlement of the Bihari population back into Pakistan now that some of the political difficulties have been ironed out or would be further ironed out? And can Pakistan absorb them? Do we have the capacity? Can we make a good settlement for these beleaguered people?
Ikram Sehgal, Guest Speaker
First of all, I would not call them Biharis. I would call them stranded Pakistanis. Secondly, if we can have 3 million Afghans staying here, we can certainly, if 300,000 stranded Pakistanis want to come to Pakistan, I think they have every right. This is their country, and they have the right to come. Now, where they settle, and if they want to come, I think if you give them the freedom to come, you will find that many of them, their generations, have now become part of Bangladesh. I don’t think even 20% or 15% of them will opt to come to Pakistan from the original people. But this is not the point of concern. The actual issue is to give them their right to come back to Pakistan as they are not just another ethnic group from Bihar. They are stranded Pakistanis, and they have every right to come. And if you have visa-on-arrival policies and no tariffs, then, as I said, “Two countries, one nation,” let them settle where they want to settle.
Dr Salma Malik, Moderator
Thank you so much, Sehgal Sahib. We could have this dialogue endlessly. But we have a very engaged audience sitting with us, and we already have one hand raised.
Question & Answer Session
Question:
My question to you is in two parts. Have we committed any atrocities in East Pakistan during 1971 for which we should apologize? The second part, linked to this, is that while you may believe we have not done anything, my view is that even for the sake of maintaining the relationship, we should apologize. Why do we hesitate, and why is it such a big issue for nations, especially Pakistan, to apologize?
Ikram Sehgal:
Yes, as a nation, we must acknowledge the atrocities in East Pakistan in 1971. As a helicopter pilot in East Pakistan, I was a witness to the atrocities committed against the Biharis between the 1st and 10th of March 1971. I saw with my eyes entire places like Ferozha Colony and T&T Colony in Chittagong burned to the ground, with bodies lying around. The Biharis suffered immensely. Now, on the other hand, after the 25th of March 1971 the situation reversed, and a lot of killings took place. Atrocities were committed on both sides. Because of the numbers, a lot of atrocities were committed against the railway-inhabited areas, and most of them were Biharis.
There were other places where such atrocities were committed. That being said, I believe it’s time to move on. I completely agree with you. Offering a simple apology may not hold much consequence, but let’s just make the apology and move forward with our lives.
Question:
Sehgal Sahib, I have a question. You stated that Bengalis went on killing sprees in the colonies. Let me say that they did so in self-defence, and the reason was their mandate was stolen. Today, both countries have governments that lack legitimacy. How is it possible that if the next elections are free and fair, and Hasina returns to power, the relations between Pakistan and Bangladesh would still be as strong? My second question is: You talk about two countries, one nation, but that idea has already drowned in the Bay of Bengal. Are we truly ready for this brotherhood? And are we ready for the apology?
Ikram Sehgal: The question you just asked. See, I am neither from the ruling class nor the establishment. So, please feel free to take this matter to the Chief Minister and discuss it with him. If it were in my hands, I would have presented this notion to him long ago.
Question:
My name is Muhammad Jamil. I came to Pakistan in 1970 and grew up here, from a schoolboy to a professional. I have a deep emotional attachment, as my mother is buried in Dhaka. When I went to Germany, there were 17 people from Bangladesh, and I was the only one from Pakistan. I want to emphasize that we got along very well, and there were no differences between us.
Question:
I’m Dr. Yasmin Kazi. First, I’d like to say that the differences began with the language issue, particularly when students were killed and the Shaheed Minar was built. So, we cannot say that we have always been the same people. Regarding the killing of Biharis, I would say it was carried out by a renegade army or other groups. However, if a state takes action against its people officially, with its army, that is an entirely different matter. Even those who seek friendship still need and want an apology, especially those who have personally suffered. Now, about the numbers, there is an acknowledgement that the figures were incorrect. Mujib got confused; he said 3 million, but it was actually 300,000. So, that figure is not accurate. But the real question remains: should an apology be given? Should the army apologize?
Question:
My name is Sabeen Agha, and I’m a journalist and documentary filmmaker. Sehgal Sahib, you gave a very emotionally appealing perspective when you said that Biharis are stranded Pakistanis and that they have every right to come here. I completely agree. My question is: What is happening to the Biharis already living in Pakistan? And what makes you think that if they are brought here, they will be treated any differently? Will they face the same challenges as Afghan refugees? What kind of resources do we have to accommodate them?
Question:
I am Qazi Shahid Pervaiz, a member of the Sindh Public Service Commission, where we recruit government officials of grade 16 and above. I would like to reference that and highlight a concerning observation—when I ask 20 to 25% of the youth population about the significance of December 16th in our history, half of them do not know the answer, while the other half only associate it with the Army Public School incident. We have forgotten December 16, 1971. Was this a deliberate attempt by reformers and thinkers, or is it a phenomenon that we are incapable of resolving?
Ikram Sehgal:
First of all, regarding how Biharis are treated here or there. I believe we are all citizens of our respective countries, and it is our right to assert our rights as we are. We are not saying to bring them here in bulk and settle them here. They should be given a voluntary choice. If they wish to come, they should have the right to do so with the necessary support. Secondly, December 16 is a date we should never forget. More importantly, we must ensure that such an event is never repeated. This is something we must always keep in mind. Additionally, I would like to mention something regarding the concept of two countries, one nation. The Pakistan Military Academy (PMA) today has two female Bengali cadets from Bangladesh and one male cadet. In the last few weeks, these two female Bengali cadets have been undergoing training at the PMA, Kakul. This is the thinking of the establishment, allowing female candidates from Bangladesh to be trained at Pakistan’s military academy. A lot of developments are occurring that we may not fully understand. Many things will continue to happen, and I will not tell now but allow them to unfold naturally. I also see the French Consul General here, and the biggest enemies for the last 100 years are friends now.
So, let’s go on with our lives. If France and Germany, who kept fighting for 150 years of conflict, can become such friends and have a common marketplace for the last 50 years, why can’t we? Some said that they speak different languages, but how many languages exist in India? There are approximately 1,200 languages spoken there, yet it remains one country. Language is indeed a factor, but ultimately, it is an association that holds people together. I firmly believe, and I repeat, that we share a bond strong enough that even Hasina Wajid could not break it.
Dr Salma Malik, Moderator
Thank you very much for a very engaging and heartfelt Q&A. Apologies to all those whose questions could not be answered. But this is the beauty of the Oxford Festival: you have one hour to capture everything in that particular hour. We end this session with two or three provocative and heartfelt questions. The point that Sehgal Sahib made was that December 16, 1971, should never be forgotten. More importantly, it should remain a living memory, not for trauma memorization, but for trauma healing, and that is very important. Also, we should never forget what went wrong, why did December 16, 1971, happen? But the bigger question today is: Have both Pakistan and Bangladesh moved past 1971, or are we still stuck in that moment? One major factor could be the youth of today, which is a far smarter generation. Gen Z, Gen Alpha, and Gen Beta will begin emerging around 2025. Can they do better than us? They have every capacity to do so because they possess a much stronger knowledge base and do not carry the emotional baggage of the past.
They are constructing their history, past, future, and their present. Wherever we fail, wherever we erred, one can only hope and pray that our future generations do better—that they learn from the past and do not repeat its mistakes. The choice is ours: Do we remain victims of history? We moved past 1947, and it remains a vivid memory. But some among us suffered a double partition—1947 and 1971—and that is a tragedy we must all remember very, very strongly. We must learn lessons from it rather than remain hostage to sentiment. And I would, of course, end with my favourite Faiz Ahmed Faiz poem, where he speaks about returning from Dhaka.
ہم کہ ٹھہرے اجنبی اتنی مداراتوں کے بعد
پھر بنیں گے آشنا کتنی مالقاتوں کے بعد
Translation:
After so much cordiality, we are once again strangers
After how many meetings will we again be friends?
So, I hope even one meeting is strong enough to mend fences. Thank you everyone.
