Re: [mukto-mona] Nuclear de-proliferation and non-proliferation must be done

Was Britain on our side during the 1971 liberation struggle? I must have missed/overlooked this. I knew that Britain was not like the USA, which sent its Seventh Fleet to the Bay of Bengal in December 1971 to support the Pakistani military. Britain did abstain from voting in the UN Security Council on December 4, 1971, on a US-sponsored resolution for cease-fire between India and Pakistan, which, if passed, could have stopped the liberation of Bangladesh on December 16, 1971. That resolution got the majority vote, but did not pass due a veto from the USSR. Britain certainly did not oppose that resolution to support us.

 

===========================

From: subimal chakrabarty <subimal@yahoo.com>
To: "mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com" <mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, March 4, 2012 10:39 PM
Subject: Re: [mukto-mona] Nuclear de-proliferation and non-proliferation must be done

 

Excellent post. A mild correction may be required: As a matter of fact, Britain was on our side during 1971 liberation struggle.

 

==========================================

 

From: Sukhamaya Bain <subain1@yahoo.com>
To: "mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com" <mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, March 4, 2012 7:55 PM
Subject: Re: [mukto-mona] Nuclear de-proliferation and non-proliferation must be done

 

Even as I accept some of Dr. Roy's arguments, I would say that the possessors of nuclear weapons have to accept at least some of the four points that I made, in order to sell their demands for non-proliferation in terms of principles. As we know, India has been making some similar points to justify not signing the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, even though the world recognizes that India is not a rogue state.

 

Pakistan's possession of nuclear weapons is, of course, too close to our home. I have no doubt that if they had those weapons to threaten India in 1971, there would be no Bangladesh at that time, and possibly not even today.

 

As for religious fanatics running some countries, I think the short-sightedness of the Western powers has nurtured the fanaticism for too long. For example, countries like the United States and Britain supported the military dictatorial Pakistan in 1971 over the brutalized people of East Bengal and over the democratic India, because the Hindu-Muslim divide in the subcontinent was advantageous for them. I think if the big powers of the world cared more about principles than selfishness, they could find smart ways to discourage religious fanaticism. For another example, the way the Western powers have operated in Iraq to remove Saddam Hussein has made that country more Islamic fanatic.

 

I do not think the communists are as bad as the religious fanatics. I know many well-established Chinese professionals in the USA who would not have a chance to be where they are had there not been the support that the communist China had provided for their poor families.

 

===================================

Switch to: Text-Only, Daily Digest • Unsubscribe • Terms of Use

.