From: kas5213@ritvax.isc.rit.edu
Subject: Re; The word "liberation"
Reply-To: kas5213@ritvax.isc.rit.edu
Organization: Rochester Institute of Technology
Date: Sun, 4 Oct 1992 20:55:54 GMT


In article <1992Sep30.172138.2052@ultb.isc.rit.edu>, was@cbnewsm.cb.att.com
(wasif.satter) writes,

>In article <1992Sep30.172138.2052@ultb.isc.rit.edu>, kas5213@ritvax.isc.rit.edu writes:
>> The word "liberation" has been bothering me for the past couple of years. It
>> seems to me this word does not describe the War of '71 properly.
>> We were the majority in 1971, we did not get "liberated", we simply separated
>> ourselves from Pakistan. The Webster Dictionary defines "liberate" as "to set
>> free, as from bondage". I personally take great offense when people tell me
>> that we were "liberated". 
>> 					ADNAN SIDDIKY
>> Disclaimer: The opinions expressed are mine and mine only. 

>I feel that it is quite appropriate to use the word "liberation" in
>connection with our glorious Liberation War. 

>To put things in perspective, these are the sequence of events:

>(1) We the people of East Bengal in spite of constituting the majority 
>of the population of Pakistan were denied our rightful share in managing
>the country called Pakistan from 1947 to 1971,

>(2) In the 1970 elections we won the absolute overwhelming majority of
>seats in the Pakistan national assembly to form a government and run the
>country,

>(3) We were denied the right to exercise the authority vested in us by the
>peoples' mandate in the 1970 elections,

>(4) The West Pakistan forces unleashed a reign of terror on a massive scale
>beginning on March 25, 1971.

>(5) We declared our independence on March 26, 1971.

>Thereafter regardless or whether Pakistan recognized us as a free sovereign
>state or not, all Pakistani military personnel on our soil fell under the
>definition of "occupying forces". All territories of Bangladesh that were 
>under Pakistani control became known as occupied Bangladeshi territory.

>We launched an operation to liberate our Motherland from the occupying
>Pakistani forces. These forces, although about 100,000 in number, with their
>sophisticated weapons were able to continue their occupation of a country
>of 75 million people. The process of elimination or removal of occupying
>forces to free our country was referred to as "liberation". 

>To exercise control over a nation and deny them their freedom and human
>rights does not necessarily require the occupier to be larger in number than
>the occupied. You can see this in the West Bank and Gaza. A minuscle but
>superiorly equipped army can occupy and take away the freedom of a large
>population. Likewise in Bangladesh, even though we were the majority we
>were held hostage by a minority.

[Stuff deleted]

>Shubhechhante,
>Wasif
>(was@lcuxlp.att.com)

	You may be right in stating the facts quoted above but I still think
that the word "liberation" does not fit into what happened in 1971. As the
definition states, "to set free, as from bondage", that was not the case. We
were NOT SET FREE, we had to fight for our separation. 
	I feel that "liberation", just going by the mere definition, does not
glorify the War of '71, it degrades it. In my view, to respect freedom 
fighters, we should have never used that word. 

						ADNAN SIDDIKY.
                                        Rochester Institute of Technology
                                               Tel: 716-427-2347
Newsgroups: soc.culture.bangladesh