Imagine screaming your heart out not because you are suffering, but because the person you love is suffering. Perhaps that helplessness is worse than any type of pain, especially when you’re sitting an arm’s length away, watching an unspeakable act of violence being committed against the person you love. Yet, you are frozen – your feet are fused to the ground, and you’re paralyzed by shock. Thus, the crime becomes an act of cruelty committed against you.  

I was inspired to write this article after learning about the Bangladesh Genocide. I had never heard about it before, but one day, while scrolling through YouTube, a video discussing this horrific event popped into my feed. Stories like these often go untold; thus, I wanted to do more research. I was extremely surprised to learn about the alarming role America played in this conflict, and this made me think about elements of the United States’ past – a main topic discussed here.

The complex emotional and physical trauma I attempted to describe was daily life for Bengalis during 1971. Many were brutally murdered during the genocide, which preceded Bangladesh (previously known as East Pakistan) becoming an independent nation. Following Pakistani independence from the British, the central government was headquartered in Urdu speaking West Pakistan – despite the fact the majority of the population resided in East Pakistan, where Bengali was the main language spoken. The physical, linguistic, and cultural differences between Urdu speaking and Bengali speaking Pakistanis resulted in Bengalis being treated as second-class citizens; they were denied funding, representation in government, and the rights their Urdu-speaking counterparts had. 

Tensions reached a boiling point when East Pakistan’s presidential candidate, Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, triumphed over incumbent military dictator Yahya Khan in national elections. Enraged, Khan claimed election fraud, imprisoned Rahman, and ordered Operation Searchlight – a violent military campaign against the Bengalis. During this mission, it is estimated that around 500,000 were killed (Boissonneault 2016). A large portion of the violence occurred in the villages – the most vulnerable, defenseless places – where more than 200,000 females were raped while their husbands and children were forced to watch. Women, who were going about their daily lives, were seen as objects, and had their dignity – their respect – ripped away from them in an instant. Yet, they weren’t even the target of this violence; instead, the targets were their husbands and their societies. West Pakistanis not only physically tortured the Bengalis, but also demoralized them and treated them inhumanely. Families were torn apart and slaughtered, and the years of marginalization left the Bengalis wholly unprepared and helpless. Any American today would consider this conflict and the events that led up to it to be an egregious crime against humanity; they would acknowledge it for what it is — a genocide — and agree that actions need to be taken in order to hold people accountable. After all, what happened in Bangladesh directly opposes our founding principles of democracy, equality, representation and liberty – the same rights that America fought a war to gain, the same rights that the Pakistani government stole, and the same rights that Americnas continue to fight for today.

It is completely logical to wonder what this South Asian conflict had to do with the United States. Even in current catastrophes affecting other nations, the United States is reluctant to get involved. Yet, this genocide stands as a notable exception, and to America, getting involved was worth abandoning the principles of liberty and natural rights. Yahya Khan had diplomatic ties to China, and in the face of expanding Russian influence during the Cold War, the United States wanted to establish a diplomatic connection to China. Hence, then President Nixon invited Yahya Khan to the White House and provided extensive military aid (Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, 2002).

 

 Even before Nixon, the United States had its priorities in resisting communism throughout Pakistan, as described in a 1959 airgram to the Department of State. As a result, during the latter part of the twentieth century following Pakistani independence, the United States funneled approximately $411 million dollars into building the Pakistani military. However, this represents only a small fraction of America’s Cold War foreign policy spending. For instance, at that time, the United States spent about twelve billion dollars on the Marshall Plan and gave $2.5 billion in military and economic aid to the Nationalists in China (Department of State, 2022). These areas were economically viable, and thus received greater attention. Even though Pakistan wasn’t a large spending priority for the United States, America still aimed to prevent the spread of communism through whatever means possible. 

This goal, however, was very narrow-minded, and the consequences of having such a goal was reflected in the scathing Blood Telegram, a document authored by American Consul General to Dhaka, Bangladesh, Archer Blood. It alerted Richard Nixon and his Secretary of State Henry Kissinger that American weaponry was being used to slaughter millions of Bengalis. Blood accused the government of engaging in a “moral bankruptcy” and in “suppressing democracy.” For Blood’s criticism of the government’s actions, Nixon and Kissinger recalled him as ambassador (The Foreign Service Journal, 2015). 

 And, the true hypocrisy of the situation lies here. In an effort to let democracy prevail and prevent the spread of communism, America contributed to the direct oppression of this so-called “democracy” – to the direct oppression of fundamental human rights –  by enabling a dictator and funding the torture, the murder, the extermination of a whole ethnic group of people. In addition, ordinary American citizens and officials like Blood expressed disgust at what the government was doing; yet, the United States didn’t listen. If we claim to be a democratic government, then how can we ignore our own people? During the Cold War Era, the United States worked to promote democracy; however, actions like these refuted that. 

More telling, the United States used race in an effort to justify their actions. India, which already had poor relationships with Pakistan, was developing closer ties to the Soviet Union and provided military aid to Bangladesh. As a result, then President Nixon described the Indian people as “pathetic” and the “most sexless” (Pankaj 2013). These remarks are both ignorant and dangerous. Labeling a group of people not only encourages more hatred, but in this case, it was used to account for Nixon’s public support of Pakistan. The idea of using race to rationalize the mistreatment of a group of people is something that the United States has now greatly criticized. Nevertheless, this is not the first time in history that the United States has used race to degrade others; slavery and the relocation of Native Americans are classic examples. We have never made a legitimate effort to represent all people, all perspectives, and all lives. Then, how is it that our democracy is the “will of the people”? It isn’t. Part of America’s democracy and glory has been founded upon the oppression of others, and so, what gives us the moral right to impose this “democracy” on other countries, as if it were the world’s greatest gift?’

Even today, America handles foreign issues through the lens of self-interest – not through the lens of doing what’s best. Race informs how we engage with conflict, especially as it relates to refugees — many of which were created during the Bangladesh Genocide. Though American support for the war in Ukraine has declined according to a Reuters poll, with 41% of respondents agreeing that the United States should provide more aid to Ukraine, support for the war was significant initially. In a Pew Research study, 42% of Americans said that the United States isn’t doing enough to assist Ukraine, and should provide more military support; an even larger share – 63% – strongly favor stricter sanctions. Meanwhile, in Congress, around half of Democrats and half of Republicans believe that the Russian invasion poses a significant threat to American interests. These sentiments have driven the United States response to the Ukraine invasion, as seen with the military packages that Congress passed in 2022 (Pew Research Center, 2022). So, while all this is virtuous, it should be noted that a similar response is not observed when non-European conflicts come into play. A paper from the Stanford-Zurich Immigration Policy Lab captures this phenomenon by analyzing American sentiments toward refugees from different parts of the world. The findings are troubling. Overall, Americans favor refugees that can contribute to the labor market and integrate into American culture. Essentially, this encompasses highly-skilled, Chrisitian, male refugees who are fluent in English. Discriminating by region, Americans prefer refugees from Europe, rather than from Middle Eastern countries like Syria. Self-identifying Democrats and Republicans who completed this survey both align with this pattern, though on average, Democrats are more inclusive and likely to be driven by empathy (Claire 2017).

Thus, the United States has consistently handled conflicts from a racial lens, perceiving that there is a threat to the American way of life. We as a nation have only cared about issues that benefit us, and that has directly affected our foreign policy. However, at the end of the day, a refugee is a refugee – regardless of their background. Refugees don’t wish to be in the position they are; they are where they are because of circumstance. After all, the pain that a Ukrainian mother experiences after losing her son is the same pain that a Syrian, African, or Bengali mother experiences when her son has passed due to the brutality of war and conflict. We claim to be a country of opportunity, dreams and freedom, yet we value certain lives over others – as if all men weren’t created equal. 

The Bengali Genocide ended with the intervention of India, who not only opened up their borders to Bengali refugees, but also provided military aid to Bangladesh – an act that angered the United States. This culminated in the 1971 Indo-Pakistani war, which resulted in Bangladesh becoming an independent nation with Sheikh Mujibur Rahman serving as the first president. This genocide is not spoken about often; in fact, Smithsonian Magazine dubs it as the “genocide the United States can’t remember” and the “genocide that Bangladesh can’t forget.” Yet, no matter how uncomfortable it is, conversations regarding mistakes in the United States’ handling of foreign policy – as well as the flaws in American democracy which have culminated in these mistakes – need to be held. Anti-immigrant and racial views have been passed down for centuries, and there’s an unreasonable fear that diversity will lead to the extinction of the “majority” group. We’re called the American experiment because for the first time in history, we established a very basic principle: that all men are created equal. Though we’ve made great strides, we haven’t yet lived up to this ideal, and are still a work in progress – striving to improve ourselves and rectify the mistakes of the past. Therefore, the purpose of this speech was not to demonize the United States as a terrible country, but rather to shine a light on its imperfections in a greater effort to form a more perfect union. 

Adida, Claire. “Engendering Empathy, Begetting Backlash: American Attitudes Toward Syrian Refugees.” Social Science Research Network, 30 May 2017, papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2978183.

“The Blood Telegram – President’s Views | the Foreign Service Journal – July/August 2015.” The Foreign Service Journal, afsa.org/blood-telegram. Accessed 23 May 2022.

Boissoneault, Lorraine. “The Genocide the U.S. Can’T Remember, but Bangladesh Can’T Forget.” Smithsonian Magazine, 16 Dec. 2016, www.smithsonianmag.com/history/genocide-us-cant-remember-bangladesh-cant-forget-180961490.

“Foreign Relations of the United States, 1958-1960, South and Southeast Asia, Volume XV – Office of the Historian.” Department of State, history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1958-60v15/d370. Accessed 23 May 2022.

“June 2002: A U.S.-Financed Military Dictatorship.” Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, policyalternatives.ca/publications/monitor/june-2002-us-financed-military-dictatorship. Accessed 13 November 2023.

Lange, Jason, and Patricia Zengerle. “US Public Support Declines for Arming Ukraine, Reuters/Ipsos Poll Shows.” Reuters, 5 Oct. 2023, www.reuters.com/world/us/us-public-support-declines-arming-ukraine-reutersipsos-2023-10-05.

Mishra, Pankaj. “Unholy Alliances.” The New Yorker, 16 Sept. 2013, www.newyorker.com/magazine/2013/09/23/unholy-alliances-3.

Pti, Pti. “Richard Nixon’s Remarks Against Indians Reflect His ‘vulgarity’, ‘racism’, Say Former Diplomats.” The Economic Times, 5 Sept. 2020, economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/politics-and-nation/richard-nixons-remarks-against-indians-reflect-his-vulgarity-racism-say-former-diplomats/articleshow/77950037.cms?from=mdr.

—. “Richard Nixon’s Remarks Against Indians Reflect His ‘vulgarity’, ‘racism’, Say Former Diplomats.” The Economic Times, 5 Sept. 2020, economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/politics-and-nation/richard-nixons-remarks-against-indians-reflect-his-vulgarity-racism-say-former-diplomats/articleshow/77950037.cms?from=mdr.

“Public Expresses Mixed Views of U.S. Response to Russia’s Invasion of Ukraine.” Pew Research Center – U.S. Politics & Policy, 1 Apr. 2022, www.pewresearch.org/politics/2022/03/15/public-expresses-mixed-views-of-u-s-response-to-russias-invasion-of-ukraine.

“Sixty Years of US Aid to Pakistan: Get the Data.” The Guardian, 14 July 2011, www.theguardian.com/global-development/poverty-matters/2011/jul/11/us-aid-to-pakistan.

Telhami, Shibley. “What Do Americans Think of the Russia-Ukraine War and of the US Response?” Brookings, 1 Apr. 2022, www.brookings.edu/blog/order-from-chaos/2022/03/31/what-do-americans-think-of-the-russia-ukraine-war-and-of-the-us-response.

“US Has Paid a Heavy Price for Condoning the Bangladesh Genocide in 1971.” South Asia Monitor, www.southasiamonitor.org/spotlight/us-has-paid-heavy-price-condoning-bangladesh-genocide-1971. Accessed 13 November 2023.