What do you think?
Rate this book
ডেড রেকনিং
বইটি ১৯৭১ সালে সংঘটিত বাংলাদেশের স্বাধীনতা যুদ্ধ সম্পর্কে। লেখক তার নিজস্ব গবেষণালব্ধ তথ্য থেকে বইটি রচনা করেছেন। যুদ্ধকালে মানবিক বিপর্যয়ের দিকটি তিনি উপস্থাপন তুলেছেন।
বইটিতে তিনি দাবি করেছেন যে, পাকিস্তানি বাহিনীর বিরুদ্ধে যে ব্যাপক হত্যাকাণ্ড ও ধর্ষণের অভিযোগ করা হয়ে থাকে তা অনেকাংশে অতিরঞ্জিত। বাংলাদেশ ও ভারতের রাজনৈতিক স্বার্থেই এই অতিরঞ্জন বলে তিনি দাবি করেছেন। পাকিস্তানিদের মধ্যে যারা ১৯৭১-এর পাকিস্তানিদের চালানো গনহত্যার সমালোচনা করে বই লিখেছেন, তাদের বর্ণনাকে বসু 'সীমাবদ্ধ' আখ্যা দিয়েছেন। যেসব ক্ষেত্রে বাংলাদেশীদের বর্ণনার সাথে পাকিস্তানিদের বর্ণনার অমিল রয়েছে, সেসব ক্ষেত্রে বসু পাকিস্তানিদের বর্ণনাকে বাংলাদেশীদের বর্ণনা মিথ্যা প্রমাণ করার জন্য ব্যবহার করেছেন। যেসব বিদেশী সংবাদ প্রতিবেদনে পাকিস্তানি সেনাদের গণহত্যা ও ধর্ষণের ঘটনা লিপিবদ্ধ রয়েছে, তাদের ব্যপারে বসু বলেছেন, "বিদেশী সংবাদ প্রতিবেদন সবসময় সুষমভাবে নির্ভরযোগ্য নয়"।
বইটিতে তিনি দাবি করেছেন যে, পাকিস্তানি বাহিনীর বিরুদ্ধে যে ব্যাপক হত্যাকাণ্ড ও ধর্ষণের অভিযোগ করা হয়ে থাকে তা অনেকাংশে অতিরঞ্জিত। বাংলাদেশ ও ভারতের রাজনৈতিক স্বার্থেই এই অতিরঞ্জন বলে তিনি দাবি করেছেন। পাকিস্তানিদের মধ্যে যারা ১৯৭১-এর পাকিস্তানিদের চালানো গনহত্যার সমালোচনা করে বই লিখেছেন, তাদের বর্ণনাকে বসু 'সীমাবদ্ধ' আখ্যা দিয়েছেন। যেসব ক্ষেত্রে বাংলাদেশীদের বর্ণনার সাথে পাকিস্তানিদের বর্ণনার অমিল রয়েছে, সেসব ক্ষেত্রে বসু পাকিস্তানিদের বর্ণনাকে বাংলাদেশীদের বর্ণনা মিথ্যা প্রমাণ করার জন্য ব্যবহার করেছেন। যেসব বিদেশী সংবাদ প্রতিবেদনে পাকিস্তানি সেনাদের গণহত্যা ও ধর্ষণের ঘটনা লিপিবদ্ধ রয়েছে, তাদের ব্যপারে বসু বলেছেন, "বিদেশী সংবাদ প্রতিবেদন সবসময় সুষমভাবে নির্ভরযোগ্য নয়"।
288 pages, Hardcover
First published January 1, 2011
35 people are currently reading
687 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 65 reviews
April 19, 2019
One of the worst books that could be written and published. Lacks common reasoning, filled with praise for rapists and laden with egregious hatred towards victims of rape and other misfortunes of war. The writer had her head stuck too far up a place where the sun doesn't shine.
February 13, 2014
In an effort to "rectify the bias" the author relies on statements given by the major war criminals of Pakistan army. These war criminals were not named so just by the victor side, but three nations including defeated Pakistan. What funny is, these army officials wrote books blaming each other while claiming themselves saint. A total account of their manuscripts actually presents them all as guilty.
The other source of her "research" is so called anonymous interviews by Bangladeshi nationals whom she refers as "allegedly victim" of 1971 wars. Not to mention, there is no proof of such interviews ever happened, nor she bothered to present a statistical counts of a systematic study. If you go out in open saying my book is a piece of research and yet fail to provide any proof, scientific study other than the glorified testimony of perpetrators of a major genocide, you just make a ludicrous cry for attention in academia through shear dishonesty.
In short, this book is a piece of insensitive and heartless propaganda against the victims of one of the most heinous genocide of last century.
The other source of her "research" is so called anonymous interviews by Bangladeshi nationals whom she refers as "allegedly victim" of 1971 wars. Not to mention, there is no proof of such interviews ever happened, nor she bothered to present a statistical counts of a systematic study. If you go out in open saying my book is a piece of research and yet fail to provide any proof, scientific study other than the glorified testimony of perpetrators of a major genocide, you just make a ludicrous cry for attention in academia through shear dishonesty.
In short, this book is a piece of insensitive and heartless propaganda against the victims of one of the most heinous genocide of last century.
December 28, 2015
Sharmila's book suffers from logical fallacies and misinterpretation of facts and figures. The writer, who wanted her piece to be a counter narrative of the 1971 liberation war of Bangladesh, failed to understand the trauma and tragedy behind the war.
Summary of criticism:
(a) Sharmila's research was mostly limited to interviews and selective lit reviews. The research methodology is not potent enough to deny the genocide caused by Pakistan Armed Force in 1971. She fails to demonstrate any statistical method to support her arguments.
Reference: Journal of Genocide Research
(b) She blames the victims who got raped by Pakistani Army. Her text hinted the rape victims as opportunists which I found utterly disgusting!
In fact, around 200,000 Bangladeshi women were raped during the war.
Reference:The Rape of Bangladesh (1972)by Anthony Mascarenhas, আমি বীরাঙ্গনা বলছি (নীলিমা ইব্রাহিম)
(c) She denies the fact that around 3 million Bangladeshi people were killed during the war. This number has been mentioned/cited in various international research papers after applying numerous quantitative methods and to me it is quite surprising to see her questioning this figure.
Reference: National Geographic (Sept, 1972); Pravda (Jan, 1972)
(d) Where there is very scattered evidence of Bangladeshi people torturing the Bihari's, Sharmila magnified these stories simply based on assumptions -
Her fuzzy logic can be defined as the "Appeal to Possibility". This is how wikipedia explains it -
A fallacious appeal to possibility:
Something can go wrong (premise).
Therefore, something will go wrong (invalid conclusion).
Trying to cover up atrocity of Pakistani Army during 1971 with flawed logic and rhetorical stunts is NOT ignorance, it's a propaganda.
Reference: Common sense
Summary of criticism:
(a) Sharmila's research was mostly limited to interviews and selective lit reviews. The research methodology is not potent enough to deny the genocide caused by Pakistan Armed Force in 1971. She fails to demonstrate any statistical method to support her arguments.
Reference: Journal of Genocide Research
(b) She blames the victims who got raped by Pakistani Army. Her text hinted the rape victims as opportunists which I found utterly disgusting!
In fact, around 200,000 Bangladeshi women were raped during the war.
Reference:The Rape of Bangladesh (1972)by Anthony Mascarenhas, আমি বীরাঙ্গনা বলছি (নীলিমা ইব্রাহিম)
(c) She denies the fact that around 3 million Bangladeshi people were killed during the war. This number has been mentioned/cited in various international research papers after applying numerous quantitative methods and to me it is quite surprising to see her questioning this figure.
Reference: National Geographic (Sept, 1972); Pravda (Jan, 1972)
(d) Where there is very scattered evidence of Bangladeshi people torturing the Bihari's, Sharmila magnified these stories simply based on assumptions -
Her fuzzy logic can be defined as the "Appeal to Possibility". This is how wikipedia explains it -
A fallacious appeal to possibility:
Something can go wrong (premise).
Therefore, something will go wrong (invalid conclusion).
Trying to cover up atrocity of Pakistani Army during 1971 with flawed logic and rhetorical stunts is NOT ignorance, it's a propaganda.
Reference: Common sense
February 18, 2016
It is a book worth reading. Yes, Bangladeshis will hate it, and the reasons for the hate are obvious, since the book challenges the narrative established by the Bangladeshis regarding their secession from Pakistan. No one likes their truths to be debunked, their heroes portrayed as petty terrorists.
Sarmila is a neutral observer, being an Indian and herself a Bengali. However she manages to stick to history. This is not a book which discusses the politics of the secession movement. Its focus is the politics of war, and how war narratives are established, at times by defying the facts on the ground. This is a historically well-established truth: The victor writes history. As such history is nothing but a fable, unless seen from all sides, and accommodates all points of view.
So we see how facts, numbers, words and evidence were twisted in the history of the war to either magnify the killings that happened during the 1971 war by the Pakistan Army, or to hide the killings done by the Pro-Liberation forces. The author admits at the beginning her intention was to focus at the micro level. She thus interviews various participants on all sides, the victims and the perpetrators. In the end she establishes that the figure of 3 million killed by the Pakistan Army and 200,000 women raped is patently fabricated, as are many other incidents and events attributed to them.
Since the foreign media had limited access much of what was published in the foreign press was hearsay and not actual facts on the ground. The narrative thus found it easier to gain currency worldwide. This was a mistake that lost the Pakistan Army its PR war. The book also establishes India's aim in fomenting the separatists, by supplying training and weapons, even conducting attacks within the Bangladesh territory.
Unlike what the reviewers before me claim, the interviewees are not anonymous. Their names and where they were at the time of the events are mentioned in the book. Another reviewer claims that the Hamood-ur Rehman Commission Report declared 3 million dead. That is untrue. The Commission declared a figure of 26,000.
Instead of being furious, perhaps my Bengali friends should read the book with a cool head. We, and that includes myself, as citizens are generally the victims of government lies and propaganda. I, myself have learnt that teh textbook history I was taught about the 1947 Partition differs from the truth. Those who are today painted as villains in Pakistan are not villains at all.
You can decide to disagree with Sarmila's assessment, however the same data has also been presented by other scholars of South Asian history. Hers is another addition to the list and not something new, albeit with a different approach.
Sarmila is a neutral observer, being an Indian and herself a Bengali. However she manages to stick to history. This is not a book which discusses the politics of the secession movement. Its focus is the politics of war, and how war narratives are established, at times by defying the facts on the ground. This is a historically well-established truth: The victor writes history. As such history is nothing but a fable, unless seen from all sides, and accommodates all points of view.
So we see how facts, numbers, words and evidence were twisted in the history of the war to either magnify the killings that happened during the 1971 war by the Pakistan Army, or to hide the killings done by the Pro-Liberation forces. The author admits at the beginning her intention was to focus at the micro level. She thus interviews various participants on all sides, the victims and the perpetrators. In the end she establishes that the figure of 3 million killed by the Pakistan Army and 200,000 women raped is patently fabricated, as are many other incidents and events attributed to them.
Since the foreign media had limited access much of what was published in the foreign press was hearsay and not actual facts on the ground. The narrative thus found it easier to gain currency worldwide. This was a mistake that lost the Pakistan Army its PR war. The book also establishes India's aim in fomenting the separatists, by supplying training and weapons, even conducting attacks within the Bangladesh territory.
Unlike what the reviewers before me claim, the interviewees are not anonymous. Their names and where they were at the time of the events are mentioned in the book. Another reviewer claims that the Hamood-ur Rehman Commission Report declared 3 million dead. That is untrue. The Commission declared a figure of 26,000.
Instead of being furious, perhaps my Bengali friends should read the book with a cool head. We, and that includes myself, as citizens are generally the victims of government lies and propaganda. I, myself have learnt that teh textbook history I was taught about the 1947 Partition differs from the truth. Those who are today painted as villains in Pakistan are not villains at all.
You can decide to disagree with Sarmila's assessment, however the same data has also been presented by other scholars of South Asian history. Hers is another addition to the list and not something new, albeit with a different approach.
July 13, 2016
This is actually one of the best secondary sources which exist on the war. I don't know why the book gets so much hate (actually, I do... Its a revisionist account of a highly emotionally laden conflict). It has certain problems. Yes, it's conclusion that at most 100,000 were killed is constructed largely through hand waving, making bold assumptions, which is a departure from her generally highly empirical method. She also gives too much credence to Pakistani military accounts as opposed to other existing accounts (leading to that low casualty estimate). But to her credit, that is an archive which was previously fairly unexamined in the academic secondary literature. It was her innovation to include those testimonies, so of course she is going to be less critical of them. It's her little project to bring in their oral histories. But that aside, if you have a good general knowledge of the rest of the source material (which presumably you do if you consider yourself educated on this subject enough to trash her book), you should be able to easily filter out any unreasonable generosity which she lends to those reports. The academic reviewers who critiqued her work at least were objective enough to notice that the research which went into the book was worthy of praise, even if the interpretation and conclusions are considered false (Search for "flying blind" by Naeem Mohaiemen, or the review by Priyanka Singh, or pretty much any other academic review if you want actually incisive critiques). I can see how this book could be misleading to someone who had never heard of the conflict at all before, but to someone who is reasonably educated on it, the book only adds information to the generally accessible archive of the event.
But the book is constantly tarred as being apologetic for genocide or defensive of Pakistani war crimes. Why is this? Even accepting that she is uncritical of Pakistani sources, she isn't *that* uncritical or irrational. I wish some of these negative reviewers would provide quotes to back up their accusations. She condemns the atrocities where it is relevant and natural to do so. I don't understand how anyone could read her accounts of Operation Searchlight, or the Chuknagar Massacare without coming away with the conclusion that Bengalis (and especially Bengali Hindus) were the subject of horrible atrocities at the hands of the Pakistanis and their collaborators. Yeah sometimes she concludes that there isn't enough empirical evidence to justify the standard account, but if you have a problem with one of those claims you can easily prove it by pointing to a source of evidence or testimony which she overlooks. Which I haven't seen anyone really do outside of two academic book reviews which I've read, and which are worth reading. And even with all her skepticism and her empirical methodology which introduces haziness or fuzziness into the motivations, numbers, or details of certain events, it is never enough to convince any rational reader that the Pakistanis are somehow innocent lambs in this story.
Some of the reviewers writing here act as if writing a book about the conflict which isn't an emphatically moralistic account of how evil Pakistan is constitutes an endorsement of Pakistan. As if you write about the killings of Biharis, or anything bad which the Awami League has done, or disagree with the highest estimates of numbers of people killed, or if you try to specify which groups were actually targeted in targeted killings, or really if you try to add any nuance or revision to the story whatsoever--- well you must be a Pakistani apologist. Just accept the standard moralizing account, you revisionist genocide denier. Why do you hate Bangladeshis so much?
But the book is constantly tarred as being apologetic for genocide or defensive of Pakistani war crimes. Why is this? Even accepting that she is uncritical of Pakistani sources, she isn't *that* uncritical or irrational. I wish some of these negative reviewers would provide quotes to back up their accusations. She condemns the atrocities where it is relevant and natural to do so. I don't understand how anyone could read her accounts of Operation Searchlight, or the Chuknagar Massacare without coming away with the conclusion that Bengalis (and especially Bengali Hindus) were the subject of horrible atrocities at the hands of the Pakistanis and their collaborators. Yeah sometimes she concludes that there isn't enough empirical evidence to justify the standard account, but if you have a problem with one of those claims you can easily prove it by pointing to a source of evidence or testimony which she overlooks. Which I haven't seen anyone really do outside of two academic book reviews which I've read, and which are worth reading. And even with all her skepticism and her empirical methodology which introduces haziness or fuzziness into the motivations, numbers, or details of certain events, it is never enough to convince any rational reader that the Pakistanis are somehow innocent lambs in this story.
Some of the reviewers writing here act as if writing a book about the conflict which isn't an emphatically moralistic account of how evil Pakistan is constitutes an endorsement of Pakistan. As if you write about the killings of Biharis, or anything bad which the Awami League has done, or disagree with the highest estimates of numbers of people killed, or if you try to specify which groups were actually targeted in targeted killings, or really if you try to add any nuance or revision to the story whatsoever--- well you must be a Pakistani apologist. Just accept the standard moralizing account, you revisionist genocide denier. Why do you hate Bangladeshis so much?
August 6, 2016
The author chose to cite and qoute the memoirs/interviews of Pakistani military officers when writing a book which boasts of determining a true picture of war crimes committed during a war, in which it was the Pakistani military who committed those crimes. The author also chose to heed the victims selectively .
Strange.
Maybe in her perfect world, the sinners always speak the truth, murderers and rapists provide details and exact numbers of murders and rapes they have committed.
In that strange and perfect world of hers, the Pakistani military officers account for a genocide they have committed and they are eager to let the world know the death counts.
Happy counting for those who live in such worlds. May the real world be as kind to you as you have been to the dead, in the make believe world of yours.
Strange.
Maybe in her perfect world, the sinners always speak the truth, murderers and rapists provide details and exact numbers of murders and rapes they have committed.
In that strange and perfect world of hers, the Pakistani military officers account for a genocide they have committed and they are eager to let the world know the death counts.
Happy counting for those who live in such worlds. May the real world be as kind to you as you have been to the dead, in the make believe world of yours.
February 13, 2014
A total waste of time and money. The book uses narratives from convicted war criminals who were responsible for genocides and rapes in Bangladesh during 1971 and not surprisingly everyone of them claimed innocence. If you want to read a book full of lies and propaganda, may be this one is for you otherwise don't bother.
October 13, 2016
গুডরিডসে না দেখেই পড়া শুরু করছিলাম। ১০ পেজ যাইতে না যাইতে দেখি লিখা - " ১৯৭১ এ স্বল্প স্থায়ী ভারত পাকিস্তান যুদ্ধে ভারত অতি সহজেই জয় লাভ করে এতে স্বাধীন বাংলাদেশ নামের রাষ্ট্রে জন্ম হয় "।
এই লাইন আমারে ৩বার পড়া লাগছে আমি চোক্ষে ভুল দেখতেছি না ভুল পড়তেছি বুঝার জন্য।
পবিত্র গরু বলা ছাড়াও মাপ বাপ তুলে গালি দিতে চাইছিলাম।পরে চিন্তা করি দেখলাম নিজের দেশের মানুষরাই যেইভাবে ঘন্টাঘন্টার মুক্তিযুদ্ধের ইতিহাস চেঞ্জ করতে বসে তাতে একজন ভারতীয় অজ্ঞ মূর্খ মহিলারে গাইল দিয়ে কি হবে।
-_- মেজাজ ওই এক লাইনে এতটাই খারাপ হইছে যে আর পড়ার দরকার মনে করছি না। মিথ্যা , ইচ্ছাকৃত ভুল দিয়ে যে বই শুরু তার পুরোটাও কেমন যাবে জানা কথা।
আপডেট - ��রো খানিকটা পড়লাম।
জিনিসটা হইল এই রকম ১০জন দেখছে অমুকে চুরি করছে সেই চোরের বন্ধু গিয়ে চোররে শুধাইলো বাবা তুমি চুরি করছো?
চোর -না না আমি চোর না।
বন্ধু - উহা খালাস এই নিষ্পাপ বান্দা কিচ্চুটি করে নি। চোরের জায়গায় পাকিস্তানী সেনারা আর বন্ধু হইল আমাদের দিদি মনি -_-
এই আজগুবি বইটা নাকি ঐতিহাসিক নন ফিকশন। বেটি তো নন ফিকশন কি জিনিস ঐতিহাসিক কি জিনিস সেইটাই জানে না। -_- তার উপর নাকি আবার রিসার্চ কইরা লিখছে?!! পবিত্র ছাগল।
গুডরিডসে পাইক্কারা এই বইয়ে ৫রেটিং দিতাছে। এই জাতটা আসইলেই ইন্টারেস্টিং। সারাবছর ভারতের পিছনে লেগে থাকে কিন্তু বাংলাদেশের মুক্তিযুদ্ধ আসলে তখন মিথ্যা কথা ভারতীয় কেউ বললেও তারা আবেগে চিৎকুর পাড়ে এইটা এনলাইটেন্ড বই এইরাম ইতিহাস দুনিয়ার কেউ লিখে নি। অসাধারন!!
এই লাইন আমারে ৩বার পড়া লাগছে আমি চোক্ষে ভুল দেখতেছি না ভুল পড়তেছি বুঝার জন্য।
পবিত্র গরু বলা ছাড়াও মাপ বাপ তুলে গালি দিতে চাইছিলাম।পরে চিন্তা করি দেখলাম নিজের দেশের মানুষরাই যেইভাবে ঘন্টাঘন্টার মুক্তিযুদ্ধের ইতিহাস চেঞ্জ করতে বসে তাতে একজন ভারতীয় অজ্ঞ মূর্খ মহিলারে গাইল দিয়ে কি হবে।
-_- মেজাজ ওই এক লাইনে এতটাই খারাপ হইছে যে আর পড়ার দরকার মনে করছি না। মিথ্যা , ইচ্ছাকৃত ভুল দিয়ে যে বই শুরু তার পুরোটাও কেমন যাবে জানা কথা।
আপডেট - ��রো খানিকটা পড়লাম।
জিনিসটা হইল এই রকম ১০জন দেখছে অমুকে চুরি করছে সেই চোরের বন্ধু গিয়ে চোররে শুধাইলো বাবা তুমি চুরি করছো?
চোর -না না আমি চোর না।
বন্ধু - উহা খালাস এই নিষ্পাপ বান্দা কিচ্চুটি করে নি। চোরের জায়গায় পাকিস্তানী সেনারা আর বন্ধু হইল আমাদের দিদি মনি -_-
এই আজগুবি বইটা নাকি ঐতিহাসিক নন ফিকশন। বেটি তো নন ফিকশন কি জিনিস ঐতিহাসিক কি জিনিস সেইটাই জানে না। -_- তার উপর নাকি আবার রিসার্চ কইরা লিখছে?!! পবিত্র ছাগল।
গুডরিডসে পাইক্কারা এই বইয়ে ৫রেটিং দিতাছে। এই জাতটা আসইলেই ইন্টারেস্টিং। সারাবছর ভারতের পিছনে লেগে থাকে কিন্তু বাংলাদেশের মুক্তিযুদ্ধ আসলে তখন মিথ্যা কথা ভারতীয় কেউ বললেও তারা আবেগে চিৎকুর পাড়ে এইটা এনলাইটেন্ড বই এইরাম ইতিহাস দুনিয়ার কেউ লিখে নি। অসাধারন!!
February 13, 2014
This book is a shame. I never thought someone could glorify the rapists in such extent.
February 13, 2014
The book is an orgy of lies, misconception, wrong discourse and stupid idiosyncratic ideas.
September 1, 2017
Simply a piece of stinking shit...(অনুবাদঃ একদলা গন্ধযুক্ত গু ছাড়া কিছুই না।)
কিছু কিছু বই এবং লেখক গালি ছাড়া অন্য কিছু ডিসার্ভ করেনা। কিন্তু আমার আপব্রিংগিং এর জন্যই হোক আর যে জন্যই হোক, অনেক সময় তীব্র গালাগালি করার ইচ্ছা থাকা সত্ত্বেও করতে পারি না, আমার ব্যর্থতা।
কিছু কিছু বই এবং লেখক গালি ছাড়া অন্য কিছু ডিসার্ভ করেনা। কিন্তু আমার আপব্রিংগিং এর জন্যই হোক আর যে জন্যই হোক, অনেক সময় তীব্র গালাগালি করার ইচ্ছা থাকা সত্ত্বেও করতে পারি না, আমার ব্যর্থতা।
February 25, 2016
Facilitates an oft-avoided viewpoint on the issue of 1971 secession war which led to the creation of Bangladesh. Raises some important questions regarding critical evaluation of the facts emanating from the event. A truly enlightening read.
February 14, 2014
Another book that I seriously wish I had the option to rate in the negative. Biased and opinionated. Lacks data, facts, stats. And I hear the author receives academic reference acknowledgment for such work of 'fiction'!! Makes me wonder on the credibility of such academicians!
March 25, 2015
One of the most balanced accounts of 1971 War with logical busting of over blown myths with critical and logical analysis of claims from all sides. Author raised some excellent objections on the claims by Bangladesh Pro Liberation partisan groups by questioning the validation of their claims.
December 8, 2015
A truly riveting read from start to finish, enough to destroy any preconceived mainstream notions general readers may have had on the Bangladesh War of 1971.
Sarmila Bose must be praised for undertaking the first real scholarly research on the atrocities committed during the Independence War of Bangladesh in 1971. In Dead Reckoning she brought firsthand information from the field by investigating each reported or well known atrocity by interviewing and quoting eye-witnesses to massacres. The places she had visited and collected data from are in Jessore, Khulna, Chittagong, Dhaka, Mymensingh, Tangail, Rajshashi, Saidpur, Santahar, Thakurgaon, Chuknagar amongst others. Many a book have been written on the Bangladesh War and Dead Reckoning is not just another book in a long line of this particular sub-genre, but is one of very few thesis which follows meticulous research methodology universally accepted as scholarly credible. The most important and unprecedented aspect in this study is the narrative as presented by the Unionist Pakistani officers, Punjabis and Bengalis included, on the ground giving the orders during the war in 1971.
Sarmila Bose, herself a Bengali, states in the introductory chapter of her initial belief in the victimhood of the Bengalis across the border and the criminality of the Pakistani army. She delved into the 1971 story “not expecting any major changes in the broad story-line of 1971 with which she grew up” but only to “fill in the glaring gaps” in the established and dominant narrative with “accurate information on particular instances and fair representation of all sides, leading to better analysis and a greater understanding of the conflict through detailed human circumstances”.[i] Very few could do what she has done, for not only is she academically qualified with an MPA and PhD in Political Economy and Government from Harvard University and currently a Senior Research Associate at Oxford University[ii], she also speaks fluent Bangla and hence could freely communicate with the eye-witness to the alleged atrocities.
The whole book is the culmination of several years of research, divided into nine roughly chronological chapters starting with the elections of December 1970 and its bloody aftermath in the then East Pakistan, until December 1971 with Indian victory over Pakistan. Details of the socio-political situations culminating to the war, and during the war is described in a concise but lucid manner. Sarmila Bose indites the narrative as presented by both sides of the conflict, the Pakistani officers and the eye-witnesses and/or survivors of well-known massacres and military incidents. After presenting the narrative from both sides of the conflict, Sarmila Bose then present her own scholarly analysis, taking into account any anomalies or similarities between the narratives and describing the possible reasons for conflicting accounts of the same incident.
What is quite revealing in the discourse is that the conflict was not a dichotomy between good and evil, as popular myth would dictate. There is no doubt that atrocities were committed, however, what Sarmila Bose stresses in Dead Reckoning is that atrocities were committed by both sides of the conflict, with thousands of non-military West Pakistani and Bihari men, women and children massacred, raped and butchered by Bengali nationalists.[iii] Additionally, amongst the many apocryphal tales of 1971 critically analyzed in the book, one worthy of note is the alleged case of Rokeya Hall at Dhaka University becoming a den of hedonistic perversions for the Pakistan army. [iv] Another note of interest is Sarmila’s own personal experience with the Bengali survivors she interviewed, who according to her, were “calm and thoughtful” and could “contemplate the killings….and the conflicts of 1971 with none of the mindless hatred or hysteria frequently found amongst those who had seen little and suffered less”.[v] Ironically also, most Bangladeshis will find horrifying the denigrating accounts of the Mukti Bahini as given by their powerful allies, the Indian army officers; from people like Maj. Gen. Sukhwant Singh, Maj. Gen. Lachhman Singh and Lt Gen. J.F.R. Jacob amongst others.[vi]
Sarmila Bose’s Dead Reckoning paves a brand new path to the conflict of 1971 based not on prejudice or emotions, but on concrete research work and scholarly polemic. Dead Reckoning questions the very fundamental (and mostly unsubstantiated) aspects to the conflict that Bangladeshis and Indians have held to be sacrosanct until now. For example, whether the ‘3 million dead’ postulate is scientifically valid? Did the Mukti Bahini command popular support? Was genocide perpetrated? And most importantly, can Bengali nationalists claim the higher moral ground in accusing their then enemy of war crimes?
-----------------------------------
[i] Introduction, Memories in Conflict, p. 11
[ii] http://www.politics.ox.ac.uk/index.ph...
[iii] Chapter 4: Uncivil War: Mobs, Mutinies and Madness, p. 77-87; Chapter 9: Words and Numbers: Memories and Monstrous Fables, The Enemy as Demon, The nationalism of ethnic hatred, p. 166
[iv] Chapter 3: Military Action: ’Operation Searchlight’ in Dhaka, Endnote: 41, p. 210
[v] Chapter 6: Hounding of Hindus, Contemplating Chuknagar, p.122-123
[vi] Chapter 7: Hit and Run: Sabotage and Retribution, Trials and Tribulations of the Fighters for Freedom, p. 146-148
Sarmila Bose must be praised for undertaking the first real scholarly research on the atrocities committed during the Independence War of Bangladesh in 1971. In Dead Reckoning she brought firsthand information from the field by investigating each reported or well known atrocity by interviewing and quoting eye-witnesses to massacres. The places she had visited and collected data from are in Jessore, Khulna, Chittagong, Dhaka, Mymensingh, Tangail, Rajshashi, Saidpur, Santahar, Thakurgaon, Chuknagar amongst others. Many a book have been written on the Bangladesh War and Dead Reckoning is not just another book in a long line of this particular sub-genre, but is one of very few thesis which follows meticulous research methodology universally accepted as scholarly credible. The most important and unprecedented aspect in this study is the narrative as presented by the Unionist Pakistani officers, Punjabis and Bengalis included, on the ground giving the orders during the war in 1971.
Sarmila Bose, herself a Bengali, states in the introductory chapter of her initial belief in the victimhood of the Bengalis across the border and the criminality of the Pakistani army. She delved into the 1971 story “not expecting any major changes in the broad story-line of 1971 with which she grew up” but only to “fill in the glaring gaps” in the established and dominant narrative with “accurate information on particular instances and fair representation of all sides, leading to better analysis and a greater understanding of the conflict through detailed human circumstances”.[i] Very few could do what she has done, for not only is she academically qualified with an MPA and PhD in Political Economy and Government from Harvard University and currently a Senior Research Associate at Oxford University[ii], she also speaks fluent Bangla and hence could freely communicate with the eye-witness to the alleged atrocities.
The whole book is the culmination of several years of research, divided into nine roughly chronological chapters starting with the elections of December 1970 and its bloody aftermath in the then East Pakistan, until December 1971 with Indian victory over Pakistan. Details of the socio-political situations culminating to the war, and during the war is described in a concise but lucid manner. Sarmila Bose indites the narrative as presented by both sides of the conflict, the Pakistani officers and the eye-witnesses and/or survivors of well-known massacres and military incidents. After presenting the narrative from both sides of the conflict, Sarmila Bose then present her own scholarly analysis, taking into account any anomalies or similarities between the narratives and describing the possible reasons for conflicting accounts of the same incident.
What is quite revealing in the discourse is that the conflict was not a dichotomy between good and evil, as popular myth would dictate. There is no doubt that atrocities were committed, however, what Sarmila Bose stresses in Dead Reckoning is that atrocities were committed by both sides of the conflict, with thousands of non-military West Pakistani and Bihari men, women and children massacred, raped and butchered by Bengali nationalists.[iii] Additionally, amongst the many apocryphal tales of 1971 critically analyzed in the book, one worthy of note is the alleged case of Rokeya Hall at Dhaka University becoming a den of hedonistic perversions for the Pakistan army. [iv] Another note of interest is Sarmila’s own personal experience with the Bengali survivors she interviewed, who according to her, were “calm and thoughtful” and could “contemplate the killings….and the conflicts of 1971 with none of the mindless hatred or hysteria frequently found amongst those who had seen little and suffered less”.[v] Ironically also, most Bangladeshis will find horrifying the denigrating accounts of the Mukti Bahini as given by their powerful allies, the Indian army officers; from people like Maj. Gen. Sukhwant Singh, Maj. Gen. Lachhman Singh and Lt Gen. J.F.R. Jacob amongst others.[vi]
Sarmila Bose’s Dead Reckoning paves a brand new path to the conflict of 1971 based not on prejudice or emotions, but on concrete research work and scholarly polemic. Dead Reckoning questions the very fundamental (and mostly unsubstantiated) aspects to the conflict that Bangladeshis and Indians have held to be sacrosanct until now. For example, whether the ‘3 million dead’ postulate is scientifically valid? Did the Mukti Bahini command popular support? Was genocide perpetrated? And most importantly, can Bengali nationalists claim the higher moral ground in accusing their then enemy of war crimes?
-----------------------------------
[i] Introduction, Memories in Conflict, p. 11
[ii] http://www.politics.ox.ac.uk/index.ph...
[iii] Chapter 4: Uncivil War: Mobs, Mutinies and Madness, p. 77-87; Chapter 9: Words and Numbers: Memories and Monstrous Fables, The Enemy as Demon, The nationalism of ethnic hatred, p. 166
[iv] Chapter 3: Military Action: ’Operation Searchlight’ in Dhaka, Endnote: 41, p. 210
[v] Chapter 6: Hounding of Hindus, Contemplating Chuknagar, p.122-123
[vi] Chapter 7: Hit and Run: Sabotage and Retribution, Trials and Tribulations of the Fighters for Freedom, p. 146-148
January 5, 2018
What is the real truth behind the 1971 independence of Bangladesh? What was the real number of deaths 3 million or 50-100 thousand? How was Gandhian in nature the separatist movement led by Mujib? What was the level of Indian insurgency in East Pakistan?
This great book meticulously and painstakingly tears apart all emotionally driven accounts of Bangladesh's so-called independence movement. Not only is the book important for Bangalis but equally important read for Pakistanis and the 'non-aligned' and 'peace-loving' Indians. The Indians have really learned the art of exploiting their Gandhian credentials by first conducting a full-fledged insurgency in a neighboring country, before blatantly invading it. They tried the same tactics in Sri-Lanka. No wonder why the Pakistanis are so afraid of the Indian propaganda machinery. Unfortunately, most of the governmental decisions in Pakistan are taken to counter the Indian propaganda. Case in point is the Pakistani decision in siding with the Americans after 9/11. Most of the leadership in Pakistan was convinced to back the Americans because they were afraid that if not the Indian propaganda machinery would make them party to Al-Qiada in no time at all.
This great book meticulously and painstakingly tears apart all emotionally driven accounts of Bangladesh's so-called independence movement. Not only is the book important for Bangalis but equally important read for Pakistanis and the 'non-aligned' and 'peace-loving' Indians. The Indians have really learned the art of exploiting their Gandhian credentials by first conducting a full-fledged insurgency in a neighboring country, before blatantly invading it. They tried the same tactics in Sri-Lanka. No wonder why the Pakistanis are so afraid of the Indian propaganda machinery. Unfortunately, most of the governmental decisions in Pakistan are taken to counter the Indian propaganda. Case in point is the Pakistani decision in siding with the Americans after 9/11. Most of the leadership in Pakistan was convinced to back the Americans because they were afraid that if not the Indian propaganda machinery would make them party to Al-Qiada in no time at all.
February 13, 2014
it's not a book, it's a dirty and nasty propaganda. it's an intellectual pornography.
December 19, 2022
১. ১৯৭১এ স্বাধীনতাকামী মজলুম বাঙালিদের উল্লেখ আমরা সর্বত্র পাই, স্কুলে পড়ানো বিশ্বপরিচয় বই হতে মেইনস্ট্রিম মিডিয়া, সঙ্গে মুক্তিযুদ্ধের সমস্ত কনটেন্ট পর্যন্ত তাঁদের প্রতি হত্যা, ধ্বংসযজ্ঞ আর নির্যাতনের কথা ছড়িয়ে আছে; কিন্তু ওইসময় যারা আওয়ামীলীগের অপজিশন পার্টি করতেন, বিশেষত চীনপন্থী বাম আর ইসলামপন্থীরা; একাত্তর পূ্র্ব তেইশ বছরে যেসব অগনিত বিহারি আর মাগরেবে পাকিস্তানির আগমন ঘটেছিলো এই অঞ্চলে—বিভিন্নভাবে, অথবা নেহায়ত এখানে অবস্থানরত সিভিলিয়ান অবাঙালিগণ—এই নয়মাসে তাদের অবস্থা কেমন ছিলো? আমাদের সূর্যসন্তানেরা কি তাহাদের প্রতি যুদ্ধাপরাধের বদলা নিতে পাল্টা যুদ্ধাপরাধ ঘটিয়েছিলো? নাকি পৌরানিক কাহিনির নিষ্পাপ দেবতাদের ন্যায় রোল প্লে করেছিলো?
গৃহযুদ্ধের মার্চের প্রথম আর শেষ ডিসেম্বরের কিছু ঘটনা, কিছু মাস কিলিং; যা আমাদের টেক্সটগুলোতে অবধারিতভাবে উহ্য থাকে, সেসব আমাদের জন্য কি খুব বেশি বিব্রতকর?
২. লেখিকার পলিটিক্যাল অবস্থান স্বভাবতই পাকিস্তানপন্থী; শর্মিলা বসু আমেরিকা হতে পাকিস্তানে এফ-১৬ যুদ্ধবিমান বিক্রয়ের সমর্থকদের একজন ছিলেন। এই প্রজেক্টের ক্ষেত্রেও কিছু প্রশংসার পাশাপাশি ভারতী��়, বাংলাদেশি এবং একাত্তরে পূর্ব-পাকিস্তানে অবস্থানরত কতিপয় বিদেশি সাংবাদিকের সমালোচনা কুড়িয়েছেন তিনি।
বইয়ের বিবৃতিগুলোয় পাকিস্তানি মেজরদের বিবরনগুলোকে অধিকতর সত্যি এবং, কিছুক্ষেত্রে বাঙালি সাক্ষ্য/দৃষ্টিভঙ্গির প্রতি অনাস্থা প্রকাশের প্রবনতা ছিলো। বইতে বিশেষত উনি ফোকাস করেছেন কয়েকটি পয়েন্টে:
ক. মুক্তিযুদ্ধের সহিংসতা মূলত দুইপক্ষ থেকেই হয়েছিলো, পাকিস্তানিদের পাশাপাশি মুক্তিযোদ্ধারাও প্রো-পাকিস্তানি এবং নিরস্ত্র সিভিলিয়ানদের রক্তে রঞ্জিত।
খ. পাকিস্তানি আর্মি কর্তৃক ধ্বংসযজ্ঞ ও নিহতদের প্রকৃত সংখ্যা অনেক কম, যার ভারতীয় ও বাংলাদেশি মিডিয়ায় অতিরঞ্জিত প্রচারণা ঘটেছে (দেশদ্বয়ের রাজনৈতিক স্বার্থের জন্য)
গ. লেখিকা পাকিস্তানের তৎকালীন পলিসি মেকারদের একটা জাষ্টিফিকেশন তৈরি করতে চেয়েছেন, বিশেষত প্রেসিডেন্ট ইয়াহিয়া আর জেনারেল নিয়াজীর প্রতি।
ঘ. উগ্র জাতীয়তাবাদী মব, মুজিব-ভুট্টোর অসহিষ্ণুতা, এবং পঁচিশে মার্চ পরবর্তী সামরিক হস্তক্ষেপ : পাকিস্তান ভাঙনের মূল নিয়ামক।
৩. ইতিহাস মূলত অতীতে যা ঘটে সেটার বর্ণনা নয়, কজ সেটা আসলভাবে বর্ণনা করা সম্ভবও না, বরং কোনো ঘটনার একটি সুনির্দিষ্ট দৃষ্টিভঙ্গিকে আপনি যেভাবে, যত প্রভাবশালীভাবে পরবর্তী প্রজন্মের কাছে প্রচার করতে পারছেন, সেটাই হবে মেইনস্ট্রিম ইতিহাস; একাত্তরের স্মৃতি আমাদের কাছে যেরকম আবেগমাখা, অামাদের চারপাশে যারা গনবিরোধী ভূমিকা নিয়েছিলো একসময়, তাঁদের স্টোরিগুলো ভিন্নরকম, হয়তো পুরো বিপরীত তাদের যুক্তির জায়গাগুলোও; সেগুলো কতোটুকুন সত্যি-মিথ্যা তা তো আরও পড়াশোনা আর আপনার ক্রমবর্ধমান রুচি আর চাহিদা মাফিক কৌতূহলের ওপর নির্ভরশীল, তবু চিরায়ত স্টোরির বাইরে শুরু করার জন্যে এটা মন্দের ভালো বই।
-ডিসেম্বর ১৫, ২০২২।
গৃহযুদ্ধের মার্চের প্রথম আর শেষ ডিসেম্বরের কিছু ঘটনা, কিছু মাস কিলিং; যা আমাদের টেক্সটগুলোতে অবধারিতভাবে উহ্য থাকে, সেসব আমাদের জন্য কি খুব বেশি বিব্রতকর?
২. লেখিকার পলিটিক্যাল অবস্থান স্বভাবতই পাকিস্তানপন্থী; শর্মিলা বসু আমেরিকা হতে পাকিস্তানে এফ-১৬ যুদ্ধবিমান বিক্রয়ের সমর্থকদের একজন ছিলেন। এই প্রজেক্টের ক্ষেত্রেও কিছু প্রশংসার পাশাপাশি ভারতী��়, বাংলাদেশি এবং একাত্তরে পূর্ব-পাকিস্তানে অবস্থানরত কতিপয় বিদেশি সাংবাদিকের সমালোচনা কুড়িয়েছেন তিনি।
বইয়ের বিবৃতিগুলোয় পাকিস্তানি মেজরদের বিবরনগুলোকে অধিকতর সত্যি এবং, কিছুক্ষেত্রে বাঙালি সাক্ষ্য/দৃষ্টিভঙ্গির প্রতি অনাস্থা প্রকাশের প্রবনতা ছিলো। বইতে বিশেষত উনি ফোকাস করেছেন কয়েকটি পয়েন্টে:
ক. মুক্তিযুদ্ধের সহিংসতা মূলত দুইপক্ষ থেকেই হয়েছিলো, পাকিস্তানিদের পাশাপাশি মুক্তিযোদ্ধারাও প্রো-পাকিস্তানি এবং নিরস্ত্র সিভিলিয়ানদের রক্তে রঞ্জিত।
খ. পাকিস্তানি আর্মি কর্তৃক ধ্বংসযজ্ঞ ও নিহতদের প্রকৃত সংখ্যা অনেক কম, যার ভারতীয় ও বাংলাদেশি মিডিয়ায় অতিরঞ্জিত প্রচারণা ঘটেছে (দেশদ্বয়ের রাজনৈতিক স্বার্থের জন্য)
গ. লেখিকা পাকিস্তানের তৎকালীন পলিসি মেকারদের একটা জাষ্টিফিকেশন তৈরি করতে চেয়েছেন, বিশেষত প্রেসিডেন্ট ইয়াহিয়া আর জেনারেল নিয়াজীর প্রতি।
ঘ. উগ্র জাতীয়তাবাদী মব, মুজিব-ভুট্টোর অসহিষ্ণুতা, এবং পঁচিশে মার্চ পরবর্তী সামরিক হস্তক্ষেপ : পাকিস্তান ভাঙনের মূল নিয়ামক।
৩. ইতিহাস মূলত অতীতে যা ঘটে সেটার বর্ণনা নয়, কজ সেটা আসলভাবে বর্ণনা করা সম্ভবও না, বরং কোনো ঘটনার একটি সুনির্দিষ্ট দৃষ্টিভঙ্গিকে আপনি যেভাবে, যত প্রভাবশালীভাবে পরবর্তী প্রজন্মের কাছে প্রচার করতে পারছেন, সেটাই হবে মেইনস্ট্রিম ইতিহাস; একাত্তরের স্মৃতি আমাদের কাছে যেরকম আবেগমাখা, অামাদের চারপাশে যারা গনবিরোধী ভূমিকা নিয়েছিলো একসময়, তাঁদের স্টোরিগুলো ভিন্নরকম, হয়তো পুরো বিপরীত তাদের যুক্তির জায়গাগুলোও; সেগুলো কতোটুকুন সত্যি-মিথ্যা তা তো আরও পড়াশোনা আর আপনার ক্রমবর্ধমান রুচি আর চাহিদা মাফিক কৌতূহলের ওপর নির্ভরশীল, তবু চিরায়ত স্টোরির বাইরে শুরু করার জন্যে এটা মন্দের ভালো বই।
-ডিসেম্বর ১৫, ২০২২।
December 26, 2019
Initially I was concerned about the non biases of the writer but as I progressed through the book I found all the sides being equally blamed for their actions. It is highly likely for a country to pin down the struggle for sovereignty of one of its provinces with a use of force if no other mean but to a separatists narrative it will be called as invasion which infact is wrong. I also think that the method of information is not as reliable in this book, as it gives the narrative of all sides yet leaving it on the reader to come up with a decision of his own and surely who has his views shaped already won't be affected by and will rather criticize the writer for her credibility.
Moreover, the Genocide of 3 million people by a mere force of 20000 +/- combatants is also very questionable in the separatists narrative as its numerically and logically impossible for such small force to cause 3 million casualties in a span of only 9 months even if they had nothing else to do.
Moreover, the Genocide of 3 million people by a mere force of 20000 +/- combatants is also very questionable in the separatists narrative as its numerically and logically impossible for such small force to cause 3 million casualties in a span of only 9 months even if they had nothing else to do.
February 14, 2014
To be reasonable, name of this could be 'Killers Memories of the 1971 Bangladesh War'. This book has been written to comfort the heart of Pakistani generals and officers who were deeply engaged in the genocide of 1971.
June 7, 2014
This one was on the cards for quite some time. The topic has a lure to every Pakistani & then the writer being Sarmila Bose. but most importantly my eye brows were raised when this was republished in Pakistan by different organisations so much that I could see it everywhere: this I thought was different. lastly, the book reviews on good reads this book grabbed were mostly out rightly negating this one. Some even had derogation aimed at the author (these one were I understand from Bangladeshi folks). So I had to check this one up.
Surmila Bose wanted to do whats literally been termed impossible in historiography, an unbiased anatomy of 1971 war of liberation in Bangladesh. To do this the path she chose is sensible enough I.e to find the survivor of events from all three main playing sides Bangladeshi, Pakistani & Indian. She also made use of what was available in print media. But the more I read this the more it reminded me of what Khalil Gibran said centuries ago in Muqaddimah
"Untruth naturally afflicts historical information. There are various reasons that make this unavoidable. One of them is partisanship for opinions. If the recipient is impartial in receiving information, he/she devotes to that information the share of critical investigation it deserves, and its truth or untruth thus becomes clear. However, if recipient is infected with partisanship for a particular opinion or sect, it accepts with out a moment's hesitation the information that is agreeable to it. Prejudice & partisanship obscure the critical faculity and preclude critical investigation. The result is that falsehoods are accepted and transmitted".
Now I m not saying the author was biased one way or another. I think it's a remarkable effort of historiography. Where the above quoted saying comes in play is that the people she interviewed are all regrettably part of different biased societies which have been bred on the basis of hatred to each other. What is seemingly a life long conviction of truth across the border is more or less 180° to that on the other side. So whatever she heard was biased.
Even then at each occasion in this work the author tries to critically analyse the different versions infront of her and comes out with a version that makes sense.
The only issue is that one I think the work, although remarkable, is based on accounts of too few people. for example from Pakistan she only interviewed like three dozen people. For such a broad canvas spread over so many decades I think one can't be hasty in concluding upon so few witnessess and accounts.
Moreover, for someone who has scant knowledge of the conflict and its origions this one is not suggested. As it really hits on the gas from the moment go. and for those with rudimentary knowlwdge of Bangladeshi terrain, folks keep an atlas beside, there are NO MAPS.
Overall an outstanding effort to reconcile all opinions and narratives and the pass an analytical judgement. This region, regretfully, is neither in habit nor ready to absorb such historiographical efforts for the moment.
Surmila Bose wanted to do whats literally been termed impossible in historiography, an unbiased anatomy of 1971 war of liberation in Bangladesh. To do this the path she chose is sensible enough I.e to find the survivor of events from all three main playing sides Bangladeshi, Pakistani & Indian. She also made use of what was available in print media. But the more I read this the more it reminded me of what Khalil Gibran said centuries ago in Muqaddimah
"Untruth naturally afflicts historical information. There are various reasons that make this unavoidable. One of them is partisanship for opinions. If the recipient is impartial in receiving information, he/she devotes to that information the share of critical investigation it deserves, and its truth or untruth thus becomes clear. However, if recipient is infected with partisanship for a particular opinion or sect, it accepts with out a moment's hesitation the information that is agreeable to it. Prejudice & partisanship obscure the critical faculity and preclude critical investigation. The result is that falsehoods are accepted and transmitted".
Now I m not saying the author was biased one way or another. I think it's a remarkable effort of historiography. Where the above quoted saying comes in play is that the people she interviewed are all regrettably part of different biased societies which have been bred on the basis of hatred to each other. What is seemingly a life long conviction of truth across the border is more or less 180° to that on the other side. So whatever she heard was biased.
Even then at each occasion in this work the author tries to critically analyse the different versions infront of her and comes out with a version that makes sense.
The only issue is that one I think the work, although remarkable, is based on accounts of too few people. for example from Pakistan she only interviewed like three dozen people. For such a broad canvas spread over so many decades I think one can't be hasty in concluding upon so few witnessess and accounts.
Moreover, for someone who has scant knowledge of the conflict and its origions this one is not suggested. As it really hits on the gas from the moment go. and for those with rudimentary knowlwdge of Bangladeshi terrain, folks keep an atlas beside, there are NO MAPS.
Overall an outstanding effort to reconcile all opinions and narratives and the pass an analytical judgement. This region, regretfully, is neither in habit nor ready to absorb such historiographical efforts for the moment.
June 30, 2017
The book is the first of its kind that bases its arguments from facts as well as on the multiple stories, that are most of the time corroborated, to unearth the real events. This ingenious approach becomes all the more invaluable for an event as dramatic as the 1971 civil war between the two wings of Pakistan. This approach brings to light new facts and hence allows for a reinterpretation of that same event. One really has to indulge in the book to find out the diamonds that this book has to offer.
What makes the book a recommended read is the plain objectivity of the author. Her neutrality in evaluation of events is striking. This becomes more remarkable considering that she doesn't become blinded by the stories which she has been told since her childhood.
Finally, books like these must be read: by Bengalis more so. It would help in eroding painful memories and allow for greater reconciliation between what was previously one, whole country.
What makes the book a recommended read is the plain objectivity of the author. Her neutrality in evaluation of events is striking. This becomes more remarkable considering that she doesn't become blinded by the stories which she has been told since her childhood.
Finally, books like these must be read: by Bengalis more so. It would help in eroding painful memories and allow for greater reconciliation between what was previously one, whole country.
February 13, 2014
This book is simply full of crap!!
The author's been very partial and it seems that she has a special motive of confusing the readers specially those who don't have much knowledge about 71's war.
Trying to establish this war of freedom as a fight mainly between india and Pakistan was an utterly dishonest approach when everyone; including foreign journalists and diplomats who witnessed the war and aftermath has acknowledged the passion n anger n determination of Bangladeshis who laid millions of lives to achieve this much hoped victory.
The author's been very partial and it seems that she has a special motive of confusing the readers specially those who don't have much knowledge about 71's war.
Trying to establish this war of freedom as a fight mainly between india and Pakistan was an utterly dishonest approach when everyone; including foreign journalists and diplomats who witnessed the war and aftermath has acknowledged the passion n anger n determination of Bangladeshis who laid millions of lives to achieve this much hoped victory.
April 19, 2017
What a book! The only compilation which analyzes facts from all the sides of the war. I would definitely recommend it if you want to know the facts from a neutral and unbiased point of view that is the reason why it couldn't get good reviews. There is no doubt in the authenticity of the facts included by Ms. Bose; She took the perspectives and opinions from Generals at that time to the on-ground soldiers. Great job Ms. Bose. Indeed you contributed a lot in history by collecting these facts. Much thanks.
October 1, 2025
বইটা যেহেতু প্রত্যক্ষদর্শীদের বয়ানে রচিত তাই বলা যায় অনেক অজানা বিষয়ই উঠে এসেছে। বাঙ্গু লেখকদের মুক্তিযুদ্ধের চটি গল্পের থেকে এইটার মান হাজার সিড়ি উঁচু মানের।
January 25, 2022
I did not grow up with hate against Bangladeshis. Noone criminalizes or hates Bangladeshis in Pakistan. The 'popular' Pakistani narrative that I have always heard was — India, the apparent enemy, found an opportunity to sow discord between two "brothers", West and East Pakistan. And Bengalis were naïve enough to fall prey to their propaganda and manipulation.
But in reality, Bengalis were not just the worst kind of traitors to Pakistan, their own countrymen, but also the worst enemies to West Pakistan and their own fellow Bengalis.
Shame on them, for going to an enemy state to revolt against their own people. Shame on them for brutally killing West Pakistanis, Biharis and even Bengalis and then trying to play the victims under false and exaggerated stories of "freedom war".
Bangladesh has no loyalty in it's blood. They couldn't remain loyal to Pakistan. Hell, they couldn't remain loyal to the man who got them their "freedom", murdered the founder of their nation in cold blood along with his entire family including children. And they have the audacity to cry foul and point fingers at Pakistan with their lies and deception. Pathetic!
But in reality, Bengalis were not just the worst kind of traitors to Pakistan, their own countrymen, but also the worst enemies to West Pakistan and their own fellow Bengalis.
Shame on them, for going to an enemy state to revolt against their own people. Shame on them for brutally killing West Pakistanis, Biharis and even Bengalis and then trying to play the victims under false and exaggerated stories of "freedom war".
Bangladesh has no loyalty in it's blood. They couldn't remain loyal to Pakistan. Hell, they couldn't remain loyal to the man who got them their "freedom", murdered the founder of their nation in cold blood along with his entire family including children. And they have the audacity to cry foul and point fingers at Pakistan with their lies and deception. Pathetic!
January 18, 2015
The book only covers civil war and not the background or the root causes of the liberation of Bangladesh. It doesn't even highlight the people responsible who led to armed rebellion in East Pakistan. But what the writer did was that she went to the roots of certain incidents by interviewing the eyewitnesses on either side and going through the literature available. What the writer successfully did is that she figured out certain possibilities about the events actually occurred which are over exaggerated. Overall a good book.
February 14, 2014
This book is an example of how to twist the facts. It will tell you how to lie and then cover those lies with inappropriate references to give it a reliable look. It does not reflect truthful and professional research either. It is a total waste of paper, your money and the time you spend reading. Sarmila should be ashamed for trying to fool the readers.
June 30, 2015
A research work that very amicably shuns away the oft-misquoted notions of 'demonic' Pakistan Army, killing of 'millions' of innocents, 'innocent Bangali victims, Mujib's 'Gandhi' like non-corporation movement and 'genocide' of Bangalis, during and before the conduct of operation searchlight in East Pakistan.
June 17, 2019
Must read book if you are interested to see real story of fall of Dhaka. It opens up the mind for further investigation of event and will compel you to read more on account. Some people might thought it as biased account without solid counter proof and many points raised by writer are valid till know.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 65 reviews