The Sovereignty Stakes of Ignoring Bangladesh's 1971 Genocide

A policy push to normalise ties with Pak without acknowledging 1971 genocide risks weakening Bangladesh's sovereignty. The genocide is nation's founding moment and sidelining it dishonours victims, fractures unity and signals moral weakness abroad.

New Delhi: Sovereignty, in its truest and most absolute sense, is not merely the physical control of borders or the printing of currency. It is the ownership of one’s history; the ability to define the national narrative without external coercion or internal capitulation.

For Bangladesh, the genocide of 1971 is not just a chapter in a textbook; it is the very crucible in which the state was forged. It is the foundational event that grants the nation its legitimacy.

Yet, in a move that reeks of dangerous amnesia, the current administration is pursuing a policy of normalisation with Pakistan that deliberately sidelines this history. This is not, as some might argue, a pragmatic move towards the future; it is a strategic error that erodes the sovereign spine of the nation. By ignoring the genocide, the state is not just being polite to a neighbour; it is actively dismantling the moral framework of its own independence.

The most profound consequence of this policy is the dishonour it heaps upon the architects of that independence.

The genocide of 1971

In 1971, the Mukti Bahini, a force of students, farmers and defecting soldiers, fought a desperate war against a professionally equipped army that was intent on their annihilation.

The cost was staggering--three million dead; hundreds of thousands of women subjected to systematic abuse; and a nation left in ruins.

By engaging with Islamabad today, without the precondition of an unconditional apology, the government is effectively telling the survivors and the families of the martyrs that their sacrifice has an expiration date. It suggests that the blood spilled at the Rayerbazar killing fields, or the massacres at Dhaka University, are tradable commodities in the marketplace of modern diplomacy. This is a betrayal that fractures the social contract.

A nation that dishonours its defenders; that treats its founding trauma as an inconvenience to be swept under the rug; cannot expect to maintain the loyalty, or the unity, of its citizens. It creates a hollow state, one that celebrates Independence Day with parades, while simultaneously shaking hands with the force that tried to prevent that day from ever happening.

This prioritisation of political expediency over sovereignty creates a dangerous fragility within the state’s decision-making apparatus. When a government signals that it is willing to compromise on its core historical truths for the sake of short-term diplomatic maneuvering, it sends a message of weakness to the world by implying that the country's sovereignty is flexible and that its principles are up for sale to the highest bidder or the most persistent suitor. This transactional approach to statecraft undermines national unity.

The Bangladeshi people are bound together by the experience of 1971 - it is what holds a fractious society together. By operating counter to this, the government inserts a wedge between the state and the street. It is a weakness that can be leveraged by outside forces, who know that the government does not have the full support of its people on matters of foreign policy.

Expediency may secure a trade agreement or a publicity stunt, but it will never purchase the kind of resilience that comes from a nation standing together in its truth.

Furthermore, this policy threatens to pull Bangladesh into a vortex of regional conflict that inevitably harms its security interests.

Pakistan is not a benign actor in South Asia; it is a state defined by its perpetual state of conflict, both internally and with its neighbors. It is currently grappling with a resurgence of the Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP). It faces a violent and intractable insurgency in Balochistan and it remains on the FATF grey list radar due to concerns over terror financing. By aligning with such a partner, Dhaka risks importing these instabilities.

The history of South Asia shows that proximity to Pakistan often brings with it the contagion of radicalisation and the spillover of proxy wars.

Bangladesh has spent the last decade fighting hard to eliminate militancy from its soil, focusing its security apparatus on protecting its own citizens. Engaging or re-opening the intimate channels with Islamabad is to invite the risk of intelligence penetration and the smuggling of illicit arms, thereby diverting vital security resources away from development.

It is to transform Bangladesh from a neutral player that is focused on development to a player in the chaotic security architecture of the Indus region, an area of instability that provides no strategic depth but only strategic danger.

Ultimately, the goal of any robust foreign policy must be to strengthen the nation, not to dilute its identity.

Bangladesh needs to advocate for a diplomacy that preserves its historical lessons--using them as a compass for robust national decision-making. Sovereignty is sustained by memory. If the state forgets why it exists, if it forgets the price that was paid for its freedom, it loses the clarity needed to navigate a complex world.

The decision-makers in Dhaka must realise that a handshake with Pakistan, absent justice, is not a sign of maturity; it is a sign of amnesia. To secure the future, Bangladesh must honour the past, ensuring that its path forward is guided by the light of 1971, not the shadows of a compromised present.