What is taking place is not so much a military operation as a large-scale massacre. But more than mere moral indignation is needed when faced with such situations. We have to learn what lies behind such events.

The revolt of East Bengal is not an accident. For years Pakistan has been ruled by authoritarian governments based upon the army and representing the interests of big capitalists, landlords and bureaucrats from the Punjab. These groups have been backed in their position of dominance by continual military ‘aid’ - both from the western powers and from China. An army has been built up that has dominated the whole country, robbing the people of Bengal, in particular, of the wealth they produce. In the elections in December all sections of the Bengali population showed that they wanted to end such exploitation. But they did so by voting for the middle class party, the Awami League, whose leaders wanted to end domination by the Punjab but were not keen on organizing really massive resistance that might easily have escaped from their control.

They organized passive demonstrations but did nothing to prepare for armed resistance. Meanwhile, Yahya Khan was more serious. While talking to the League, he prepared his troops. Few examples could make more clear the need in the so-called backward countries as well as in the advanced countries for genuine working-class based revolutionary parties if the struggle against exploitation is to be effectively carried through.

There is a second important lesson to be drawn from what is taking place in Pakistan. For years many socialists have accepted that the rulers of China have stood for world revolution. Yet while the people of Bengal fight for their lives against oppression, the Chinese Communist leaders have sent messages of support to Yahya Khan.

Insurgents are being shot down by troops who flew into Bengal via Chinese airfields, often armed with Chinese weapons. The fact is the commitment of Mao to world revolution has never been more than verbal. His army freed China from domination by Chiang Kai-Shek and other puppets of the US. But this did not mean that the workers ruled China. Industrial workers played no role at all in the Chinese revolution. A new bureaucracy came to power, based upon old middle class elements that wanted to build up industry under their own control.

Mao’s foreign policy has reflected this concern. Vague generalities about revolution in far off countries have been the order of the day. But so also have dirty compromises and agreements with reactionary regimes nearer at hand - with Sukarno in Indonesia and with the military clique in Pakistan.

Socialists everywhere have to learn that its is only by basing themselves on the needs of workers struggle against exploitation on an international scale that real progress can be made. Identification with particular bureaucratic regimes, however fine their words, only impedes the development of such a movement and leads to disaster.