16th December 1971: From East Pakistan to Bangladesh

[Joe Shearer]

In the last 8 Pages everyone’s talks about West Pakistani’s mistakes in the separations of erstwhile Pakistan in to two but no one talked about how East Pakistanis get it wrong from the starts…I like to reminds some of them here just for the sack of records.

1. East Pakistanis never believe in “Two Nation Theory” by their hearts compares to West Pakistanis who believe in it as to life over death.
2. EPs believes in “Bengali Muslim” identification over “Muslim Bengali”, there is too much in the placement of words which proves deadly after 47.
3. Right after the creation of Pakistan prominent Bengali Muslims opted for provincial politics over Pakistani i.e., Shiek Mujib parted with Muslim league and created a new party Awami Muslim League just to capitalize on Bengali identity and that is too within a year or two of Pakistan Independence.
4. EPs force WPs for Bengali language to be equated at par with Urdu, which is clearly the language of Muslims all over India with a language of a province alone.
5. Just after 47 when we are facing great difficulties in running the affairs of Pakistan with so much cash starved and refugees issues the EPs felt its better time to be on the streets for not other than “coinage issue” in 49’ to why not they be in Bengali as well.
6. EPs are the first who creates sectarianism in Pakistan, they just feels happy to press upon the language issue to even Balackmailing tactics, the 52’ riots are the clear example in which EPs politicians uses it as a crying call just to gain sympathy of Bengali alone over West Pakistanis.

One may asks how they are less believer in Two Nation Theory over WPs, So the answer goes like this.

Bengali Muslims don’t know Urdu very Well…Wait! Wait! By not knowing Urdu they just miss the very important part of the other lot of Sub continental Muslim Phsyche feels, The “IQBAL” syndrome, his poetry which basis upon Ummah, Millat and one Nation creates euphoria in the minds of the Muslims all over the subcontinent except Bengal.

The Bengali Renaissance in the late 18th and early 19th century gave them a sense of Bengali Nationalism over Muslim and that Nationalism is very strong, they just want to separate with Bengali Hindus to safeguard their interests just as in 1905, (Bcz Bengali Hindus are dominated in and around Calcutta whereas Bengali Muslims are in rural areas which creates unequal distribution of wealth) but not what eventually West Pakistanis lead them too. The Muslim Leagu inception in 1906 by Bengali leaders is primarily for Bengali Muslim Identity its never created for the Ummah, Millat in the first place. This idea only created by West Pakistanis and North Indian Muslims alone.

Urdu is not the language of any province of United Pakistan, but all other nationalities accept its supremacy as only the one binding force over many except Bengalis, I just don’t know why? Quaid rightly refused Bengalis demands for their language because once there is Bengali than why not Punjabi, Sindhi, Pashto, Baloch etc. The other point in Quaid’s refusal is Pakistan is in early days of their independence this will surely looks a pandora’s box to be open. The bottom line is Bengalis are wrong in demanding it with so early and that’s the other proof of their negligence towards Pakistan problems over their pity issues, which creates hatred in the minds of WPs establishment from the starts.

By pressing more in Bengali Nationalism over Muslim, Hating Urdu, unnecessary blackmailing towards sectarianism, Keeping only interests of Bengal over all Pakistan they created mistrust in the hearts and minds of West Pakistanis from the starts and both these parts were on the collision course right after independence.

I've never read a bigger load of codswallop. It doesn't even deserve a detailed response.

Stop trying to shift the blame with weasel sentences like Bengalis are wrong in demanding it so early. When should they have demanded it later than after 5 years of repeated requests for these issues to be considered? Have you even bothered to read the first few articles posted by the Mods before embarking on your revisionism? What next? Fazlul Haque, Sher-e-Bengal, was a British stooge? a splittist? Mujib was planning a break from the beginning? Maulana Bhashani was anti-Muslim, perhaps, since it seems it is open season on opium and crack?

 

[architect_cobb]

General Jacobs is remembered with respect in the Indian military for his meticulous staff work, and careful and detailed planning. On the other hand, his public reputation is largely due to his selective memory of the 'high spots'; the surrender at Dhaka, for instance, the assignment of troops by collusion between him and 'Norman' Gill, a very straightforward soldier, no smart-arse, supposedly without Sam Manekshaw knowing about it, his implication that Jagjit Arora was rather out of it; his tall tales ranging on to terminological inexactitude about counter-insurgency work in West Bengal after the Bangladesh episode, when he himself was GOC-in-C East, his even taller tales about life in the higher echelons of politics.

All can be forgiven, however, including his Munchausen moments, for the sake of that beautiful planning, with the contingencies built in, which worked like clockwork. It helped to have Niazi on the other side; the only decent general the Pakistanis had in the field proved to be a hard nut to crack. If Jake's planning had not been superior, and provided for at least two ways of achieving everything, the hold-up at Hilli would have cost a lot.

These bits about Niazi being hoodwinked into surrender is frankly, latterday journalistic myth-making; Niazi did the right thing, although he did a lot of wrong things earlier, as there was really no way out, and a prolongation would have led to hugely higher number of deaths, largely among the defenders. it wouldn't have been 93,000 odd PA and assorted personnel coming back; perhaps half of that. The MB was in a killing frenzy and impossible to hold back; read what happened to Tajuddin Hussain Malik to understand why Niazi took the only decision he could. And leave reading about Jake doing an Armenian rug-seller on the hapless Niazi for after dinner bed-time reading.

Probably you are talking about Brig Tajammul Hussain Malik and not Tajuddin Malik. Well He was the only brigadier who was promoted to Maj Gen rank after repatriation. And he definitely didn't get all this respect in platter but he earned it.

As far as Niazi is concerned, nobody is questioning his bravery. However even his supporters agree that he was no military genius in tactics. He displayed the highest order of courage at various occassions in his career but here it was more to do with planning than with mere chivalry.

Fighting a few more weeks was totally possible and the army had the supplies and ration to do so. India was under a lot of international pressure for a cease fire.

Had Dacca been saved for a few more weeks, would have saved us from a lot of disgrace and insult. As far as loss of life is concerned that could have been avoided in the first place by simply handing over Dacca to Manekshaw the first day war was declared.

Battles are won by chivalry while wars are won by visionaries.

 

[Joe Shearer]

Probably you are talking about Brig Tajammul Hussain Malik and not Tajuddin Malik. Well He was the only brigadier who was promoted to Maj Gen rank after repatriation. And he definitely didn't get all this respect in platter but he earned it.

I am sorry, you are perfectly correct, I was in fact referring to Tajammul Hussian Malik, an officer I have always admired as being in the first rank of competence in the entire sub-continent. Of course he earned his promotion, and more.

As far as Niazi is concerned, nobody is questioning his bravery. However even his supporters agree that he was no military genius in tactics. He displayed the highest order of courage at various occassions in his career but here it was more to do with planning than with mere chivalry.

Indeed it was, more to do with planning than with personal courage. I am afraid chivalry died on the 26th of March that year.

Fighting a few more weeks was totally possible and the army had the supplies and ration to do so. India was under a lot of international pressure for a cease fire.

A totally hypothetical notion. The Dhaka garrison were not properly placed for a house-to-house defence, nor were they thoroughly in control of the city itself. As Jacob flew in for his negotiations, killing had started in the outer suburbs.

Had Dacca been saved for a few more weeks, would have saved us from a lot of disgrace and insult.

A hypothetical suggestion, made with no idea of the ground reality at that time.

Had the military action on 26th March not been taken it would have saved you from a lot more disgrace and insult.

Had Mujib not been taken into custody, that too would have saved you from disgrace and insult.

Had Yahya not pretended to be conducting negotiations in good faith, instead of using them to stall for time while he pumped troops in, that would have saved even more disgrace and insult.

And so on.

As far as loss of life is concerned that could have been avoided in the first place by simply handing over Dacca to Manekshaw the first day war was declared.

Good for Jacob's planning.

Look at where the PA was disposed, where they expected the attack would come from.

It was actually lost on the first day that war was declared, again thanks to Jacob's planning; the rest of it was a race for a surrender and then to save further lives.

Battles are won by chivalry while wars are won by visionaries.

Really?

What does that mean, exactly?

 

[architect_cobb]

I am sorry, you are perfectly correct, I was in fact referring to Tajammul Hussian Malik, an officer I have always admired as being in the first rank of competence in the entire sub-continent. Of course he earned his promotion, and more.



Indeed it was, more to do with planning than with personal courage. I am afraid chivalry died on the 26th of March that year.

what happened on 26th of March might be a very controversial matter, but was an internal matter of Pak, just like operation blue star/Golden temple. What I was referring to were the events of 1971 war.

A totally hypothetical notion. The Dhaka garrison were not properly placed for a house-to-house defence, nor were they thoroughly in control of the city itself. As Jacob flew in for his negotiations, killing had started in the outer suburbs.

well yes you are right its hypothetical for sure since it never happened but there are examples from recent history supporting my hypothesis. Grozny Chechniya in 90s and Faluja in recent history.

My biggest argument is the no of Indian troops around Dakka 3000.

A hypothetical suggestion, made with no idea of the ground reality at that time.

Had the military action on 26th March not been taken it would have saved you from a lot more disgrace and insult.

Had Mujib not been taken into custody, that too would have saved you from disgrace and insult.

Had Yahya not pretended to be conducting negotiations in good faith, instead of using them to stall for time while he pumped troops in, that would have saved even more disgrace and insult.

If cabinet mission had not been rejected bu Nehru partition might not have taken place and ..... or ....

But then these were political decisions, I would rather stick to the military aspect of 1971 war only.

The biggest insult for a soldier is not death but surrender n that too in such a disgraceful and public fashion. These ceremonies tell a lot about the negotiation skills and morale of Niazi.

Anyway we agree to disagree but I would rather put more weightage to what Gen Jacobs has to say who was present at the event as one of the main characters of the whole drama then anybody else unless you claim to be Arora or atleast Nagra himself.

And so on.



Good for Jacob's planning.

Look at where the PA was disposed, where they expected the attack would come from.

again bad tactical moves by Niazi and others in High Command.

It was actually lost on the first day that war was declared, again thanks to Jacob's planning; the rest of it was a race for a surrender and then to save further lives.

A soldier's primary concern is never to save lives but his oath to protect the pride of the nation. It was a race to surrender but the terms could have been different.

Really?

What does that mean, exactly?

You answered that yourself when you pointed out that the war was lost the day it began cause of poor planning and anticipation.

 

[Tameem]

I've never read a bigger load of codswallop. It doesn't even deserve a detailed response.

Stop trying to shift the blame with weasel sentences like Bengalis are wrong in demanding it so early. When should they have demanded it later than after 5 years of repeated requests for these issues to be considered? Have you even bothered to read the first few articles posted by the Mods before embarking on your revisionism? What next? Fazlul Haque, Sher-e-Bengal, was a British stooge? a splittist? Mujib was planning a break from the beginning? Maulana Bhashani was anti-Muslim, perhaps, since it seems it is open season on opium and crack?

You Don't have the response My Dear.

Accept It, don't troll with anything you come across with your EGO.

And by the Way Our interaction in this thread is purely with our Bangladeshi brethern and the reason of my post and some of other is not to blame solely but to discusss what went wrong and why and who to blame entirely or partially and which way is the future for our both nations. A Bangladeshi can argue with me or reject my post entirely, i will be happy if they do that in a civil manner but there is no way an Indian Troll to interfre in this debate.

Mods: Sincerely, i want to report his behaviour for no other than to troll in a serious debate which primarily concerns with Pakistanis & Bangladeshis alone, and as usual a pathetic Indian is their to make Fish.

 

[TechLahore]

Pakistanis need to understand Bangladesh now. Bangladeshis are generous and good people. If few Bangladeshis still hate Pakistan then there are some reasons.

1. Misunderstandings.
2. Some extant of discrimination to the East Pakistani Bangali people and Killing during war without proper judgment.
3. Also AL and Indian propagandas are playing effectively for having hatred towards Pakistan now.
4. Neither PK left any good impression of themselves after 71-war nor we are getting any good impression of them still now. Most of Bangladeshis have negative idea about PK for their continuous bomb blasting.
5.And lastly, there were many patriot people in Mukti Bahini and fought against PK to save their mother land, because -in some cases- they were informed by propaganda that PK is killing and looting us.

But it is also true that most of Bangladeshi people have a soft corner for Pakistan. Many Bangladeshis consider PK as brother. And Pakistan should take the bilateral and economical opportunities with BD. We need to know each other again and we need new relation.

Thank you for this post. It's actually one of the few useful, constructive ones in a long line of breathless, tediously crafted crapshoots.

1971 is 40 years in the past. The Bangladesh-Pakistan problem ended in 1971. It is not a festering wound that keeps getting worse every year with more killings and more murders (ala some other regional disputes). It was terrible, unfortunate and excessive, but it is done and finished.

Between 65-70% of Pakistan's population is under the age of 40 and only 4.5% of our population is over the age of 64. This would mean that a mere 4.5 out of 100 Pakistanis alive today were 24 or older in 1971. I would imagine Bangladesh's demographics to be quite similar. 95% or more of our people have never been in conflict with each other. Something to think about...

Mujeeb himself came to Pakistan in 1974 to attend the Islamic Summit. The Bangladeshi leaders that succeeded him were conciliatory and friendly towards Pakistan. Anyone with half a brain understands that Pakistan and Bangladesh may not have had enough in common to stay in a federal union, but certainly have no reason to be anything other than friends now. And NOW is all that matters.

He (Mujib) sought membership of the Organisation of Islamic Conference (OIC) in February 1974, attended the OIC conference at Lahore the same year, established diplomatic ties with Pakistan after granting unconditional pardon of the occupational forces of Pakistan involved in war crimes on innocent people, especially women, and allowed their subsequent safe repatriation, and secured the founder membership of the Islamic Development Bank in 1975.

Towards the end of his rule, Mujib made frequent references to Islam in his speeches and public utterances by using terms and idioms which were peculiar mainly to the Islam-oriented Bangladeshi - like Allah (the Almighty God),Insha Allah (God willing), Bismillah (in the name of God), Tawaba (Penitence) and Imam (religious leader). He even dropped his symbolic valedictory expression Joy Bangla (Glory to Bengal) and ended his speeches with Khuda Hafez (May God protect you), the traditional Indo-Islamic phrase for bidding farewell. In his later day speeches, he also highlighted his efforts to establish cordial relations with the Muslim countries in the Middle East.​

Bangladesh: A Bengali Abbasi Lurking Somewhere?

This issue was settled a long time ago. If it was worth hanging on to this dispute, Mujib - of all people - would not have done all that is referenced above. It is neither in Pakistan's nor Bangladesh's interest to revisit history. The folks who do find it in their interest, however, are lapping it up...

 

[monitor]

1947 and 1971 both were the event that should happened and Bangladesh and Pakistan are the result of that event .

 

[Joe Shearer]

I am sorry, you are perfectly correct, I was in fact referring to Tajammul Hussian Malik, an officer I have always admired as being in the first rank of competence in the entire sub-continent. Of course he earned his promotion, and more.

Indeed it was, more to do with planning than with personal courage. I am afraid chivalry died on the 26th of March that year.

what happened on 26th of March might be a very controversial matter, but was an internal matter of Pak, just like operation blue star/Golden temple. What I was referring to were the events of 1971 war.

Unfortunately, whether it suits you or not, 26th March is the start of the war, with the start of a repression that brought a human wave of refugees into India.

If this had not happened, there is not the slightest chance that hostilities between India and Pakistan would have broken out - at least not in 1971.

If you wish to expand the scope of this discussion, as your very calculating reference to Blue Star/Golden Temple seems to indicate, I am willing to cooperate with you. But then don't arrange for the Moderators to shut us up when the going gets too hot.

If you wish to provoke, feel free; you might achieve your objective.

A totally hypothetical notion. The Dhaka garrison were not properly placed for a house-to-house defence, nor were they thoroughly in control of the city itself. As Jacob flew in for his negotiations, killing had started in the outer suburbs.

well yes you are right its hypothetical for sure since it never happened but there are examples from recent history supporting my hypothesis. Grozny Chechniya in 90s and Faluja in recent history.

My biggest argument is the no of Indian troops around Dakka 3000.

Bad examples.

The Pakistan Army was never trained to fight as a guerrilla force or as a partisan army. It was trained in very specific terms. It is not possible to convert that trained force, overnight, into a street-fighting squad, one which would have had all the disadvantages of not knowing what was the geography of the city.

It is all very well to sit here in the safety of our respective homes and offices and discuss the events of Grozny and of Fallujah, it is quite another to be there oneself and to have to take a decision to fight it out, knowing that this would mean that the non-combatants would take the brunt of the battle.

Further, please review the books and data copiously available, and satisfy yourself about what I have already stated in an earlier comment.

A hypothetical suggestion, made with no idea of the ground reality at that time.

Had the military action on 26th March not been taken it would have saved you from a lot more disgrace and insult.

Had Mujib not been taken into custody, that too would have saved you from disgrace and insult.

Had Yahya not pretended to be conducting negotiations in good faith, instead of using them to stall for time while he pumped troops in, that would have saved even more disgrace and insult.

If cabinet mission had not been rejected bu Nehru partition might not have taken place and ..... or ....

But then these were political decisions, I would rather stick to the military aspect of 1971 war only.

The biggest insult for a soldier is not death but surrender n that too in such a disgraceful and public fashion. These ceremonies tell a lot about the negotiation skills and morale of Niazi.

The grandiose opinion of a chairborne warrior.

Hundreds, thousands of British, French, American, Italian, German, Russian troops surrendered; thousands of Indian troops surrendered too. What insult are you talking about when a commander surrenders to avoid further loss of life?

This statement is, I am sorry to say, that of a civilian willing to fight to the last soldier.

Anyway we agree to disagree but I would rather put more weightage to what Gen Jacobs has to say who was present at the event as one of the main characters of the whole drama then anybody else unless you claim to be Arora or atleast Nagra himself.

I wish to confine myself only to third party printed data. What I know about events then are what I know and nobody needs to bother about how I came to know.

So far, I have cited only public data, and the only claims about the surrender of Dhaka were Jake's own words. Before going further, may I ask you what is your source of information? I might be able to explain why it is unreliable, but for that, I need confirmation.

What happened in Dhaka was between Jake and Niazi.

I suggest that you consider the picture from Niazi's point of view before being so sanctimonious.

And so on.

Good for Jacob's planning.

Look at where the PA was disposed, where they expected the attack would come from.

again bad tactical moves by Niazi and others in High Command.

That was quick!

And what do you think they did, versus what you think they ought to have done?

It was actually lost on the first day that war was declared, again thanks to Jacob's planning; the rest of it was a race for a surrender and then to save further lives.

A soldier's primary concern is never to save lives but his oath to protect the pride of the nation. It was a race to surrender but the terms could have been different.

That statement contradicts itself, in case you have

Soldiers - professional soldiers at least - fight to win wars. They don't fight to give us material to write about.

Really?

What does that mean, exactly?

You answered that yourself when you pointed out that the war was lost the day it began cause of poor planning and anticipation.

Exactly.

There was neither chivalry nor vision involved.

You are apparently unaware of the difference between chivalry and personal valour. These are separate and distinct. So far you have used chivalry interchangeably with courage. I suggest you consult a dictionary before going further.

There is no 'vision' in working out plans, just comparison of as large a number of options, including unexpected and bold options, and the ability to put them together with logistics capabilities with great care and in great detail.

Vision comes in only when different tactics are envisaged, or different methods of warfare are developed, or strikingly different armaments or formations are involved.

For instance, Liddell Hart and de Gaulle, based on Fuller's pioneering work, developed the concept of continuous movement in armoured warfare; Guderian did the detailed planning for the actual penetration of the Maginot Line and the exploitation. Rommel was one of the generals who executed the plan and used it to win major victories.

In this case, there was no vision, only the Guderian equivalent of excellent planning. And there was no chivalry.

I think you are using words without a strong understanding of what they mean, and an even less strong understanding of what they mean in warfare and military analysis.

 

[monitor]

Thank you for this post. It's actually one of the few useful, constructive ones in a long line of breathless, tediously crafted crapshoots.

1971 is 40 years in the past. The Bangladesh-Pakistan problem ended in 1971. It is not a festering wound that keeps getting worse every year with more killings and more murders (ala some other regional disputes). It was terrible, unfortunate and excessive, but it is done and finished.

Between 65-70% of Pakistan's population is under the age of 40 and only 4.5% of our population is over the age of 64. This would mean that a mere 4.5 out of 100 Pakistanis alive today were 24 or older in 1971. I would imagine Bangladesh's demographics to be quite similar. 95% or more of our people have never been in conflict with each other. Something to think about...

Mujeeb himself came to Pakistan in 1974 to attend the Islamic Summit. The Bangladeshi leaders that succeeded him were conciliatory and friendly towards Pakistan. Anyone with half a brain understands that Pakistan and Bangladesh may not have had enough in common to stay in a federal union, but certainly have no reason to be anything other than friends now. And NOW is all that matters.

He (Mujib) sought membership of the Organisation of Islamic Conference (OIC) in February 1974, attended the OIC conference at Lahore the same year, established diplomatic ties with Pakistan after granting unconditional pardon of the occupational forces of Pakistan involved in war crimes on innocent people, especially women, and allowed their subsequent safe repatriation, and secured the founder membership of the Islamic Development Bank in 1975.

Towards the end of his rule, Mujib made frequent references to Islam in his speeches and public utterances by using terms and idioms which were peculiar mainly to the Islam-oriented Bangladeshi - like Allah (the Almighty God),Insha Allah (God willing), Bismillah (in the name of God), Tawaba (Penitence) and Imam (religious leader). He even dropped his symbolic valedictory expression Joy Bangla (Glory to Bengal) and ended his speeches with Khuda Hafez (May God protect you), the traditional Indo-Islamic phrase for bidding farewell. In his later day speeches, he also highlighted his efforts to establish cordial relations with the Muslim countries in the Middle East.​

Bangladesh: A Bengali Abbasi Lurking Somewhere?

This issue was settled a long time ago. If it was worth hanging on to this dispute, Mujib - of all people - would not have done all that is referenced above. It is neither in Pakistan's nor Bangladesh's interest to revisit history. The folks who do find it in their interest, however, are lapping it up...

Thanks for the kind post .now after 40 years later we should look ahead instead of looking back the past .but we should learn what mistake and wrong doing were done by our leader and learn from their mistake .

Long live Pakistan Bangladesh brotherhood

 

[fallstuff]

Thank you for this post. It's actually one of the few useful, constructive ones in a long line of breathless, tediously crafted crapshoots.

1971 is 40 years in the past. The Bangladesh-Pakistan problem ended in 1971. It is not a festering wound that keeps getting worse every year with more killings and more murders (ala some other regional disputes). It was terrible, unfortunate and excessive, but it is done and finished.

Between 65-70% of Pakistan's population is under the age of 40 and only 4.5% of our population is over the age of 64. This would mean that a mere 4.5 out of 100 Pakistanis alive today were 24 or older in 1971. I would imagine Bangladesh's demographics to be quite similar. 95% or more of our people have never been in conflict with each other. Something to think about...

Mujeeb himself came to Pakistan in 1974 to attend the Islamic Summit. The Bangladeshi leaders that succeeded him were conciliatory and friendly towards Pakistan. Anyone with half a brain understands that Pakistan and Bangladesh may not have had enough in common to stay in a federal union, but certainly have no reason to be anything other than friends now. And NOW is all that matters.

He (Mujib) sought membership of the Organisation of Islamic Conference (OIC) in February 1974, attended the OIC conference at Lahore the same year, established diplomatic ties with Pakistan after granting unconditional pardon of the occupational forces of Pakistan involved in war crimes on innocent people, especially women, and allowed their subsequent safe repatriation, and secured the founder membership of the Islamic Development Bank in 1975.

Towards the end of his rule, Mujib made frequent references to Islam in his speeches and public utterances by using terms and idioms which were peculiar mainly to the Islam-oriented Bangladeshi - like Allah (the Almighty God),Insha Allah (God willing), Bismillah (in the name of God), Tawaba (Penitence) and Imam (religious leader). He even dropped his symbolic valedictory expression Joy Bangla (Glory to Bengal) and ended his speeches with Khuda Hafez (May God protect you), the traditional Indo-Islamic phrase for bidding farewell. In his later day speeches, he also highlighted his efforts to establish cordial relations with the Muslim countries in the Middle East.​

Bangladesh: A Bengali Abbasi Lurking Somewhere?

This issue was settled a long time ago. If it was worth hanging on to this dispute, Mujib - of all people - would not have done all that is referenced above. It is neither in Pakistan's nor Bangladesh's interest to revisit history. The folks who do find it in their interest, however, are lapping it up...

I don't know any Bangladeshi that is demanding a formal apology. AL is whipping up old wounds trying to cash on it. An apology only has rhetorical and political value to AL. People in general mended their wounds and moved on.

I generally find the tone of the Pakistani members very conciliatory about the past. I wish Bangladesh and Pakistan more continued friendly relationship.

 

[Tameem]

1971 is 40 years in the past. The Bangladesh-Pakistan problem ended in 1971. It is not a festering wound that keeps getting worse every year with more killings and more murders (ala some other regional disputes). It was terrible, unfortunate and excessive, but it is done and finished.

U R right as far as Pakistanis are concerned, but never in the minds of ordinary Bangladeshis, i came across in various forms including their own. The matter is not that easy to forget and yes its a constant wound on their body and soul.

Mujeeb himself came to Pakistan in 1974 to attend the Islamic Summit. The Bangladeshi leaders that succeeded him were conciliatory and friendly towards Pakistan. Anyone with half a brain understands that Pakistan and Bangladesh may not have had enough in common to stay in a federal union, but certainly have no reason to be anything other than friends now. And NOW is all that matters.

He (Mujib) sought membership of the Organisation of Islamic Conference (OIC) in February 1974, attended the OIC conference at Lahore the same year, established diplomatic ties with Pakistan after granting unconditional pardon of the occupational forces of Pakistan involved in war crimes on innocent people, especially women, and allowed their subsequent safe repatriation, and secured the founder membership of the Islamic Development Bank in 1975.

Towards the end of his rule, Mujib made frequent references to Islam in his speeches and public utterances by using terms and idioms which were peculiar mainly to the Islam-oriented Bangladeshi - like Allah (the Almighty God),Insha Allah (God willing), Bismillah (in the name of God), Tawaba (Penitence) and Imam (religious leader). He even dropped his symbolic valedictory expression Joy Bangla (Glory to Bengal) and ended his speeches with Khuda Hafez (May God protect you), the traditional Indo-Islamic phrase for bidding farewell. In his later day speeches, he also highlighted his efforts to establish cordial relations with the Muslim countries in the Middle East.​

Bangladesh: A Bengali Abbasi Lurking Somewhere?

This issue was settled a long time ago. If it was worth hanging on to this dispute, Mujib - of all people - would not have done all that is referenced above.

If Mujib die a natural death the picture is more clear in Pak-Bangla relations, but unfortunately for Pak-Bangla relations he was murdered in cold blood and the matter becomes more complicated since than as AL squarely blames Pakistan and its agents for all this and continue to hijack all venues of cooperation between both of these countries successfully in the minds of ordinary Bangladeshis.

It is neither in Pakistan's nor Bangladesh's interest to revisit history. The folks who do find it in their interest, however, are lapping it up...

Sir with due apologies what i learned from my Bangladeshi folks is that if Pakistanis want this issue to be settled forever and a normal relations they should;

Make an Unconditional Apology from their Parliament for the crimes of 71'
Handover All culprits and criminals GOB sought for
Settle the united Pakistan Assets issue with thier due share
Give back world assistance in $$$$ what received in response of cyclon Bhola in 70'.


The GOP still denying all these demands for last 40 years now, so my friend the matter is not that simple how you describes it so easily. You needs a thorough study on Pak-Bangla relations from scratch.

 

[TechLahore]

^^ I appreciate your views, but there are several Bangladeshi members who posted right above who don't quite seem to agree with your assessment. Nonetheless, I am both happy and proud that you, as a Pakistani, value the relationship with Bangladesh enough to say all that you have said. Kudos!

In the words of my Bangladeshi friend:

"Long live Pakistan Bangladesh brotherhood"​

 

[architect_cobb]

Unfortunately, whether it suits you or not, 26th March is the start of the war, with the start of a repression that brought a human wave of refugees into India.

Once you are looking for an excuse you can always find one too many and India under Indira was looking for one, whether there were refugees or not.


If this had not happened, there is not the slightest chance that hostilities between India and Pakistan would have broken out - at least not in 1971.

there is a word in Urdu Shatir Dushman. The main reason behind hostilities was Pakistan's weakness in the eastern flank, both militarily and politically. Nothing more nothing less. Indians even wanted to pursue their agenda on the western front had it not been for the international pressure, where there were no refugees whatsoever, so lets not go there.

If you wish to expand the scope of this discussion, as your very calculating reference to Blue Star/Golden Temple seems to indicate, I am willing to cooperate with you. But then don't arrange for the Moderators to shut us up when the going gets too hot.

Well my friend you do have some nerve. You can come to a Pakitani forum discuss with a Pakistani the excesses committed by Pakistani forces, but when given a hint of your own excesses you threaten of the discussion getting hot??? Well if you feel like taking this discussion outside the realms of a civilized discussion be my guest, though I would personally prefer otherwise.


If you wish to provoke, feel free; you might achieve your objective.

If talking about golden temple or some other historical events equates to provocation, be my guest. My experience is keyboard warriors always get provoked quite easily as opposed to real life, but then thats the definition of a keyboard warrior aint it?

Bad examples.

The Pakistan Army was never trained to fight as a guerrilla force or as a partisan army. It was trained in very specific terms. It is not possible to convert that trained force, overnight, into a street-fighting squad, one which would have had all the disadvantages of not knowing what was the geography of the city.

Sure Pak army was not a guerilla force, but neither can 3000 Indians be equated to the military might of USSR or USA. If a comparison is to be made then it would be valid if both the parties of the relevant historical events are equated and not only one.

It is all very well to sit here in the safety of our respective homes and offices and discuss the events of Grozny and of Fallujah, it is quite another to be there oneself and to have to take a decision to fight it out, knowing that this would mean that the non-combatants would take the brunt of the battle.

I am not here to discuss my military experience or prowess, nor boast about any. I am only expressing my perspective for the sake of a discussion. And the term discussion in itself is explanatory enough as to if the perspective is final or not.

Further, please review the books and data copiously available, and satisfy yourself about what I have already stated in an earlier comment.



The grandiose opinion of a chairborne warrior.

Hundreds, thousands of British, French, American, Italian, German, Russian troops surrendered; thousands of Indian troops surrendered too. What insult are you talking about when a commander surrenders to avoid further loss of life?




This statement is, I am sorry to say, that of a civilian willing to fight to the last soldier.

and what makes you think I am a civilian or otherwise. Lets not discuss eachother and avoid making assumptions, I don't think that has anything to do with the matter at hand.


I wish to confine myself only to third party printed data. What I know about events then are what I know and nobody needs to bother about how I came to know.

So far, I have cited only public data, and the only claims about the surrender of Dhaka were Jake's own words. Before going further, may I ask you what is your source of information? I might be able to explain why it is unreliable, but for that, I need confirmation.

source of information? Does Gen Jacob's interview on the matter not suffice? But if you are asking for transcripts of the interview or some links to it refer to my post #117.

What happened in Dhaka was between Jake and Niazi.

I suggest that you consider the picture from Niazi's point of view before being so sanctimonious.

what was niazi's perspective on surrender as per hamood ur rehman commission report? That would answer your question.

He didn't cite the excuses you have mentioned but stated that he was blackmailed into it by Jacob and even pushed by Farman.



That was quick!

And what do you think they did, versus what you think they ought to have done?

there are plenty of assessments in various military journals. I am sure considering your interest in the subject you might have come across a few yourself. Specifically why Manekshaw wanted to capture cities other than Dacca and why Aurora and Jacob ignored the order and went straight for Dacca. Anyways hindsight is always 20/20

That statement contradicts itself, in case you have

Soldiers - professional soldiers at least - fight to win wars. They don't fight to give us material to write about.



Exactly.

There was neither chivalry nor vision involved.

You are apparently unaware of the difference between chivalry and personal valour. These are separate and distinct. So far you have used chivalry interchangeably with courage. I suggest you consult a dictionary before going further.

Well here is one. as per oxford english dictionary chivalry would be:-

the combination of qualities expected of an ideal knight, especially courage, honor , courtesy, justice, and a readiness to help the weak.


Did they miss mentioning tactical genius? Or being a visionary?

There is no 'vision' in working out plans, just comparison of as large a number of options, including unexpected and bold options, and the ability to put them together with logistics capabilities with great care and in great detail.

Vision comes in only when different tactics are envisaged, or different methods of warfare are developed, or strikingly different armaments or formations are involved.

For instance, Liddell Hart and de Gaulle, based on Fuller's pioneering work, developed the concept of continuous movement in armoured warfare; Guderian did the detailed planning for the actual penetration of the Maginot Line and the exploitation. Rommel was one of the generals who executed the plan and used it to win major victories.

In this case, there was no vision, only the Guderian equivalent of excellent planning. And there was no chivalry.

I think you are using words without a strong understanding of what they mean, and an even less strong understanding of what they mean in warfare and military analysis.

Again same guessing game of my military prowess, thats besides the topic. I guess the problem starts when certain individuals start making assumptions and comments about the person they are conversing with and end up putting the original topic to back burner. Lets avoid that, who wants to PROVOKE or invite the MODS.

 

[architect_cobb]

there are plenty of bengladeshi cadets in the military academies in Pakitan all three of them. I personally know quite a few of them and I feel that most of them are past 1971 euphoria. I also came across certain Bangladeshis during my visits abroad and always found them very friendly and accomodating towards us Pakistanis. At the end of the day I am happy that our Bengali brethren have their own independent country and now we have two Pakistan's in the sub continent instead of one.

PS:- If a public apology was such a big issue on the state level as some are portraying here, we wouldn't have the CONSIDERABLE no of BD cadets in our military academies sent to Pakistan by non other than BD govt itself.

 

[Tameem]

^^ I appreciate your views, but there are several Bangladeshi members who posted right above who don't quite seem to agree with your assessment.

Sir, our constituency should be the minds of ordinary Bangladeshis which are emotional and patriotic just like their counterparts in Pakistan.

Nonetheless, I am both happy and proud that you, as a Pakistani, value the relationship with Bangladesh enough to say all that you have said. Kudos!

Why not...Today's Bangladesh Independece is very much owe to the Pakistan movement itself, The equation is so simple.

"If their is no Pakistan in the first place, their is no Bangladesh of today either"

And Yes

"Long live Pakistan Bangladesh brotherhood"​