195 Pak army men to be tried by Dhaka for war crimes

[Ayush]

Peaks in the Northern Areas overlooking supply routes and military bases on the Indian side.

oh,the villages and beaks in baltistan right?

 

[Icarus]

oh,the villages and beaks in baltistan right?

Some of them were villages, others military posts and some barren peaks. But I think you're in the right area.

 

[Slav Defence]

BTW just for clarity sakes, the 90,000 number is also a fluke. The 90,000 includes soldiers, civil servants and civilian militiamen along with their families. The number of armed personnel members was closer to 67,000 and that includes Navy and Air force men who were not a part of the ground offensive or the force that put down the insurgency. The number of Army men was close to 58,000. So the "3 Million Dead" and "2 Million Raped" figure can be attributed to just 58,000 men.

My dear Icarus,
How dare you to question our super capablities and skills.Ofcourse our 58,000 personnels can rape 2-3 million women!
We are so capable and super that our airforce professionals can rape without landing on the ground,where as those families of civil services consisting of women were so powerful that they harrassed and raped their innocent Bangladeshi men,plus those personnels serving in navy also raped women on seas without landing on ground
What a crap!

 

[IamBengali]

My dear Icarus,
How dare you to question our super capablities and skills.Ofcourse our 58,000 personnels can rape 2-3 million women!
We are so capable and super that our airforce professionals can rape without landing on the ground,where as those families of civil services consisting of women were so powerful that they harrassed and raped their innocent Bangladeshi men,plus those personnels serving in navy also raped women on seas without landing on ground
What a crap!

They can easily rape 2 lakh women ! Where have you got 3 million number?

 

[Vinod2070]

They can easily rape 2 lakh women ! Where have you got 3 million number?

It is actually quite disgusting the way most Pakistani members have behaved on this thread.

It has mostly been pathetic bravado and attempt at sarcasm on display. None of them has thought it fit to do some self reflection.

No lessons learnt from history=> History going to repeat itself. Soon.

 

[Jf Thunder]

It is actually quite disgusting the way most Pakistani members have behaved on this thread.

It has mostly been pathetic bravado and attempt at sarcasm on display. None of them has thought it fit to do some self reflection.

No lessons learnt from history=> History going to repeat itself. Soon.

History never repeats, it rhymes itself, so maybe this time India will break up, no?

 

[Areesh]

It is actually quite disgusting the way most Pakistani members have behaved on this thread.

It has mostly been pathetic bravado and attempt at sarcasm on display. None of them has thought it fit to do some self reflection.

No lessons learnt from history=> History going to repeat itself. Soon.

Grow up kid...

 

[ares]

Indhira Gandhi wouldn't have been merciful to her own kin (as later proven), the only reason she let those 90,000 people go was:

1) The cost of housing and feeding them, you might not know but India was also entitled to pay a stipend to each soldier as POW Allowance.

2) Mounting international pressure, KSA, USA, UK, among other were all pressing for the POWs to be released.


3) Most significantly, Indhira Gandhi managed to secure the pledge that Kashmir, Sir Creek among all outstanding territorial issues will be resolved without third party intervention.

,4) India retained 1000 sq KM of Pakistani territory whereas Pakistan was to return all territory it had captured.




Merciful? Don't make me laugh.

Yet Indians did mange to house, feed and pay stipend for their work(they were put to work building highways in India) for nearly three years.
In Nuremberg Nazis were captured, tried and executed/sentenced with in one year. what makes you think Indian could not have punished Pakistani war criminal in three years.It was just a question of will.

You are confusing Shimla agreement (1972) with Delhi Agreement (1974)..It was in Shimla agreement that all these pledges were made, where as there were no agreements on Prisoner transfer until 1974 Delhi Agreement.

Zulfikar Ali Bhutto came to Shimla as the head of a defeated nation with nothing to bargain. 93,000 Pakistani prisoners were in India and the tehsil of Shakargarh as well as large tracts of desert were under Indian occupation.

Bhutto pleaded Indira to go easy on him, and surprisingly that is what she did.

All that Pakistan conceded at Shimla was that it would not use force to solve the Kashmir problem and it would deal with the issue bilaterally. It is indeed astonishing that a militarily weak and defeated nation promising 'non use of force' against another country 7 times its size, being seen as a concession.

If you've read this thread from the start and seen all of my posts, you'll know that there is nothing that can be brought into court and proven, numbers, records and testimonies about the East Pakistan Insurgency all declare the entire "Victim" narrative to be a farce and trumped up rhetoric to secure international aid and support through pity which then became national legacy.

You are entitled to your opinion, but hard fact is, that Pakistani state did do something horrible in East Pakistan and they never answered for it and we know this fact because, ten million people do not leave their homes and run into an enemy state for nothing.

 

[Jf Thunder]

Yet Indians did mange to house, feed and pay stipend for their work(they were put to work building highways in India) for nearly three years.
In Nuremberg Nazis were captured, tried and executed/sentenced with in one year. what makes you think Indian could not have punished Pakistani war criminal in three years.It was just a question of will.

You are confusing Shimla agreement (1972) with Delhi Agreement (1974)..It was in Shimla agreement that all these pledges were made, where as there were no agreements on Prisoner transfer until 1974 Delhi Agreement.

Zulfikar Ali Bhutto came to Shimla as the head of a defeated nation with nothing to bargain. 93,000 Pakistani prisoners were in India and the tehsil of Shakargarh as well as large tracts of desert were under Indian occupation.

Bhutto pleaded Indira to go easy on him, and surprisingly that is what she did.

All that Pakistan conceded at Shimla was that it would not use force to solve the Kashmir problem and it would deal with the issue bilaterally. It is indeed astonishing that a militarily weak and defeated nation promising 'non use of force' against another country 7 times its size, being seen as a concession.


You are entitled to your point of view, but hard fact is, that Pakistani state did do something horrible in East Pakistan and they never answer for it and we know this fact because, ten million people do not leave their homes and run into enemy state for nothing.

pls keep dreaming, and btw can we have our 1000 kmm land back now?

 

[Icarus]

Yet Indians did mange to house, feed and pay stipend for their work(they were put to work building highways in India) for nearly three years.
In Nuremberg Nazis were captured, tried and executed/sentenced with in one year. what makes you think Indian could not have punished Pakistani war criminal in three years.It was just a question of will.

It was never a question of will and comparing Nuremberg with 71 is an abuse of history. On what charges were they to be tried? Pakistan never invaded another country, they were engaged in an anti-insurgency operation on their own land it was India that invaded. So if they were to be tried, please mention the charges as well.

You are confusing Shimla agreement (1972) with Delhi Agreement (1974)..It was in Shimla agreement that all these pledges were made, where as there were no agreements on Prisoner transfer until 1974 Delhi Agreement.

Delhi Agreement was for the forceful expulsion of Biharis and Non-Bengalis from refugee camps in India and Bangladesh. You might want to look it up again. The repatriation of POWs had been finalized after Simla when in 1972, Indian POWs were returned.

Zulfikar Ali Bhutto came to Shimla as the head of a defeated nation with nothing to bargain. 93,000 Pakistani prisoners were in India and the tehsil of Shakargarh as well as large tracts of desert were under Indian occupation.

There was no way India could have kept the 90,000 and what he ended up conceding was a lot in itself. India was not going to keep them indefinitely anyway.

Bhutto pleaded Indira to go easy on him, and surprisingly that is what she did.

Indian jingoism at its finest, they weren't going into a wrestling match, it was entirely up to him to accept the terms of any agreement proposed to him or reject it. Him asking for "going easy" makes no sense and has no place in International Diplomacy.

All that Pakistan conceded at Shimla was that it would not use force to solve the Kashmir problem and it would deal with the issue bilaterally. It is indeed astonishing that a militarily weak and defeated nation promising 'non use of force' against another country 7 times its size, being seen as a concession.

You need to seriously revise your history, the agreement made Pakistan pledged to avoid involving a third party into the Kashmir and Sir Creek disputes which meant that India could escape the political pressure that it had to face from the NATO countries.

You are entitled to your point of view, but hard fact is, that Pakistani state did do something horrible in East Pakistan and they never answer for it and we know this fact because, ten million people do not leave their homes and run into enemy state for nothing.

I have addressed the matter in much detail in the last few pages, I have dissected numbers, produced testimonies and separated fact from fable. You are free to read through or continue to live in denial and assert with no facts or figure to back yourself up, the same regurgitated story of a genocide that never was whilst conveniently overlooking the slaughter of unarmed West Pakistanis and Biharis. Don't talk to me about opinions, present historical references, even the instances you quoted above are faulty.

 

[A1Kaid]

I don't know how people believe after 40 years of fantasy that 90000 pakistani soldier committed millions of rape and horror they are so gullible or emotional fool.
thats what make me laugh.

It wasn't 90k soldiers, almost half of the POWs were civilians and about 50k were actual military personnel. So roughly 40k Pakistani civilian and personnel, and 50k military personnel make up the 90k POW total count in 1971. Question is how can 50k soldiers with limited ammunition go on to kill 3 million people and rape a quarter million women in 14 days....It is physically impossible both in terms of time, supplies, logistics, ground reality, etc.

 

[Jf Thunder]

It wasn't 90k soldiers, almost half of the POWs were civilians and about 50k were actual military personnel. So roughly 40k Pakistani civilian and personnel, and 50k military personnel make up the 90k POW total count in 1971. Question is how can 50k soldiers with limited ammunition go on to kill 3 million people and rape a quarter million women in 14 days....It is physically impossible both in terms of time, supplies, logistics, ground reality, etc.

they were super soldiers?

 

[LaBong]

Indian jingoism at its finest, they weren't going into a wrestling match, it was entirely up to him to accept the terms of any agreement proposed to him or reject it. Him asking for "going easy" makes no sense and has no place in International Diplomacy.

Very tempted to post the stamp which Pakistanis printed showing the POWs appealing to world conscience!!

There was no way India could have kept the 90,000 and what he ended up conceding was a lot in itself. India was not going to keep them indefinitely anyway.

Why? What would have stopped us? If we managed to make them prisoners we could as well have kept them.

 

[Jf Thunder]

Very tempted to post the stamp which Pakistanis printed showing the POWs appealing to world conscience!!



Why? What would have stopped us? If we managed to make them prisoners we could as well have kept them.

again and again the same thing, YOU CANT EVEN FEED YOUR OWN PEOPLE, HOW THE HELL WERE YOU GOING TO FEED 90 000 PRISONERS, well thats another thing that you killed them ALONG WITH THEIR WIVES AND CHILDREN

 

[LaBong]

It wasn't 90k soldiers, almost half of the POWs were civilians and about 50k were actual military personnel. So roughly 40k Pakistani civilian and personnel, and 50k military personnel make up the 90k POW total count in 1971. Question is how can 50k soldiers with limited ammunition go on to kill 3 million people and rape a quarter million women in 14 days....It is physically impossible both in terms of time, supplies, logistics, ground reality, etc.

There were only 12000 civvies among the POWs as reported by HR commission and the atrocities continued from March to December.

again and again the same thing, YOU CANT EVEN FEED YOUR OWN PEOPLE, HOW THE HELL WERE YOU GOING TO FEED 90 000 PRISONERS, well thats another thing that you killed them ALONG WITH THEIR WIVES AND CHILDREN

So we couldn't have kept them because we wouldn't be able feed them! I tip my proverbial hat to thy acumen!