What's new

Dhaka must protest at Delhi’s insulting Bangladesh war narrative

Species

SENIOR MEMBER
Joined
Oct 12, 2014
Messages
3,678
Reaction score
-6
Country
Bangladesh
Location
Bangladesh
India’s defence minister Manohar Parrikar, while threatening Pakistan on Sunday in the midst of military tensions between the two countries, has made a very objectionable comment about Bangladesh, particularly its armed struggle for national independence against the occupation forces of Pakistan in 1971. The minister claimed, as reported by the Times of India on Sunday and reproduced by New Age on Monday, that ‘Lord Rama won Lanka and gave it to Vibhishana. We did the same in the Bangladesh operation.’ Evidently, the Indian minister has referred to a mythical Ramayana episode in which Indian Rama’s force attacked Lanka, the kingdom of his adversary Rakshasa, for the latter had kidnapped the former’s wife, Sita. Rama’s forces eventually defeated Rakshasa’s ones, rescued Sita and handed the kingdom over to Vibhishana, Rakshasa’s younger brother whom Rama found a littler better than his elder. The political message of the statement is clear: India attacked Pakistan in 1971, fought and defeated Pakistan forces and then handed over the liberated Bangladesh to its people. This is an absolutely ahistorical narrative about Bangladesh’s war of independence, which is extremely insulting to the country’s innumerable freedom fighters, martyred and alive, who made invaluable sacrifice for the country’s independence. Bangladesh must protest against such an insulting propaganda about the history of Bangladesh’s independence.

The fact of history remains, a series of struggle by the people of East Bengal since 1948 for its political, cultural and economic autonomy eventually culminated in the East’s war of liberation against the neo-colonialist rulers of West Pakistan in 1971. The people of East Bengal won the war and established Bangladesh at the cost of enormous sufferings and sacrifice. In the process, there is no denying, Indian political and military establishment, and, above all, its people, provided multidimensional assistance to the Bangladesh revolution. India’s strategic interest to dismember Pakistan, after all, coincided with Bangladesh’s aspiration for independence. For India, and many other countries, it was realpolitik to support the Bangladesh cause, out of which the people have definitely been benefited.

Indian troops had joined Bangladesh’s freedom fighters on December 3, 1971, which had definitely expedited the victory over the enemy forces of Pakistan, but the Indian physical involvement in the war field, despite the sacrifice of lives of about 1,500 Indian troops on the soil of Bangladesh, was in no way the decisive factor behind Bangladesh victory. AK Khandaker, deputy chief of staff of the Armed Forces of Bangladesh in 1971, says that ‘physical strength of the Pakistan forces had been exhausted, and psychological morale reached down the lowest ebb, before the commencement of the war [with India] on December 3.’ Khaled Mosharraf, a reputed sector commander of the liberation war, said in a post-independence interview that ‘the Indian army just walked in when we, the Mukti Bahini, had already finished the job’. In rather a conservative analysis, the commander-in-chief of the Mukti Bahini, AG Osmani, said in a post-independence interview that ‘if the Indian forces had not come into the war directly, the Mukti Bahini itself would have liberated the country within six [more] months’.

Evidently, it was the sacrifice of the people of Bangladesh in a long series of political struggle for more than two decades and martyrdom as well as sufferings of many millions of Bangladeshis during the nine months of liberation war that created Bangladesh. It was not at all a gift of the Indian political establishment to the people of Bangladesh as the Indian defence minister has suggested through the Ramayana myth. Bangladesh’s government of the day, which claims to be championing the spirit of the liberation war, therefore, has an obligation to publicly protest against Indian efforts to belittle the glorious role that the people of Bangladesh, particularly the freedom fighters, have played to achieve the cherished independence.

http://www.newagebd.net/article/258/dhaka-must-protest-at-delhis-insulting-bangladesh-war-narrative
 
.
Yea the author forgot the fact that in addition to 1500 soldiers (Doubt that figure) who died, providing food and shelter to 9 million refugees, training and arming of Mukthis.

We dont need BD to be Indian slave or anything like that. Just dont threaten Indian NE and stop illegal migration.
 
. .
He wanted to say Pakistan was Ravan. It did unbearable oppression in East Pakistan like Ravan did by kidnapping Sita. And Bangladesh was Vibhishana who is of a noble character and younger brother of Ravan. Vibhisana protested against this immoral act and joined hands with Ram and Hanuman force of India. Both of them together defeated Ravan. He means they dont have any intention to capture any other country just to fight against oppression. They left power to Bangladesh like they left to Vibhishana.
 
. .
If India didn't get involved, BD would still be east Pakistan.

You really think people that bray 3 million genocide and whatever the in-vogue claim of rapes is....give a damn about truth over emotions?

Case in point the guy posting above me saying you less than half a brain because you believe otherwise from the BD nationalist narrative.....when the case is the opposite actually.
 
.
You really think people that bray 3 million genocide and whatever the in-vogue claim of rapes is....give a damn about truth over emotions?

Case in point the guy posting above me saying you less than half a brain because you believe otherwise from the BD nationalist narrative.....when the case is the opposite actually.

Yeah right lol.

BD would have bled Pakistan dry and would have gained independence sometime later in the 1970s.
 
. . .
Yea the author forgot the fact that in addition to 1500 soldiers (Doubt that figure) who died, providing food and shelter to 9 million refugees, training and arming of Mukthis.

We dont need BD to be Indian slave or anything like that. Just dont threaten Indian NE and stop illegal migration.
Why only a 1500 death of the so-called brave Indian Army? We have seen who and what are these soldiers. Muktis were directed to face the frontal assault by the PA Jawans, while IA helped them from behind by firing with heavy artillery. "Tum age jao, ham piche se apka madad karega" was the moto of IA. IA joined the our war at a time when the paddy was ripe and IA harvested without a pain.

We saw also the morals of a kind of coward soldiers all of whom were too afraid of entering east Pakistan without Muktis besides them. I wonder, what IA can do in case of a India-Pak war although Bengal Regiment troops are not with the PA.
 
.
Actually yes. If India didn't get involved, the insurgency would have been crushed.

Sorry to burst your bubble buddy.

US lost its war in Vietnam. Pakistan with all due respect is not U.S.

Pakistan was is no position to fight a war a 1000 miles away , it can't do it now, and I doubt it will be able to do so in near future.

India just took an opportunity that doesn't come around too often !!!
 
.
Sorry to burst your bubble buddy.

US lost its war in Vietnam. Pakistan with all due respect is not U.S.

Pakistan was is no position to fight a war a 1000 miles away , it can't do it now, and I doubt it will be able to do so in near future.

India just took an opportunity that doesn't come around too often !!!
Comparing apples to oranges. If India didn't interfere, Pakistan would have continued its campaign, because BD was a part of Pakistan, thus Pakistan wouldn't be going anywhere. The US was in foreign territory, Pakistan was not.
 
.
Yeah right lol.

BD would have bled Pakistan dry and would have gained independence sometime later in the 1970s.

India hatched the scheme, started uprising and propaganda, and then militarily got involved. Most uprising starts with the rumors of raping our woman
 
.
Comparing apples to oranges. If India didn't interfere, Pakistan would have continued its campaign, because BD was a part of Pakistan, thus Pakistan wouldn't be going anywhere. The US was in foreign territory, Pakistan was not.

The day the military was unleashed on East Pakistan is when East Pakistan seized to exist. Period.

A poor third world country like Pakistan was never going to win a war a thousand miles away.

Heck India couldn't even keep peace in SriLanka with 70,000 soldiers operating in less than 15000 squared miles area. India ended up fighting and losing to a force it funded, trained , and built. We all know what LTTE did to Rajiv Gandhi after India's unglorified exit from Sri Lanka..

Every revolution and war of independence had some sort of a third party help.

A) U.S Received help from France.

The French goal in assisting the Americans was to weaken Britain and to exact revenge for the defeat. In 1777, America captured the British invasion army at Saratoga. In 1778, France recognized the United States of America as a sovereign nation, signed a military alliance and went to war with Britain. France built coalitions with the Netherlands and Spain, provided Americans with grants, arms and loans, sent a combat army to serve under George Washington, and sent a navy that prevented the second British army from escaping from Yorktown in 1781
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/France_in_the_American_Revolutionary_War


B) Vietnam received help from Russia and China
We all know the details of that.



The reasons Pakistan was never going to win are pretty simple,

1) Pakistan never fought an expeditionary war. Zero experience.
2) Certainly did not have the resource nowhere near needed to fight an expeditionary war.
3) The entire people of the East Pakistan was against it were pretty pissed cause their election was stolen and the military was unleashed on them.

If somebody stole something from me and then attack me physically I will put my foot so far up in their as......

Well you get the point :)
 
Last edited:
.
You really think people that bray 3 million genocide and whatever the in-vogue claim of rapes is....give a damn about truth over emotions?

Case in point the guy posting above me saying you less than half a brain because you believe otherwise from the BD nationalist narrative.....when the case is the opposite actually.

I really wish that you would not indulge yourself, or get involved in this kind of cross-talk.

You really think people that bray 3 million genocide and whatever the in-vogue claim of rapes is....give a damn about truth over emotions?

Case in point the guy posting above me saying you less than half a brain because you believe otherwise from the BD nationalist narrative.....when the case is the opposite actually.

Bray? A whole nation described as donkeys?
 
.
Back
Top Bottom