Disproving some genocide claims

[Vinod2070]

I don't believe anyone has said that the lower numbers of deaths are acceptable, that is just you constructing a strawman argument.

It is a similar exercise, unfortunately, to Vinod's attempts at stifling constructive discourse over what actually happened, and how all parties shared blame to a different extent, by resorting to comments like 'justifying/excusing atrocities'.

What is also being argued is that the PA was not deployed in EP with the specific intent of massacring and raping the local population, but rather the atrocities that were committed were a result of events and the situation spiraling out of control, in which the Indians played a huge hand.

I will have to disagree here. My comment was specifically directed to an individual who behaved more loyal than the king in this case.

Anyway, the Yahya khan comment if true does indicate that the highest levels in the country were deliberately planning the crackdown. People like Tikka Khan and Yahya Khan were capable of that and you know that too.

 

[Neo]

Actually they don't. We only know what has been fed to us by the Indian media. We only have half the story - the Indian version. Bangladesh is still creating its own independent understanding of the war. The Indian incitement on Shiekh Mujib in certain of his decisions is never discussed in Bangladesh. Indian intelligence infiltration from the 1960's in East Pakistan is also avoided. I assumed Pakistan would want Bangladeshis to clarify for themselves on these issues. Pakistanis should get away from the gut reaction that when a Bangladeshi raises the 1971 war it will be the same old Pakistan blame game. I want to look at issues from a fresh perspective and avoid the prejudices of the older generation. For Pakistan 1971 is a closed story for Bangladesh it is an open one as we reassess our relationship with India and understand New Delhi's motivations in assisting East Pakistan at that time. It will also help Bangladesh in its dealings with India today as it can now stop being the forever grateful recipient of Indian assistance. That has been a heavy burden to bear for the last 37 years but now we can lift it.

Excellent post Munshi Ji!

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

I will have to disagree here. My comment was specifically directed to an individual who behaved more loyal than the king in this case.

Anyway, the Yahya khan comment if true does indicate that the highest levels in the country were deliberately planning the crackdown. People like Tikka Khan and Yahya Khan were capable of that and you know that too.

Vinod,

You accused him of excusing atrocities when all he did was point out that the dominant narrative in India and Bangladesh regarding the conflict may be wrong, the death toll inflated to destroy Pakistan's reputation and win a propaganda and psyops war, and that there were atrocities committed by both sides. Quite frankly I don't see how you can come to the conclusion you did on his comments, other then that you feel threatened that the traditional rhetoric of India and the narrative it has built up around East Pakistan is being demolished.

His comments:

Atrocities were committed all round in that conflict. You should have seen how the Mukti Bahini and Mujib Bahini behaved. What is not documented is the Bengali on Bengali violence that occurred. Some of the killings of leftists were carried out on the orders of RAW. It is not clear how many deaths were caused by Indian policy of elimination and assassination.

If the Mukti and Mujib bahini committed atrocities, why shouldn't they be pointed out? If the scale of the atrocities is grossly inflated, why shouldn't it be argued and pointed out? Because India was supporting some of these groups and they committed massacres, and this demolishes the 'shining arse of India' myth?

This is a completely valid argument, one that Pakistan has pointed out often, but it seems some Indians have been so brainwashed into believing that Pakistan is "Satan incarnate' that accepting any flaws in their own twisted version of history is just not acceptable.

You are free to argue your POV with links and sources, RR offered an excellent post at the beginning of this thread to make the case for why the atrocities were inflated. Why do we have to go into personal attacks instead of rational rebuttals?
The appropriate response would have been to ask him why he though what he die, and how you think he is incorrect, not accuse him of 'justifying atrocities', which he didn't.

You and some of the other Indians have not offered any constructive rebuttal of his or our points, choosing instead to construct strawman arguments of 'its not any better if fewer people were killed' or 'he's a razakar'.

On the Yahya issue, as I said to Flint, I can only find one original source for that comment, by a journalist who interviewed him. I cannot find any context for that remark, I do not know whether it was translated from urdu, etc. So I cannot say with certainty whether that comment is accurate or not.

Now we know full well that atrocities were indeed committed, atrocities are committed by Indian troops in IK as well i an attempt to control the population, but the point is that the reported scale makes no sense, nor does the argument that the PA specifically went in to massacre and rape people.

 

[Flintlock]

His comments...

If you observe carefully, it says "what has not been documented...".

Now considering that you demand a "neutral" source for the tiniest of claims, and if that is provided, you claim that the only way you'll accept anything is if there is a trial and conviction or all the bodies are counted, it seems that the word of MBI Munshi (a self-confessed India hater) is enough to convince you of anything.

On the Yahya issue, as I said to Flint, I can only find one original source for that comment, by a journalist who interviewed him.

I think that should be more than enough proof, since far more serious allegations about India are taken as gospel without much backing-up.

I cannot find any context for that remark, I do not know whether it was translated from urdu, etc. So I cannot say with certainty whether that comment is accurate or not.

Nothing is 100% certain, which is why we accept a level of certainty.

...but the point is that the reported scale makes no sense, nor does the argument that the PA specifically went in to massacre and rape people.

Fair enough.

 

[Vinod2070]

Vinod,

You accused him of excusing atrocities when all he did was point out that the dominant narrative in India and Bangladesh regarding the conflict may be wrong, the death toll inflated to destroy Pakistan's reputation and win a propaganda and psyops war, and that there were atrocities committed by both sides. Quite frankly I don't see how you can come to the conclusion you did on his comments, other then that you feel threatened that the traditional rhetoric of India and the narrative it has built up around East Pakistan is being demolished.

His comments:


If the Mukti and Mujib bahini committed atrocities, why shouldn't they be pointed out? If the scale of the atrocities is grossly inflated, why shouldn't it be argued and pointed out? Because India was supporting some of these groups and they committed massacres, and this demolishes the 'shining arse of India' myth?

This is a completely valid argument, one that Pakistan has pointed out often, but it seems some Indians have been so brainwashed into believing that Pakistan is "Satan incarnate' that accepting any flaws in their own twisted version of history is just not acceptable.

You are free to argue your POV with links and sources, RR offered an excellent post at the beginning of this thread to make the case for why the atrocities were inflated. Why do we have to go into personal attacks instead of rational rebuttals?
The appropriate response would have been to ask him why he though what he die, and how you think he is incorrect, not accuse him of 'justifying atrocities', which he didn't.

You and some of the other Indians have not offered any constructive rebuttal of his or our points, choosing instead to construct strawman arguments of 'its not any better if fewer people were killed' or 'he's a razakar'.

It was not only with respect to this single post but the entire history of his posts. This guy is a India hater (which in itself is no big deal) but this hate causes him to lose the context. He always sees the 1971 events as something that effected only India and not his own people. Just try to see his posts on the 1971 events and you will know what I am saying.

On the Yahya issue, as I said to Flint, I can only find one original source for that comment, by a journalist who interviewed him. I cannot find any context for that remark, I do not know whether it was translated from urdu, etc. So I cannot say with certainty whether that comment is accurate or not.

I think this is the most authentic source that you can get. This comment is widely published in several reputed publications.

Now we know full well that atrocities were indeed committed, atrocities are committed by Indian troops in IK as well i an attempt to control the population, but the point is that the reported scale makes no sense, nor does the argument that the PA specifically went in to massacre and rape people.

Were you serious when you wrote this? Where did you get the idea?

PA may not have gone there to do that. I think I am getting forced to prove something which I am not interested in. Most German soldiers were not evil men. They just followed the orders and did what they thought was their duty.

A few bad people can cause such disasters. It does not mean that whole qaum has to be evil to perform such evil acts. Just a few evil men at the top are enough.

 

[BanglaBhoot]

I think it is absurd to call me an Indian hater. It is very subjective terminology and it is your definition. I think that Agnostic has understood correctly my position on the issue. The interpretation of Vinod on my comments is extremely prejudiced and unfair.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

If you observe carefully, it says "what has not been documented...".

Now considering that you demand a "neutral" source for the tiniest of claims, and if that is provided, you claim that the only way you'll accept anything is if there is a trial and conviction or all the bodies are counted, it seems that the word of MBI Munshi (a self-confessed India hater) is enough to convince you of anything.

No, you completely misunderstood my post. I am not saying Munshi sahib is a 'source, I am merely pointing out that his arguments contesting the dominant narrative are valid, and do not in anyway reflect some sort of 'acceptance of atrocities'.

This is what intellectual curiosity is supposed to be about, not just accepting something at face value, but digging deeper to ascertain more, if not all, the facts, and using our minds to rationally and logically analyze whatever claims are being made in the light of facts. As I mentioned, RR attempted to do just that at the beginning of this thread.

I think that should be more than enough proof, since far more serious allegations about India are taken as gospel without much backing-up.

Nothing is 100% certain, which is why we accept a level of certainty.

I am not dismissing that alleged quote out of hand. I just have certain reasons as to why I am uncertain about its veracity which I have outlined. Context is important, otherwise many things can be taken to imply something they were not intended to. Was it an off the cuff comment offered in a show of bravado to a journalist, and not a policy decision or order handed out to the Army/SF's?

It certainly does not, and cannot, reflect official policy in EP if the only thing we have to go by is a quote by one man in an interview to a journalist.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

It was not only with respect to this single post but the entire history of his posts. This guy is a India hater (which in itself is no big deal) but this hate causes him to lose the context. He always sees the 1971 events as something that effected only India and not his own people. Just try to see his posts on the 1971 events and you will know what I am saying.

I think we had this discussion when you first joined this forum. I pointed out to you that I choose to try and analyze a posters argument based on the merits of that particular argument, not what he may or may not have posted before. In this particular case Munshi sahib has outlined arguments that are accepted by many neutral historians, that India supported militants in EP, and that atrocities were committed by both sides. Now I do not see why his previous posts should have any bearing on this, nor why this should be construed as 'justifying atrocities'.

Munshi sahib has certainly been critical of Indian policies, but so are many of you critical of Pakistan, sometimes (IMO) irrationally so. That does not prevent me from attempting to address your arguments rationally, though I may also point out that I view your comments as being reflective of an irrational dislike of Pakistan.

I think this is the most authentic source that you can get. This comment is widely published in several reputed publications.

It is widely published, but it seems to always go back to that one quote made to one journalist, and it is the context of that quote and the background of it that I have been unable to find.

Were you serious when you wrote this? Where did you get the idea?

PA may not have gone there to do that. I think I am getting forced to prove something which I am not interested in. Most German soldiers were not evil men. They just followed the orders and did what they thought was their duty.

A few bad people can cause such disasters. It does not mean that whole qaum has to be evil to perform such evil acts. Just a few evil men at the top are enough.

Of course I am serious, lets not start with a deluge of links from international organizations documenting atrocities by Indian troops in Kashmir. I am merely pointing out that the Indian military put into a similar (though not as inflamed) situation also committed atrocities.

There is a difference between the Nazi's and what happened in EP. The Nazi extermination of the Jews was an ideological evil, of a sense of superiority and an ideology of hate that specifically stated that the Jews should be eliminated.

What happened in EP was nowhere close to that. EP was the result of a conflict getting out of hand (in which India played a huge role), and the entity (the PA) responsible for maintaining security and order experiencing a breakdown in discipline amidst the chaos and looting. I think it is fair to say that, like partition, once each side had committed atrocities, the situation just fell apart in hate and anger.

But I reiterate, there is distinct difference between the Nazis and EP in that the PA was not deployed to 'exterminate the Bengalis', nor was there any ideological hatred in play like that of the Nazi's. Could officers have given commands that could be considered war crimes? Absolutely, but the point is that nothing indicates that such orders were institutionalized as part of implementing some sort of official 'pogrom'.

 

[Vinod2070]

I think it is absurd to call me an Indian hater. It is very subjective terminology and it is your definition. I think that Agnostic has understood correctly my position on the issue. The interpretation of Vinod on my comments is extremely prejudiced and unfair.

Well this is what I have observed over a long period. I think being antagonistic to India is not that big a deal, its that you tend to lose the context with that antagonism.

If you think I am being subjective, that is your prerogative. I think I am being objective and it has been from the history of your posts and the general thought process that you have shown.

To tell you frankly, I still like Bangladesh as a country and Bangladeshis in general. I feel happy when they achieve something. I feel happy when A Mohammed Younus gets the Nobel prize for his Grameen bank initiative that has helped many Bangladeshis and projected a positive image of the country and actually showed that Bangladeshis can show leadership in the region and the world.

Some people like you tend to destroy that positive image with your bigotry, but I always remind myself that you represent a very small minority of your country, no way representative of a great culture that I love and admire.

 

[donrahul]

It seems, everyone is accepting to everyone else's arguments, except when it comes to MBI Munshi.. Let me try to summarize everything, so we can stop the needless argument about Mr.Munshi is good or Bad..
1) There was a war in 1971.
2) B/W India and Pakistan.
3) War was over the East Pakistan issue.
4) India did not fight the war, to uphold democracy like our Big brother or any other Pious selfless motives.
5) There was a big flood of immigrants, badly affecting a very poor country.
6) East Pakistan rebelled and wanted a seperate country.
7) PA was given orders to quell the rebellion.
8) It is understandable that the army resorted to Killings..
9) The Local East Pakistanis formed a partisan group which also involved in killings, but whose number are either suppressed or lesser than that of PA's (atleast according to documented sources)
10) India did not incite the war, without ground support.. Else there would have been no formation of Bangladesh. There was a good support for breaking away from West Pakistan. (This is for Self styled barristers and scholars, who insist that Bangladesh creation was purely sculpted by the Ugly hands of RAW and India Inc)
11) The number of people massacred was put @ 3-5 million..
12) The first time I heard this , It sounded Absurd..
13) Irrespective of the source of the news, this has been corroborated by the Bangladeshi Regime..
14) It is quite likely and highly possible that the numbers have been considerably spiked up..
15) A lesser number does not justify it as a lesser evil, although everybody agrees that the number sounds irresponsibly high..
16) so everybody is now accepting that the numbers could be wrong..

End of Discussion. Period.

I propose this coz, its sickening to argue on numbers..

 

[salman nedian]

Some people like you tend to destroy that positive image with your bigotry, but I always remind myself that you represent a very small minority of your country, no way representative of a great culture that I love and admire.

The good thing is that the old wounds are healing. Bangladesh will always be closer to Pakistan because you can see that despite of all the Indian efforts of creating misunderstandings between the two wings of Quaid-e-Azam’s Pakistan, we are one. Once Faiz said:

Kab nazar mein aaye gi bedaagh sabze ki bahaar
Khoon de dhabbe dhulen ge kitni barsaaton ke baad

Translation:
When will we again see a spring of unstained green?
After how many monsoons will the blood be washed from the branches?

After 37 monsoons the blood is washing out and let it be washed out.

 

[donrahul]

The good thing is that the old wounds are healing. Bangladesh will always be closer to Pakistan because you can see that despite of all the Indian efforts of creating misunderstandings between the two wings of Quaid-e-Azam’s Pakistan, we are one. Once Faiz said:

Kab nazar mein aaye gi bedaagh sabze ki bahaar
Khoon de dhabbe dhulen ge kitni barsaaton ke baad

Translation:
When will we again see a spring of unstained green?
After how many monsoons will the blood be washed from the branches?

After 37 monsoons the blood is washing out and let it be washed out.

Would be lot more better if the wounds of Ind,Pak and Ban healed allowing free movement, trade and overall benefit for the entire subcontinent rather than sticking to ol'news....

 

[Flintlock]

I think it is absurd to call me an Indian hater. It is very subjective terminology and it is your definition. I think that Agnostic has understood correctly my position on the issue. The interpretation of Vinod on my comments is extremely prejudiced and unfair.

Calling for the disintegration of India makes you an India-hater.

That's pretty damned objective.

 

[salman nedian]

Would be lot more better if the wounds of Ind,Pak and Ban healed allowing free movement, trade and overall benefit for the entire subcontinent rather than sticking to ol'news....

We need to consider about uniting our country.

 

[donrahul]

We need to consider about uniting our country.

Would Pakistanis like it, If Indians talked about reuniting Pakistan with India?? or Vice versa? Off topic! though, I couldnt help myself