General Niazi: Traitor or Hero?

[Kompromat]

Well, we all know the negative side of the story in 1971 war and how cowardly Niazi was to surrender to the Indians.

During the WWII Americans,Brits,Germans,Italians,Polish,Russians and others did surrender at times,with hundreds of thousands of men,to save their lives when the mission was lost. General Niazi was outnumbered by 1-25 both Mukti Bahinis and the Indian military.

Was his decision to surrender after the cause was lost correct which saved 90000 lives, and if or not he deserves credit for it?

Please participate in the poll.

Best regards.

 

[RazPaK]

We all know what happened to those soldiers after surrender.


They should have fought it out. Even if it came down to hiding in jungles and waging guerrilla warfare.

 

[GreenFoe]

H3RO tiger niazi \m/\m/

 

[fatman17]

Gen. Niazi built his reputation in the 2nd WW by his 'brovado' which was well-liked by his english commanders. he was an incompetent general officer put in a un-winnable situation to be made a scapegoat. the outcome of the eastern theatre in 71 was a forgone conclusion.

 

[Kompromat]

@RazPaK

They did fight with vigor and honor. Unfortunately,unlike PDF where countries are nuked,wars are waged,proxies are funded on the internet using a keyboard,the real warfare is totally different.


Real wars are fought with resources,supply lines,strategy,political will,actionable intel,air support and most importantly the public support.

We had none of that,there was only one PAF Squadron in E.Pakistan,which fought against overwhelming odds,including 40% of their staff just wasn't present. Half of them were shot down,they raided Indian installations and fought until complete obliteration.

There was a naval blockade,Ghazi sank,no supply route and we faced a popular uprising from our own citizens whom we had treated with prejudice. It was a lost cause and gurreila warfare too is fought with resources and objectives,none of whom were present.

@420canada Whats your opinion?

 

[baajey]

We all know what happened to those soldiers after surrender.


They should have fought it out. Even if it came down to hiding in jungles and waging guerrilla warfare.

please elaborate what happened after the surrender.
--were they forced to dance as nautch girls ????
--were they given to the mukti bahinis for sureshot lynching n murder???

abey sanki paagal, post karne se pehle soch to liya kar.

 

[agamdilawari]

General Niazi was outnumbered by 1-25 both Mukti Bahinis and the Indian military.
.

You mean 93000 Pakistani officers & officials were surrounded by almost 25,00,000 men from IA & Mukhti Bahini ? Get some sense man . One should never find any excuses for defeat/surrender rather accept it gracefully.

Regarding 'what happened with Pakistani soldiers' past surrender. Watch this from 4:30 onwards and hear that from man himself.

 

[Saleem]

there were no "90,000"soldiers to surrender..the army component was some 55,000; the indians included civilians in their totals see the detailed breakdown...thus 57,400 regulars only, 16,500 militia=74,000 approx.

55,692 were Army, 16,354 Paramilitary, 5,296 Police, 1000 Navy and 800 PAF.[72] The remaining prisoners were civilians – either family members of the military personnel or collaborators (razakars). The Hamoodur Rahman Commission report instituted by Pakistan lists the Pakistani POWs as follows: Apart from soldiers, it was estimated that 15,000 Bengali civilians were also made prisoners of war.[73]
Branch Number of captured Pakistani POWs
Army 54,154
Navy 1,381
Air Force 833
Paramilitary including police 22,000
Civilian personnel 12,000
Total: 90,368

Indo-Pakistani War of 1971 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Niazi was more incompetent than treacherous...


the main reason for the surrender was that the Indians had threatened to turn the muktis [and the indian soldiers masquerading as muktis] on the east pakistani civilians....[razakars their families, biharis and other unarmed muslims who might be loyal to pakistan or had stayed neutral]...the subsequent pak govt of zulfiqar deliberately buried this fact in order to humiliate the defence forces further and in order to permit him to sell pakistan's interests in Simla "agreement" [more like capitulation] ...he had already amde sure that any hope of retaining east paksitan was lost [idhar hum udhar tum] may he been cursed forever....

 

[Kompromat]

^Mr High schooler you should learn to stay silent if no constructive argument can be created. What i write is properly researched and studied. If you wish to quote me,make sure you have something solid or just don't bother.

 

[PlanetWarrior]

From my reading of Gen Niazi, the major crime which he committed was the military atrocities against the Bengali civilians whilst he was military governor of then East Pakistan. As for his surrender, he was the commander of a huge number of Pakistani soldiers. If the Pakistani government expected him to fight off a well equipped, well supplied enemy which ranged up to 25 times the number of men under his control with little or no back up and supplies on his side then they were crazy. His decision to surrender was strategically correct.

 

[Saleem]

^Mr High schooler you should learn to stay silent if no constructive argument can be created. What i write is properly researched and studied. If you wish to quote me,make sure you have something solid or just don't bother.

the figures are from Hammodur rehman report.... and the rest is true as well. being rude does not make you right...

as for "fighting to the end"..what were they to fight for? its wasnt east paksitan that left pakistan ..it was west pakistan's politcals [zulfiqar in the lead and the drunken military junta in the lead] that destroyed it..if this hurt your sensilibities too bad...as for niazis reason I stand by my opinion...your "research" is based on what? printed or internet reports? or the odd collonel and major retired or "laid off" from the times? I know directly from general level what happened...

From my reading of Gen Niazi, the major crime which he committed was the military atrocities against the Bengali civilians whilst he was military governor of then East Pakistan. As for his surrender, he was the commander of a huge number of Pakistani soldiers. If the Pakistani government expected him to fight off a well equipped, well supplied enemy which ranged up to 25 times the number of men under his control with little or no back up and supplies on his side then they were crazy. His decision to surrender was strategically correct.

the war crimes were primarily committed by muktis and indian army [and BSF] masquerading as mutkis...pakaistan was responsible for maybe 10-20% of the incidents....

 

[uzair ramay]

i think there were no supplies to gen niazi and also bengali peoples were against our army and also our govermnt didnt fully supported it because they want to seperate bengal with pakistan i think that was the main reason of surrendring there because he want to save 90000 army there...i think he made the right decision..

 

[Cherokee]

the war crimes were primarily committed by muktis and indian army [and BSF] masquerading as mutkis...pakaistan was responsible for maybe 10-20% of the incidents....

Is that statistics from " Hammodur rehman report" or you are again indulging in Cherry Picking . If you quote a Report believe it completely or Deny it Completely .

Cherry Picking won't work here and Please don't start posting Shyty Youtube videos as Proofs .

If you have Some detailed report backing your "10 to 20 percent " claim bring it here or stop throwing loose cannons .

Here's something from your "Hammodur rehman report"

The Report's findings accuse the Pakistani Army of carrying out senseless and wanton arson, killings in the countryside, killing of intellectuals and professionals and burying them in mass graves, killing of Bengali Officers and soldiers on the pretence of quelling their rebellion, killing East Pakistani civilian officers, businessmen and industrialists, raping a large number of East Pakistani women as a deliberate act of revenge, retaliation and torture, and deliberate killing of members of the Hindu minority.


The report accused the generals of what it called a premature surrender and said the military's continued involvement in running the government after 1958 was one reason for the corruption and ineffectiveness of senior officers. 'Even responsible service officers,' the report said, 'have asserted before us that because of corruption resulting from such involvement, the lust for wine and women and greed for lands and houses, a large number of senior army officers, particularly those occupying the highest positions, had lost not only their will to fight but also their professional competence.' The report said Pakistan's military ruler at the time, General Yahya Khan, who stepped down after Pakistan's defeat in December 1971, 'permitted and even instigated' the surrender, and it recommended that he be publicly tried along with other senior military colleagues.

The report accused General Yahya Khan, of being a womanizer and an alcoholic. According to the report "Firm and proper action would not only satisfy the nation's demand for punishment where it is deserved, but would also ensure against any future recurrence of the kind of shameful conduct displayed during the 1971 war"

 

[Saleem]

Is that statistics from " Hammodur rehman report" or you are again indulging in Cherry Picking . If you quote a Report believe it completely or Deny it Completely .

Cherry Picking won't work here and Please don't start posting Shyty Youtube videos as Proofs .

If you have Some detailed report backing your "10 to 20 percent " claim bring it here or stop throwing loose cannons .

hey bharati...dont be rude....and the commission report referred to the POW figures....the rest is my opinion..as for the vulgar language about you tube just shows your upbringing,,, I know decent bharatis but have no wish to waste time on somebody from the gutters like you......

 

[Cherokee]

hey bharati...dont be rude....and the commission report referred to the POW figures....the rest is my opinion..as for the vulgar language about you tube just shows your upbringing,,, I know decent bharatis but have no wish to waste time on somebody from the gutters like you......

Did you mention it was your Opinion ??

While Debating when you are mixing facts and "opinions" you should Mention what are facts and what are your Opinions ??

And what is your Opinion Based on ??

Rejection of a large portion of hamoodur Rehman report findings while acceptance of POW Part ??

Cherry Picking much , are we ??