General Niazi: Traitor or Hero?

[Kompromat]

@Joe Shearer

Thanks for your reply, its always a pleasure to talk to you.

You see, growing up i too had great apprehension towards Niazi as the poor guy,incompetent or else had been used as a face to blame in Pakistan. "This is the guy who lost the war" type of thing. Then as i read deep into the history of WWII and i figured out that the surrender wasn't uncommon nor was the retreat. The legendary General Rommel too retreated after his defeat en-route to Cairo with his ghostly Africka crops,so did other Soviets,American,Japanese,British Generals. I figured that when the cause of war is lost,when they are certain that they can't win the objectives even if they win the battle, sacrificing men and material becomes futile.

I deliberately gave a rigid choice in the poll because our young generation need to learn that he didn't have an easy decision to make. I had to insert the option for a hero that it will have those thinking who always considered the man to be a traitor and maybe one day they will make concessions to his legacy,and don't consider him a traitor anymore and i care not if they consider him a hero.

Peace

 

[Sashan]

So the above point i wrote was in vain?

America did nothing to pressure India,to sign a surrender document.

On the contrary, U.S moved USS Enterprise AC group into the Bay of Bengal but Indira called off the bluff by staying resolute though USSR took credit later by claiming that they sent Nuclear submarines following the USS Enterprise closely which deterred U.S.

U.S Ambassador to U.N, H.W.Bush passed on a resolution in the SC council in the first week of Dec 1971 asking both India and Pakistan to stop the war and call for a ceasefire which was vetoed by USSR.

Nixon hesitated a bit as there was opinions turning against the U.S Government within U.S and globally for having participated in the Vietnam war.


It was Zhou Enlai who promised action to Kissinger early in 1971 who went back on his words in Dec. and stayed neutral.

 

[SQ8]

; Niazi's fighting qualities as a junior officer did not translate into the qualities needed for high command. .

But the bumbling idiot that he was at military operations does not absolve him of the atrocities and shirking of duties under his command. If I know the country is under attack and things are going from bad to worse, I would rather not indulge in orgies unless I have decided that all it lost anyway and just pass the time...hence I not only do not advise my commanders of it.. I willfully betray my country by not ensuring that those of my men that will be put in harms way are not.
If defeat is the only conclusion, then the least I can do is to ensure that loss of lives is at a minimum.. this I could do by trying to get my troops out through alternative borders.. or ensuring that apart from delaying defense.. the main troops are able to either escape or avoid a bloodthristy Mukti Bahni and prefer to make sure they surrender to the IA which is still accountable.

If I do none of this and only indulge in orgies and then simply wait for someone to wake me and tell me that the Indians have reached my doorstep..I shirk my duties and the command that I have been entrusted with.. and am a traitor to my country.

However, in the same nerve.. so was the president.. indulging in similar sexual deviance while ambassadors from countries willing to help were told to wait.

 

[Joe Shearer]

@Oscar

Accurately speaking, the atrocities commenced under Tikka Khan. He was far more of a murdering psychotic than Niazi was. That is a lame defence, but worth placing on record, I think.

is Aeronaut's claim of Pakistani soldiers being outnumbered 1-25 in east Pakistan correct???

Let us not be literal minded. That was a figure of speech, a way to make a point.

 

[Joe Shearer]

But the bumbling idiot that he was at military operations does not absolve him of the atrocities and shirking of duties under his command. If I know the country is under attack and things are going from bad to worse, I would rather not indulge in orgies unless I have decided that all it lost anyway and just pass the time...hence I not only do not advise my commanders of it.. I willfully betray my country by not ensuring that those of my men that will be put in harms way are not.
If defeat is the only conclusion, then the least I can do is to ensure that loss of lives is at a minimum.. this I could do by trying to get my troops out through alternative borders.. or ensuring that apart from delaying defense.. the main troops are able to either escape or avoid a bloodthristy Mukti Bahni and prefer to make sure they surrender to the IA which is still accountable.

If I do none of this and only indulge in orgies and then simply wait for someone to wake me and tell me that the Indians have reached my doorstep..I shirk my duties and the command that I have been entrusted with.. and am a traitor to my country.

However, in the same nerve.. so was the president.. indulging in similar sexual deviance while ambassadors from countries willing to help were told to wait.

There is no doubt that tight discipline would have been useful, and is useful to any organised military formation, regardless of whether the military situation is going well or badly. All the more so when it shifts from unopposed to impending defeat; a commander has to keep a grip on discipline. Your point is well put.

The only external boundary available for escape would have been the eastern one, the Burmese boundary. This option was used by some of the PAF, who made their way out in a midnight dash by helicopter even as the surrender was taking place. I believe that some of the sailors also got out the same way. Would large formations have succeeded? Considering that the 55,000 odd soldiers of the PA were distributed all over the country, and considering the speed with which the IA, essentially attacking from the east, had outflanked them everywhere, and had indeed enveloped them, it might have proved very difficult to move the bulk of the troops to that available escape hatch. Interesting, but speculative, shall we agree?

 

[notorious_eagle]

*China was weary of the US and didn't intervene

Small Correction

The Chinese did not interfere because the Soviets were getting ready to blast the PRC off of the face of this Earth. Due to the bravado of Red Guards in 1969, the Soviet High Command decided that it was time Mao was taught a lesson once and for all. In fact, PLA retreated 100 miles before a single shot was fired due to fear of blitzkrieg encirclements. In 1971, there was no Army in the world that was more scarier than the Soviet 58th Army which was mobilized to teach PRC a lesson.

On Topic

Only a fool fights a battle he knows he will not win. The battle of East Pakistan was lost the day West Pakistan decided to usurp all the resources and treat East Pakistanis as pariahs. Bhutto's stubbornness was the final nail in the coffin and fate of East Pakistan was sealed. Niazi was neither a hero nor a traitor, simply an incompetent officer. A company commander does not necessarily make a Great General. The odds were simply not in his favour. The notion of 'Defence of East lies in the West' was at best foolish. A hostile local population and an enemy 10 times your size, thats a perfect recipe for an overwhelming defeat.

 

[acid rain]

I would say he got scared for his life and panicked, most probably also got advised by his cohort officers who got scared for their life too. The outcome of the war would most likely had been different if he had held on and made it into a long war.

so, he was a traitor owing to his incompetenance.

 

[acid rain]

is Aeronaut's claim of Pakistani soldiers being outnumbered 1-25 in east Pakistan correct???

LOL, Niazi must have felt its a 100 - 1, In reality I doubt the 25 times number, Mukti bahani was a small guerilla force - the pro Pakistani razakars and Jamatis were in lakhs and easily outnumbered the freedom fighters.

But even if they were outnumbered and outflanked - wasn't it the same what had happened in 1965 Operation "gibraltar" and "grand slam" - In Kashmir, India was outnumbered, out flanked and its logistics routes cut off -but then "bang", we opened a whole new front and changed the whole course and the objective of the war.

Blaming incompetent Niazi alone is not right, Pakistan buckled all over.

 

[Cherokee]

*International sanctions,dating from 1965 with no arms supply from the US [the sole supplier]
*US was bound to intervene in E.Pakistan by SEATO/CENTO , they refused.
*There was no air cover, 14 squadron was destroyed.
*PNS Ghazi sank,ending any naval hopes of lifting the blockade
*Westen Pakistan was unable to render ANY reinforcements.
*China was weary of the US and didn't intervene
*Western Pakistan was under a naval blockade
*There was a popular uprising in the East with people against the Army
*Stockpiles had run out,including fuel and ammo
*Soldiers were outnumbered by 1-25
*They were facing air strikes at will by IAF.

Any General would have lost under these conditions. I don't care if he slept with babes and drank booze. I'll play devils advocate here and defend the man. We have squarely placed the blame for our national failures on one man's shoulders. We need to get out and do some soul searching,learn our lessons from the war in 1971, so we can have a closure.

This war was our Stalingrad, we must learn our lessons so that our enemy cannot repeat this again.

@RescueRanger @Luftwaffe

You mean for your Approx 60 thousand Soldiers India placed 1.5 Crore Soldiers . You Alright mate ??

Apart from this i more or less agree with most points .

 

[acid rain]

You mean for your Approx 60 thousand Soldiers India placed 1.5 Crore Soldiers . You Alright mate ??

Apart from this i more or less agree with most points .

You suck in maths.

 

[Cherokee]

You suck in maths.

i agree . One extra Zero . 15 Lakhs . Still an Unbelievable figure .

 

[Kompromat]

You mean for your Approx 60 thousand Soldiers India placed 1.5 Crore Soldiers . You Alright mate ??

Apart from this i more or less agree with most points .

The figure 1:25 was stated by one of your retired Generals who lead the charge. It included active Mukti Bahini, and the men of military age thought to be able to join the fight as well. This is combat force measurements militaries use in a conflict.

 

[Cherokee]

The figure 1:25 was stated by one of your retired Generals who lead the charge. It included active Mukti Bahini, and the men of military age thought to be able to join the fight as well. This is combat force measurements militaries use in a conflict.

Mind my asking , which general ?? . Would love to read that report .

 

[Kompromat]

Mind my asking , which general ?? . Would love to read that report .

You love giving me trouble dont you. I will get back to you after going through my pile of material, where i read it.

 

[acid rain]

i agree . One extra Zero . 15 Lakhs . Still an Unbelievable figure .

IA didn't have that many soldiers overall, forget fielding such numbers on the Eastern front, He is considering Mukthi Bahani too, which I would say numbered in a few thousands.

They were outnumbered - yes, by probably a factor of 2:1.

The razakars, jamaatis and Biharis who were Pro PA numbered in the lakhs.