Had Operation Chengiz Khan not happened,could Bangladesh been created?

[Kompromat]

As regards becoming enemies - animosity began in 1947 and not 1971. We fought in 65 too, were we friends then ?

There is merit in everything else in the post above except for two things.

All the bullet point above were known to PA & Yahya khan on 2nd Dec, prudence would have said not to make a pre emptive attack as what transpired later was a foregone conclusion.

Next, the war was not lost by the Politicians but the Generals were more to blame. They should have seen it coming as late as Aug 71 and worked towards avoiding it. The Eastern Command lost the will to fight a fact borne out by the numbers of soldiers who became POW and the equipment & ammo surrendered.

Niazi was torn between a forward posture to deny loss of an enclave that could become Bangladesh and defence of Dhaka which could have become a Stalingrad - he fell between two stools.

I am sure you can appreciate the difference between hostility and enmity.

 

[third eye]

I am sure you can appreciate the difference between hostility and enmity.

I do .

Are you suggesting in 65 were were hostile to each other and became enemies in 71 ?

 

[my2cents]

My understanding is that Pakistan had prior information we were planning attack and they launched a preemptive strike to gain advantage. We were planning all along and were waiting for monsoon season to be over and by December we had build up massive troops along the border of East Pakistan.

 

[Kompromat]

I do .

Are you suggesting in 65 were were hostile to each other and became enemies in 71 ?

Hostility turns into Enmity comes damage is inflicted. If there had been no war in 71, the IndoPak relations would be different in design and 'intent'.

 

[hkdas]

Hostility turns into Enmity comes damage is inflicted. If there had been no war in 71, the IndoPak relations would be different in design and 'intent'.

no it is not. pakistan before 71 was more aggressive towards india.. in 71 they learned a lesson that india is much more powerfull than pakistan. after 71 war pakistan never dare to attacked india in conventional war.

 

[[Bregs]]

Every country acts according to its own benefits and strategic gains, what India did way back in 1971 was best suited for its interests at that time to limit two front border tensions to just one at the western front.

if Pakistan had taken care of genuine plight of Bengalis, the mukti bahini would not have been successful in civil war supported by India and creation of Bagladesh would not have been possible so easily but the truth its the fault of pakistan leadership of that time to ignore the genuine needs of Bangla people

 

[SarthakGanguly]

Operation Chengiz Khan was basically a "S(rew M3" request from Pakistan to India. It was an intel failure of such gigantic proportions(the buggers genuinely thought that the Indians will be keeping their aircraft all neatly parked on the tarmac!!! Check the November Report) that one might think the MI of Pakistan was a double agent - working for India. And even then the deepest strike was a half hearted attack on Agra!

Besides there was no 25:1 India+MBakistani ratio. Of course if you consider the entire Bangladesh population as an enemy then yes.... As for the Eastern Command - the Indians had roughly 3 Corp - each of 2 divisions approx (around 70000 men)+ (est)40000 Mukti Bahini. Pakistan had around 45,000 Army, 5000 Naval detachment, and paramilitary brigades numbering around 100,000(not all armed). PA was not defeated due to lack of manpower, but lack of a strategy. While the Indians concentrated their forces against a Schwerpunkt, the PA tried to defend the entire territory! Niazi wanted to hold on to the friggin' cities while the Indians simply had one objective - avoid cities and go for Dhaka. Textbook blitzkrieg tactics.

 

[bloo]

Indian forces had been actively supporting the Mukhti Bahini and carrying out covert operations way before the operation gengis khan. India already had been in a state of war with Pakistan. Operation gengis khan was a consequence of the Indian aggression not the cause, as the Indian propaganda would have you believe.

They want to agress, aggravate AND look innocent [taking us for fools of course] at the same time.

I guess then we did succeed in doing all that and pissing off pakistan to launch a "preemptive" strike.

And if by "way before" you mean since april, 8 months before operation chengiz Khan then I doubt Pakistan looks any innocent either.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't Mukti bahini the direct result of operation searchlight (PPP's inabilty to democratically take over BDesh therefore launching a military op even though Awami league won the elections, resulting in the BDesh genocide) by Pakistan which was around 3 months long thus forming the mukti bahini sometime around april.

 

[shuntmaster]

PA didn't have resources to fight under these circumstances.

• Military sanctions from its sole supplier for over 6 years.
• Outnumbered by 1-25 - Indians + Mukhti Bahini
• Naval Blockade
• Non existent supply route
• Non existent air force
• Non existent air lift capability
• Non existent reinforcement for men and ammo.
• Little support among the population as it was a civil war
• No hope of any help from the west or from the US
• No naval support

Our men fought bravely under these conditions, overall the war was lost by the politicians and the greed of Mr - Bhutto. General Niazi was used as a scapegoat.

This was the year when Pakistan and India became enemies and that is not likely to change, not at least in this century.

What happened to Pakistans military strategy which said 'The defense of the East lay in the West', meaning, in case of hostilities with India, Pakistan would pitch all its assets on the western front and try to gain as mush territory as possible so as to force India to negotiation table. This strategy seems to have failed miserably in 1971.

 

[Cherokee]

PA didn't have resources to fight under these circumstances.

• Military sanctions from its sole supplier for over 6 years.
• Outnumbered by 1-25 - Indians + Mukhti Bahini
• Naval Blockade
• Non existent supply route
• Non existent air force
• Non existent air lift capability
• Non existent reinforcement for men and ammo.
• Little support among the population as it was a civil war
• No hope of any help from the west or from the US
• No naval support

Our men fought bravely under these conditions, overall the war was lost by the politicians and the greed of Mr - Bhutto. General Niazi was used as a scapegoat.

This was the year when Pakistan and India became enemies and that is not likely to change, not at least in this century.

It was much before that . Operation JEEBRAAALTAAR .
And trust me we don't want things to change much as well . It does not bother us .Balance will keep tipping in the favor of India as the years pass .

 

[Kompromat]

It was much before that . Operation JEEBRAAALTAAR .
And trust me we don't want things to change much as well . It does not bother us .Balance will keep tipping in the favor of India as the years pass .

Operation Jibraltar was a consequence of Indian annexation of Kashmir into Indian federation 1964 and its aggression on Azad Kashmir.

''
Then in late 1963, without any justification, India marched her troops into the village of Chaknot in Azad Kashmir. This and other provocative demonstrations of chauvinism were repeated with greater bravado as the position of the United States became clearer. Almost a year after the occupation of Chaknot, in October 1964, Prime Minister Shastri declared as a matter of set policy the integration of the occupied territory of Jammu and Kashmir into India.

When Pakistan lodged a protest with the United States, Mr. Harriman merely expressed his 'shock and surprise' and promised to convey American 'anxieties' about it to New Delhi. That India's bold adventures in Kashmir were the outcome of United States' military, economic, and political support did not escape the attention of many well-informed political observers, such as Bertrand Russell who said:

In Kashmir, India has refused to allow a plebiscite for many years, despite United Nations resolutions. One hundred thousand Indian troops have suppressed Kashmiri autonomy. Despite all this for seventeen years Mr. Nehru held back from invoking the two Articles of the Indian Constitution which would integrate Kashmir by decree.

We must ask why Premier Shastri invoked those two Articles, arrested Shaikh Abdullah and thereby effectively closed the door to peaceful redress of the Kashmiris' grievances. The answer to this question suggests the cause of the outbreak of this war. . . . The official integration of Kashmir made the uprising in the valley inevitable and the participation in the uprising of Kashmiris from Pakistan had to be expected''

Extract from Prime Minister Zulfikar Ali Bhutto's memoir

 

[third eye]

Hostility turns into Enmity comes damage is inflicted. If there had been no war in 71, the IndoPak relations would be different in design and 'intent'.

Negative

The intent would have always been the same, it is being naive to think otherwise.

I do not understand the part in bold above.

 

[Kompromat]

Negative

The intent would have always been the same, it is being naive to think otherwise.

I do not understand the part in bold above.

We disagree then. Lets just leave at that.

 

[Rajput_Pakistani]

One thing is called "A Lie" but in case of India, the amount of lies and distorted history is so much that dictionary should add a new word for it like "Indo-lies"

Apart from active proxy war fully supported by men and material in East Pakistan, Indian Army invaded East Pakistan (Garibpur Sector) on 21st November, 1971 (Eid Day).
If it is not called an open attack on a sovereign country (without mandate of UNO) then what defines an aggression?

And one more thing when an Indian has nothing to say he tell all the lies of the world to justify. Same on this forum and all around the world. You committed an aggression then, even your countrymen now admit, so what is the shame in accepting the facts?

 

[third eye]

One thing is called "A Lie" but in case of India, the amount of lies and distorted history is so much that dictionary should add a new word for it like "Indo-lies"

Apart from active proxy war fully supported by men and material in East Pakistan, Indian Army invaded East Pakistan (Garibpur Sector) on 21st November, 1971 (Eid Day).
If it is not called an open attack on a sovereign country (without mandate of UNO) then what defines an aggression?

And one more thing when an Indian has nothing to say he tell all the lies of the world to justify. Same on this forum and all around the world. You committed an aggression then, even your countrymen now admit, so what is the shame in accepting the facts?

In what way is this post connected to the topic at hand ?