How Indian army protected 90000 Pakistani soldiers in BD

[waz]

India did indeed treat the POW's with decency and respect, thanks should be given for that.

Bangladesh independence 1971: Surrender at Chittagong – The Express Tribune

Some extracts written by a retired officer.

We descended into the deep nullah and saw Indian engineers building passages. As I passed them by, they saluted me even though they could tell I was a Pakistani due to my uniform. Their conduct left me with a positive impression about the Indian Army. At the nullah’s other end, I saw another Pakistan Army company strength mounted on vehicles, ready to go ac


Suddenly, one of the Indian officers caught me by the arm and pulled me back, covering me, while yelling, “catch him”. I noticed a young boy holding a sten gun run out of the crowd. No one followed him. The boy was trying to shoot at me but before he could, the Indian officer saved me.







Sam Bahadur: A soldier's general

Sam Hormusji Framji Jamshedji Manekshaw


Sam Bahadur: A soldier's general - Page2 - The Times of India


The war ended with Pakistan's unconditional surrender, and the formation of Bangladesh. More than 45,000 Pakistani soldiers and 45,000 civilian personnel were taken as POWs.




"The Betrayal of East Pakistan" by Lt. Gen. A A K Niazi

NUMBER OF POWs

"Bhutto even inflated the strength of the fighting troops from 45,000 to 96,000 and at Simla raised it to 100,000. Never before in history has such misrepresentation been made by a country's own President. This gross concoction was not even corrected by Gul Hassan or Tikka, who each in his own sphere were great contributors to the catastrophic setback. The strength of the Pakistani Army was 34,000 troops; Rangers, scouts, militia and civil police came to 11,000, thus the grand total came to 45,000. If we include naval and air force detachments and all those in uniform and entitled to free ration, e.g., HQ, MLA depots, training institutes, workshops, factories, nurses and lady doctors, non-combatants like barbers, cooks, shoemakers, and sweepers, even then the total comes to about 55,000 and not 96,000 or 100,000. The remaining were civilian officials, civilian staff, and women and children.

 

[ares]

Pakistani POW composition was

56,998 armed forces regulars
18287 para military forces
4616 police
12760 civilians including 1628 civilian government servants, 3963 others and over 6000 women and children.

Totaling 92,661 POWs

So in total 75,285 soldiers( armed forces and paramilitary) surrendered in 1971.

http://thejournalofbusiness.org/index.php/site/article/viewFile/424/361

 

[Thəorətic Muslim]

We are a generous people.

Decency, courtesy should only be shown to those who are equal in character,You don't show sympathy,courtesy to those who will eventually stab you in the back.
Screw protection we should have left them to the lynch mob of bangladeshis,

India did indeed treat the POW's with decency and respect, thanks should be given for that.

One of my Mom's relatives was in East Pakistan at the time, the Indians fed his camp atta with grinded glass inside. He can no longer speak, his insides are also scarred.

Not everyone was given decency.

 

[waz]

45-50k....eek: is it less.... It is more than a div size force..... but anyways, you guys must be happy...... For making world record for largest surrender.... even Germans didn't not surrender in such a big number during Barbarossa...... They preferred to kill themselves before facing such a humiliating defeat...... don't worry next war, we will give you a chance to break this world record too.... p

Good lord, your ignorance knows no bounds does it? Over 90,000 soldiers, some historians put the figure at 110,000 German and axis soldiers surrendered.


BBC ON THIS DAY | 2 | 1943: Germans surrender at Stalingrad

The German commander of the 6th Army, Field-Marshal Friedrich Paulus, gave himself up two days ago.




31st January 1943: German 6th Army surrenders at Stalingrad


On 24 January, Paulus requested permission to surrender: ‘Troops without ammunition or food. Effective command no longer possible. 18,000 wounded without any supplies or dressings or drugs. Further defence senseless. Collapse inevitable. Army requests immediate permission to surrender in order to save lives of remaining troops.’ -

See more at: Battle of Stalingrad - a summary - History in an HourHistory in an Hour


Two days after Paulus’ surrender, on 2 February 1943, the remnants of his stricken army also surrendered; the Battle of Stalingrad was lost.

Over a million soldiers on all sides had died in the city; over 90,000 Axis troops were taken prisoner of war, including, much to Stalin’s delight, 22 German generals, many later paraded through the streets of Moscow. Up to half the prisoners died on the marches to the Soviet prisoner-of-war camps, and most of the other half died in captivity; only about 6,000 returned home on their eventual release in 1955; about six per cent of those captured during the battle of Stalingrad.

- See more at: Battle of Stalingrad - a summary - History in an HourHistory in an Hour



Stay off military forums, you have no idea what you are talking about.

One of my Mom's relatives was in East Pakistan at the time, the Indians fed his camp atta with grinded glass inside. He can no longer speak, his insides are also scarred.

Not everyone was given decency.

Sorry to hear that brother.

 

[wolfschanzze]

One of my Mom's relatives was in East Pakistan at the time, the Indians fed his camp atta with grinded glass inside. He can no longer speak, his insides are also scarred.

Not everyone was given decency.

If we fed them grinded glass then 90,000 Pow's would have been 9,000 Pows in couple of months.
Be happy we didn't leave them to the lynch mob of Bangladeshis who were baying for their blood due to their atrocities.

 

[Thəorətic Muslim]

If we fed them grinded glass then 90,000 Pow's would have been 9,000 Pows in couple of months.
Be happy we didn't leave them to the lynch mob of Bangladeshis who were baying for their blood due to their atrocities.

India was welcome to do whatever India wanted to do. However, you're only saying this because you're uneducated in the treaties that define the treatment of POWs.

The soldiers surrendered to India, India takes responsibility for them. You can't brush 81,000 dead POWs as having died to some epidemic. They are entitled to the best care that can be provided.

Treaties aren't pieces of paper that have no value.

 

[wolfschanzze]

India was welcome to do whatever India wanted to do. However, you're only saying this because you're uneducated in the treaties that define the treatment of POWs.

The soldiers surrendered to India, India takes responsibility for them. You can't brush 81,000 dead POWs as having died to some epidemic. They are entitled to the best care that can be provided.

Treaties aren't pieces of paper that have no value.

Yeah like Pakistan knew about treaties and treatment of POW's when Saurabh kalia was tortured to death, or the beheading of our soldiers in kashmir, or keeping 53 POW's still in pakistan when India exchanged 90,000 POW'S OF PAKISTAN.
your nation should be last one to preach about POW treatment.
90,000 POWS can die due to cholera,malaria and host of factors. or simply put ,Bangladesh people overwhelmed the camps and lynched them.how does that sound?
If india wanted it could go any way and World wouldnt have even questioned after seeing the Genocide comitted by Pak army in Bangladesh.

I am not uneducated, i believe we should have left them to lynch mobs.We got only brickbats and backstabbing from pakistan for protecting those 90k pows.
They should have been counted as casualties of mukti bahni.
you dont extend good treatment to those who wouldnt do the same for you.
india should learn a lesson.

 

[ares]

India was welcome to do whatever India wanted to do. However, you're only saying this because you're uneducated in the treaties that define the treatment of POWs.

The soldiers surrendered to India, India takes responsibility for them. You can't brush 81,000 dead POWs as having died to some epidemic. They are entitled to the best care that can be provided.

Treaties aren't pieces of paper that have no value.

Treatment of POW is governed by Geneva convention.

Under Geneva convention India was fully withing its rights to try Pakistani POWs for war crimes in conjunction with its Bangladeshi allies.
Even allies tried and hanged Nazis after Nuremberg.

 

[Hiptullha]

If we fed them grinded glass then 90,000 Pow's would have been 9,000 Pows in couple of months.
Be happy we didn't leave them to the lynch mob of Bangladeshis who were baying for their blood due to their atrocities.

"We"
They didn't have retarded 3rd worlder civilians in the army.
They had decent men in uniform.

Treatment of POW is governed by Geneva convention.

Under Geneva convention India was fully withing its rights to try Pakistani POWs for war crimes in conjunction with its Bangladeshi allies.
Even allies tried and hanged Nazis after Nuremberg.

Those responsible for human rights abuses.

 

[wolfschanzze]

"We"
They didn't have retarded 3rd worlder civilians in the army.
They had decent men in uniform.
.

yEAH WHICH 3RD WORLD ARMY
With Decent men in uniform goes on genocide, raping women to make babies in a nation?
Operation Searchlight and others .
Yeah which 3rd world army does that?other than genocidal army with no morality left.
They should have been treated as such left to lynch mobs of mukti bahni.

 

[ares]

"We"
They didn't have retarded 3rd worlder civilians in the army.
They had decent men in uniform.


Those responsible for human rights abuses.

Yes, raping and murdering civilians,summary executions..etc

If Bangladeshi were to believed..entire Pakistan army was involved in the death of it 3 million civilians( even though neutral experts put the figure at around 500,000).

Still Bangladeshi would have be in charge of conducting the trial, just like how it was Iraqis who tried and hanged Saddam Hussein after Dessert Storm 2.

 

[Thəorətic Muslim]

Yeah like Pakistan knew about treaties and treatment of POW's when Saurabh kalia was tortured to death, or the beheading of our soldiers in kashmir, or keeping 53 POW's still in pakistan when India exchanged 90,000 POW'S OF PAKISTAN.
your nation should be last one to preach about POW treatment.
90,000 POWS can die due to cholera,malaria and host of factors. or simply put ,Bangladesh people overwhelmed the camps and lynched them.how does that sound?
If india wanted it could go any way and World wouldnt have even questioned after seeing the Genocide comitted by Pak army in Bangladesh.
I am not uneducated, i believe we should have left them to lynch mobs.We got only brickbats and backstabbing from pakistan for protecting those 90k pows.
They should have been counted as casualties of mukti bahni.
you dont extend good treatment to those who wouldnt do the same for you.
india should learn a lesson.

To your point 1: India is welcome to bring any issue to the UN Security Council to handle the punishment.

The world may not care about a whole lot, but the treatment of POWs is unquestionable. If you think Pakistan didn't face consequences to the beheading of the Indian soldier, if it was Pakistan or it's actors, you're being naive.

In conclusion to your response: Thank God, however horrible Pakistani, Indian leaders maybe, the members of PDF aren't in leadership positions.

Under Geneva convention India was fully withing its rights to try Pakistani POWs for war crimes in conjunction with its Bangladeshi allies.

Yes, the nation accepting the surrender of soldiers is welcome to bring any soldier accused of war crimes to a transparent court.

But we're talking about the treatment of prisoners.

 

[DESERT FIGHTER]

How the **** does this 90,000 soldier is even accepted? Most of these men were clerics,govt employees,engineers,doctors etc etc... The total deployment of army was 34,000 .. 20,000 when the conflict began ... Our of the 34,000 .. Only 23,000 were infantry or fighting troops..

 

[wolfschanzze]

To your point 1: India is welcome to bring any issue to the UN Security Council to handle the punishment.

The world may not care about a whole lot, but the treatment of POWs is unquestionable. If you think Pakistan didn't face consequences to the beheading of the Indian soldier, if it was Pakistan or it's actors, you're being naive.

In conclusion to your response: Thank God, however horrible Pakistani, Indian leaders maybe, the members of PDF aren't in leadership positions.

.

Point here is you neither had any punishment for genocide on bengalis nor did your army say sorry for saurabh kalia or beheading of our solider.Why should we extend courtesy to such people who dont reciprocate?
Till date the head of lance naik Hemaraj was still not returned by pakistani army.
I believe we should have let people have their revenge on them.
What Consequences did pakistan face after beheading the soldier?Nothing.
That is how Indian army should apply rules,

 

[Hiptullha]

Yes, raping and murdering civilians,summary executions..etc

If Bangladeshi were to believed..entire Pakistan army was involved in the death of it 3 million civilians( even though neutral experts put the figure at around 500,000).

Still Bangladeshi would have be in charge of conducting the trial, just like how it was Iraqis who tried and hanged Saddam Hussein after Dessert Storm 2.

Saying that each and every man out of that 90K was guilty for war crimes is wrong.
The Nuremberg trials tried the Nazi leadership, right? Not every soldier was reprimanded.

yEAH WHICH 3RD WORLD ARMY
With Decent men in uniform goes on genocide, raping women to make babies in a nation?
Operation Searchlight and others .
Yeah which 3rd world army does that?other than genocidal army with no morality left.
They should have been treated as such left to lynch mobs of mukti bahni.

Classic deflection case.
Keep insulting others.
Your maturity shows.