How to beat the "1971Civil War " Psychological Syndrome !

[arjunk]

India never attacked on Pakistan for PAK kashmir and GB.... But, Pakistan always a aggressor when comes to kashmir... It is still debatable that "why we did not take advantage after winning the WAR". Criticisms started in India after few days only against Indira Ghandi for missed opportunity.

Indira Gandhi is the most ruthless ruler of India. There is no way she started 1971 out of the goodness of her heart. CIA reports revealed Indian objectives included breaking West Pakistan into several small countries and taking Kashmir. India started the war by arming Mukhti Bahini.

India tried to invade West Pakistan, capture all of Kashmir and half of Sindh, and balkanise the rest.

However, India failed to make any significant progress in West Pakistan. It lost land in Punjab and Southern Kashmir. Indian gains in Sindh were completely insignificant, while Pakistan's gains in Punjab were a threat to India.

This is evident from the fact that India despite capturing far more territory than Pakistan, was forced to return all of it. In Kashmir, Chamb was too valuable to loose in exchange for the return of a few barren hills in Ladakh. So the LoC was formed along ceasefire positions. On top of that, Pakistan got over 90,000 PoWs back from India.

If India had the true upper hand against Pakistan, Pakistan would loose far more territory possibly including all of Kashmir. But the reality is Pakistan was defeated only by Bangladesh in the Eastern front. Otherwise, Bangladesh would become part of India.

Make no mistake, if India was a real threat to West Pakistan, the British, Americans, and Chinese would D-day 2.0 at Bombay. The Soviets would not risk total annihilation just for India.

 

[Raj-Hindustani]

Indira Gandhi is the most ruthless ruler of India. There is no way she started 1971 out of the goodness of her heart. CIA reports revealed Indian objectives included breaking West Pakistan into several small countries and taking Kashmir. India started the war by arming Mukhti Bahini.

India tried to invade West Pakistan, capture all of Kashmir and half of Sindh, and balkanise the rest.

However, India failed to make any significant progress in West Pakistan. It lost land in Punjab and Southern Kashmir. Indian gains in Sindh were completely insignificant, while Pakistan's gains in Punjab were a threat to India.

This is evident from the fact that India despite capturing far more territory than Pakistan, was forced to return all of it. In Kashmir, Chamb was too valuable to loose in exchange for the return of a few barren hills in Ladakh. So the LoC was formed along ceasefire positions. On top of that, Pakistan got over 90,000 PoWs back from India.

If India had the true upper hand against Pakistan, Pakistan would loose far more territory possibly including all of Kashmir. But the reality is Pakistan was defeated only by Bangladesh in the Eastern front. Otherwise, Bangladesh would become part of India.

Make no mistake, if India was a real threat to West Pakistan, the British, Americans, and Chinese would D-day 2.0 at Bombay. The Soviets would not risk total annihilation just for India.

Again, please back by your new claims with legitimate. I am not interested to reply on any fancy stories.

Doesn't a the party that wins the war decide on the agreement?
Did Japan dictate the terms of the aftermath of the surrender?
View attachment 718981




Then why was there fighting in Jammu and Kashmir from December 02- December 21.

Just think other way!

If there was normal scenario in 1971 then did even PAK signed a such Shimla agreement with India?

If you can understand then you will get my answer...

 

[arjunk]

Again, please back by your new claims with legitimate. I am not interested to reply on any fancy stories.


Just think other way!

If there was normal scenario in 1971 then did even PAK signed a such Shimla agreement with India?

If you can understand then you will get my answer...

read through this: https://theconspiracyofsilence.blogspot.com/2008/10/coming-soon.html

 

[Raj-Hindustani]

read through this: https://theconspiracyofsilence.blogspot.com/2008/10/coming-soon.html

Is Blog the legitimate source? Please let me now, i will follow in the future..

 

[Baibars_1260]

This is evident from the fact that India despite capturing far more territory than Pakistan, was forced to return all of it. In Kashmir, Chamb was too valuable to loose in exchange for the return of a few barren hills in Ladakh. So the LoC was formed

...and the LOC holds till today and for the foreseeable future...

Is Blog the legitimate source? Please let me now, i will follow in the future..

Battle of Chamb
Here are two legitimate sources:

Major General Gurcharan Singh Sandhu ( Ref in bold text below ) .

1971 Indo-Pak war: Was the ceasefire in Battle of Chhamb premature?

Author of book on war says India should have negotiated the return of its territory during Simla Agreement

www.hindustantimes.com

( Note : Chamb was so valuable tactically and strategically that Sandhu argues that Manekshaw should never have signed it away in 1972. It is Pakistan's only battle where a high ranking officer Major General Janjua was killed.)

Extract from Agha Humayun Amins account Battle Of Chamb
( Note: The directive was no retreat, and to take Chamb. Almost like the directive to the Red Army after Stalingrad in WW2 . " Not an inch back ").

The Battle of Chamb of 1971 stands out as the finest display of an offensive battle in the Indo-Pak operational scenario. Symbolically speaking it was this battle which sustained the morale of the army in West Pakistan and provided much needed credibility to sustain and preserve the armyÕs image in the wake of the traumatic events of December 1971. The Indians justly described it as 'the most serious reverse suffered in the 1971 war'. (refers page.488-the Indian armour history of the Indian Armoured Corps -1941-1971-Major General Gurcharan Singh Sandhu-Vision Books-Delhi). It is ironic that Third World countries study Napoleon and Slim when they have great military commanders like Eftikhar, Akhtar and Abrar. The Battle of Chamb of 1971 was an epic feat of arms. Even today it stands out as one of the most instructive battles of all three Indo-Pak wars in terms of operational strategy, small unit actions, handling of armour and above all as a supreme example of the power of personality and leadership in war.

Any student of the art of war who wishes to understand the Indo-Pak way of war will find the battle complete in terms of valuable insights and thought-provoking lessons connected with leadership, strategy and tactics. Above all the Battle of Chamb convincingly proves that the major part of pitfalls and drawbacks which inhibit many Third World armies are more connected with leadership morale and conceptual hangovers and have little connection with material factors like equipment or simple numerical inferiority or superiority.

Nice wreckage of a Su-7 !

 

[Raj-Hindustani]

Battle of Chamb
Here are two legitimate sources:

Major General Gurcharan Singh Sandhu ( Ref in bold text below ) .

1971 Indo-Pak war: Was the ceasefire in Battle of Chhamb premature?

Author of book on war says India should have negotiated the return of its territory during Simla Agreement

www.hindustantimes.com

Extract from Agha Humayun Amins account Battle Of Chamb

The Battle of Chamb of 1971 stands out as the finest display of an offensive battle in the Indo-Pak operational scenario. Symbolically speaking it was this battle which sustained the morale of the army in West Pakistan and provided much needed credibility to sustain and preserve the armyÕs image in the wake of the traumatic events of December 1971. The Indians justly described it as Òthe most serious reverse suffered in the 1971 warÓ. (refers page.488-the Indian armour history of the Indian Armoured Corps -1941-1971-Major General Gurcharan Singh Sandhu-Vision Books-Delhi). It is ironic that Third World countries study Napoleon and Slim when they have great military commanders like Eftikhar, Akhtar and Abrar. The Battle of Chamb of 1971 was an epic feat of arms. Even today it stands out as one of the most instructive battles of all three Indo-Pak wars in terms of operational strategy, small unit actions, handling of armour and above all as a supreme example of the power of personality and leadership in war.

Any student of the art of war who wishes to understand the Indo-Pak way of war will find the battle complete in terms of valuable insights and thought-provoking lessons connected with leadership, strategy and tactics. Above all the Battle of Chamb convincingly proves that the major part of pitfalls and drawbacks which inhibit many Third World armies are more connected with leadership morale and conceptual hangovers and have little connection with material factors like equipment or simple numerical inferiority or superiority.

Nice wreckage of a Su-7 !

Please don't be selective.... Have a look others as well.
Battle of Basantar etc....Battle of Longewala is more interesting!

Indian forces captured around 15,010 km2 but retruned to Pakistan after Shimla agreement at west front. so, they must had done better then Pakistan army....

 

[Baibars_1260]

Please don't be selective.... Have a look others as well.
Battle of Basantar etc....Battle of Longewala is more interesting!

It is your Mr.General Tin Pot, your Jingo media, and your PDF sidekick members here who are selective, who only talk about Dhaka and seldom about the Western front. Wasn't Lahore a bigger prize than Dhaka ? But after your bloody nose you got in 1965 you never attempted again in 1971 or since .

Indian forces captured around 15,010 km2 but retruned to Pakistan after Shimla agreement at west front. so, they must had done better then Pakistan army....

All that territory was wrested back when Sam Bahadur came to Lahore to sign away the gains. All Mr. Tin Pot talks about his visit to Lahore is the excellent treatment he got there and how he assured treatment of POWs under Geneva Convention

 

[Raj-Hindustani]

It is your Mr.General Tin Pot, your Jingo media, and your PDF sidekick members here who are selective, who only talk about Dhaka and seldom about the Western front. Wasn't Lahore a bigger prize than Dhaka ? But after your bloody nose you got in 1965 you never attempted again in 1971 or since .


All that territory was wrested back when Sam Bahadur came to Lahore to sign away the gains. All Mr. Tin Pot talks about his visit to Lahore is the excellent treatment he got there and how he assured treatment of POWs under Geneva Convention



View attachment 719062

Let me ask a simple question. had you started WAR to save Lahore or for Kashmir?

special note - "Operation Gibraltar"

 

[Baibars_1260]

Results of India accepting the ceasefire declaration following the UN resolution 307 on 21st December 1971. This image says it all.
A "victorious" General Tin Pot saluting enemy troops on enemy territory .

Let me asked a simple question. had you started WAR to save Lahore or for Kashmir?

Reality Check on the topic. We are discussing the aftermath of the 1971 war and what India gained .

Stay on the topic. Answer why India did NOT attack Lahore in 1971.

 

[Baibars_1260]

Just think other way!

If there was normal scenario in 1971 then did even PAK signed a such Shimla agreement with India?

If you can understand then you will get my answer...

In a "normal" defeat there are no negotiations. Think the other way .Why would India agree to "bi-lateral peaceful" negotiations with an enemy over the occupation of its own territory, when it had won the war. Has any nation ever done that ?

Stark contrast:

The Soviet Union forcing total surrender at Stalingrad:

Simla Summit Footage
The great lady on why she signed the agreement. Haggard looks don't show any victory attitude.

 

[Baibars_1260]

@arjunk; @Raj-Hindustani; @peagle ; @acchu, @Chhatrapati

Hilarious ! . See the footage below. Is that how a defeated enemy is received by a victorious county ? Madam Gandhi even played the Pakistani National Anthem for him.
Garlands and roses. No wonder Bangladesh was furious.

 

[peagle]

Great post.

The fact is 1971 was about a civil war. It was about Bangla's wanting to leave the federation. That was achieved. But what is plapably untrue is a Pakistan defeat with regards to India. For that to have happened it would require -

• unconditional surrender of PA and he handing over of Azad Kashmir to India.

Nothing of the sort happened. The western theatre ended with almost the same position it was before the war started. The Indian conflate the success of Bangla insurgency later supported by India and the defeat of Eastern Command of PA numbering about 55k men as victory of victories.

Indians are stuck in their fantasies, as much as I enjoy knocking on their heads.
Even a bigger part of me is really happy that they keep believing in their make-believe world, it's better than having an enemy fully awake.

Most of my close friends are Indians of every background, and I am very much invloved with them, more so than with Pakistanis. I honestly consider them as brothers and sisters, but you can see the fault lines in Indian society, so nakedly, not just religious but ethnic, linguistic, and so on. Even after 70 years of secularism drama, and hum ayk hein ka drama still has not given them a unified nation.

The words Pakistan, China, Islam, and Muslims are like waving a red flag in front of their eyes. Muslims are not even called Muslims in India, and the stupid Muslims don't mind, they have no self-respect. It's either Mian Bhai, and more recently Mohammad is taking traction, regarding the later term I have had serious arguments, making it clear if the term is used in front of me, then we have a problem.

Let them repeat what they want,
I love the fact that Pakistanis have started speaking up, and presenting counter viewpoints and arguments.

 

[Chhatrapati]

No it's not , I don't to provide evidence all the evidence is shown by how BJP sees Bangladesh. India has no allies but itself.

The reason India wants to control Bangladesh it's cause it doesn't want it to become another Chinese puppet like Myanmar that's all.

India knows if it loses Bangladesh it ain't gonna look pretty , also India is very divided due to multiple ethnic groups so good luck on that.

multiple states even want to leave but of course India won't let em

That's our local politics and an ethnic issue in Assam with regard to Bangladeshi migrants. It has nothing to do with our foreign policy. Our foreign policy with regards to Bangladesh is clear. Speaking of BJP, remember which government ended the enclave issue that's been going on since independence.

Myanmar is anything but a Chinese puppet, Myanmar has border issues and water sharing issues with China similar to what we have with BD. Including migrant issues. India is only looking for economic and trade benefits with neighbours your local issues don't really matter to us, hang any jamaati you want, or shoot any folks you want no human rights BS. That's all your stuff, we don't care.

We don't have an ethnic issue as much as you imagine. Also, we are not divided by ethnicities, the only division that exists are linguistic division but the fact is nobody really wants to be an independent country and survive the fallout of managing on their own. So, no, we are united as a country, more than we ever was.

Bangladesh doesn't matter much in it as you have little influence in our North-Eastern regions apart from the migrant issues.

No wonder Bangladesh was furious.

Bangladeshis were furious mainly because they didn't get to hang the Pakistanis. India took them on a boat to prison camps in India and later repatriated them back to Pakistan. While Bangladesh had no control over those events. So they took this anger out on the Razaakars in Bangladesh.

 

[peagle]

i heard that a decent discussion or argument can't be done with a lady or wife or gf.. now, i m rethinking about that because few people even fail to them.

so what are you trying to say? if you are referring to Talibani then you hosted because of US... US gave you everything during the time, they donated military items and paid cash for fighting the war against the USSR...

but, back to 1971.. we were too poor to manage refugees (approx 10 millions) without any respon and support except Pakistan and Bangladeshi issues in east Pakistan.

You really are a bloody fool,
it is you who replied to my message, how hard is that for you to understand, either you counter my arguments or move on.

Stop behaving like a child. Refugees are not part of this argument, full stop. If you think they are, then explain why, and relate it to my original argument to which you had replied.

I would like to meet few sensible Indians before I die, but my hopes are not that high.


p.s.
I have to say, I have come across one or two sensible ones on pdf, so still hoping more are out there. Joe being one, and a couple of other ones, I may not have agreed with them, but at least they knew how to have a proper sensible discussion.

For the likes of you, they might as well get the fires ready, because you are just embarrassing yourself. Go and learn how to have an argument, then come back to me.
The first part is that you stick to the topic, you don't bring new topics into the discussion without justifying why.
This is the third time I have asked you to justify yourself, you have been unable to do so, I will not be replying to anymore of your fantasies.

I am done with you, you need serious help.

 

[Chhatrapati]

The words Pakistan, China, Islam, and Muslims are like waving a red flag in front of their eyes. Muslims are not even called Muslims in India, and the stupid Muslims don't mind, they have no self-respect. It's either Mian Bhai, and more recently Mohammad is taking traction, regarding the later term I have had serious arguments, making it clear if the term is used in front of me, then we have a problem.

You should try writing fantasy fiction. Reminds me of the story of Ajmal Kasab, the terrorist caught in Mumbai, he was made to believe that Muslims in India are not even allowed to pray in mosques and on this claim after questioning the interrogating officer took him to prison through a different route where he could see Friday prayers happen. I don't know what kind of propaganda you hear from your "Indian friends", but isn't it a bit weird to think the third-largest Muslim population in the world must be living under constant ridicule and oppression. The only oppression they face IMO is backwardness. But the answers should come from the community.