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

[Chhatrapati]

There is no anger to control.
But when you practice lies, deception, and a two-faced approach, refusing to recognize simple facts, and creating your own is extremely sad.

And being repetitive in your approach is being malicious, the only way to deal with malicious people like you is to go head-on. I tried to have a reasoned honest discussion with you, and you went into your fantasies yet again, that's low and despicable. it shows the lack of capacity to understand, and it is very frustrating.

Hence my conclusion, it is better not to interact with you anymore. Because you lack the basic manners required for a discussion.

More . Anymore conspiracy theories? Bhagwan it seems.

 

[AZADPAKISTAN2009]

The 1971 Civil War Psychological Syndrome, and how to beat it !
( Note: The intention of this opening post is not to discuss the causes of our Civil War and its military history , but the aftermath, and most important how we should handle the psychological impact on the generation today )

Most Pakistanis who personally experienced the Civil War of 1971, are either dead, or too old to care reliving or relating their experiences. The survivors are tired and silent. No one will listen to them as they fade away. Not even their own heirs or children.

Much of what dispassionate and neutral historians wrote is either inaccessible to the generation born after 1971. With the trillions of dollars backed Social Media industry, and its electronic footprint the younger generation has a significant attention deficiency problem, and would rather read a four line social media post, than a 500 page book written by a professional researcher. Very few books are available on the click of an internet search engine button and no one would have the patience to read them.

With a dominance over the Social Media our enemy is attempting the greatest psychological experiment in history in imbuing an entire generation with guilt, despair and frustration over a "historic defeat and humiliation." Likewise the enemy is also imbuing its own younger generation with extreme jingoism and religious fundamentalism reliving a glorious victory of a "1000 year revenge".

Pakistan is not the only nation in the world to have faced a Civil War, and military intervention by a hostile power. Other nations, U.K., U.S.A, Russia, China, Spain, Lebanon, Sudan, Ethiopia to name a few, have all faced Civil Wars. The Partition of British ruled India itself was a Civil War of sorts. Pakistan is the only nation that tortures itself over a Civil War, which actually was only waged and lost over a dog leg "swamp" that was artificially linked 1000 miles away. There are several parallels to this situation such as the French and Algerian connection, which we can discuss in later posts.

Other nations far bigger and more powerful than Pakistan have faced far more humiliating military defeats with far more reaching geo-political consequences and have moved on both psychologically and materially.

1. India was decisively defeated by China in 1962, with loss of territory that completely altered the geo-strategic equation.

2. The USA lost the "anti-communist" war in Vietnam ( 1975 ) leading to concessions to China.
(Paracel, and Spratly Islands, and later Hong Kong ).

3. The Soviet Union lost the war in Afghanistan and broke up (1988 ).

All resilient nations recover from the trauma of a Civil War and military intervention / defeat. Japan and Germany are the best examples.

Yet , no nation suffers from a psychological impact of a Civil War that had a relatively minor impact on it military capabilities as Pakistan

The psychological impact (quite evident on the PDF) of this social media manipulation is remarkable. When discussing Pakistan's history, social, and current affairs, almost every second or third thread contains the "magic" numerals "1971" in posts by members.

These magic numerals are used by both our enemy "guests", our former brethren,our very own patriots, fervent religious propagandists, ethnic nationalists and above all by self flagellating self hating fellow countrymen.
Let's take a look at how this "magic " number "1971" is used:

1. Our enemy uses 1971 to remind us that we are "vanquished defeated" nation and we will be defeated again this time on our own territory. This is feeding a dangerous delusion in the minds of the younger generation that might result in a very undesirable result for their nation.

2.Our former brethren and ally of our enemy reminds us of "1971" as a combination of the following :

(a) Their martial prowess and military strength is superior to ours since they won the Civil War.

(b) We are barbarians and savages who carried out massacres, rapes, and destruction during the Civil War for which our armed forces personnel need to be turned over for trial and execution as "war criminals ".

(c) We need to acknowledge our guilt and apologize ( Delhi agreements of 1973, 1974 don't count. We must live in shame forever.

(d) We need to surrender 50% of all our financial, and military ( air, naval, armored) , assets as a "division" following the conclusion of the war.

(e) It is all our fault.

3. Our fervently religious patriots attribute our Civil War loss to the fact that we were not "good Muslims ", abandoning the spirit of the Ummah, and thus incurring divine displeasure. This despite the fact that most Muslim majority nations supported us during our Civil War in a display of Ummah solidarity never seen since. But for their support India would never have made the humbling concessions it did, swapping captured territories, and releasing ( and exchanging POWs ).

4. Our ethno-nationalist insist that the Civil War was the result of racial disparity of our former brethren who were more culturally compatible with our enemy than with their Western wing countrymen ; ignoring the fact that cultural similarities with populations of two other neighbor countries have so far not produced a secessionist movement that remotely resembles the situation in 1971.

5. Self hating liberal democrats use the Civil War as a stick to beat
our armed forces reminding them of their "defeat" , and ignoring the fact that but for the brilliant performance of our armed forces in the West Pakistan would have been dismembered further with the loss of Azad Kashmir.

6. Patriots ( Type 1) constantly remember primarily the enemy involvement in the Civil War. It is the enemy on whom the blame lies, and our former brethren are entirely innocent, ; our own follies not withstanding.
We must therefore :
(a) Restore the faith and trust in our former brethren and take back our territory.
(b) Avenge 1971 by causing an enemy territory to secede.

7. Patriots (Type 2):
We will never forgive, never forget the treachery of our former brethren, We will never forgive, never forget, the "defeat" our enemy inflicted on us and we will avenge even if it takes 1000 years, or even if we mutually annihilate each other.

In the subsequent posts let us look at the immediate aftermath of the civil war, the present and the future.

Facing the facts will help us rid us of the psychological trauma we suffer every time we visit a social media site, or forum. Our enemy would like nothing better than to damage our sense of nation hood forever. We can't be defeated militarily but we can be defeated psychologically.

India has always ran a Covert War against Pakistan since the Independence , it noticed that Pakistan was on verge of Economic freedom , in 1960's , so the 1965 war was commenced in order to hinder Pakistan's growth. This continued all the way to 1971 and Present age , India is engaged in Direct financing of various Operations (Terrorism inside Pakistan since 1980's) and External war in form of Influencing various policies against Pakistan on Global scale, FATF is just open of such active war fronts. So one thing is established INDIA IS OUR ENEMY they need to be responded in equally similar manner and the favor must be returned.

Next the question comes how to reverse the "Propaganda" or False/Fake stories that India created in the Post 1971 era.
One of the major initiatives taken by enemy was of course establishment of fake stories about Rape/Murder in order to diminish relations between East Pakistani and West Pakistani Citizens. The reality in East Pakistan was that between 1950 and 1970 , India destroyed the East Pakistan (Bangladesh) Economy many times by releasing flood waters which kept that region under developed. This narrative has been lost over generation , and a detailed Thesis and study has never been done to establish a direct linked between the impact of Floods caused by India on East Pakistan. This Study is important and it needs to recognized by International levels in order to implicate India's Role in poverty of East Pakistani in Pakistan

Now comes the important Question what can we do, well simple , we need Courses Offered in Schools and University to Explain to next generation of Pakistanis why East Pakistan suffered Economic melt down , the impact of floods , and also how India caused flooding in East Pakistan over period of 20 years.

The Fake Stories about Rape and Murders also need to be countered because It is difficult to assert what took place in East Pakistan , an Army which is protecting the Citizens would not just suddenly loose their mind and start hurting their own citizens , so this false narrative needs to be countered and strongly denied , the only fact is that Soldiers in East Pakistan were defending East Pakistan , and at one point due to Tactical Reasons choices were made by the leadership in East Pakistan to choose an option which brought an end to War. One of the main reasons why this decision came to fruit was due to various notions that our external partners would come to our aid , USA never showed up to party and left us cold and dry in 1971. This was a harsh lesson which needs to be understood , that at time of war the only friend is your fellow soldier and don't depend on foreign nations to come to your aid.

The Counter narrative does not exists in Pakistan , such as explaining impact of flood on East Pakistan's Economy , the Role of India in promoting Anti Pakistan Feeling by support to certain factions and groups such as Mujib Ur Rehman etc. However we must accept the role of Political Limbo in Elections and Role that PPP leadership such as Bhutto played in complicating a delicate situation and that should be prominently explored


The move forward is simple enemy's every action has to be responded in equally stern manner , India only understand the language of Stick and Kicks. If we examine how China treats India , that is exactly how our mentality should be when it comes to India , they need to kicked in the buttocks at every opportunity.

This is the Chinese way to Handle Indians

There is a very simple rule in China , when it comes to India , Beat first and then ask questions later, the idea that India - Pakistan can have some sort of peace is 100% Not possible Unless India fully withdraw from Kashmir and Let them combine with Pakistan.


India's role in involvement in Terror Financing needs to be continuously exposed in Afghanistan and Gwadar, and pressure needs to be created in international community to press India on Freedom of Sikh People and Kashmiri People who are ethically not Indian nor they ever wanted to be part of India

India needs to know 100% that we will take our Revenge for 1971

 

[Baibars_1260]

India has always ran a Covert War against Pakistan since the Independence , it noticed that Pakistan was on verge of Economic freedom , in 1960's , so the 1965 war was commenced in order to hinder Pakistan's growth. This continued all the way to 1971 and Present age , India is engaged in Direct financing of various Operations (Terrorism inside Pakistan since 1980's) and External war in form of Influencing various policies against Pakistan on Global scale, FATF is just open of such active war fronts. So one thing is established INDIA IS OUR ENEMY they need to be responded in equally similar manner and the favor must be returned.

Next the question comes how to reverse the "Propaganda" or False/Fake stories that India created in the Post 1971 era.
One of the major initiatives taken by enemy was of course establishment of fake stories about Rape/Murder in order to diminish relations between East Pakistani and West Pakistani Citizens. The reality in East Pakistan was that between 1950 and 1970 , India destroyed the East Pakistan (Bangladesh) Economy many times by releasing flood waters which kept that region under developed. This narrative has been lost over generation , and a detailed Thesis and study has never been done to establish a direct linked between the impact of Floods caused by India on East Pakistan. This Study is important and it needs to recognized by International levels in order to implicate India's Role in poverty of East Pakistani in Pakistan

Now comes the important Question what can we do, well simple , we need Courses Offered in Schools and University to Explain to next generation of Pakistanis why East Pakistan suffered Economic melt down , the impact of floods , and also how India caused flooding in East Pakistan over period of 20 years.

The Fake Stories about Rape and Murders also need to be countered because It is difficult to assert what took place in East Pakistan , an Army which is protecting the Citizens would not just suddenly loose their mind and start hurting their own citizens , so this false narrative needs to be countered and strongly denied , the only fact is that Soldiers in East Pakistan were defending East Pakistan , and at one point due to Tactical Reasons choices were made by the leadership in East Pakistan to choose an option which brought an end to War. One of the main reasons why this decision came to fruit was due to various notions that our external partners would come to our aid , USA never showed up to party and left us cold and dry in 1971. This was a harsh lesson which needs to be understood , that at time of war the only friend is your fellow soldier and don't depend on foreign nations to come to your aid.

The Counter narrative does not exists in Pakistan , such as explaining impact of flood on East Pakistan's Economy , the Role of India in promoting Anti Pakistan Feeling by support to certain factions and groups such as Mujib Ur Rehman etc. However we must accept the role of Political Limbo in Elections and Role that PPP leadership such as Bhutto played in complicating a delicate situation and that should be prominently explored


The move forward is simple enemy's every action has to be responded in equally stern manner , India only understand the language of Stick and Kicks. If we examine how China treats India , that is exactly how our mentality should be when it comes to India , they need to kicked in the buttocks at every opportunity.

This is the Chinese way to Handle Indians

There is a very simple rule in China , when it comes to India , Beat first and then ask questions later, the idea that India - Pakistan can have some sort of peace is 100% Not possible Unless India fully withdraw from Kashmir and Let them combine with Pakistan.


India's role in involvement in Terror Financing needs to be continuously exposed in Afghanistan and Gwadar, and pressure needs to be created in international community to press India on Freedom of Sikh People and Kashmiri People who are ethically not Indian nor they ever wanted to be part of India

India needs to know 100% that we will take our Revenge for 1971

A closed thread which you might wish to read:

Will Pakistan and India survive the next 50 years ?

Thread is in response to this question: Getting a bit off topic but in your opinion, where do you think Pakistan's geostrategic and security settings will be in the next 50 years? I think that is the million dollar question. It is off topic and we can have a separate thread on that. My short...

defence.pk

 

[Baibars_1260]

I have already declared my intention not to participate in this thread anymore, so I will not be contributing anymore.

Although I think you are wrong in your conclusions in so many ways, as with the consumer consumables, your conclusion here also does not make sense and lacks weightage.

My apologies. I would like to hear from you on this thread which is more appropriate.

Just to be clear:

-I am no apologist for India's actions in Bangladesh . They took advantage of a situation as an
enemy.

- I am also not an apologist for the extreme ethno-linguistic chauvinism displayed by the people of Bangladesh and resulting horrific violence.

Even if I may have no response to offer I would like to have your opinions here.



-

 

[peagle]

My apologies. I would like to hear from you on this thread which is more appropriate.

Just to be clear:

-I am no apologist for India's actions in Bangladesh . They took advantage of a situation as an
enemy.

- I am also not an apologist for the extreme ethno-linguistic chauvinism displayed by the people of Bangladesh and resulting horrific violence.

Even if I may have no response to offer I would like to have your opinions here.



-

I do not necessarily disagree with your facts. I think I must have mentioned before that on this topic at least, you know a lot more than myself. It is not something that I am conceding, but declaring a simple statement of facts. I do not discuss/argue for the sake of it, or to win. Always my simple intention is to arrive at a truth.

All our historians and bloody intellectual, I use the word bloody with intent because I am extremely annoyed with them, they have been intellectually criminal in setting our side of the story. Because history is nothing but a story, if anyone disputes that then they simply do not understand history.

If facts were all that matters, there would be no need for multiple consultations, so many historians and so many experts, most of whom seem to disagree with one another. It is all about the interpretation of a given set of facts, what makes sense and what doesn't. I say this because I love reading your posts because they are full of knowledge. If someone bullsh.ts all the time, it comes through, nowhere in your writings do I sense that, that's because your experience comes through and you appear truthful. But, I find sometimes you reach conclusions totally contrary to which your statements point towards. That I find puzzling.

"Pakistan mostly destroyed, disabled or took away 90% of its assets"

I at no point object to anything that puts India in a good light, or Pakistan in a bad light, as mentioned above, as long as it either adheres to the truth, in which point it would have to be factually known to be true and does not conflict with anything else. Or, it appears to be truthful, in that it makes reasonable sense.

My objection was primarily about the above quotation because it is so strong that it overshadowed the rest of your post. There has never been any study to ascertain what was done to any equipment by the Pakistani forces in East Pakistan, so we have to conclude that it is an assumption, therefore open to the reasonable test.

For the above quotation to be true, one has to assume that the Pakistani plan was to lose and then shift or detroy everything before the surrender. Or, the fighting went on for so long that it was decided that loss is the only option so they had many weeks to destroy, disable or take away 90% of the assessments. we both know either of those scenarios are not true.

The war lasted barely a couple of weeks, and the plan to surrender was not a long drawn out affair, and the soldiers were in the fight right till the very end, so all their energies were concentrated on the enemy and after surrender became inevitable, their energies and time would have been spent preserving unity, protecting themselves, and where possible West Pakistan people. They simply would not have had enough time to destroy equipment for around 50,000 soldiers within a few days, plus not knowing if they could still be attacked, it is humanly not possible. The only thing that would have been taken away were the planes as you said, because that was easy, get in and fly away, but I don't think there were many in those days, and certainly could not shift large amounts of equipment, which I'm sure would have been a lesser priority then helping people escape.

This is just the military aspect but, your post had come across that the Pakistanis destroyed everything in East Pakistan, that simply is not true, because again it would not have been possible for them to do so in that short space of time, knowing full well, if they involved themselves in negligent behaviour, they will face repercussions, and more acrimony, plus they were not based in a free environment to be able to do what they wanted.
Frankly speaking nothing about it makes sense. And, your posts in that thread repeatedly presented Indian forces in a very favourable term without any basis, with blanket statements.

That is the crux of my objection, if you would like clarification or an expansion on any aspect, i will try my best to do so.

 

[Baibars_1260]

I do not necessarily disagree with your facts. I think I must have mentioned before that on this topic at least, you know a lot more than myself. It is not something that I am conceding, but declaring a simple statement of facts. I do not discuss/argue for the sake of it, or to win. Always my simple intention is to arrive at a truth.

All our historians and bloody intellectual, I use the word bloody with intent because I am extremely annoyed with them, they have been intellectually criminal in setting our side of the story. Because history is nothing but a story, if anyone disputes that then they simply do not understand history.

If facts were all that matters, there would be no need for multiple consultations, so many historians and so many experts, most of whom seem to disagree with one another. It is all about the interpretation of a given set of facts, what makes sense and what doesn't. I say this because I love reading your posts because they are full of knowledge. If someone bullsh.ts all the time, it comes through, nowhere in your writings do I sense that, that's because your experience comes through and you appear truthful. But, I find sometimes you reach conclusions totally contrary to which your statements point towards. That I find puzzling.

"Pakistan mostly destroyed, disabled or took away 90% of its assets"

I at no point object to anything that puts India in a good light, or Pakistan in a bad light, as mentioned above, as long as it either adheres to the truth, in which point it would have to be factually known to be true and does not conflict with anything else. Or, it appears to be truthful, in that it makes reasonable sense.

My objection was primarily about the above quotation because it is so strong that it overshadowed the rest of your post. There has never been any study to ascertain what was done to any equipment by the Pakistani forces in East Pakistan, so we have to conclude that it is an assumption, therefore open to the reasonable test.

For the above quotation to be true, one has to assume that the Pakistani plan was to lose and then shift or detroy everything before the surrender. Or, the fighting went on for so long that it was decided that loss is the only option so they had many weeks to destroy, disable or take away 90% of the assessments. we both know either of those scenarios are not true.

The war lasted barely a couple of weeks, and the plan to surrender was not a long drawn out affair, and the soldiers were in the fight right till the very end, so all their energies were concentrated on the enemy and after surrender became inevitable, their energies and time would have been spent preserving unity, protecting themselves, and where possible West Pakistan people. They simply would not have had enough time to destroy equipment for around 50,000 soldiers within a few days, plus not knowing if they could still be attacked, it is humanly not possible. The only thing that would have been taken away were the planes as you said, because that was easy, get in and fly away, but I don't think there were many in those days, and certainly could not shift large amounts of equipment, which I'm sure would have been a lesser priority then helping people escape.

This is just the military aspect but, your post had come across that the Pakistanis destroyed everything in East Pakistan, that simply is not true, because again it would not have been possible for them to do so in that short space of time, knowing full well, if they involved themselves in negligent behaviour, they will face repercussions, and more acrimony, plus they were not based in a free environment to be able to do what they wanted.
Frankly speaking nothing about it makes sense. And, your posts in that thread repeatedly presented Indian forces in a very favourable term without any basis, with blanket statements.

That is the crux of my objection, if you wuld like cralification or an expantion on any aspect, i will try my best to do so.

Good points and very good questions.
The broader picture here is that at the tactical command level we had some very capable generals who were strictly professional.
Generals like Yakub Khan already knew that East Pakistan was indefensible without the help of the local people who had turned against us. De-classified information now available shows that generals like Yakub Khan had already advised Yahya Khan as early as March 1971 that it would be impossible to hold East Pakistan, and via negotiations it should be let go. Henry Kissinger had briefed the US President Nixon about Yahya Khan wanting to vacate East Pakistan.

Before we ramble off into the "hows and why" this didn't happen, we must return to the topic of how Pakistan was able to deny its equipment to both Bangladesh and India. At the tactical level, Pakistan had 9 months to put in place a plan to disable any war materiel that would be lost.

The most telling aspect of Pakistan's resignation to the loss of East Pakistan was the fact that only twelve 40's era F-86 jets were left in East Pakistan for air defense, whereas there were dozen squadrons of F-6s, B-57s, Mirage 3, F-104s in West Pakistan as well as Sidewinder armed and radar linked F-86s. Heavy tanks, artillery, and engineer regiment were all in the West.,

It was clear as early as April that Pakistan was hunkering down to survive the Indian onslaught in the West. Pakistan hoped to save East Pakistan through foreign ( US or UN ) intervention diplomatic and military posturing on India, not through military action which was unfeasible.

We are a patriotic people at the ground level, and regardless of how flawed our leadership is, the person on ground knows his duty. So PIA ground maintenance crew at Tejgaon Airport in Dacca had plans to quickly destroy the instruments, tools, maintenance rigs, control tower communications equipment before fleeing, which they did .

The 12 F-86 Sabres were also disabled of which only 3 could be restored to a precarious flying condition.
If there are 45,000 combat troops and they are patriotic ,and not traitors, and if they are trained to destroy their weapons they WILL do it,
If each squad is assigned to destroy their own equipment it can be done in a very short time.
An artillery piece can be damaged by an overcharge in its barrel, and a tank can be disabled in minutes by fouling its fuel line with an additive ruining the engine, and later blasting its tracks off with an improvised charge.
A patrol boat can be sunk within minutes by a charge in its hull.
The Germans scuttled the pocket battleship 16000 MT Graf Spee in minutes after the Battle of the River Plate ( December 1939), rather than allow it to be captured. If you talk to veterans of the 1971 war now fast dying off, they will tell you how they simply pushed their trucks into the water off a bridge. Small arms are the easiest to destroy by taking a welding torch to the muzzle and plugging it or simply removing the bolt or trigger assembly and crushing it with a hammer or throwing it into the water. If each soldier is trained to destroy his personal weapon there isn't much left to be captured after surrender.

No army in the world allows capture of their equipment, even if they surrender themselves, and they know exactly how to destroy their equipment easily and quickly.

This is not to say that weapons are not captured when soldiers fighting to the end, are killed instantly in an air attack, or shelling and their warehouses or arms depots are overrun in a lightning campaign. This happened early during World War 2 at Dunkirk, or in France and Russia but even here the British were smart enough to disable a large portion of the equipment they left behind.
The fighting in Bangladesh was nowhere close to the intensity of Stalingrad or Berlin. General Niazi had a full 24-48 hours to surrender and in fact the situation had turned as early as 11th December itself. There was ample time for the soldiers to begin destroying their equipment.

But there is further evidence that very little fell into Indian or more importantly Bangladeshi hands.
Indian officers like Colonel Piyush Ghosh, and others themselves say Pakistan efficiently disabled or destroyed its equipment If India had captured large quantities of vehicles, trucks rest assured they would have released a whole movie on it. See this video ( point 17:24) of equipment of surrendered by East Germany after reunification in the aftermath of the Cold War. East Germans could have destroyed their equipment but they did not.

When I visited Bangladesh in 2008, the BDR were still using Chinese supplied SKS rifles, from the 1940s and there were still SMLE 0.303 rifles with the police.

There were very few obsolete Chaffee light tanks in use in Bangladesh. Even these were disabled.

My conclusion is that the biggest assets Pakistan had were a large fleet of Boeing 707 B aircraft which maintained two flights linking Karachi, Dhaka, daily and some Fokker Friendship turboprop aircraft . These were recovered and returned to Pakistan.
India could keep General Niazi's Mercedes.

 

[peagle]

Good points and very good questions.
The broader picture here is that at the tactical command level we had some very capable generals who were strictly professional.
Generals like Yakub Khan already knew that East Pakistan was indefensible without the help of the local people who had turned against us. De-classified information now available shows that generals like Yakub Khan had already advised Yahya Khan as early as March 1971 that it would be impossible to hold East Pakistan, and via negotiations it should be let go. Henry Kissinger had briefed the US President Nixon about Yahya Khan wanting to vacate East Pakistan.

Before we ramble off into the "hows and why" this didn't happen, we must return to the topic of how Pakistan was able to deny its equipment to both Bangladesh and India. At the tactical level, Pakistan had 9 months to put in place a plan to disable any war materiel that would be lost.

The most telling aspect of Pakistan's resignation to the loss of East Pakistan was the fact that only twelve 40's era F-86 jets were left in East Pakistan for air defense, whereas there were dozen squadrons of F-6s, B-57s, Mirage 3, F-104s in West Pakistan as well as Sidewinder armed and radar linked F-86s. Heavy tanks, artillery, and engineer regiment were all in the West.,

It was clear as early as April that Pakistan was hunkering down to survive the Indian onslaught in the West. Pakistan hoped to save East Pakistan through foreign ( US or UN ) intervention diplomatic and military posturing on India, not through military action which was unfeasible.

We are a patriotic people at the ground level, and regardless of how flawed our leadership is, the person on ground knows his duty. So PIA ground maintenance crew at Tejgaon Airport in Dacca had plans to quickly destroy the instruments, tools, maintenance rigs, control tower communications equipment before fleeing, which they did .

The 12 F-86 Sabres were also disabled of which only 3 could be restored to a precarious flying condition.
If there are 45,000 combat troops and they are patriotic ,and not traitors, and if they are trained to destroy their weapons they WILL do it,
If each squad is assigned to destroy their own equipment it can be done in a very short time.
An artillery piece can be damaged by an overcharge in its barrel, and a tank can be disabled in minutes by fouling its fuel line with an additive ruining the engine, and later blasting its tracks off with an improvised charge.
A patrol boat can be sunk within minutes by a charge in its hull.
The Germans scuttled the pocket battleship 16000 MT Graf Spee in minutes after the Battle of the River Plate ( December 1939), rather than allow it to be captured. If you talk to veterans of the 1971 war now fast dying off, they will tell you how they simply pushed their trucks into the water off a bridge. Small arms are the easiest to destroy by taking a welding torch to the muzzle and plugging it or simply removing the bolt or trigger assembly and crushing it with a hammer or throwing it into the water. If each soldier is trained to destroy his personal weapon there isn't much left to be captured after surrender.

No army in the world allows capture of their equipment, even if they surrender themselves, and they know exactly how to destroy their equipment easily and quickly.

This is not to say that weapons are not captured when soldiers fighting to the end, are killed instantly in an air attack, or shelling and their warehouses or arms depots are overrun in a lightning campaign. This happened early during World War 2 at Dunkirk, or in France and Russia but even here the British were smart enough to disable a large portion of the equipment they left behind.
The fighting in Bangladesh was nowhere close to the intensity of Stalingrad or Berlin. General Niazi had a full 24-48 hours to surrender and in fact the situation had turned as early as 11th December itself. There was ample time for the soldiers to begin destroying their equipment.

But there is further evidence that very little fell into Indian or more importantly Bangladeshi hands.
Indian officers like Colonel Piyush Ghosh, and others themselves say Pakistan efficiently disabled or destroyed its equipment If India had captured large quantities of vehicles, trucks rest assured they would have released a whole movie on it. See this video ( point 17:24) of equipment of surrendered by East Germany after reunification in the aftermath of the Cold War. East Germans could have destroyed their equipment but they did not.

When I visited Bangladesh in 2008, the BDR were still using Chinese supplied SKS rifles, from the 1940s and there were still SMLE 0.303 rifles with the police.

There were very few obsolete Chaffee light tanks in use in Bangladesh. Even these were disabled.

My conclusion is that the biggest assets Pakistan had were a large fleet of Boeing 707 B aircraft which maintained two flights linking Karachi, Dhaka, daily and some Fokker Friendship turboprop aircraft . These were recovered and returned to Pakistan.
India could keep General Niazi's Mercedes.

Strangely I did not get a notification of your reply, I found it by chance.

This version you presented is more realistic, the other came across as they had destroyed, damaged, or took away 90% of everything, which means the entire country, this speaks purely in military terms, the other post has a mixed message.

Here I will highlight few things, Pakistans defence strategy had always been to defend from West Pakistan, so if there were lesser number planes and equipment that was always the case, not a preparation for a drawdown.

Plus, Pakistani military leadership always knew that East Pakistan could not be defended from a direct assault, so the expectation of help from allies or international pressure was perfectly reasonable. Pakistan was a newly independent country, without all the resources and the only country in the world 1000 miles apart, it was unrealistic to expect any other strategy.

The only form of attack when you know you cant win is to defend, especially in urban areas, and that had been the plan to defence East Pakistan from the streets of Decca, that is the plan that change, because the decision to surrender was a last-minute decision, our people love to make tall claims, and tell tall stories. But, that does not make them true, if they are contrary to the facts on the ground.
Opinion and advice by senior persons do not equate to an established policy, there is a massive gap between what was advised and what should be the right course of action, and what is the policy of the ground.

Regarding tanks and heavy equipment, I do not think we ever had large heavy formations on the ground in East Pakistan because the terrain does not support tank warfare, it is more suited for light mobile formations, so the lack of military equipment many years later does not point to much.

It is believable that they destroyed many items, certainly artillery and a few other items, but not 90%, because of the reasons I mentioned. To start with we did not have much equipment there in the first place and secondly, only a certain amount of military equipment could be destroyed, which is believable, but not much in economic terms.

The European examples do not equate to our situation, they were dealing with other professional armies, and not fighting large local forces like in East Pakistan, Pakistani soldiers also had to be mindful of the Mukti Bahani, they had to keep plenty of equipment to make sure they are not killed before the surrender is completed.

You post was a lot more reasonable, but my objection had been to the orginal interpreation.

 

[Baibars_1260]

This version you presented is more realistic, the other came across as they had destroyed, damaged, or took away 90% of everything, which means the entire country, this speaks purely in military terms, the other post has a mixed message.

That post was in response to the Bangladeshi guest member claims that India looted West Pakistani assets after 1971, and denied Bangladesh the spoils of victory. The Bangladeshi members were specifically citing military equipment surrendered by the our forces.
My counter argument was:

1. 90% of military assets were destroyed or rendered useless by our forces. It was possible to destroy these assets quickly
and did happen. If large scale equipment had been surrendered then India would have been boasting about it. India only touts "93,000 " POWs , not how many artillery pieces, AFVs , etc captured.

2. 90% of civilian aviation assets were removed, or rendered useless by our civil aviation crew. This is the most evident aspect of the war. Since after the war Bangladesh essentially did not have an airline, or civilian aviation resources of any kind.

3.Other civilian assets such as civilian vehicles owned by Public Works Departments etc. Railways such as locomotives, rolling stock etc. probably fell into Indian hands . It is hard to claim 90% destruction or disabling here but it is unlikely these were of any use to India.
Being of foreign origin getting spares to maintain these assets would have been difficult.
Also India was still debating annexation of Bangladesh so these assets particularly the Railways were to be left in Bangladesh.

4. India then nowhere had the media and diplomatic clout it has today and was under international radar, with media correspondents all over the place. TV footage was still in its infancy but there is sufficient 35 mm film still surviving of the war and now freely available on-line. Looting of assets is a war crime under international law and would have been reported by international media.

Here I will highlight few things, Pakistans defence strategy had always been to defend from West Pakistan, so if there were lesser number planes and equipment that was always the case, not a preparation for a drawdown.

Agree here, which is what I said. In the 1965 war even the small air component of the then East Pakistan defense was able to inflict damage on the enemy.
By 1971, the important part is that more air force assets were not transferred from West Pakistan, when it was evident that an enemy assault on the territory was inevitable.
Even as early as June 1971 there was evidence of sabotage, and compromise by East Bengali origin aircraft maintenance crew members of our air assets.
We did manage to disable all the combat aircraft before leaving. The most important aspect is the behind the scenes diplomatic and military liaison with Myanmar, Sri Lanka and China and opened their airspace and refueling facilities for all the planes to return to Pakistan safely without mishap. This in itself is a brilliant feat of diplomatic and military coordination.,

Plus, Pakistani military leadership always knew that East Pakistan could not be defended from a direct assault, so the expectation of help from allies or international pressure was perfectly reasonable. Pakistan was a newly independent country, without all the resources and the only country in the world 1000 miles apart, it was unrealistic to expect any other strategy.

Agree again. The strategy is common knowledge. However , there was a defense strategy for East Pakistan upto 1965, based on terrain advantages, and a massive people's resistance. By 1971 the situation had completely changed. India had invested heavily in airborne assault troops and amphibious light tanks, assault boats. But all that equipment still would not have helped against a robust people's resistance.
What blinded an idealistic and unrealistic set of politicians is the fact that extreme ethno-linguistic chauvinism had resulted in a hostile population willing to make a deal with the enemy.International pressure works only in a clear cut two country war, not a civil war. Lower level right thinking intelligent commanders in our armed forces had realized that as early as March 1971.

The only form of attack when you know you cant win is to defend, especially in urban areas, and that had been the plan to defence East Pakistan from the streets of Decca, that is the plan that change, because the decision to surrender was a last-minute decision, our people love to make tall claims, and tell tall stories.

Will disagree here. There is no evidence that our forces were preparing for a "street-to-street" "house-to-house" battle in Dacca. Foreign correspondents in Dacca would have reported barricades, ditches, machine gun bunkers, anti-tank strong points, and the "break out" of the armed forces out of Dhaka Cantt into smaller resistance groups. Approach roads and bridges would have been mined and most important of all the telephone exchange, and national TV and radio stations would have been destroyed to deny their use to the enemy paratroopers. The Tejgaon airport runway would have been dug up, and obstacles placed on open ground such as Ramna Maidan and the stadium to deter helicopter or STOL aircraft born assault. Dhaka and Savar Cantt would have been completely empty, with a highly mobile command center operating underground. No general keeps a Mercedes ready during street fighting.
The "Tet" offensive in Vietnam and the defense of Hue, or the defense of Grozny in Chechnya show how ugly street fighting can be. We don't even want to draw parallels to Stalingrad, Warsaw, Berlin, or more recently Alleppo, and Homs .
General Niazi's mission was to hold Dacca with minimal losses, until international pressure, or a remote chance of Indian reverses on the Western Front resulted in ceasefire in the East. A negotiated withdrawal could then be discussed. Once international pressure was ineffective due to multiple Soviet vetos in the UN there was no point fighting for a hostile people in a foreign land . The prime objective then was to save the lives of our troops and get them back to Pakistan even if it meant a highly publicized surrender.

But, that does not make them true, if they are contrary to the facts on the ground.
Opinion and advice by senior persons do not equate to an established policy, there is a massive gap between what was advised and what should be the right course of action, and what is the policy on the ground.

Agree, again entirely . Why the professional advice of the security advisors was rejected is a different topic for a different thread.

Regarding tanks and heavy equipment, I do not think we ever had large heavy formations on the ground in East Pakistan because the terrain does not support tank warfare, it is more suited for light mobile formations, so the lack of military equipment many years later does not point to much.

Agree again. There were small Chaffee tanks in use in the border areas. Pakistan possibly had some M113 amphibious IFV but am not an expert on this . Very few Chaffees were captured intact ( but completely disabled).

It is believable that they destroyed many items, certainly artillery and a few other items, but not 90%, because of the reasons I mentioned.

We can dispute the percentage of equipment disabled and how much was captured by the enemy but the clinching evidence is that India only claims POWs in Bangladesh not so much equipment captured. On the western front both in 1965 and 1971 there are plenty of photographs and video images of equipment captured or destroyed by both sides.

To start with we did not have much equipment there in the first place and secondly, only a certain amount of military equipment could be destroyed, which is believable, but not much in economic terms.

Agree again. There is still reason to believe that our armed forces were professional enough to deny the enemy military assets. Economically whatever production capital assets was left behind could not be maintained and deteriorated rapidly. By 1974 the country was in a famine mode.
See this link to a video of conditions in 1974.

Most PDF members here have what is called the "rubber band" effect.
We wish to talk about the aftermath of the war, and the conversation goes zips back "rubber band" style to why the war happened and whose fault it was.
Post 1971 Pakistan never had to endure horrors such as this ( link)

To conclude, based on what information is publicly available it is unable to determine that India and its armed forces looted Pakistani assets ( whatever was left). However there may be much we still don't know .

 

[peagle]

That post was in response to the Bangladeshi guest member claims that India looted West Pakistani assets after 1971, and denied Bangladesh the spoils of victory. The Bangladeshi members were specifically citing military equipment surrendered by the our forces.
My counter argument was:

1. 90% of military assets were destroyed or rendered useless by our forces. It was possible to destroy these assets quickly
and did happen. If large scale equipment had been surrendered then India would have been boasting about it. India only touts "93,000 " POWs , not how many artillery pieces, AFVs , etc captured.

2. 90% of civilian aviation assets were removed, or rendered useless by our civil aviation crew. This is the most evident aspect of the war. Since after the war Bangladesh essentially did not have an airline, or civilian aviation resources of any kind.

3.Other civilian assets such as civilian vehicles owned by Public Works Departments etc. Railways such as locomotives, rolling stock etc. probably fell into Indian hands . It is hard to claim 90% destruction or disabling here but it is unlikely these were of any use to India.
Being of foreign origin getting spares to maintain these assets would have been difficult.
Also India was still debating annexation of Bangladesh so these assets particularly the Railways were to be left in Bangladesh.

4. India then nowhere had the media and diplomatic clout it has today and was under international radar, with media correspondents all over the place. TV footage was still in its infancy but there is sufficient 35 mm film still surviving of the war and now freely available on-line. Looting of assets is a war crime under international law and would have been reported by international media.



Agree here, which is what I said. In the 1965 war even the small air component of the then East Pakistan defense was able to inflict damage on the enemy.
By 1971, the important part is that more air force assets were not transferred from West Pakistan, when it was evident that an enemy assault on the territory was inevitable.
Even as early as June 1971 there was evidence of sabotage, and compromise by East Bengali origin aircraft maintenance crew members of our air assets.
We did manage to disable all the planes before leaving. The most important aspect is the behind the scenes diplomatic and military liaison with Myanmar, Sri Lanka and China and opened their airspace and refueling facilities for all the planes to return to Pakistan safely without mishap. This in itself is a brilliant feat of diplomatic and military coordination.,


Agree again. The strategy is common knowledge. However , there was a defense strategy for East Pakistan upto 1965, based on terrain advantages, and a massive people's resistance. By 1971 the situation had completely changed. India had invested heavily in airborne assault troops and amphibious light tanks, assault boats. But all that equipment still would not have helped against a robust people's resistance.
What blinded an idealistic and unrealistic set of politicians is the fact that extreme ethno-linguistic chauvinism had resulted in a hostile population willing to make a deal with the enemy.International pressure works only in a clear cut two country war, not a civil war. Lower level right thinking intelligent commanders in our armed forces had realized that as early as March 1971.



Will disagree here. There is no evidence that our forces were preparing for a "street-to-street" "house-to-house" battle in Dacca. Foreign correspondents in Dacca would have reported barricades, ditches, machine gun bunkers, anti-tank strong points, and the "break out" of the armed forces out of Dhaka Cantt into smaller resistance groups. Approach roads and bridges would have been mined and most important of all the telephone exchange, and national TV and radio stations would have been destroyed to deny their use to the enemy paratroopers. as The Tejgaon airport runway would have been dug up and obstacles placed on open ground such as Ramna Maidan and the stadium to deter helicopter or STOL aircraft born assault. Dhaka and Savar Cantt would have been completely empty, with a highly mobile command center operating underground. No general keeps a Mercedes ready during street fighting.
The "Tet" offensive in Vietnam and the defense of Hue, or the defense of Grozny in Chechnya show how ugly street fighting can be. We don't even want to draw parallels to Stalingrad, Warsaw, Berlin, or more recently Alleppo, and Homs .
General Niazi's mission was to hold Dacca with minimal losses, until international pressure or a remote chance of Indian reverses on the Western Front resulted in ceasefire in the East. A negotiated withdrawal could then be discussed. Once international pressure was ineffective due to multiple Soviet vetos in the UN there was no point fighting for a hostile people in a foreign land . The prime objective then was to save the lives of our troops and get them back to Pakistan even if it meant a highly publicized surrender.



Agree, again entirely . Why the professional advice of the security advisors was rejected is a different topic for a different thread.



Agree again. There were small Chaffee tanks in use in the border areas. Pakistan possibly had some M113 amphibious IFV but am not an expert on this . Very few Chaffees were captured intact ( but completely disabled).



We can dispute the percentage of equipment disabled and how much was captured by the enemy but the clinching evidence is that India only claims POWs in Bangladesh not so much equipment captured. On the western front both in 1965 and 1971 there are plenty of photographs and video images of equipment captured or destroyed by both sides.



Agree again. There is still reason to believe that our armed forces were professional enough to deny the enemy military assets. Economically whatever production capital assets was left behind could not be maintained and deteriorated rapidly. By 1974 the country was in a famine mode.
See this link to a video of conditions in 1974.

Most PDF members here have what is called the "rubber band" effect.
We wish to talk about the aftermath of the war, and the conversation goes zips back "rubber band" style to why the war happened and whose fault it was.

I think you enjoy arguing for the sake of arguing, every reply seems to add new aspects to a simple discussion, which leads to a never-ending discussion. Thats just pointless, because we might as well sit here for the rest of our lives, and still not reach a conclusion.

Some points I agree with, some I do not, others you have reached wrong conclusions whilst providing relevant facts.

Back to our original discussion.
"Pakistan mostly destroyed, disabled or took away 90% of its assets"

You had asked for clarification regarding my reply on the other thread, I am fully aware of what the topic in that thread was, and I gave you the reasons for my objection, which centred on your statement in the above quotation.

You agreed that as it stands the above statement is not entirely true, because it has a different aspect, so a blanket claim cannot be made.

As far as I am concerned our discussion is complete.
If you wish to pick one or two topics from the above plethora of topics we can discuss those, on the condition we have a concentrated discussion, and not one which goes into endless tangents.

 

[magra]

@Baibars_1260 : Mere dost. Need your honest answers on this one. I know I can trust you.

it noticed that Pakistan was on verge of Economic freedom , in 1960's , so the 1965 war was commenced in order to hinder Pakistan's growth.

As per Pakistan's own admission, Pak army started Operation Gibraltor in Indian Kashmir in 1965. How is that India commenced the war? Why would India who was still recovering from a defeat in 1962 choose to attack in 1965?

FATF is just open of such active war fronts.

Some of your fellow Pakistanis claim how FATF is good for Pakistan as it is forcing Pak politicians to clean up their act and which will reduce corruption etc. If that is the case, then you should thank India.

One of the major initiatives taken by enemy was of course establishment of fake stories about Rape/Murder in order to diminish relations between East Pakistani and West Pakistani Citizens.

If that is the case, then I am truly impressed by Indian propaganda machinery. Thank you. We planted stories of only a few hundred and Bangladeshis have blown up the figure to 3 million. How sweet of them

The reality in East Pakistan was that between 1950 and 1970 , India destroyed the East Pakistan (Bangladesh) Economy many times by releasing flood waters which kept that region under developed.

For releasing flood waters, one needs large dams to hold that water first. Were there any big dams of note in West Bengal or Assam prior to 1971? I doubt.

USA never showed up to party and left us cold and dry in 1971.

US & UK did come with their nuclear ships in Bay of Bengal lekin Russian nuclear subs dekhke phat li unki. They did not want a nuclear showdown with Russia, so they ran with their tails in their hands.

the Role of India in promoting Anti Pakistan Feeling by support to certain factions and groups such as Mujib Ur Rehman etc.

So why did you allow Mujib Ur Rehman to stand in your 1970 elections? You realized he is an Indian mole only after he won the election?

India - Pakistan can have some sort of peace is 100% Not possible Unless India fully withdraw from Kashmir and Let them combine with Pakistan.

If you want by force, then game on. If you are dreaming of by legal means or diplomacy, then read the 1st condition of UN resolution 1948 - Pakistan was to withdraw all regular / irregular forces from the entirety of J&K.

 

[Baibars_1260]

@Baibars_1260 : Mere dost. Need your honest answers on this one. I know I can trust you.

As per Pakistan's own admission, Pak army started Operation Gibraltor in Indian Kashmir in 1965. How is that India commenced the war? Why would India who was still recovering from a defeat in 1962 choose to attack in 1965?

"Operation Gibraltar" was started by Pakistan under the following assumptions:
1. The Kashmiri people in the Valley would rise up in support of Pakistani special forces that had successfully infiltrated and were operating in the area and tie down Indian armed forces so that an offensive across the border would be successful
It didn't happen because the Kashmiri linguistic identity in the Valley is different from the identity in the Muzaffarabad Mirpur belt. Pakistan was then under martial law and for the average Kashmiri at that time the existing political freedoms granted were still preferable to martial law. Religion was a nominal factor because India didn't have a Hindutva government or mindset at that time. Religiously there were few restrictions on Kashmiris. So what we Pakistanis would see as a betrayal the Kashmiris chose their destiny with India.
2. Pakistan had not envisioned an Indian response across the International boundary in Punjab and Sindh so was initially unprepared for it. By international law nations can fight over disputed territory but attacking across an international boundary is naked aggression. Example: The UK and Argentina fought a war over the Falkland Islands but the UK did not bomb Buenos Aires even though it had the capabilities to do so. Likewise China and India have had border wars 1962, 1967, but India has never penetrated Chinese airspace, and hit Urumuqi or Lhasa. China too has never struck India beyond the territory it disputes.
India bombed Lahore and got a punishing response.
See the account of the war with interesting press clippings in this video. I believe you can follow Urdu but there should be subtitles you can switch on.
Pakistan has since learned that linguistic and cultural identities are important factors in determining foreign policy . Which is why keeping the Kashmir pot "boiling " is a far better strategy than fighting a war over a people that essentially want self determination rather than merger with Pakistan.
Pakistan can't keep the pot "boiling " on its own.
Unlike the quiet 1965-1975 decade for Kashmir when the Kashmiris in India were largely running their own affairs ( family corruption notwithstanding) it was difficult to alienate them. Then the Kashmiris in India were mini-VIPs with full access to all of India's university admissions, right to start businesses, and federal and provincial government jobs which included jobs in the armed forces.
It was and is the state with the lowest poverty level anywhere in India. The Kashmiris never identified as Indian Muslims either and no Indian ( Muslim, Hindu, whatever) had the right to settle there. Kashmiris generally had cordial relations with the Hindu Pundit minority and Jammu Hindus and after Partition till 1990 there few if any instances of communal tensions or violence.
Decades later with the rise of Hindutva ( we can discuss on a different thread, how and why ) the Kashmiri alienation is complete and the religious divide amongst Kashmiris is permanent and in fact far worse than the religious divide amongst Indian Muslims and Hindus because there is no "Urban Naxal ", Left wing group in Kashmir to mitigate the tensions.

I hate to rejoice over the misery of a people. Kashmiris, whether Hindu, Muslim, Sikh or Buddhist are all suffering.

Will answer the rest of your questions in the next post.[/QUOTE]

 

[PakistaniAtBahrain]

If that is the case, then I am truly impressed by Indian propaganda machinery. Thank you. We planted stories of only a few hundred and Bangladeshis have blown up the figure to 3 million. How sweet of them

India planted stories of 1 million, with help from Soviets intelligence.

So why did you allow Mujib Ur Rehman to stand in your 1970 elections? You realized he is an Indian mole only after he won the election?

because Pakistan knew not letting Mujib stand for election would cause a riot in East Pakistan because he was already very popular there and then a secession would be almost certain. same reason the Agartala conspiracy trials were abandoned.

 

[magra]

"Operation Gibraltar" was started by Pakistan

Thank you for accepting that. So do you agree that without this operation, there would have been no war in 1965? If that is the case, then the claim by your fellow Pakistani that India wanted to disturb Pakistan's economy and hence started the war is false. Dont you agree?

By international law nations can fight over disputed territory but attacking across an international boundary is naked aggression.

Please point to the credible source for such a law where it says that if attacked on a disputed territory, a nation cannot respond to it on the non-disputed one.
By your own logic, if today, India decides to attack on your side of Kashmir to try and annex it, you would limit your defence to Kashmir area and not open any other front, correct? And obviously not think of dropping any A-bombs on India.
And in 1947, Kashmir was not disputed but a princely state yet to make its decision. Pak sent its irregular forces to attack a then non-disputed princely state, was it not a naked aggression?

It was and is the state with the lowest poverty level anywhere in India.

So all claims that we are using Kashmir as a colony is false. Colonies are meant to be sucked dry such as how Britain sucked India (incl. Pak & BD) dry. Here, you are agreeing that Kashmir is better off economically than any other state in India.

Kashmiris generally had cordial relations with the Hindu Pundit minority and Jammu Hindus and after Partition till 1990 there few if any instances of communal tensions or violence.

Yes, Kashmir was peaceful till the Jihadis free from defeating Soviets were pushed into Kashmir to wreak havoc. So Pakistan is to blame for all of Kashmir's pain since 1990.

India planted stories of 1 million, with help from Soviets intelligence.

As I said, I am proud of Indian propaganda machinery if thats the case. @Atlas : Do you agree with what Pakistanis are saying that India planted fake stories of Mass killings / rapes of East Pakistanis by West Pakistani military?

because Pakistan knew not letting Mujib stand for election would cause a riot in East Pakistan because he was already very popular there and then a secession would be almost certain. same reason the Agartala conspiracy trials were abandoned.

Surely, declassifed records of 1970 would tell us how conflicted W. Pak generals were to allow Mujib standing for election while knowing he is Indian agent, right?

 

[Baibars_1260]

Some of your fellow Pakistanis claim how FATF is good for Pakistan as it is forcing Pak politicians to clean up their act and which will reduce corruption etc. If that is the case, then you should thank India.

FATF is a purely technical certification for the "global world order" to manage money and is purely political.
Mauritius, Myanmar and Zimbabwe are also on the "grey" list. If FATF had been around in the late 1970s Col. Oliver North would not have been able to divert payments from Iran for spares and weapons sold to fund anti-Nicaragua Contra insurgents.
India has nothing to do with FATF though Indian jingoistic media hypes FATF as. foreign policy victory. It is purely procedural and some countries comply and some don't.
FATF certification only marginally affects banking and investment. Cayman Islands. a notorious "Swiss type " banking center raking in billions of money laundering dollars, cares very little about the FATF, and being on the grey list ( in fact it welcomes the honor! ).

 

[magra]

India has nothing to do with FATF. It is purely procedural and some countries comply and some don't.

So, FATF action on Pak is not due to any Indian design. Thanks for refuting your fellow Pakistani's statement.