What's new

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

Status
Not open for further replies.
Can I now qualify this as trolling.
You are putting out post after post on the same topic on which there is no dispute. Everyone agrees that Maharaja was complicit in the communal violence during partition.

No you don't. You put two successive posts on the actions of irregular non-state militias in Kashmir as proof of brutality when the bigger picture is there was brutality on both sides with a far greater and more savage genicide conducted by the Maharaja's forces.

Your selective representation impresses no one. Your argument is flawed and biased.

I am putting you on the ignore list, and the website software won't let me see your posts anymore.
 
Last edited:
.
The 1971 fiasco should be taught in Pakistani schools.

How the Bengalis were otherized all throughout the sixties. By the ruling elite of our country. Despite being the majority.

In ever so subtle ways. Things like their women wear sarees, they write in a 'Hindu script', they don't look like us, they eat fish not meat etc etc. They never fired the starting shots. They just asked for their rightful mandate. It was our haughty regime that couldn't tolerate them rising up.

There is no 1971 civil war psychological syndrome. All I see is haughtiness and a refusal to address how we lost the majority of our country. And a blind spot to deal with anything to do with that event including the stranded Pakistanis that are still left rotting in camps in Dhaka.
 
.
Where does the article mention Pakistani army officers and men ?
I was referring to the situation after May 4 1948 to January 1949 when the Pakistani Armed forces held the Indian Army to a stalemate.
When did the regular Pakistan army indulge in murder, arson and rape in Kashmir?
For the record I condemn the savage actions of the irregulars tribal bands that were out of control.
If you count the actions of the irregulars as savagery than look at the whole picture what the Maharajas Dogra troops did in Jammu, Their atrocities are not pinned on the Indian Army who were supporting them initially.

Since this is getting into slug fest. Let me unload the barbarism of the Dogra pehredaar of the Raja here.
@peagle has all the sources .

Indian forces landed in Kashmir on 27th October 1947, Pakistan's position is they arrived earlier.
The Massacres happen during mid-October and late November. Although, the build-up happened earlier, and the Indian Army would have been aware of the situation.

The Indian forces were on the ground and sufficiently capable to be able to put a stop to them because the massacres took place in a small region.

Being the other by Saeed Naqvi,
I have read it and it is a good book.

There is limited scholarly work regarding these massacres because it has largely been hushed up, just like the Hyderabad Massacre.

The worse thing the tribals did was looting, other things are mostly alleged, but I'm sure some other crimes did take place, although nothing like created in people's fantasies. There is also the angle of showing them in a bad light so why not create stories. But, on a whole, I think they could and should have behaved better.

https://thekashmirwalla.com/2020/11/unfolding-of-the-1947-jammu-massacre/

https://scroll.in/article/811468/the-killing-fields-of-jammu-when-it-was-muslims-who-were-eliminated

https://timesheadline.com/india/jam...n-jammu-which-led-to-kashmir-issue-25645.html

https://occupiedkashmir.wordpress.com/2012/11/06/jammu-massacre-1947/
 
.
You may try but would not succeed.
Your citizens will continue to travel to India for medical purposes for the foreseeable future and we will give good mehmaan-nawaazi. Our Sikhs will come to Kartarpur and interact with you guys and receive mehmaan-nawaazi.
You guys will continue to follow Bollywood (if not openly then covertly) with zeal and will dance on your marriages on latest Bollywood songs. Once ties are bit better, your artists and film stars will continue to come to India to get work.
You will continue to follow Kohli & team to take inspiration. Your Wasim Akrams and Shoaib Akhtars will continue to talk at our post match analysis shows.
Indian & Pakistani diaspora will continue to mingle in UK, US, Canada, Dubai etc. and talk in desi tongue.

In short, humse peechha chhudana mushkil hi nahin, naamumkin hai (if you could guess the movie reference, you would know why)

Not joining the conversation, just adding my bit.

I largely agree with you although, but not for all the reasons you mentioned, I'm sure some people will be taunted by it. The links and influences flow tow ways, there are plenty of examples.

You see in Pakistan a new generation is taking root that wants to look outside of South Asia, some want to do a 180-degree turn, some just want to balance our relations with South Asia and West/Central Asia.

The fact remains, we cannot ignore our cultural links with the rest of the South Asian region, of which India is the largest part. Even the Pathans on the Pakistan side of the border have links to South Asian culture, whereas the Pathans on the afghan side live in another world. The Afghan links are largely recent, with 4 million-plus refugees in Pakistan for 40 years, and the added recent influence of bollywood.

When Bulley Shah writes,
Destroy the Masjid, destroy the Mandir, destroy whatever you want, just do not destroy a person's heart, for God resides there.

It sounds much better to someone who can understand Punjabi, and possibly Urdu and Hindi with slight adjustments. The emotions this evokes are understood by the Muslim, Sikh, Hindu, or Christian that go deep inside, but a West/Central Asian cannot understand the depth of this verse to the same degree. this is the bond that is impossible to eliminate.

Once we resolve our core issues, I honestly see a festival of love in South Asia (not a dirty festival lol), for anyone to deny that, is to admit they are blinded by frustration and anger. We India and Pakistan can change our future, but not our past.
As things stand, sadly Baibars is right, the drift is continuing, but I am hoping it will change and we will meet again.
 
.
Exactly ! You cant blame Pakistan for responding when the Maharaja started a genocide of his own subjects with regular state forces. I blame the irregulars ( not the Pakistan army ) for atrocities in revenge for the genocide in Jammu.
Pakistan is to blame indirectly as well, since it sent an irregular force which did the heinous acts of murdering innocents, rape, plunder, kidnapping. Pakistan never punished that irregular force for such acts which basically means it condoned and encouraged such revengeful behavior.

There were a large number of Indian army officers serving with the Maharaja's forces like Brigadier Rajinder Singh, and Lt. General Katoch. They were as much involved in the Jammu genocide as anyone else.
I do not know if Indian army officers were there, but if yes, they were surely in individual capacity and not sent by Indian govt. Bulk of the Indian army only entered after Hari Singh acceded.

If India had a moral case in Kashmir it would have sought UN intervention
You are blatantly spreading falsehoods here. Can I call that lying and trolling?

India did seek UN intervention which led to UN Resolution in 1948.

India did nothing except agree to amorphous terms of a plebiscite it never intended to honor.
For honoring plebsicite, Pak army had to withdraw as per UN resolution which it never did. Did you expect India to conduct plebiscite on only part of Kashmir?

Because of the Jammu genocide the UN and the world were not going to side with India and force Pakistan to vacate Kashmir.
You have yourself acknowledged that Indian army acted professionally and did not engage in Jammu massacres. So how is India to blame.
UN did side with India and the 1948 resolution called on Pakistan to vacate Kashmir. Only that the resolution was non-binding in nature and hence Pakistan ignored it.
So Pakistanis are going to watch Uri, Border, and Lakshya and cheer for the Indian Army ?

But they have nothing else to watch .
Obviously such movies are going to be banned in Pak, but there are many more Bollywood movies not having Army or terrorist themes which Pakistanis love to watch.
Good to know your knowledge of Bollywood though, you claimed to be ignorant about it but you know fair bit.
Surely, you know about movies like 3 Idiots, Dangal, Bahubali, Bajrangi Bhaijaan etc etc
No muslims were portrayed as villians and these were a craze on both sides of border.
No you don't. You put two successive posts on the actions of irregular non-state militias in Kashmir as proof of brutality when the bigger picture is there was brutality on both sides with a far greater and mire savage genicide conducted by the Maharaja's forces.

Your selective representation impresses no one. Your argument is flawed and biased.

I am putting you on the ignore list, and the website software won't let me see your posts anymore.
So a smaller genocide as a response to a larger genocide is OK and can be condoned? Does it absolve Pakistani tribesmen? Does it absolve Pakistan who did not punish them? Did Pakistan express remorse that the people it sent to stop rapes did the very same thing ?

Your logic is flawed.
 
Last edited:
.
So a smaller genocide as a response to a larger genocide is OK and can be condoned? Does it absolve Pakistani tribesmen? Does it absolve Pakistan who did not punish them? Did Pakistan express remorse that the people it sent to stop rapes did the very same thing ?
So a larger genocide is to be hushed up where a ruthless "king" murders his own subjects with his own forces and only the depredations of a foreign irregular force are to be mentioned?
A truly representative government and popular compassionate ruler would have defended it's land and protected all its citizens, not massacring one section of its own citizens and simultaneously trying to defend a foreign invasion.

Does it absolve Pakistani tribesmen? No, it doesn't.
Did Pakistan express remorse that the people it sent to stop the rapes did the same thing?
No, it didn't but I agree it should have.
Technically the irregulars were not under the direct command of the Pakistani armed forces , but the support was there.
A parallel:
1993: Bosnian Serbs were not technically part of the Serbian Army (though entirely supported), and massacres they committed in Bosnia have never been acknowledged or regretted by Serbia .Should Serbia have acknowledged the massacres and punished the Serbian war lords? It was left to the UN to do that.

Another parallel: 1982 September 16-18 ; the Christian Maronite militias in Lebanon carried out massacres of Palestinians in the refugee camps of Sabra and Chatila with support and arms from the Israeli army, Israel never acknowledged or regretted the massacres.

Likewise, Maharaja Hari Singh's troops had been armed by India and staffed by Indian Army officers .
The Jammu genocide was carried out under the full watch of the Indian Army which stood by and watched the genocide, and did nothing on technical grounds of "accession" .

Did India ever express remorse for the Jammu genocide?
Did India punish those renegade Indian army officers who organized and participated in the massacres?
It never did. These renegade officers are being lauded as heroes in India, the "Slobodan Milosevics " of that era.

You have yourself acknowledged that Indian army acted professionally and did not engage in Jammu massacres. So how is India to blame.

Who is blaming the Indian Army? At that time it was apolitical.
It would only act on the instructions of its government. It didn't commit any massacres and stood by and watched. It is the Indian government that is to blame.

India's stand :
Don't blame us. It was the Maharaja who was the villain. Did we make him a VIP after he acceded his state to us ? Yes we did because after all he was a Hindu like us . Why should we cry over a few 100,000 Muslims killed?
They deserved what they got .
Look what their co-religionists did afterwards.

You are blatantly spreading falsehoods here. Can I call that lying and trolling?
There are no falsehoods.
I am talking of UN intervention to stop genocide in Kashmir in 1947 prior to accession. Since Kashmir was an autonomous territory a UN approved intervention was applicable ( like Bosnia in 1992 ). India went for accession, leaving the Dogra murderers scott free. If Pakistani irregulars had concentrated only on meeting out Justice to these fascist scum they would have had my complete admiration.

India sought intervention of the UN much later after the genocides had ended; by which time the war had moved to an army vs army with the non-state actors and the state militia out of the picture.
Protecting people was not a priority since the Indian Army did disband the Maharaja's forces and support Sheikh Abdullah's populist movement.

It was now a question of territory and Indian army floundered trying to break through the defenses set up by the Pakistani armed forces. Any competent army with complete air superiority, armor and artillery assets would have delivered a victory. But India went to the UN.

India did seek UN intervention which led to UN Resolution in 1948.
Of course it did. That was the only option given the image and optics it failed to project and the victory its armed forces failed to deliver.
There is a reason the UN resolution is non-binding on Pakistan to vacate Kashmir because on moral grounds Pakistan is not seen as an aggressor but an "intervenor". I have already drawn parallels to North Korea, ( 1949), Iraq ( 1991 ) as examples where clear cut aggression is defined by the UN resulting in military action.
This did not happen in Kashmir. No UN troops were called in.

India can try all the optics it wants. The UN is irrelevant here . The Kashmir situation has moved beyond territory and technicalities.

Kashmir itself is largely irrelevant. Between India and Pakistan it is now a civilizational and generational religious conflict, encompassing not just Kashmir but all of Pakistan and India. This civilizational conflict is likely to morph into yet another war that will cause a much larger loss of lives on both sides. A loss that will take more than a generation to recover from...
The mutual genocides of Kashmir will be but a footnote in History...
 
Last edited:
.
So a larger genocide is to be hushed up where a ruthless "king" murders his own subjects with his own forces and only the depredations of a foreign irregular force are to be mentioned?
A truly representative government and popular compassionate ruler would have defended it's land and protected all its citizens, not massacring one section of its own citizens and simultaneously trying to defend a foreign invasion.
India has not hushed it. You quoted some Indian articles which detailed the massacres. India would have stopped them from publishing if we wanted to hush.

Does it absolve Pakistani tribesmen? No, it doesn't.
Did Pakistan express remorse that the people it sent to stop the rapes did the same thing?
No, it didn't but I agree it should have.
Technically the irregulars were not under the direct command of the Pakistani armed forces , but the support was there.
Pakistani irregulars (under nominal command of regular army) did the same thing as the princely state forces. Killing, rape, plunder etc.
They were only limited due to the time constraint and the need to grab land.
Pakistan takes pride in their role in capturing a part of Kashmir but does not even mention in a footnote of the attrocities committed by them. It is like having a cake and eating it too.

A parallel:
1993: Bosnian Serbs were not technically part of the Serbian Army (though entirely supported), and massacres they committed in Bosnia have never been acknowledged or regretted by Serbia .Should Serbia have acknowledged the massacres and punished the Serbian war lords? It was left to the UN to do that.

Another parallel: 1982 September 16-18 ; the Christian Maronite militias in Lebanon carried out massacres of Palestinians in the refugee camps of Sabra and Chatila with support and arms from the Israeli army, Israel never acknowledged or regretted the massacres.
Your logic.. Look at history. Serbia was bad, Israel was bad. So Pakistan is fine to be bad and unapologetic about it.

Likewise, Maharaja Hari Singh's troops had been armed by India and staffed by Indian Army officers .
The Jammu genocide was carried out under the full watch of the Indian Army which stood by and watched the genocide, and did nothing on technical grounds of "accession" .

I do not know if Indian army officers were there with Hari Singh's troops pre-accession, but I am sure they would be very few in advisory capacity only. Hari Singh wanted his state to be independent. He would be threatened to allow a large contigent of Indian army within the state. And a large contingent would have easily repulsed the untrained irregulars at Muzzafarabad itself.

Did India ever express remorse for the Jammu genocide?
Did India punish those renegade Indian army officers who organized and participated in the massacres?
It never did. These renegade officers are being lauded as heroes in India, the "Slobodan Milosevics " of that era.
Who is blaming the Indian Army? At that time it was apolitical.
It didn't commit any massacres and stood by and watched.
Did India send officers to take part in any of Hari Singh's crimes or to plunder, or to capture land? Whatever individual army officers would have done (and you are saying they just observed and did not take part either) was in individual capacity. India had no role in that.
If any officers participated in massacre, then I agree that they should have been investigated into and punished.

Don't blame us. It was the Maharaja who was the villain. Did we make him a VIP after he acceded his state to us ? Yes we did because after all he was a Hindu like us . Why should we cry over a few 100,000 Muslims killed?
Realpolitic is not so easy. So cant just take the state from a monarch and then put him in jail. He obviously negotiated for himself before signing on the accension.

Did it happen for the first time? No.
India gave similarly high status to Hyderabad Nizam even though he authorized large scale killing of the Hindus in his state using his Razakars.

So what India did was due to political compulsions, not because of co-religious sympathy. India did not have a religion. India's religion was secularism. Only Pakistan had a religion.

I am talking of UN intervention to stop genocide in Kashmir in 1947 prior to accession. Since Kashmir was an autonomous territory a UN approved intervention was applicable ( like Bosnia in 1992 ).
Good question. Why did UN not intervene on its own? May be because British (permanent member of SC) did not want undue attention on this part of the world and how it left the subcontinent in a mess.
Why did neither Pakistan nor India approach UN to intervene when Hari Singh was targetting Muslims. May be because India wanted not to antagonize Hari Singh hoping that he may accede to India. May be because Pakistan was already planning to invade and capture Kashmir so UN intervention would have killed those plans.

India sought intervention of the UN much later after the genocides had ended; by which time the war had moved to an army vs army with the non-state actors and the state militia out of the picture.
Protecting people was not a priority since the Indian Army did disband the Maharaja's forces and support Sheikh Abdullah's populist movement.
India stepped in to stop the madness from both ends. Once stopped, India did not want further needless bloodshed. It wanted the problem to solved amicably from that point and hence approached UN.

It was now a question of territory and Indian army floundered trying to break through the defenses set up by the Pakistani armed forces. Any competent army with complete air superiority, armor and artillery assets would have delivered a victory. But India went to the UN.
Of course it did. That was the only option given the image and optics it failed to project and the victory its armed forces failed to deliver.
As I mentioned before, situation of Indian army was also not great. You had direct road connectivity. India did not. The only good link was aerial. To avoid needless bloodshed in a stalemate fight, India went to the UN.

There is a reason the UN resolution is non-binding on Pakistan to vacate Kashmir because on moral grounds Pakistan is not seen as an aggressor but an "intervenor". I have already drawn parallels to North Korea, ( 1949), Iraq ( 1991 ) as examples where clear cut aggression is defined by the UN resulting in military action.
This did not happen in Kashmir. No UN troops were called in.
There may be multiple reasons why it was non-binding.
1. Crimes were committed by princely state also.
2. Second world war had just ended and there was little appetite to involve forces in a conflict where big powers had little stake. Neither India or Pak were explicitly in US or Russia camp at that time. Korea was a proxy war between Russia / China on one side and US / UK on another.

Kashmir itself is largely irrelevant. Between India and Pakistan it is now a civilizational and generational religious conflict, encompassing not just Kashmir but all of Pakistan and India. This civilizational conflict is likely to morph into yet another war that will cause a much larger loss of lives on both sides. A loss that will take more than a generation to recover from...
The mutual genocides of Kashmir will be but a footnote in History...
That is in Pakistani's mind. India wants to look ahead to achieve superpower status one-day. And the path to it is economic not military. It just wants the irritation on Kashmir to go away so that it focuses on its priority of development.[/QUOTE]
 
Last edited:
.
India has not hushed it. You quoted some Indian articles which detailed the massacres. India would have stopped them from publishing if we wanted to hush.

Officially India has hushed it up. There is no official acknowledgment regret or mention of this carnage carried out by the puppet Maharaja's militia.
There are some neutral committed journalists and historians still around in India ( but not for long) who continue to expose the truth at the risk of their lives.
India's revisionist history is so effective that few people in India believe the massacre of Jammu Muslims ( or Muslims in Haryana, Bihar and Punjab ) ever took place . The eye witnesses are dead, and all that remains are declassified British intelligence files in London's India House for foreign historians to study ( Example : British MI6 officer Captain A. Martin's account of the massacre of Muslims in Bihar in 1946.) Even these documents will soon be gone as India demands possession of these from U.K. after declassification.
India's official narrative is that Hindus were the only victims of the partition violence. As India redefines itself into its fascist mold it perceives itself as the victor to re-write history.

Pakistani irregulars (under nominal command of regular army) did the same thing as the princely state forces. Killing, rape, plunder etc.
They were only limited due to the time constraint and the need to grab land.
Pakistan takes pride in their role in capturing a part of Kashmir but does not even mention in a footnote of the attrocities committed by them. It is like having a cake and eating it too.
Pakistan doesn't credit irregulars for taking Kashmir, but its own regular armed forces that saved the situation. The irregulars only beat the daylights out of the Maharaja's tinpot army ( scum fighting scum). Instead of concentrating on a tactical consolidation of the gains as any professional army would have done the irregulars started plunder and massacres of the minority population. The irregulars got thrashed by the Indian army, until the regular Pakistan army intervened. Pakistan sent the irregular forces back to where they came from, and beat off the Indian army's attempts to regain territory it lost.
We already agreed that Pakistan should have prevented the irregulars from carrying out atrocities, and punished those responsible.

Your logic.. Look at history. Serbia was bad, Israel was bad. So Pakistan is fine to be bad and unapologetic about it.

Read what I wrote again. Pakistan should have been apologetic about atrocities committed by irregulars . Few nations actually take responsibility for the actions of irregular allied forces. In Bangladesh, India has never been apologetic about a hundred thousand Pakistani's of Indian origin being killed by its ally Mukti Bahini irregulars either, even though the Mukti Bahini was under its command.

There is a reason why Pakistan used irregulars in the first place, when Pakistan could in theory have it's regular forces, more easily.
As with India the Pakistan's armed forces were then still commanded by a British general ( General Douglas Gracey) , and still staffed by a significant number of senior British officers. Pakistan's COAS General Douglas Gracey refused the demand of his own government to militarily intervene in Kashmir citing the presence of British officers who would end up fighting their colleagues still serving in the Indian army were India to intervene militarily also. General Gracey in fact had already been in touch with his counter part in India General Claude Auchinleck. Since August 1947 the Pakistan Army had been heavily involved trying to restore law and order in Punjab as well as in East Pakistan suppressing communal riots, and in September was still dispersed, and under equipped since the bulk of its equipment had been commandeered by India and left behind after Partition. Additionally a significant section of the Pakistan Army was stranded in East Pakistan with no way of redeployment to the west. Pakistan had no navy , or even a civilian Merchant Marine to move assets from east to west. There was no air connection either as there were no transport aircraft with a virtually non-existent air force comprised of 3 ramshackle Dakota aircraft short of spares and fuel.

Since the Maharaja's tin pot army was only good for butchering his own civilians, sending in irregulars seemed to be an only option. Scum fighting scum !

Not that Indian COAS Auchinleck's own relations with his government were any better.
Sending a report to British Government on 28 September 1947 Auchinleck wrote: "I have no hesitation, whatever, in affirming that the present Indian Cabinet are implacably determined to do all in their power to prevent the establishment of the Dominion of Pakistan on firm basis." He stated in the second, political part of his assessment, "Since 15th August, the situation has steadily deteriorated and the Indian leaders, cabinet ministers, civil officials and others have persistently tried to obstruct the work of partition of the armed forces."

Following severe disagreements with India's defence minister by November 1947 Auchinleck had resigned his command to General Roy Bucher. Almost all his British officers went home.
Meanwile Pakistani COAS General Gracey was reconstructing the Pakistan Army under his command, and removed the British officers still serving. By May 1948 he was ready to face his counter part Indian General Roy Bucher and troops in Kashmir commanded by General Cariappa. Nice war game !
Two British Generals commanding Indian and Pakistani troops fighting each other. General Douglas Gracey was one of the most brilliant British commanders and even with limited forces under his command with no airpower he held a far superior Indian army to a stalemate that sent India running to the UN. If Pakistan holds Azad Kashmir today it is because of General Douglas Gracey who was respected and honored by the men he commanded. As Roy Bucher would have said
" Jolly Good Show old chap ! ".

I do not know if Indian army officers were there with Hari Singh's troops pre-accession, but I am sure they would be very few in advisory capacity only. Hari Singh wanted his state to be independent. He would be threatened to allow a large contigent of Indian army within the state. And a large contingent would have easily repulsed the untrained irregulars at Muzzafarabad itself.
There were many second rate Indian Army officers serving with the Maharaja's tinpot army. They were fired by their religious fervor preferring the communal savagery of the environment in Kashmir to the secular professionalism of the still British commanded Indian army.
I already linked you the instance of Rajinder Singh in Muzaffarabad who came a cropper trying to defend his positions.Even with these British trained officers leading the Maharaja's forces were no match for the Afridi tribesmen.

Did India send officers to take part in any of Hari Singh's crimes or to plunder, or to capture land?
Yes, the Indian political setup fired up a communal environment whuch caused a degradation of the secular mindset amongst mid and junior level Indian Army officers, many of whom deserted to fight on behalf of Hari Singh and his savages. The Indian Army was still commanded by senior British officers who have mentioned the break down of discipline. In November 1947, Indian COAS Claude Auchinleck resigned because of political interference in the armed forces affairs.

Whatever individual army officers would have done (and you are saying they just observed and did not take part either) was in individual capacity. India had no role in that.
If any officers participated in massacre, then I agree that they should have been investigated into and punished.

Read again what I wrote. The Indian Army could not have intervened in Kashmir without a directive from India's political establishment. India's political establishment was keen to let Maharaja Hari Singh "finish the job" of cleansing Muslims out of Jammu and reducing the population.
Those renegade officers like "Lt.Gen." Katoch who served in Hari Singh's murderous outfit were never punished and today are lauded as heroes for their war crimes.
Once again to end your confusion:
Neither the Indian Army nor the Pakistan Army committed war crimes against civilians in Kashmir during operations from 1947-1949. British officers serving on both sides would have reported these events to British intelligence and recorded them in their memoirs.

Realpolitic is not so easy. So cant just take the state from a monarch and then put him in jail. He obviously negotiated for himself before signing on the accension.
Of course ! The Sikh tinpot Raja's who butchered their Muslim subjects in the states of Patiala, Kapurthala, Jind, were to be forgiven too. Their "scores" were much lower in the few thousands.

Did it happen for the first time? No.
India gave similarly high status to Hyderabad Nizam even though he authorized large scale killing of the Hindus in his state using his Razakars.

Sure, and so it is always justified as what aboutery the massacre of Muslims in Hyderabad under General Chaudhary was justified also.
You kill my dog, I kill your cat. That is how a "rising superpower" revises history.

So what India did was due to political compulsions, not because of co-religious sympathy. India did not have a religion. India's religion was secularism. Only Pakistan had a religion.

Oh it is always political compulsions isn't it ? Demolishing a "disputed structure", declaring it sacred on the basis of belief by the Apex court, letting those who perpetrated the crimes go scot free, honoring lynchers. When were political compulsions not there ? Similarly Pakistan has "political compulsions " too in not punishing those irregulars who committed atrocities. Hum sab nangey hain.


Good question. Why did UN not intervene on its own? May be because British (permanent member of SC) did not want undue attention on this part of the world and how it left the subcontinent in a mess.
Why did neither Pakistan nor India approach UN to intervene when Hari Singh was targetting Muslims. May be because India wanted not to antagonize Hari Singh hoping that he may accede to India. May be because Pakistan was already planning to invade and capture Kashmir so UN intervention would have killed those plans.
Of course . So Hindu tyrant massacring Muslims must be given leeway to gently accede to India, and a Muslim tyrant massacring Hindu subjects must be dealt with militarily .
India has a religion, Hindutva .

As they say here in America...
"Its a Hindu Muslim issue stupid ! "

India stepped in to stop the madness from both ends. Once stopped, India did not want further needless bloodshed. It wanted the problem to solved amicably from that point and hence approached UN.

India stepped in to gain territory not to "stop the madness ". India could have stopped the "madness " much earlier. India did nothing to call for the return of 7 million Jammu refugees because it was comfortable with the level of bloodshed that had happened already and the reduction of Muslims in Jammu.
India went to the UN after General Gracey's brilliant campaign halted India's advance northwards.


As I mentioned before, situation of Indian army was also not great. You had direct road connectivity. India did not. The only good link was aerial. To avoid needless bloodshed in a stalemate fight, India went to the UN.

Blame it on the terrain. 😁. With armor and airpower India could have penetrated into Sialkot and attacked Azad Kashmir from the rear.
It didn't because India feared an all out war with a depleted foot soldier Pakistan Army paid rations by barter and salary on rubber stamped currency not worth the paper it was printed on. Says volumes for your courage.


There may be multiple reasons why it was non-binding.
1. Crimes were committed by princely state also.
2. Second world war had just ended and there was little appetite to involve forces in a conflict where big powers had little stake. Neither India or Pak were explicitly in US or Russia camp at that time. Korea was a proxy war between Russia / China on one side and US / UK on another.

Glad you acknowledge the atrocities on both sides. In your earlier posts it was always Pakistan that is "bad".


That is in Pakistani's mind. India wants to look ahead to achieve superpower status one-day. And the path to it is economic not military. It just wants the irritation on Kashmir to go away so that it focuses on its priority of development.

Reminder :
No country becomes a super-power with a threat on its borders that it can't neutralize. The USA would never have been a superpower if it had not subdued Mexico in the 19th century and compromised with Canada later. Economic power alone doesn't guarantee superpower status. Japan and Germany are powerful economies in Asia and Europe but having lost their military power in the World War 2 are not superpowers.
India with a number 94 ranking on the global hunger index and overpopulated with the world's largest population of illiterates, blind, and lepers will not be either a military or economic superpower in the foreseeable future.
In Pakistan we have our rubber stamps handy.
@peagle @PakistaniAtBahrain
 
Last edited:
.
Officially India has hushed it up. There is no official acknowledgment regret or mention of this carnage carried out by the puppet Maharaja's militia.
There are some neutral committed journalists and historians still around in India ( but not for long) who continue to expose the truth at the risk of their lives.
India's revisionist history is so effective that few people in India believe the massacre of Jammu Muslims ( or Muslims in Haryana, Bihar and Punjab ) ever took place . The eye witnesses are dead, and all that remains are declassified British intelligence files in London's India House for foreign historians to study ( Example : British MI6 officer Captain A. Martin's account of the massacre of Muslims in Bihar in 1946.) Even these documents will soon be gone as India demands possession of these from U.K. after declassification.
India's official narrative is that Hindus were the only victims of the partition violence. As India redefines itself into its fascist mold it perceives itself as the victor to re-write history.


Pakistan doesn't credit irregulars for taking Kashmir, but its own regular armed forces that saved the situation. The irregulars only beat the daylights out of the Maharaja's tinpot army ( scum fighting scum). Instead of concentrating on a tactical consolidation of the gains as any professional army would have done the irregulars started plunder and massacres of the minority population. The irregulars got thrashed by the Indian army, until the regular Pakistan army intervened. Pakistan sent the irregular forces back to where they came from, and beat off the Indian army's attempts to regain territory it lost.
We already agreed that Pakistan should have prevented the irregulars from carrying out atrocities, and punished those responsible.



Read what I wrote again. Pakistan should have been apologetic about atrocities committed by irregulars . Few nations actually take responsibility for the actions of irregular allied forces. In Bangladesh, India has never been apologetic about a hundred thousand Pakistani's of Indian origin being killed by its ally Mukti Bahini irregulars either, even though the Mukti Bahini was under its command.

There is a reason why Pakistan used irregulars in the first place, when Pakistan could in theory have it's regular forces, more easily.
As with India the Pakistan's armed forces were then still commanded by a British general ( General Douglas Gracey) , and still staffed by a significant number of senior British officers. Pakistan's COAS General Douglas Gracey refused the demand of his own government to militarily intervene in Kashmir citing the presence of British officers who would end up fighting their colleagues still serving in the Indian army were India to intervene militarily also. General Gracey in fact had already been in touch with his counter part in India General Claude Auchinleck. Since August 1947 the Pakistan Army had been heavily involved trying to restore law and order in Punjab as well as in East Pakistan suppressing communal riots, and in September was still dispersed, and under equipped since the bulk of its equipment had been commandeered by India and left behind after Partition. Additionally a significant section of the Pakistan Army was stranded in East Pakistan with no way of redeployment to the west. Pakistan had no navy , or even a civilian Merchant Marine to move assets from east to west. There was no air connection either as there were no transport aircraft with a virtually non-existent air force comprised of 3 ramshackle Dakota aircraft short of spares and fuel.

Since the Maharaja's tin pot army was only good for butchering his own civilians, sending in irregulars seemed to be an only option. Scum fighting scum !

Not that Indian COAS Auchinleck's own relations with his government were any better.
Sending a report to British Government on 28 September 1947 Auchinleck wrote: "I have no hesitation, whatever, in affirming that the present Indian Cabinet are implacably determined to do all in their power to prevent the establishment of the Dominion of Pakistan on firm basis." He stated in the second, political part of his assessment, "Since 15th August, the situation has steadily deteriorated and the Indian leaders, cabinet ministers, civil officials and others have persistently tried to obstruct the work of partition of the armed forces."

Following severe disagreements with India's defence minister by November 1947 Auchinleck had resigned his command to General Roy Bucher. Almost all his British officers went home.
Meanwile Pakistani COAS General Gracey was reconstructing the Pakistan Army under his command, and removed the British officers still serving. By May 1948 he was ready to face his counter part Indian General Roy Bucher and troops in Kashmir commanded by General Cariappa. Nice war game !
Two British Generals commanding Indian and Pakistani troops fighting each other. General Douglas Gracey was one of the most brilliant British commanders and even with limited forces under his command with no airpower he held a far superior Indian army to a stalemate that sent India running to the UN. If Pakistan holds Azad Kashmir today it is because of General Douglas Gracey who was respected and honored by the men he commanded. As Roy Bucher would have said
" Jolly Good Show old chap ! ".


There were many second rate Indian Army officers serving with the Maharaja's tinpot army. They were fired by their religious fervor preferring the communal savagery of the environment in Kashmir to the secular professionalism of the still British commanded Indian army.
I already linked you the instance of Rajinder Singh in Muzaffarabad who came a cropper trying to defend his positions.Even with these British trained officers leading the Maharaja's forces were no match for the Afridi tribesmen.


Yes, the Indian political setup fired up a communal environment whuch caused a degradation of the secular mindset amongst mid and junior level Indian Army officers, many of whom deserted to fight on behalf of Hari Singh and his savages. The Indian Army was still commanded by senior British officers who have mentioned the break down of discipline. In November 1947, Indian COAS Claude Auchinleck resigned because of political interference in the armed forces affairs.



Read again what I wrote. The Indian Army could not have intervened in Kashmir without a directive from India's political establishment. India's political establishment was keen to let Maharaja Hari Singh "finish the job" of cleansing Muslims out of Jammu and reducing the population.
Those renegade officers like "Lt.Gen." Katoch who served in Hari Singh's murderous outfit were never punished and today are lauded as heroes for their war crimes.
Once again to end your confusion:
Neither the Indian Army nor the Pakistan Army committed war crimes against civilians in Kashmir during operations from 1947-1949. British officers serving on both sides would have reported these events to British intelligence and recorded them in their memoirs.


Of course ! The Sikh tinpot Raja's who butchered their Muslim subjects in the states of Patiala, Kapurthala, Jind, were to be forgiven too. Their "scores" were much lower in the few thousands.



Sure, and so it is always justified as what aboutery the massacre of Muslims in Hyderabad under General Chaudhary was justified also.
You kill my dog, I kill your cat. That is how a "rising superpower" revises history.



Oh it is always political compulsions isn't it ? Demolishing a "disputed structure", declaring it sacred on the basis of belief by the Apex court, letting those who perpetrated the crimes go scot free, honoring lynchers. When were political compulsions not there ? Similarly Pakistan has "political compulsions " too in not punishing those irregulars who committed atrocities. Hum sab nangey hain.



Of course . So Hindu tyrant massacring Muslims must be given leeway to gently accede to India, and a Muslim tyrant massacring Hindu subjects must be dealt with militarily .
India has a religion, Hindutva .

As they say here in America...
"Its a Hindu Muslim issue stupid ! "



India stepped in to gain territory not to "stop the madness ". India could have stopped the "madness " much earlier. India did nothing to call for the return of 7 million Jammu refugees because it was comfortable with the level of bloodshed that had happened already and the reduction of Muslims in Jammu.
India went to the UN after General Gracey's brilliant campaign halted India's advance northwards.




Blame it on the terrain. 😁. With armor and airpower India could have penetrated into Sialkot and attacked Azad Kashmir from the rear.
It didn't because India feared an all out war with a depleted foot soldier Pakistan Army paid rations by barter and salary on rubber stamped currency not worth the paper it was printed on. Says volumes for your courage.




Glad you acknowledge the atrocities on both sides. In your earlier posts it was always Pakistan that is "bad".



Reminder :
No country becomes a super-power with a threat on its borders that it can't neutralize. The USA would never have been a superpower if it had not subdued Mexico in the 19th century and compromised with Canada later. Economic power alone doesn't guarantee superpower status. Japan and Germany are powerful economies in Asia and Europe but having lost their military power in the World War 2 are not superpowers.
India with a number 94 ranking on the global hunger index and overpopulated with the world's largest population of illiterates, blind, and lepers will not be either a military or economic superpower in the foreseeable future.
In Pakistan we have our rubber stamps handy.
@peagle @PakistaniAtBahrain

@magra @peagle
Would like to have your take on Karan Singh's interview to Print on Kashmir.

Interesting angle on the Dogra Kashmiri relationship .
Even more interesting is Karan Singh's views on Indian Prime Minister Indira Gandhi's advisors and their handling of the aftermath of the 1971 war,
All five advisors were Kashmiri Pundits.

 
Last edited:
.
@magra @peagle
Would like to have your take on Karan Singh's interview to Print on Kashmir.

Interesting angle on the Dogra Kashmiri relationship .
Even more interesting is Karan Singh's views on Indian Prime Minister Indira Gandhi's advisors and their handling of the aftermath of the 1971 war,
All five advisors were Kashmiri Pundits.

Too long a video, I trust you with the summary of transcripts.
 
.
Too long a video, I trust you with the summary of transcripts.
Basically here is Karan Singh's POV.
1. Initial proposal by his father Hari Singh was independence (and neutrality between India and Pakistan) for Kashmir in the letter he wrote to Mountbatten.
2. Had the tribal invasion not happened it was likely that the British would have supported independence for Kashmir.

3. India agreed to help Hari Singh resist the tribal invaders only on condition that Hari Singh acceded to India. There was also the understanding that Hari Singh would relinquish his monarchy and leave Kashmir.

4. In April 1948 Sardar Patel ordered Hari Singh out of Srinagar and he left forever, Only his ashes were returned to Kashmir. Karan Singh who was 18 at the time continued to live in Kashmir though continuing his education. The Kashmiri population had no issues with Karan Singh who transitioned from Regent Prince to Sadr-Riyasat "
President " to Governor, from 1949 to 1967 after which he moved to National politics and accepted a cabinet position in the federal government under Indira Gandhi.

3. Once the UN resolution on a plebiscite for Kashmir had been passed there was intense pressure on Nehru from Sheikh Abdullah who held the threat of a plebiscite to wrest political concessions from Nehru. The plebiscite was a big deal back then with a UN official appointed to execute the plebiscite, Britain was keenly interested in the outcome of the Kashmir issue. Nehru was partial to Sheikh Abdullah who played the plebiscite card "on and off" . Sheikh Abdullah's demands were all met which included exiling Hari Singh and his wife leaving behind his assets like "palaces" .

4. There is a Dogra vs Kashmiri rivalry which is also geographically represented by "Jammu and Kashmir " where Jammu is Dogra dominated. Karan Singh and his father identified themselves as Dogras not Kashmiris. Dogras ruled over Kashmiris for 100 years. After the disposition of the monarchy Kashmiri nationalism found a voice in Sheikh Abdullah who had challenged Dogra rule since 1931.
Sheikh Abdullah was imprisoned with brief periods of freedom for a total of 23 years and Dr. Karan Singh himself arrested him when he was governor after federal rule was imposed on Kashmir. After the Bangladesh war Sheikh Abdullah realized that no foreign help would be available to secure an independent Kashmir for him.
In 1975 through an interlocutor Mr. G. Parthasarthy, Shiekh Abdullah was released to sign the Indira-Abdullah accord which took away most of the freedoms under Art. 370 but left the separate identity of the state as is.

5. The accession of Kashmir under Hari Singh cannot be compared with the accession of other princely states such as in Rajasthan or Hyderabad. The terms of accession for Kashmir were harsh because unlike the Nizam who fought against India but was allowed to stay in Hyderabad after his defeat, Maharaja Hari Singh who never fought against India was exiled out of Kashmir. For India's military help to resist the tribal invasion the price was accession. But unlike other princely states Hari Singh never signed the integration document which automatically made all laws in India applicable, hence Kashmir was given a special status.

6. The Simla Accord of 1972 was a botched agreement which squandered the military advantage and victory during the 1971 war. The Simla Accord was drafted by 5 Kashmiri Pundits , P.N.Haksar, P.N. Dhar, D.P.Dhar, T.N.Kaul, and R.N.Kao ( 26 ) . Ironically later the Kashmiri Pundits themselves were the worst sufferers in Indian Kashmir. ( 28)

7.As India's ambassador to the USA Dr. Karan Singh met Henry Kissinger and asked him why the USA threatened intervention in the war dispatching the 7th fleet. Dr. Kissinger said the USA was not interested so much in East Pakistan where an Indian occupation was inevitable, The fear was that following the collapse of East Pakistan India would have pursued the war in the west and invaded Pakistan. The USA was at that time engaged with Pakistan in secret diplomacy to use Pakistan's help and arrive at a rapprochement with China to isolate the Soviet Union. Pakistan was vital to the USA and the USA would have never allowed an invasion by India.

8. On removal of Art. 370 Dr. Karan Singh accepts the parliamentary decision but is skeptical of the benefits because as a union territory J & K is not even a full fledged state. It is not just the Kashmiris but the Dogras are apprehensive of their identity status as well, particularly their preferences for jobs within the state, The future of progress in Kashmir "remains to be seen".
 
Last edited:
.
Basically here is Karan Singh's POV.
1. Initial proposal by his father Hari Singh was independence (and neutrality between India and Pakistan) for Kashmir in the letter he wrote to Mountbatten.
2. Had the tribal invasion not happened it was likely that the British would have supported independence for Kashmir.

3. India agreed to help Hari Singh resist the tribal invaders only on condition that Hari Singh acceded to India. There was also the understanding that Hari Singh would relinquish his monarchy and leave Kashmir.

4. In April 1948 Sardar Patel ordered Hari Singh out of Srinagar and he left forever, Only his ashes were returned to Kashmir. Karan Singh who was 18 at the time continued to live in Kashmir though continuing his education. The Kashmiri population had no issues with Karan Singh who transitioned from Regent Prince to Sadr-Riyasat "
President " to Governor, from 1949 to 1967 after which he moved to National politics and accepted a cabinet position in the federal government under Indira Gandhi.

3. Once the UN resolution on a plebiscite for Kashmir had been passed there was intense pressure on Nehru from Sheikh Abdullah who held the threat of a plebiscite to wrest political concessions from Nehru. The plebiscite was a big deal back then with a UN official appointed to execute the plebiscite, Britain was keenly interested in the outcome of the Kashmir issue. Nehru was partial to Sheikh Abdullah who played the plebiscite card "on and off" . Sheikh Abdullah's demands were all met which included exiling Hari Singh and his wife leaving behind his assets like "palaces" .

4. There is a Dogra vs Kashmiri rivalry which is also geographically represented by "Jammu and Kashmir " where Jammu is Dogra dominated. Karan Singh and his father identified themselves as Dogras not Kashmiris. Dogras ruled over Kashmiris for 100 years. After the disposition of the monarchy Kashmiri nationalism found a voice in Sheikh Abdullah who had challenged Dogra rule since 1931.
Sheikh Abdullah was imprisoned with brief periods of freedom for a total of 23 years and Dr. Karan Singh himself arrested him when he was governor after federal rule was imposed on Kashmir. After the Bangladesh war Sheikh Abdullah realized that no foreign help would be available to secure an independent Kashmir for him.
In 1975 through an interlocutor Mr. G. Parthasarthy, Shiekh Abdullah was released to sign the Indira-Abdullah accord which took away most of the freedoms under Art. 370 but left the separate identity of the state as is.

5. The accession of Kashmir under Hari Singh cannot be compared with the accession of other princely states such as in Rajasthan or Hyderabad. The terms of accession for Kashmir were harsh because unlike the Nizam who fought against India but was allowed to stay in Hyderabad after his defeat, Maharaja Hari Singh who never fought against India was exiled out of Kashmir. For India's military help to resist the tribal invasion the price was accession. But unlike other princely states Hari Singh never signed the integration document which automatically made all laws in India applicable, hence Kashmir was given a special status.

6. The Simla Accord of 1972 was a botched agreement which squandered the military advantage and victory during the 1971 war. The Simla Accord was drafted by 5 Kashmiri Pundits , P.N.Haksar, P.N. Dhar, D.P.Dhar, T.N.Kaul, and R.N.Kao ( 26 ) . Ironically later the Kashmiri Pundits themselves were the worst sufferers in Indian Kashmir. ( 28)

7.As India's ambassador to the USA Dr. Karan Singh met Henry Kissinger and asked him why the USA threatened intervention in the war dispatching the 7th fleet. Dr. Kissinger said the USA was not interested so much in East Pakistan where an Indian occupation was inevitable, The fear was that following the collapse of East Pakistan India would have pursued the war in the west and invaded Pakistan. The USA was at that time engaged with Pakistan in secret diplomacy to use Pakistan's help and arrive at a rapprochement with China to isolate the Soviet Union. Pakistan was vital to the USA and the USA would have never allowed an invasion by India.

8. On removal of Art. 370 Dr. Karan Singh accepts the parliamentary decision but is skeptical of the benefits because as a union territory J & K is not even a full fledged state. It is not just the Kashmiris but the Dogras are apprehensive of their identity status as well, particularly their preferences for jobs within the state, The future of progress in Kashmir "remains to be seen".
Appreciate your hard work in listening to the entire video and the detailed transcripts.
Given Karan Singh mostly gives the Indian POV, I will comment if someone else says something which I have issue with.
 
.
Appreciate your hard work in listening to the entire video and the detailed transcripts.
Given Karan Singh mostly gives the Indian POV, I will comment if someone else says something which I have issue with.
Actually, because it is not directly related to the topic of the thread, I have left out a very interesting aspect of the interview where he quotes from the Rig Ved , Upanishad on Hindu philosophy. He espouses a deeply humanistic aspect of Hindu philosophy (as against the Hindutva ideology). It was fascinating to listen to him, particularly since he tells the lady interviiewing him to "drop bitterness" ( the lady's parents are refugees from Pakistan). Unfortunately I am totally ignorant of the Upanishad . I think I need to research the Vedas to understand what he said. But that is a topic for another thread, All in all the interview was fascinating.
 
.
We need to stop blaming ourselves and the civilian parties and military establishment need to stop blaming each other. I have done sufficient research on the history of how Pakistan broke and while our leaders miscalculated, the real culprits were the Awami League with their victimhood mentality, Six Points and ethno-nationalism.

We need to first clear our narrative as we ourselves don't know what it is. I will do an attempt here. So bear with me. It is long. @Baibars_1260

Bengali leaders like Mujib and Suhrawardy had wanted a separate East Pakistan even in 1947. Mujib in his own memoirs written in the 1960s mentions hat he had wanted two Pakistans as a Pakistan Movement activist. Lets not forget that no matter how much people say that Bengalis voted for Pakistan in 1946, the truth is there were two factions in the Bengal branch of the Muslim League. There was the conservative branch of Khawaja Nazimuddin and Nurul Amin which wanted one Pakistan 9and remained loyal even in 197) but the more popular branch was the socialist branch of Abul Hashim and Suhrawardy which had tried in 1947 to get a separate Bengali state.

It was this socialist branch which won votes for the Pakistan idea in the 1946 elections. So it was for economic reasons that Bengalis voted for Pakistan and even then it was not necessarily for one Pakistan. They almost got an independent Bengal but when the Hindu Bengalis of Calcutta refused to live with them and demanded partition of the province the Muslim Bengalis were left with no choice but to join West Pakistan. East Bengal, a backward hinterland to Calcutta's mills, could not have survived on its own so the Bengali Muslim legislators in 1947 voted to join Pakistan.

After Pakistan was achieved Bengalis started making illogical demands over language. Urdu was selected as a neutral state language in an ethnically and linguistically diverse country but even though it was a decision for neutrality, Bengalis started playing the victim card as if their language was being suppressed even though they were left free to keep Bangla as a provincial language. They would not be content until Bangla was declared our second state language. If you think about it, it was an arrogant demand made on the basis of being a "majority." Imagine Punjabis demanding today to impose their language on the entire country just because they are a majority. That is what Bengalis did.

There was the alienation of Bengalis in the 1950s when the Muslim League civilian government dismissed the United Front which won the 1954 elections in East Bengal. The Muslim League believed in greater centralisation whereas United Front wanted autonomy. A Bengali military man Iskander Mirza was sent as governor there and it was he who repressed the Bengali politicians. Then in 1955 Awami Muslim League dropped "Muslim" from its name to become Awami League and many important West Pakistani politicians left that party and Bengali nationalists started coming to the fore. Then in 1956-57 we had a Bengali Awami League government under Shaheed Hussain Suhrawardy which was dismissed by a Bengali president Iskander Mirza.

Next Ayub Khan took over. He developed the whole country including East Pakistan. He built their premier dam (Kaptai Dam), their mills, bridges, hospitals, colleges etc. All zilla roads were built of concrete under his rule. Bengal used to be one of the poorest regions of India, but under the Pakistan Army's rule they rose to have a GDP per capita which was greater than India's. Bengalis had low levels of education before partition so even until 1961 most civil servants in East Pakistan were West Pakistanis. But Pakistan Army increased the representation of Bengalis in the civil service so much that by 1970, the civil service in East Pakistan was almost entirely dominated by Bengalis. Their representation in the military also increased five-fold under Pakistan.

I do not deny the feudal mindset of the West Pakistani establishment, the unequal level of development which led to disparities between the two wings and even within West Pakistan itself, the discrimination against Bengalis for being poor, dark and Hindu like (the Muslim elite of Bengal used to have the same views of ordinary Bengalis as West Pakistanis did) but when you look at the big picture the lot of Bengalis had improved significantly under Pakistan. But Bengalis like Mujib did not appreciate or understand this.

They were already used to racism from their ow elite (Mujib was middle class) and besides there was also a great deal of affection for Bengalis among West Pakistanis as well (just as it is even today between all ethic groups of Pakistan, we have racist stereotypes of each other but still love each other and get over ethnic fights fairly quickly)

The fact that Pakistan and Pakistan Army gave unprecedented development to East Bengal which it could not even match for thirty/forty years as independent Bangladesh was not appreciated except by loyalists Bengalis such as Professor Syed Sajjad Hussain who point out that Bengali nationalists could not deny they owed their careers to the Pakistani central government.

Its not hard to understand why this was the case. Lets look at what two Bengali writers say about the Bengali mindset:

Gholam Wahed Chowdhury says: "The Bengalis are noted for a negative and destructive attitude rather than for hard work and constructive programmes; they also have a tremendous tendency to put the blame on others."

Nirad Chaudhri says: "𝘉𝘶𝘵 𝘪𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘢𝘵𝘵𝘪𝘵𝘶𝘥𝘦 𝘐 𝘴𝘦𝘦 𝘢 𝘴𝘪𝘮𝘪𝘭𝘢𝘳𝘪𝘵𝘺 𝘪𝘯 𝘢𝘭𝘭 𝘉𝘦𝘯𝘨𝘢𝘭𝘪𝘴, 𝘏𝘪𝘯𝘥𝘶 𝘰𝘳 𝘔𝘶𝘴𝘭𝘪𝘮, 𝘵𝘰 𝘤𝘰𝘶𝘳𝘵 𝘴𝘶𝘧𝘧𝘦𝘳𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘪𝘯 𝘰𝘳𝘥𝘦𝘳 𝘵𝘰 𝘯𝘶𝘳𝘴𝘦 𝘴𝘦𝘭𝘧-𝘱𝘪𝘵𝘺 𝘣𝘺 𝘸𝘢𝘺 𝘰𝘧 𝘦𝘮𝘰𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘢𝘭 𝘴𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘴𝘧𝘢𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯."

In other words they had a habit of victimhood. This can also ben seen in Mujib's memoirs when he expresses the grievance against Pakistan because his provincial language was not made the state language of the whole Pakistan.

Ayub Khan was also disappointed with Bengali ingratitude. He wrote in his diary entries:

“I am surprised at the Bengali outlook. It does not conform to any rational yardstick. They were exploited by the caste Hindus, the Muslim rulers and even the British. It was at the advent of Pakistan that they got the blessing of freedom and equality of status and a real voice in the running of their government. . . any normal people should have recognized and rejoiced at this blessing. Instead, they urge to fall back on their Bengali past. This can only result in their complete absorption by Hindu West Bengal influence” (Jan-March 1968)

Perhaps it was because of his disappointment with their ungrateful attitude that at one point he sought his adviser Altaf Gauhar's opinion on asking Bengalis to leave the federation. The reply from a Bengali was interesting. He said that the Bengalis were the majority province so they were the "real" Pakistan and if West Pakistan wanted to secede from "Pakistan" it was welcome to do so.

This reply shows that even the Bengali understanding of Pakistan was self-centred and they didn't care for West Pakistan being with them or not. In other words they did not care for United Pakistan.

The Awami League incited the Bengali population with exaggerated and even false propaganda against the government and whipped up ethno-nationalist sentiment. Meanwhile, our population under Bhutto decided on the suicidal path of overthrowing Ayub Khan's government even though he was an able administrator. Pakistan had remained united for two decades without a single national election. It was an election which finally gave the framework for the Bengali nationalists to break Pakistan.

The 1970 elections were held on the basis of the Legal Framework Order which was promulgated by Yahya Khan under martial law. All contesting parties were signatory to it including Mujib. The document outlined that any future constitution of Pakistan would have to preserve Islamic ideology and give sufficient financial powers to the federal government for it to be able to fulfil its duties. Despite signing the LFO, Mujib would condemn it in his election campaign and he conducted his election campaign on the basis of Six Points. Under the Six Points, the government would not have no rights to collect taxes independently (it would be reliant on provincial governments) and the federal government would have been left a paper tiger. Even many Bengalis (right-wingers) opposed the Six Points scheme. So in this sense, the Six Points did not get on well with the LFO which was the legal basis for the elections of 1970. Some sources claim that Mujib had promised Yahya Khan that he would change the Six Points after the elections.

In the 1970 election campaign Mujib, in violation of the martial law regulations, ran a year long campaign of hate against West Pakistan and Biharis, using abusive terms for them like "shala." They intimidated right-wing Bengali leaders such as Nurul Amin, Fazlul Quader Chowdhury, etc and the right-wing pro-government parties such as Muslim League and Jamaat e Islami so they would not be able to campaign properly for the elections.

When the Bhola cyclone hit Bengali leaders like Mujib and Maulana Bashani used the opportunity to do propaganda against the government even while Pakistani soldiers were aiding and providing relief to the cyclone survivors. The Army got no appreciation for its effort, neither did West Pakistanis who aided the relief efforts. The unaffected Bengalis themselves were stealing the Pakistan Army's aid packages and they ended up in Dhaka and Calcutta's marketplaces instead of for the relief victims. But Mujib and the Awami League never appreciated, only criticised the government's relief efforts. While Pakistani soldiers would be helping victims, Bengalis standing nearby would complain that nothing was being done.

Mujib and his party did exaggerated propaganda about "exploitation" against West Pakistan to win support fir its Six Points scheme. Pakistani soldiers would often be abused, even in 1970. Bengali soldiers of the Pakistan Army were following Mujib and becoming more distant from their West Pakistani colleagues despite friendly overtures. Many Bengalis at this time already wanted an independent Bangladesh even though Mujib and the Awami League's campaign was on the basis of autonomy and Six Points.

Official Indian radio was already running Bengali programs ("Apar Bangla, Opar Bangla") which incited Bengali ethno-nationalist sentiment in East Pakistan. But Mujib already had a "my way or high way" mindset at this point. His reply to a journalist in 1970 who asked him if he stood for just autonomy or independence was "Independence? Not yet" Clearly this man was no patriot. He would break Pakistan if he did not get what he wanted.

There are also loyalist Bengalis who have said that Mujib's real intention was secession. G.W Chowdhury who was Yahya Khan's Bengali adviser, claims he and Yahya Khan overheard a tape-recording where Mujib was heard saying his real intention was to establish Bangladesh after the elections were over when no one could challenge him. The loyalist Bengali ex-governor Abdul Monem Khan also claims that during the 1965 war when he was governor of East Pakistan, Mujib had asked him to seize the opportunity in the war to declare independence form Pakistan.

After he "won" the elections he straight out refused to compromise on the Six Points, despite at one point telling Yahya he would. The military junta, like the old Muslim League civilian governments of the 1950s, believed in a stronger centralisation of the state and while they and Bhutto were happy to give autonomy to East Pakistan, the Six Points were too radical for them as it virtually left the federal government redundant. They planned on arresting the Awami League leaders if they did not compromise on the Six Points during negotiations.

When Yahya Khan used his presidential right under the LFO to postpone the National Assembly session over this constitution-making issue, Mujib did an act of treason by revolting against the federal government in March and establishing his own parallel government (although he did not declare independence, which makes his act even worse since he established a parallel government in full knowledge that the Pakistan government was still the legal authority).

During this time our soldiers and non-Bengali Pakistanis in the province were abused, humiliated, even murdered and raped by Bengalis. They also tore the national flags, rioted, raised Bangladeshi flags and demanded the creation of Bangladesh. Students at Dhaka University and villages throughout East Pakistan were doing armed training to take on the Pakistan Army.

The Bengali nationalist students and Mujib's colleague were pressuring him to declare independence. He resisted because he wanted a confederation. His colleagues like the communist Tajuddin Ahmed were worse than he was. However, his adviser Dr Kamal Hossain says Mujib wanted to keep negotiations ongoing so he could enter the National Assembly as Prime Minister and legally separate the two wings of Pakistan. This was exactly what Bhutto feared, that with the help of ethno-nationalist parties from West Pakistan such as ANP, Mujib would push through a constitution based on the Six Points. Mujib already had the support of ethno-nationalist parties like ANP.

When Yahya Khan offered to hold a National Assembly session on 25 March, Mujib said he would not attend it until martial law was revoked. This would have created a legal "lacuna" and until the National Assembly convened, power would have devolved to the provinces and in this lacuna any of the small provinces in West Pakistan such as NWFP or Balochistan could have used the opportunity to secede. (Remember, ANP in NWFP is only loyal to Pakistan out of a "legal" relationship. Their heart was not in it, hence they opposed the creation of Pakistan before 1947. This was a very real fear at the time).

Further on during the negotiations, Bengali soldiers and East Pakistan Rifles soldiers were deserting, such as at Joydevpur on 19 March. Mujib and the Awami League refused to compromise during the March negotiations when Bhutto and Yahya Khan flew to talk to him. The Awami League eventually started demanding a confederation (effectively a division into two states) on 23 March, which was a violation of the LFO they were signatory to - which had demanded a single federation. Tajuddin Ahmed said there would be no compromise on this. Eventually, Yahya Khan gave the go-ahead to the Army to restore the government's writ over the province, arrest Awami League leaders and disarm Bengali soldiers.

Because of what they had suffered in the preceding weeks, the troops acted excessively when they started Operation Searchlight in Dhaka. As soon as that happened, the Bengali soldiers throughout the province mutinied almost simultaneously as if they had pre-planned this. Its known that the Bengali soldiers were mainly loyal to Awami League and that Mujib had appointed the Bengali veteran soldier MAG Osmani as "commander of the revolutionary forces" in March and that Brigadier Majumdar and others had approached Mujib a few times in March asking to do a "first strike" - although he stalled for the final outcome of the negotiations.

This is when the massive atrocities on both sides unfolded, as the Bengali troops committed mass killings and rapes of non-Bengalis and the Pakistani troops retaliated in kind, especially against Hindus, while they cleared the province of the rebel soldiers and police over April and May. Many of the Pakistani soldiers were angry and thirsty for revenge after the abuse they had endured at the hands of Bengalis in March. This was the reason they started hating Bengalis and for the rest of the year many of them had a cold, even arrogant and at times atrocious, attitude towards Bengalis.

The rebel soldiers and police fled to India as the Pakistan Army retook control of the province as did most of the Awami League leaders (except for Mujib and Dr Kamal who the Army was able to arrest) who ran away to India and lost no time in declaring independence and a "provisional government for Bangladesh." MAG Osmani in early April became leader of the "Mukti Bahini" - made up of these rebel soldiers/police, nationalist students, Awami Leaguers and the mainly Hindu refugees. Indian soldiers were also infiltrating in the province at this time (possibly even earlier). But I won't cover India's role here because that is another aspect.

The Pakistan Army for the rest of the year ran the civil administration of the province with the aid of loyal elements of the East Pakistani population i.e. Bihari Muslims and right-wing Bengali Muslims who opposed the Awami League. One of the runaway Awami League politicians Khondaker Mushtaq tried to negotiate with Pakistan to keep the country united under the Six Points framework. But the communist hardliner Tajuddin Ahmed who was "Prime Minister" of this "provisional government" did not want to compromise with Pakistan at all and just wanted independent Bangladesh. Mujib at this time was on trial for treason. Massive international propaganda was done against Pakistan by India and the Awami League.

Around June the Mukti Bahini (led in important operations by the Indian infiltators) started infiltrating the province and ambushing the Pakistan Army, and the local population became caught up in the conflict between the Mukti Bahini and Pakistan Army. Atrocities were committed by both for real or suspected aid to the other combatting side. Some Awami Leaguers and rebel Bengali policemen returned from India, surrendered to the Pakistan Army and joined the loyalist Bengali-Bihari civil administration under the loyalist governor Dr Abdul Motaleb Malik Eventually, India invaded on 22 November and bypassed most of the Pakistan Army positions (they were concentrated in fort-like cantonments distant from each other, thus leaving vast expanses of territory between them open for the Indians to bypass on their way to Dhaka). And that is how Bangladesh was created on 16 December, ironically while a Bengali politician (Nurul Amin) was Prime Minister of Pakistan.

Allegedly failing to practice Islam was not the reason for the breakup. Don't know which fool said it. Many Islamic Empires have broken up such as the Delhi Sultanate, even the Rashidun caliphate which splintered into three in the lifetime of Hazrat Usman (razi allahu anhu)

It wasn't because of the lack of Islam that Pakistan broke. It was because of a lack of pan-Islamic feelings in East Pakistanis who preferred to think of themselves as Bengalis first since day one. I recall reading an opinion poll from the late 1960s where a social scientist found that most educated West Pakistanis put religion first before ethnic identity. The survey found the opposite result for educated Bengalis.

But here are some lessons we can learn:

1. Control the education system: One of the main reasons the urban middle class of Pakistan is so patriotic is because of the Pakistan Studies curriculum which emphasises the two nation theory. This factor was not strong in East Pakistan. A lot of teachers and professors there were Hindus, and they had a large role in turning Bengali Muslim students into ethno-nationalists. A similar situation can be seen in remaining Pakistan today, where you notice that many ethno-nationalists and critics of the state come from the liberal and private English medium institutions, schools and universities

2. Teach proper history. We are fed on a diet of lies about a glorious pre-colonial Islamic past. This is the reason people do not appreciate Pakistan. If they knew the socio-economic conditions of their ancestors they woudl feel grateful for what they have in Pakistan today. One of the reasons Bengalis never appreciated Pakistani development of their province was because the Awami League used to preach the myth of a glorious and prosperous Bengali past ("Sonar Bangla.") When in fact Pakistan gave Bengalis a say in government and unprecedented development. They had faced far worse exploitation and under-representation under their prior British and pre-colonial Muslim feudal rulers.

3. Teach and ingrain the religious importance of obedience and loyalty to the state (even with "oppressive" rulers) among students (who are our future adult citizens). One of the Hamoodur Rahman Commission Report's recommendations was to ingrain respect for democratic values among Pakistani military academy students. This is strange, given that Pakistan in 1969-71 was under martial law and between 1958-1971 Pakistan was under military rule.

It was not a democratic country. And martial law was first implemented in the country by president Iskander Mirza even before its first ever military coup by Ayub Khan. Pakistan's commitment to democracy stems from the 1973 Constitution, which was written after 1971. Even the 1962 Constitution did not provide for universal democracy.

So why should the military have been asked to respect democratic values as if it was a lack of democracy which broke Pakistan? Pakistan stayed united for two decades without a single national-level election. Had Bhutto (with the help of Generals) not led a movement for democracy and agitation to remove Ayub Khan in 1968, Pakistan would not have broken over an election. Surely, it is the civilians who ought to be taught obedience to authority. This is what Islam demands - obey the ruler even if he whips your back.

4. Quit the self-blame. The Army and PPP's supporters each blame the other for breaking Pakistan. They accuse each other of being too power hungry to make a compromise with the Awami League. Stop this. It may be true that the Army wanted to retain power or that the PPP was hungry for power. But there have been multiple times after 1971 when civilian politicians clashed with the military establishment yet the country never broke.

The reason is simple. There was no ethnic nationalism in any party. The political parties like PPP and PML-N which clashed with the military establishment are all-Pakistan parties, even if they have some regional focus. They don't have a mindset that they will go the separatist route of they don't get what they want. Mujib did exactly that, as shown by his 1970 interview where he replied "Not yet" to a journalist's question on whether he wanted independence.

The Awami League was a Bengali nationalist party whose election campaign was for Bengalis and Bengali autonomy. It whipped up hatred in its election campaign against West Pakistan and non-Bengalis, in violation of martial law regulations which prohibited inciting regional hatred or talking against the ideology of Pakistan. It further showed its mindset later when Mujib refused to visit West Pakistan and said West Pakistan could make its own constitution. Awami League's interest was in Bengal first and last. They put Bengali interests over a United Pakistan.

Some allege that the Army held elections hoping and tried to influence the result in favour of a hung parliament which would allow the Army a share in power in a future democratic setup (although they did not interfere in the Awami League's rigging of elections in East Pakistan). Brigadier Abdul Rehman Siddiqui claims in his book that a member of the Army said to him "Lets back Bhutto" because he would not touch the Army's role in a future democratic setup since he had won elections in Punjab where most soldiers came from and would therefore not interfere with the Army's power.

Had the Awami League been sensible they would have gone into the Army's good books like Bhutto did. After all the Army was the authority at the time and the fountainhead of power. The Army had held the elections under martial law (whose regulations of the elections Mujib and the Awami League had violated with impunity). Why did Mujib abuse them? If he had sense he would be reasonable with them. He knew they were against him because of his Six Points and yet made no compromise on that. The Awami League turned a political issue over power-sharing and constitution making into an ethnic issue. It had already done so in the elections and also with its propaganda in the 1960s.

And when Yahya Khan, after postponing the assembly session on 1 March, offered Mujib again to hold a National Assembly session Mujib put forth the condition of removing martial law - with no consideration to West Pakistani fears about the potential for secession by the smaller provinces of NWFP and Balochistan. When Yahya Khan came to talk him in March Mujib still refused to budge on his Six Points (despite indicating to Yahya Khan earlier in January that he would compromise on the Six Points if he held the National Assembly meeting) and eventually made even more radical demands for confederation.

And as talks were being held Mujib did a number of provocative acts such as using the Bangladeshi flag on his car, saluting a parade of Bengali servicemen by his house, not caring for the burning of the Pakistani flag, which made Yahya Khan give the final go-ahead to take back control of the province from the Awami League and restore the federal government's authority (called Operation Searchlight).

In March 1971 all political parties including PPP and Bhutto supported the military action in East Pakistan. It was not until the Army did not fulfil Bhutto's demand that they start the transfer of power to his PPP that Bhutto started criticising the Army, saying there would have been no crisis if power had been "transferred earlier." This is where it seems the blame game between the PPP and the military supporters started.

Maybe the Army and Bhutto miscalculated their handling of Mujib and the Awami League. Maybe they should not have postponed the national assembly meeting and waited for a session where Yahya Khan could refuse to authenticate a constitution based on the Six Points or maybe they should have tried continuing negotiations with Mujib instead of giving the go-ahead for Operation Searchlight. But the fault for creating the crisis rests with the Awami League.

With its propaganda about exploitation to incite the population against the government, their hateful election campaign and the fact they never compromised on the Six Points, which was the main reason the Army was against them. Then there was the treasonous parallel government of the Awami League, the separatist leanings of Mujib's colleagues and the very fact that Mujib played with the fore of secessionism and nationalism to extract his demands. He did nothing substantial to allay the Army and Bhutto's concerns that his intentions were not for secession. He did everything which increased their concerns and provoked them. Such as demanding the revocation of martial law before the National Assembly meeting and the use of Bangladeshi flags and doing nothing about the insults to the Pakistani flag.

5. Do not abuse, boycott or hurt the Army and especially not the soldiers. The Awami League's and the Bengalis' abuse of the Army and soldiers in the years and months preceding 1971 is what caused the soldiers; to lose control. The same Army which developed East Pakistan and which provided relief to Bengali cyclone survivors turned abusive and arrogant towards the Bengali civilians after what they had endured at civilian hands.

If we abuse our own Army, they will lose their morale and harm us out of hurt they suffer at our hands. This is an especially important lesson today as PDM supporters at times do not refrain from abusing the Army and even soldiers, thus causing emotional hurt to men who are putting their lives on the line for us. When soldiers lose morale, they harm civilians. Imagine putting your life on the line for your people, only for them to abuse and attack you. How would you feel? Its very easy in such a situation for armies to turn on their people.
 
Last edited:
.
We need to stop blaming ourselves and the civilian parties and military establishment need to stop blaming each other. I have done sufficient research on the history of how Pakistan broke and while our leaders miscalculated, the real culprits were the Awami League with their victimhood mentality, Six Points and ethno-nationalism.

We need to first clear our narrative as we ourselves don't know what it is. I will do an attempt here. So bear with me. It is long. @Baibars_1260

Bengali leaders like Mujib and Suhrawardy had wanted a separate East Pakistan even in 1947. Mujib in his own memoirs written in the 1960s mentions hat he had wanted two Pakistans as a Pakistan Movement activist. Lets not forget that no matter how much people say that Bengalis voted for Pakistan in 1946, the truth is there were two factions in the Bengal branch of the Muslim League. There was the conservative branch of Khawaja Nazimuddin and Nurul Amin which wanted one Pakistan 9and remained loyal even in 197) but the more popular branch was the socialist branch of Abul Hashim and Suhrawardy which had tried in 1947 to get a separate Bengali state.

It was this socialist branch which won votes for the Pakistan idea in the 1946 elections. So it was for economic reasons that Bengalis voted for Pakistan and even then it was not necessarily for one Pakistan. They almost got an independent Bengal but when the Hindu Bengalis of Calcutta refused to live with them and demanded partition of the province the Muslim Bengalis were left with no choice but to join West Pakistan. East Bengal, a backward hinterland to Calcutta's mills, could not have survived on its own so the Bengali Muslim legislators in 1947 voted to join Pakistan.

After Pakistan was achieved Bengalis started making illogical demands over language. Urdu was selected as a neutral state language in an ethnically and linguistically diverse country but even though it was a decision for neutrality, Bengalis started playing the victim card as if their language was being suppressed even though they were left free to keep Bangla as a provincial language. They would not be content until Bangla was declared our second state language. If you think about it, it was an arrogant demand made on the basis of being a "majority." Imagine Punjabis demanding today to impose their language on the entire country just because they are a majority. That is what Bengalis did.

There was the alienation of Bengalis in the 1950s when the Muslim League civilian government dismissed the United Front which won the 1954 elections in East Bengal. The Muslim League believed in greater centralisation whereas United Front wanted autonomy. A Bengali military man Iskander Mirza was sent as governor there and it was he who repressed the Bengali politicians. Then in 1955 Awami Muslim League dropped "Muslim" from its name to become Awami League and many important West Pakistani politicians left that party and Bengali nationalists started coming to the fore. Then in 1956-57 we had a Bengali Awami League government under Shaheed Hussain Suhrawardy which was dismissed by a Bengali president Iskander Mirza.

Next Ayub Khan took over. He developed the whole country including East Pakistan. He built their premier dam (Kaptai Dam), their mills, bridges, hospitals, colleges etc. All zilla roads were built of concrete under his rule. Bengal used to be one of the poorest regions of India, but under the Pakistan Army's rule they rose to have a GDP per capita which was greater than India's. Bengalis had low levels of education before partition so even until 1961 most civil servants in East Pakistan were West Pakistanis. But Pakistan Army increased the representation of Bengalis in the civil service so much that by 1970, the civil service in East Pakistan was almost entirely dominated by Bengalis. Their representation in the military also increased five-fold under Pakistan.

I do not deny the feudal mindset of the West Pakistani establishment, the unequal level of development which led to disparities between the two wings and even within West Pakistan itself, the discrimination against Bengalis for being poor, dark and Hindu like (the Muslim elite of Bengal used to have the same views of ordinary Bengalis as West Pakistanis did) but when you look at the big picture the lot of Bengalis had improved significantly under Pakistan. But Bengalis like Mujib did not appreciate or understand this.

They were already used to racism from their ow elite (Mujib was middle class) and besides there was also a great deal of affection for Bengalis among West Pakistanis as well (just as it is even today between all ethic groups of Pakistan, we have racist stereotypes of each other but still love each other and get over ethnic fights fairly quickly)

The fact that Pakistan and Pakistan Army gave unprecedented development to East Bengal which it could not even match for thirty/forty years as independent Bangladesh was not appreciated except by loyalists Bengalis such as Professor Syed Sajjad Hussain who point out that Bengali nationalists could not deny they owed their careers to the Pakistani central government.

Its not hard to understand why this was the case. Lets look at what two Bengali writers say about the Bengali mindset:

Gholam Wahed Chowdhury says: "The Bengalis are noted for a negative and destructive attitude rather than for hard work and constructive programmes; they also have a tremendous tendency to put the blame on others."

Nirad Chaudhri says: "𝘉𝘶𝘵 𝘪𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘢𝘵𝘵𝘪𝘵𝘶𝘥𝘦 𝘐 𝘴𝘦𝘦 𝘢 𝘴𝘪𝘮𝘪𝘭𝘢𝘳𝘪𝘵𝘺 𝘪𝘯 𝘢𝘭𝘭 𝘉𝘦𝘯𝘨𝘢𝘭𝘪𝘴, 𝘏𝘪𝘯𝘥𝘶 𝘰𝘳 𝘔𝘶𝘴𝘭𝘪𝘮, 𝘵𝘰 𝘤𝘰𝘶𝘳𝘵 𝘴𝘶𝘧𝘧𝘦𝘳𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘪𝘯 𝘰𝘳𝘥𝘦𝘳 𝘵𝘰 𝘯𝘶𝘳𝘴𝘦 𝘴𝘦𝘭𝘧-𝘱𝘪𝘵𝘺 𝘣𝘺 𝘸𝘢𝘺 𝘰𝘧 𝘦𝘮𝘰𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘢𝘭 𝘴𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘴𝘧𝘢𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯."

In other words they had a habit of victimhood. This can also ben seen in Mujib's memoirs when he expresses the grievance against Pakistan because his provincial language was not made the state language of the whole Pakistan.

Ayub Khan was also disappointed with Bengali ingratitude. He wrote in his diary entries:

“I am surprised at the Bengali outlook. It does not conform to any rational yardstick. They were exploited by the caste Hindus, the Muslim rulers and even the British. It was at the advent of Pakistan that they got the blessing of freedom and equality of status and a real voice in the running of their government. . . any normal people should have recognized and rejoiced at this blessing. Instead, they urge to fall back on their Bengali past. This can only result in their complete absorption by Hindu West Bengal influence” (Jan-March 1968)

Perhaps it was because of his disappointment with their ungrateful attitude that at one point he sought his adviser Altaf Gauhar's opinion on asking Bengalis to leave the federation. The reply from a Bengali was interesting. He said that the Bengalis were the majority province so they were the "real" Pakistan and if West Pakistan wanted to secede from "Pakistan" it was welcome to do so.

This reply shows that even the Bengali understanding of Pakistan was self-centred and they didn't care for West Pakistan being with them or not. In other words they did not care for United Pakistan.

The Awami League incited the Bengali population with exaggerated and even false propaganda against the government and whipped up ethno-nationalist sentiment. Meanwhile, our population under Bhutto decided on the suicidal path of overthrowing Ayub Khan's government even though he was an able administrator. Pakistan had remained united for two decades without a single national election. It was an election which finally gave the framework for the Bengali nationalists to break Pakistan.

The 1970 elections were held on the basis of the Legal Framework Order which was promulgated by Yahya Khan under martial law. All contesting parties were signatory to it including Mujib. The document outlined that any future constitution of Pakistan would have to preserve Islamic ideology and give sufficient financial powers to the federal government for it to be able to fulfil its duties. Despite signing the LFO, Mujib would condemn it in his election campaign and he conducted his election campaign on the basis of Six Points. Under the Six Points, the government would not have no rights to collect taxes independently (it would be reliant on provincial governments) and the federal government would have been left a paper tiger. Even many Bengalis (right-wingers) opposed the Six Points scheme. So in this sense, the Six Points did not get on well with the LFO which was the legal basis for the elections of 1970. Some sources claim that Mujib had promised Yahya Khan that he would change the Six Points after the elections.

In the 1970 election campaign Mujib, in violation of the martial law regulations, ran a year long campaign of hate against West Pakistan and Biharis, using abusive terms for them like "shala." They intimidated right-wing Bengali leaders such as Nurul Amin, Fazlul Quader Chowdhury, etc and the right-wing pro-government parties such as Muslim League and Jamaat e Islami so they would not be able to campaign properly for the elections.

When the Bhola cyclone hit Bengali leaders like Mujib and Maulana Bashani used the opportunity to do propaganda against the government even while Pakistani soldiers were aiding and providing relief to the cyclone survivors. The Army got no appreciation for its effort, neither did West Pakistanis who aided the relief efforts. The unaffected Bengalis themselves were stealing the Pakistan Army's aid packages and they ended up in Dhaka and Calcutta's marketplaces instead of for the relief victims. But Mujib and the Awami League never appreciated, only criticised the government's relief efforts. While Pakistani soldiers would be helping victims, Bengalis standing nearby would complain that nothing was being done.

Mujib and his party did exaggerated propaganda about "exploitation" against West Pakistan to win support fir its Six Points scheme. Pakistani soldiers would often be abused, even in 1970. Bengali soldiers of the Pakistan Army were following Mujib and becoming more distant from their West Pakistani colleagues despite friendly overtures. Many Bengalis at this time already wanted an independent Bangladesh even though Mujib and the Awami League's campaign was on the basis of autonomy and Six Points.

Official Indian radio was already running Bengali programs ("Apar Bangla, Opar Bangla") which incited Bengali ethno-nationalist sentiment in East Pakistan. But Mujib already had a "my way or high way" mindset at this point. His reply to a journalist in 1970 who asked him if he stood for just autonomy or independence was "Independence? Not yet" Clearly this man was no patriot. He would break Pakistan if he did not get what he wanted.

There are also loyalist Bengalis who have said that Mujib's real intention was secession. G.W Chowdhury who was Yahya Khan's Bengali adviser, claims he and Yahya Khan overheard a tape-recording where Mujib was heard saying his real intention was to establish Bangladesh after the elections were over when no one could challenge him. The loyalist Bengali ex-governor Abdul Monem Khan also claims that during the 1965 war when he was governor of East Pakistan, Mujib had asked him to seize the opportunity in the war to declare independence form Pakistan.

After he "won" the elections he straight out refused to compromise on the Six Points, despite at one point telling Yahya he would. The military junta, like the old Muslim League civilian governments of the 1950s, believed in a stronger centralisation of the state and while they and Bhutto were happy to give autonomy to East Pakistan, the Six Points were too radical for them as it virtually left the federal government redundant. They planned on arresting the Awami League leaders if they did not compromise on the Six Points during negotiations.

When Yahya Khan used his presidential right under the LFO to postpone the National Assembly session over this constitution-making issue, Mujib did an act of treason by revolting against the federal government in March and establishing his own parallel government (although he did not declare independence, which makes his act even worse since he established a parallel government in full knowledge that the Pakistan government was still the legal authority).

During this time our soldiers and non-Bengali Pakistanis in the province were abused, humiliated, even murdered and raped by Bengalis. They also tore the national flags, rioted, raised Bangladeshi flags and demanded the creation of Bangladesh. Students at Dhaka University and villages throughout East Pakistan were doing armed training to take on the Pakistan Army.

The Bengali nationalist students and Mujib's colleague were pressuring him to declare independence. He resisted because he wanted a confederation. His colleagues like the communist Tajuddin Ahmed were worse than he was. However, his adviser Dr Kamal Hossain says Mujib wanted to keep negotiations ongoing so he could enter the National Assembly as Prime Minister and legally separate the two wings of Pakistan. This was exactly what Bhutto feared, that with the help of ethno-nationalist parties from West Pakistan such as ANP, Mujib would push through a constitution based on the Six Points. Mujib already had the support of ethno-nationalist parties like ANP.

When Yahya Khan offered to hold a National Assembly session on 25 March, Mujib said he would not attend it until martial law was revoked. This would have created a legal "lacuna" and until the National Assembly convened, power would have devolved to the provinces and in this lacuna any of the small provinces in West Pakistan such as NWFP or Balochistan could have used the opportunity to secede. (Remember, ANP in NWFP is only loyal to Pakistan out of a "legal" relationship. Their heart was not in it, hence they opposed the creation of Pakistan before 1947. This was a very real fear at the time).

Further on during the negotiations, Bengali soldiers and East Pakistan Rifles soldiers were deserting, such as at Joydevpur on 19 March. Mujib and the Awami League refused to compromise during the March negotiations when Bhutto and Yahya Khan flew to talk to him. The Awami League eventually started demanding a confederation (effectively a division into two states) on 23 March, which was a violation of the LFO they were signatory to - which had demanded a single federation. Tajuddin Ahmed said there would be no compromise on this. Eventually, Yahya Khan gave the go-ahead to the Army to restore the government's writ over the province, arrest Awami League leaders and disarm Bengali soldiers.

Because of what they had suffered in the preceding weeks, the troops acted excessively when they started Operation Searchlight in Dhaka. As soon as that happened, the Bengali soldiers throughout the province mutinied almost simultaneously as if they had pre-planned this. Its known that the Bengali soldiers were mainly loyal to Awami League and that Mujib had appointed the Bengali veteran soldier MAG Osmani as "commander of the revolutionary forces" in March and that Brigadier Majumdar and others had approached Mujib a few times in March asking to do a "first strike" - although he stalled for the final outcome of the negotiations.

This is when the massive atrocities on both sides unfolded, as the Bengali troops committed mass killings and rapes of non-Bengalis and the Pakistani troops retaliated in kind, especially against Hindus, while they cleared the province of the rebel soldiers and police over April and May. Many of the Pakistani soldiers were angry and thirsty for revenge after the abuse they had endured at the hands of Bengalis in March. This was the reason they started hating Bengalis and for the rest of the year many of them had a cold, even arrogant and at times atrocious, attitude towards Bengalis.

The rebel soldiers and police fled to India as the Pakistan Army retook control of the province as did most of the Awami League leaders (except for Mujib and Dr Kamal who the Army was able to arrest) who ran away to India and lost no time in declaring independence and a "provisional government for Bangladesh." MAG Osmani in early April became leader of the "Mukti Bahini" - made up of these rebel soldiers/police, nationalist students, Awami Leaguers and the mainly Hindu refugees. Indian soldiers were also infiltrating in the province at this time (possibly even earlier). But I won't cover India's role here because that is another aspect.

The Pakistan Army for the rest of the year ran the civil administration of the province with the aid of loyal elements of the East Pakistani population i.e. Bihari Muslims and right-wing Bengali Muslims who opposed the Awami League. One of the runaway Awami League politicians Khondaker Mushtaq tried to negotiate with Pakistan to keep the country united under the Six Points framework. But the communist hardliner Tajuddin Ahmed who was "Prime Minister" of this "provisional government" did not want to compromise with Pakistan at all and just wanted independent Bangladesh. Mujib at this time was on trial for treason. Massive international propaganda was done against Pakistan by India and the Awami League.

Around June the Mukti Bahini (led in important operations by the Indian infiltators) started infiltrating the province and ambushing the Pakistan Army, and the local population became caught up in the conflict between the Mukti Bahini and Pakistan Army. Atrocities were committed by both for real or suspected aid to the other combatting side. Some Awami Leaguers and rebel Bengali policemen returned from India, surrendered to the Pakistan Army and joined the loyalist Bengali-Bihari civil administration under the loyalist governor Dr Abdul Motaleb Malik Eventually, India invaded on 22 November and bypassed most of the Pakistan Army positions (they were concentrated in fort-like cantonments distant from each other, thus leaving vast expanses of territory between them open for the Indians to bypass on their way to Dhaka). And that is how Bangladesh was created on 16 December, ironically while a Bengali politician (Nurul Amin) was Prime Minister of Pakistan.

Allegedly failing to practice Islam was not the reason for the breakup. Don't know which fool said it. Many Islamic Empires have broken up such as the Delhi Sultanate, even the Rashidun caliphate which splintered into three in the lifetime of Hazrat Usman (razi allahu anhu)

It wasn't because of the lack of Islam that Pakistan broke. It was because of a lack of pan-Islamic feelings in East Pakistanis who preferred to think of themselves as Bengalis first since day one. I recall reading an opinion poll from the late 1960s where a social scientist found that most educated West Pakistanis put religion first before ethnic identity. The survey found the opposite result for educated Bengalis.

But here are some lessons we can learn:

1. Control the education system: One of the main reasons the urban middle class of Pakistan is so patriotic is because of the Pakistan Studies curriculum which emphasises the two nation theory. This factor was not strong in East Pakistan. A lot of teachers and professors there were Hindus, and they had a large role in turning Bengali Muslim students into ethno-nationalists. A similar situation can be seen in remaining Pakistan today, where you notice that many ethno-nationalists and critics of the state come from the liberal and private English medium institutions, schools and universities

2. Teach proper history. We are fed on a diet of lies about a glorious pre-colonial Islamic past. This is the reason people do not appreciate Pakistan. If they knew the socio-economic conditions of their ancestors they woudl feel grateful for what they have in Pakistan today. One of the reasons Bengalis never appreciated Pakistani development of their province was because the Awami League used to preach the myth of a glorious and prosperous Bengali past ("Sonar Bangla.") When in fact Pakistan gave Bengalis a say in government and unprecedented development. They had faced far worse exploitation and under-representation under their prior British and pre-colonial Muslim feudal rulers.

3. Teach and ingrain the religious importance of obedience and loyalty to the state (even with "oppressive" rulers) among students (who are our future adult citizens). One of the Hamoodur Rahman Commission Report's recommendations was to ingrain respect for democratic values among Pakistani military academy students. This is strange, given that Pakistan in 1969-71 was under martial law and between 1958-1971 Pakistan was under military rule.

It was not a democratic country. And martial law was first implemented in the country by president Iskander Mirza even before its first ever military coup by Ayub Khan. Pakistan's commitment to democracy stems from the 1973 Constitution, which was written after 1971. Even the 1962 Constitution did not provide for universal democracy.

So why should the military have been asked to respect democratic values as if it was a lack of democracy which broke Pakistan? Pakistan stayed united for two decades without a single national-level election. Had Bhutto (with the help of Generals) not led a movement for democracy and agitation to remove Ayub Khan in 1968, Pakistan would not have broken over an election. Surely, it is the civilians who ought to be taught obedience to authority. This is what Islam demands - obey the ruler even if he whips your back.

4. Quit the self-blame. The Army and PPP's supporters each blame the other for breaking Pakistan. They accuse each other of being too power hungry to make a compromise with the Awami League. Stop this. It may be true that the Army wanted to retain power or that the PPP was hungry for power. But there have been multiple times after 1971 when civilian politicians clashed with the military establishment yet the country never broke.

The reason is simple. There was no ethnic nationalism in any party. The political parties like PPP and PML-N which clashed with the military establishment are all-Pakistan parties, even if they have some regional focus. They don't have a mindset that they will go the separatist route of they don't get what they want. Mujib did exactly that, as shown by his 1970 interview where he replied "Not yet" to a journalist's question on whether he wanted independence.

The Awami League was a Bengali nationalist party whose election campaign was for Bengalis and Bengali autonomy. It whipped up hatred in its election campaign against West Pakistan and non-Bengalis, in violation of martial law regulations which prohibited inciting regional hatred or talking against the ideology of Pakistan. It further showed its mindset later when Mujib refused to visit West Pakistan and said West Pakistan could make its own constitution. Awami League's interest was in Bengal first and last. They put Bengali interests over a United Pakistan.

Some allege that the Army held elections hoping and tried to influence the result in favour of a hung parliament which would allow the Army a share in power in a future democratic setup (although they did not interfere in the Awami League's rigging of elections in East Pakistan). Brigadier Abdul Rehman Siddiqui claims in his book that a member of the Army said to him "Lets back Bhutto" because he would not touch the Army's role in a future democratic setup since he had won elections in Punjab where most soldiers came from and would therefore not interfere with the Army's power.

Had the Awami League been sensible they would have gone into the Army's good books like Bhutto did. After all the Army was the authority at the time and the fountainhead of power. The Army had held the elections under martial law (whose regulations of the elections Mujib and the Awami League had violated with impunity). Why did Mujib abuse them? If he had sense he would be reasonable with them. He knew they were against him because of his Six Points and yet made no compromise on that. The Awami League turned a political issue over power-sharing and constitution making into an ethnic issue. It had already done so in the elections and also with its propaganda in the 1960s.

And when Yahya Khan, after postponing the assembly session on 1 March, offered Mujib again to hold a National Assembly session Mujib put forth the condition of removing martial law - with no consideration to West Pakistani fears about the potential for secession by the smaller provinces of NWFP and Balochistan. When Yahya Khan came to talk him in March Mujib still refused to budge on his Six Points (despite indicating to Yahya Khan earlier in January that he would compromise on the Six Points if he held the National Assembly meeting) and eventually made even more radical demands for confederation.

And as talks were being held Mujib did a number of provocative acts such as using the Bangladeshi flag on his car, saluting a parade of Bengali servicemen by his house, not caring for the burning of the Pakistani flag, which made Yahya Khan give the final go-ahead to take back control of the province from the Awami League and restore the federal government's authority (called Operation Searchlight).

In March 1971 all political parties including PPP and Bhutto supported the military action in East Pakistan. It was not until the Army did not fulfil Bhutto's demand that they start the transfer of power to his PPP that Bhutto started criticising the Army, saying there would have been no crisis if power had been "transferred earlier." This is where it seems the blame game between the PPP and the military supporters started.

Maybe the Army and Bhutto miscalculated their handling of Mujib and the Awami League. Maybe they should not have postponed the national assembly meeting and waited for a session where Yahya Khan could refuse to authenticate a constitution based on the Six Points or maybe they should have tried continuing negotiations with Mujib instead of giving the go-ahead for Operation Searchlight. But the fault for creating the crisis rests with the Awami League.

With its propaganda about exploitation to incite the population against the government, their hateful election campaign and the fact they never compromised on the Six Points, which was the main reason the Army was against them. Then there was the treasonous parallel government of the Awami League, the separatist leanings of Mujib's colleagues and the very fact that Mujib played with the fore of secessionism and nationalism to extract his demands. He did nothing substantial to allay the Army and Bhutto's concerns that his intentions were not for secession. He did everything which increased their concerns and provoked them. Such as demanding the revocation of martial law before the National Assembly meeting and the use of Bangladeshi flags and doing nothing about the insults to the Pakistani flag.

5. Do not abuse, boycott or hurt the Army and especially not the soldiers. The Awami League's and the Bengalis' abuse of the Army and soldiers in the years and months preceding 1971 is what caused the soldiers; to lose control. The same Army which developed East Pakistan and which provided relief to Bengali cyclone survivors turned abusive and arrogant towards the Bengali civilians after what they had endured at civilian hands.

If we abuse our own Army, they will lose their morale and harm us out of hurt they suffer at our hands. This is an especially important lesson today as PDM supporters at times do not refrain from abusing the Army and even soldiers, thus causing emotional hurt to men who are putting their lives on the line for us. When soldiers lose morale, they harm civilians. Imagine putting your life on the line for your people, only for them to abuse and attack you. How would you feel? Its very easy in such a situation for armies to turn on their people.

This thread is about the aftermath of the Pakistan India war in 1971 . Basically we are discussing the events from December 16, 1971 onwards. The war continued on the western front till December 21, 1971, when the UN ceasefire was unilaterally accepted by India. We agree on the background of the Civil War, but it is out of the context of this thread.

The Kashmir issue is being discussed because the 1971 war left that unresolved. The Simla Accord was a way forward but was not implemented. Pakistan's Civil War is not an issue between India and Pakistan and became irrelevant after Pakistan lost the war in the east .

The Simla Accord just 7 months later doesn't even mention East Pakistan, or Bangladesh, or the "victory ". It only mentions further discussions to exchange prisoners of war. Bangladesh as a nation has nothing to do with bi-lateral relations between Pakistan and India. After the trilateral accords in Delhi in 1973, and 1974 for repatriation and exchange of prisoners (which the parliaments and national assemblies in both India and Pakistan ratified ) there was nothing left to discuss so far as Bangladesh is concerned. Bangladesh never ratified the accords but that is no concern of either Pakistan or India.

Since 1971 both India and Pakistan have developed nuclear weapons.
The issue between India and Pakistan is no longer the territory of Kashmir or "defeat" or "victory" in past wars.
There is a religion based hatred by the regime in India against both its own minority and by extension against Pakistan and it's people. India sees its religious minority, and the population of Pakistan as one enemy. For the regime in India an attack on Pakistan is just another version of a pogrom that is frequently unleashed against its own minority.
The hatred is based off a narrative of revenge for perceived wrongs that happened 1000 years back. So my nation must be nuked in revenge for a 1000 year old event .In the latter part of the video linked in my previous post Dr. Karan Singh is discussing just that .Going forward we must either accept the positions of our respective countries as it stands and drop the desire for revenge or face mutual destruction.
 
Last edited:
.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom