What's new

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

Status
Not open for further replies.
One must learn from history.
Don't you learn about the crusades in schools of the battle of Hastings in 1066. Are they not over either?
crusades were not a civil war
It is over as dhaka is nearly 3000 kms away from us and has NOTHING to do with Pakistan or Pakistanis.

The area that is now Pakistan, Afghanistan and South East Iran were one nation/federation for some 3200 years but no one compalins about the fall of that federation yet we are suppose to dwell over something that only lasted 24 years.............. :disagree:

Pakistan's territorial claims over Afghanistan and Iran are not the topic of discussion.

24 years from 71 is a significant chunk which cannot be ignored.
 
.
crusades were not a civil war


Pakistan's territorial claims over Afghanistan and Iran are not the topic of discussion.

24 years from 71 is a significant chunk which cannot be ignored.




We have no territorial claims over Afghanistan or Iran. But the area that is now modern day Pakistan, Afghanistan and South Eastern Iran were one entity/federation/nation for just over 3200 years yet no one mentions the dissolution of that entity so why should we bother with something that only lasted 24 years and is more than 2200 kms away from us. Pakistan, Afghanistan and South Eastern Iran are however all joined together.
 
.
We have no territorial claims over Afghanistan or Iran. But the area that is now modern day Pakistan, Afghanistan and South Eastern Iran were one entity/federation/nation for just over 3200 years yet no one mentions the dissolution of that entity so why should we bother with something that only lasted 24 years and is more than 2200 kms away from us. Pakistan, Afghanistan and South Eastern Iran are however all joined together.

When was that entity dissolved and what were the causes? Were they similar to the ones that caused the Fall of Dhaka?
 
.
When was that entity dissolved and what were the causes? Were they similar to the ones that caused the Fall of Dhaka?




Was it a fall or were they simply reverting back to their natural order?
 
. .
Well you were beaten in every war, it's just that in 71 we gave you no escape routes. Just try not to mess with us and suffer another debacle and prevent yet another psychological trauma.
they are not accepting a surrender as defeat .
 
.
crusades were not a civil war


Pakistan's territorial claims over Afghanistan and Iran are not the topic of discussion.

24 years from 71 is a significant chunk which cannot be ignored.
OK then the English civil war between cavaliers and roundhead....is it over???
 
. .
it's about a way that the Bangladeshis won and had india carry out janitorial services afterwards. run along now.
Bangladesh never won as they are under Indian control through Indian proxy Sheikh Hasina. East Pakistan was lost and East Pakistan lost that is a fact.
 
.
It has transformed and transitioned but it's not over.
No it ended officially 6th of September 1651. Ask sheikh Google.
Likewise 1971 is over. Finsihed and anyone that thinks otherwise is delusional or just lives arguing
 
.
Well you were beaten in every war, it's just that in 71 we gave you no escape routes. Just try not to mess with us and suffer another debacle and prevent yet another psychological trauma.

I sympathize. Your psychological trauma goes back 1000 years and the last trauma in the third battle of Panipat is so severe that in Marathi you have coined a phrase to symbolize total ruin with the word Panipat.
So instead of saying you have ruined us , you say :
"You have done a Panipat on us".
Tum ne hamari Panipat kar dee ( Hindi equivalent).
:omghaha:
We will be messing with you for another 1000 years unless we both go boom.
 
.
No it ended officially 6th of September 1651. Ask sheikh Google
Incompetence and treason don't have expiry dates.

Neither is Bhutto dead in Pakistan nor is Mujib de-seated as Pakistani founder of Bangladeshi nation.


I don't suffer from any syndrome. What happened was incompetent and treacherous. They were the acts of people who no longer matter. Today we are a proud nations that fights am adversary far greater in size number and military strength. Alhumdulillah I am fellow Pakistanis stand with our heads held high.
So what the hell is this well written article about? Perhaps it's just you that needs this help. I certainly don't. I have travelled extensively in both India and Bangladesh and proudly told people I was Pakistani and no one mentioned 1971
 
.
Bangladesh never won as they are under Indian control through Indian proxy Sheikh Hasina. East Pakistan was lost and East Pakistan lost that is a fact.
In the Pakistan resolution ( 1940 ) there were to be two independent states, So there are two independent states. Pakistan and Bangladesh.
Lets move on.
 
.
Below text doesn't mention how many states. simply says states of North Western and Eastern Zones of colonial India.

Colonial India was a collection of over 600 princely states.
In the Pakistan resolution ( 1940 ) there were to be two independent states, So there are two independent states. Pakistan and Bangladesh.
Lets move on.

"THE LAHORE RESOLUTION"

Resolved at the Lahore Session of All-India Muslim League held on 22nd-24th March, 1940.

(1) While approving and endorsing the action taken by the Council and the Working Committee of the All Indian Muslim League as indicated in their resolutions dated the 27th of August, 17th and 18th of September and 22nd of October, 1939, and 3rd February 1940 on the constitutional issues, this Session of the All-Indian Muslim League emphatically reiterates that the scheme of federation embodied in the Government of India Act, 1935, is totally unsuited to, and unworkable in the peculiar conditions of this country and is altogether unacceptable to Muslim India.

(2) Resolved that it is the considered view of this Session of the All India Muslim League that no constitutional plan would be workable in this country or acceptable to Muslims unless it is designed on the following basic principle, namely that geographically contiguous units are demarcated into regions which should be so constituted, with such territorial readjustments as may be necessary, that the areas in which the Muslims are numerically in a majority as in the North-Western and Eastern Zones of India, should be grouped o constitute “Independent States” in which the constituent units shall be autonomous and sovereign.

(3) That adequate, effective and mandatory safeguards should be specifically provided in the constitution for minorities in these units and in these regions for the protection of their religious, cultural, economic, political, administrative and other rights and interests in consultation with them; and in other parts of India where the Mussalmans are in a minority, adequate, effective and mandatory safeguards shall be specially provided in the constitution for them and other minorities for the protection of their religious, cultural, economic, political, administrative and other rights and interests in consultation with them.

(4) This Session further authorizes the Working Committee to frame a scheme of constitution in accordance with these basic principles, providing for the assumption finally by the respective regions of all powers such as defense, external affairs, communications, customs and such other matters as may be necessary."[14][15]
 
.
You need to answer these questions -

  • who did Maharajah of Kashmir give his state to?
  • what % did he give to India?

The answer to the first is India and the answer to the second is 100%. Please refer to the Instrument of Accession it does not state 65%. So you now need to ask is why despite being far larger than Pakistan and having had wars Indian Army has failed to get the 100% of Kashmir. Instead the number is 65% and stuck there?

Listen to this Indian analyst at 14:55 and 15:30



  • who did Maharajah of Kashmir give his state to?

Just like Three of the princely states, Makran, Las Bela and Kharan, acceded to Pakistan in 1947 after independence but 4th was not.

If three were having rights then the same way, Prince of j & k was having rights.

  • what % did he give to India?
Check the Un website about j & k and maps for answer.

Being a bigger does meant that you can and get everything otherwise China is bigger and more powerful then India. They can take over arunachal pradesh and ladakh..

But, you will not understand, I guess..
You didn't answer my question as to whether the theater of conflict in the 1971 war included J & K. ?

So I will answer it for you. Yes, India did attempt to take over Azad Kashmir in 1971 but had very limited success. India did not try to takeover Lahore in 1971 either, because based on its earlier experience it lacked the capability to do so.

With reference to the current regime in power in India only ; it is not because India does not want to takeover Kashmir or Pakistan but it can't.
Declassified documents of 50 years back show that powerful Indian foreign policy advisors and policy makers ( far more powerful than India's foreign minister himself), D.P. Dhar, and P.N. Haksar had already chartered a course for Indian Pakistani relations beyond 1971 and Bangladesh was already a non-issue.
India gained nothing from its victory Bangladesh, other than more population displacement of Hindus, Chakma Buddhists, and is now facing even more displaced population movement due to an environmental disaster wrought by climate change.



Wasn't the Simla Agreement supposed to kickstart an acknowledgment of the realities on the ground? Who derailed the agreement?

Was it worth creating an additional nuclear threat to your nation?

No, India was more focused on our East because breaking was only intention. We had never try after 1947..
 
.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom