India helped in our liberation war for India’s interest

[leonblack08]

We have a situation here..



3. BD, on its part has a new generation who would like to believe that 'they did it themselves" & that Pak Easten Command was on the verge of collapse anyway. Indian help was really not needed.

I thought I won't post anymore on this thread but your post certainly needs clarification.

"Indian help was really not needed"

Do you have problem reading posts?Who said that?show it to me.Just don't twist words.Got that.
Indian direct assault was not absolute necessary but Indian indirect help was definitely needed.By November the India help in terms of materials were increasing and that's what was needed.
How many times do I have to repeat myself.Just go back and read all the posts.

 

[Vinod2070]

AM, I feel that you are forgetting the real issues behind the Bangladesh going their own way. It was not India. It was the very real issues that they had with the West Pakistani attitude towards them and the very real and documented atrocities that were perpetrated.

I see that when people are not denying or trying to sidetrack this issue with talk of Mukti atrocities too (thereby making it a question of moral relativism), they start putting the whole blame on India!

The fact is that there is much more to be looked inwards in those events than outwards! The bogey of India may help one not to think of the troubling questions. Do the questions really go away?

 

[leonblack08]

And FInally you are right- When you help someone, you dont expect anything in Return. Thats where some of our Leaders have failed. But then There is also another Matter, the Person who was Helped should Show Gratitude- otherwise he/she will be just an Ungrateful person. God Speed.

We always acknowledged your help and honored you.What else we can do?We are not waging war against India.what else should be done?

 

[leonblack08]

On the other hand, no one knows of this Zainal guy and he has every right to question his credentials and motives. Especially given the fantastic assertions made in the article!

He was a member of parliament too,from BNP.Now probably he is out of Bangladesh,may be in US.

 

[third eye]

For my part, I do not feel any sense of betrayal by the then East Pakistanis. While India played a role, so did the politicians on both sides, and they made a mess of it.

I feel no sense of loss that Bangladesh exists, perhaps becasue I was born after the events that led to its creation, and for me Pakistan has been the Pakistan of the present.

Understandable then.

The whole 'leverage' thing I have no clue where you came up with.

It does not have to come from anywhere, its there for any one to see. Notice the discomfiture of Pak with India as mentioned by ppl here "on it Western borders ?". The payoffs of engaging someone on more than one front are immense..

There is of course animosity over India's deliberate and calculated role in breaking up Pakistan, because it just serves to hammer in the view that India has not really accepted the existence of Pakistan, and has continuously sought to undermine it and damage it - whether it is backtracking on international agreements on Kashmir, supporting the Pashtunistan movement, teh Baluch movement and of course the East Pakistan separatist movement.

Look, nothing happens w/o reason. Pak began with the take over attempt of J&K in '47 -48. India has merely replied in kind. Albiet taking a cue from Pak each time but doing a better job of it each time. Lets not get into the whole thing again.. its not going to get us anywhere.

Suffice to say that " no one can ride ur back unless its bent". No country can be dismembered till it wants to..


From Pakistan's inception its been a series of attempts to undermine Pakistan's existence, and its no wonder, given the documented statements of the Indian leadership at independence and through Indira Gandhi, that suggested that Pakistan woudl never succeed and eventually 'return to the fold'.

[I]So what ??

What was preventing Pak from formalising its national institutions like judiciary, constitution, parliament, land holdings,role of various agencies etc the absence of which is the bane / cause for the grief it finds itself now in and on the throes of yet another ' dismemberment" mental.. if not physical this time.

We need to stop blaming others for the mess we find ourselves in.[/I]
For Pakistanis like me it isn't the existence of Bangladesh that rankles, its the cumulative effect of sixty years of Indian aggression and hostility towards Pakistan, and the continued refusal of some segments in India to give up day dreaming about "Akhand Bharat" - heck, even in Zardari's video interview with the journalists and editors, someone had to ask him why 'India and Pakistan couldn't be one'.

Can you stop anyone from thinking or speaking ?

Has Pak accepted what it has / had & reconciled it self to what it ' should have got' in terms of land , money , resources ? If not than Indians also are of the same bent of mind.

If it rankles, instead of cribbing, one should :

1. Accept the past.
2. Improve the present - accepting mistakesof the past is a part of this.
3. Move on with the future.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

AM, I feel that you are forgetting the real issues behind the Bangladesh going their own way. It was not India. It was the very real issues that they had with the West Pakistani attitude towards them and the very real and documented atrocities that were perpetrated.

I see that when people are not denying or trying to sidetrack this issue with talk of Mukti atrocities too (thereby making it a question of moral relativism), they start putting the whole blame on India!

The fact is that there is much more to be looked inwards in those events than outwards! The bogey of India may help one not to think of the troubling questions. Do the questions really go away?

The questions do not go away, and I acknowledged them in my previous post, but the impact that the Indian involvement and the Mukti Bahini atrocities had on inflaming the situation cannot be ignored either. The events in 1971 were a SUM of all of these factors.

I must remind you that many nations have suffered through internal strife due to their own making. The example of the most successful and powerful nation in the world, the US, comes to mind. Slavery and segregation for hundreds of years - the conditions in East Pakistan do not even come close to the treatment meted out to the African Americans, yet the people, society and nation evolved and have overcome the worst of that legacy.

Pakistan never got that chance in East Pakistan, and the deliberate role played by Indian in ensuring that cannot be ignored, it was an integral part of the dynamics in East Pakistan leading to the horrible events of 1971.

 

[Khajur]

Pardon me for interjecting with something slightly off topic, but I cleared this up earlier as well - India was involved in destabilizing EP from as early as 1968, supporting the proxy groups (freedom fighters for Bangladeshis of course), and Indian interference was part of the dynamic that led to the situation we saw in 1971.

So it is extremely disingenuous to argue that 'India had no choice', as if she was innocent and only played her hand at the last moment due to the refugee crisis. India played a cold and calculating role in EP, culminating with the invasion. This has been acknowledged by Indian writers, and through Sam Manekshaw's words himself, and has been posted on another thread in the history section.

This whole 'innocent, altruistic India that had no choice' is nothing but a fairy tale that is taught to Indians to cover up her extremely hostile and anti-Pakistan actions that were part of the problem in EP.

Clarification over, back to topic.

Agno,

i dont think u dispute the fact that there were several million refugee who fled East pakisan with in a year leading up start of 71 war.

Ur whole point is its the indian who created instigated armed MB rebel groups,that led to the situation we saw in 1971 in the first place.Okay.

But just look at the staggering nos of refugees those fled east pakistan,even during all the 20 yrs long period brutal insurgency we still have Indian kashmir not more than some few thousands kashmiris who left kashmir for pakistan.Also in the equally violent rioting days of partition of 1947 didnt see that many both hindu & muslim Begali population leaving their homes in east pakistan and becoming refugees in hindu india.Now imagine what kind of colossal genoicide perpetrated by pakistani force in a short span of time .U may not accept,but for human rights organizations the case of east pakistan in 71 stands as one worst genocide of that century.

And india might had continued to make indirect support to MB fighters like u did in east punjab in the 80s,but would never had some sort of diplomatic legitimacy(even US senate was sympathetic to indias compulsion) in international fora and domestic political sanction to intervene militaryly,had it not been for pakistani forces who created one hell of mess in east pakistan.


Read this article that appeared in TIME Magazine that yr for some neutral perspective:

East Pakistan: Even the Skies Weep

East Pakistan: Even the Skies Weep - TIME

 

[third eye]

I thought I won't post anymore on this thread but your post certainly needs clarification.

"Indian help was really not needed"

Do you have problem reading posts?Who said that?show it to me.Just don't twist words.Got that.
Indian direct assault was not absolute necessary but Indian indirect help was definitely needed.By November the India help in terms of materials were increasing and that's what was needed.
How many times do I have to repeat myself.Just go back and read all the posts.

""Indians do not have any legal and moral rights to claim that it liberated Bangladesh. When we were on the verge of victory and liberated about 99 per cent portion of Bangladesh, except some pockets of urban areas, India declared war against Pakistan. When we, the freedom fighters, made the defeat of the Pakistan forces inevitable, India, for a number of ulterior reasons, directly involved in this war under the disguise of so-called allied forces. India earlier fought twice with Pakistan, but suffered shameful defeat.""

....Mohammad Zainal Abedin

 

[leonblack08]

""Indians do not have any legal and moral rights to claim that it liberated Bangladesh. When we were on the verge of victory and liberated about 99 per cent portion of Bangladesh, except some pockets of urban areas, India declared war against Pakistan. When we, the freedom fighters, made the defeat of the Pakistan forces inevitable, India, for a number of ulterior reasons, directly involved in this war under the disguise of so-called allied forces. India earlier fought twice with Pakistan, but suffered shameful defeat.""

....Mohammad Zainal Abedin

You really don't get words,don't you.

He is talking about Indian offensive.
That does not mean Indian help was not needed.

Where was this man trained?Agartala
By whom?India

look at your post and think for few minutes,a friendly advice.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Third Eye:

It does not have to come from anywhere, its there for any one to see. Notice the discomfiture of Pak with India as mentioned by ppl here "on it Western borders ?". The payoffs of engaging someone on more than one front are immense..

That speculation on your part, liek I said, I have no clue where you came up with this leverage argument. It might have some takers on the fringe, but no one I know has ever articulated such a thing. Mostly the view is that an economic partnership and alliance as independent nations is the best way forward.

Look, nothing happens w/o reason. Pak began with the take over attempt of J&K in '47 -48. India has merely replied in kind. Albiet taking a cue from Pak each time but doing a better job of it each time. Lets not get into the whole thing again.. its not going to get us anywhere.

Suffice to say that " no one can ride ur back unless its bent". No country can be dismembered till it wants to..

The argument of J7K is a non sequitur, and you probably realize it, but have to bring it up since there is no justification for Indian involvement in EP. J&K is disputed territory, and the Indian leadership agreed that it was disputed territory and that a plebiscite was the way to resolve the dispute multiple times - it then chose to unilaterally violate those agreements under Nehru. India chose to remove the diplomatic option from the table forcing Pakistan to try the infiltration bid in 1965.

East Pakistan was sovereign Pakistani territory, it was not disputed. Indian intervention in East Pakistan therefore is in no way comparable to the hostility over J&K, just as Baluchistan bears no similarities to J&K.

Lastly, India had already tried supporting the Pashtunistan movement subtly through Afghanistan, before 1965, and therefore had set the precedent for support for proxies.

So what ??

What was preventing Pak from formalising its national institutions like judiciary, constitution, parliament, land holdings,role of various agencies etc the absence of which is the bane / cause for the grief it finds itself now in and on the throes of yet another ' dismemberment" mental.. if not physical this time.

We need to stop blaming others for the mess we find ourselves in.

The 'so what' illustrates the problem on the Indian side. This isn't about the judiciary or national institutions, it is about the refusal to accept Pakistan and the subsequent deliberate attempts to destabilize it - Pashtunistan, Baluch militancy, East Pakistan militancy - you cannot excuse the crimes committed by your nation, the deaths of innocent civilians an soldiers and the intangible costs imposed by the violence, by pointing to 'national institutions'.

India is being blamed here because these actions are India's doing, you are responsible for that mess. How disingenuous can one get! Your argument is like the moraaly depraved one some people make that 'its the woman's fault that she gets raped'!

Absolutely absurd rationale here, but perhaps not surprising given the morally bankrupt apologetics in Kashmir so many Indians spout.

Has Pak accepted what it has / had & reconciled it self to what it ' should have got' in terms of land , money , resources ? If not than Indians also are of the same bent of mind.

Yes we have accepted whatever was agreed to at partition - it was also agreed, by all three sides, British, India and Pakistan, that disputed accessions would be resolved via plebiscite, so we are still waiting for a resolution of that, but that was part of what we accepted.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Khajur those arguments have been gone through on the other thread. Please read through it.

 

[ahmeddsid]

We always acknowledged your help and honored you.What else we can do?We are not waging war against India.what else should be done?

If People like Munshi or others on this forum Multiply quickly, then the Day of a War wont be Far My friend, especially if they get into the Govt! God Forbid (I dont think they ever will, coz some just sit in USA and talk BIG, All TALK NO ACTION! That should be their motto). Dont show Gratitude also, but please no Hate!

 

[third eye]

That speculation on your part, liek I said, I have no clue where you came up with this leverage argument. It might have some takers on the fringe, but no one I know has ever articulated such a thing. Mostly the view is that an economic partnership and alliance as independent nations is the best way forward.

This is a mil forum, get inputs from the military..you'll get the pic.

The argument of J7K is a non sequitur, and you probably realize it, but have to bring it up since there is no justification for Indian involvement in EP. J&K is disputed territory, and the Indian leadership agreed that it was disputed territory and that a plebiscite was the way to resolve the dispute multiple times - it then chose to unilaterally violate those agreements under Nehru. India chose to remove the diplomatic option from the table forcing Pakistan to try the infiltration bid in 1965.

East Pakistan was sovereign Pakistani territory, it was not disputed. Indian intervention in East Pakistan therefore is in no way comparable to the hostility over J&K, just as Baluchistan bears no similarities to J&K.

Lastly, India had already tried supporting the Pashtunistan movement subtly through Afghanistan, before 1965, and therefore had set the precedent for support for proxies.

I like that, Pak can do what it wants but India must not. The ' shooting ' war began on 3rd Dec eve after the pre emptive attacks by PAF on 5 Indian airfields. Before that all India did was what pak had done to india in ' 65 & before. J&K may appear disputed to you, to us its clear..

India has merely replicated what pak did to it each time. With better results.

The 'so what' illustrates the problem on the Indian side. This isn't about the judiciary or national institutions, it is about the refusal to accept Pakistan and the subsequent deliberate attempts to destabilize it - Pashtunistan, Baluch militancy, East Pakistan militancy - you cannot excuse the crimes committed by your nation, the deaths of innocent civilians an soldiers and the intangible costs imposed by the violence, by pointing to 'national institutions'.

India is being blamed here because these actions are India's doing, you are responsible for that mess. How disingenuous can one get! Your argument is like the moraaly depraved one some people make that 'its the woman's fault that she gets raped'!

Absolutely absurd rationale here, but perhaps not surprising given the morally bankrupt apologetics in Kashmir so many Indians spout.

The 'so what' actually conveys a sense of extreme frustration on part of Indians when pakistanis keep on & forever lamenting of what ' should / could have happened ". A nation like a household / family runs on rules. Pak has forever broken rules it set for itself..never allowed the essentials of a civilised society to take root. It was actually Pak's prob till it happens within it borders.

Where it begins to concern India & the region is whan this lack of " basics" causes probs in the region. India could not bear the burden of 30,000 refugees pouring in daily across the borders. I recall a surcharge in the form of a postage stamp was levied across the nation - which was a 1st of its kind - just to off set the economic burden.

What stopping a similar situation emerging on India W borders now after so many yrs ? After all, what has changed in Pak since '71 ? what lessons has it learnt ? It was the PA in EP then , now it may be the taliban in what is left of Pak. has dictarorship stopped ? Has any Pak leader left his job / chair & the nation in a better condition than what it was when he / she took over ? Has any dictator left on his own ?

So why should not the world be prepared for the ' worst ' ?

Lastly , to remind ourselves .. aren't we digressing from he topic ?

 

[Vinod2070]

The questions do not go away, and I acknowledged them in my previous post, but the impact that the Indian involvement and the Mukti Bahini atrocities had on inflaming the situation cannot be ignored either. The events in 1971 were a SUM of all of these factors.

I must remind you that many nations have suffered through internal strife due to their own making. The example of the most successful and powerful nation in the world, the US, comes to mind. Slavery and segregation for hundreds of years - the conditions in East Pakistan do not even come close to the treatment meted out to the African Americans, yet the people, society and nation evolved and have overcome the worst of that legacy.

Pakistan never got that chance in East Pakistan, and the deliberate role played by Indian in ensuring that cannot be ignored, it was an integral part of the dynamics in East Pakistan leading to the horrible events of 1971.

The example of USA and the African slaves is a bit far fetched. Surely the East Pakistanis were not brought in ships to do farm labor from another dark continent! The more apt comparison would be colonial attitude of Europeans in Africa.

Pakistan never got that chance in East Pakistan

Did the East Pakistanis want to give you that chance? At what cost to themselves and why?

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

This is a mil forum, get inputs from the military..you'll get the pic.

Even in this forum, many of the people who are in the military or were, have not articulated that particular POV, in private or public.

I like that, Pak can do what it wants but India must not. The ' shooting ' war began on 3rd Dec eve after the pre emptive attacks by PAF on 5 Indian airfields. Before that all India did was what pak had done to india in ' 65 & before. J&K may appear disputed to you, to us its clear..

India has merely replicated what pak did to it each time. With better results.

Like I pointed out, India had chosen to go teh pashtunistan route far earlier than Pakistan's involvement in 1965, and you have not responded to my argument of how East Pakistan and Baluchistan are different from Kashmir.

The Indian government agreed at partition to a plebiscite, and it agreed to multiple UNSC resolutions that declared that J&K was disputed. Your agreement and assent to Kashmir being disputed is on record, and is further validated by the new revelations on the back channel negotiations towards a resolution of Kashmir - there would be no negotiations were Kashmir not disputed. Secondly, the entire world considers kashmir disputed, not just Pakistan, so the differences I outlined are quite valid indeed.

The 'so what' actually conveys a sense of extreme frustration on part of Indians when pakistanis keep on & forever lamenting of what ' should / could have happened ". A nation like a household / family runs on rules. Pak has forever broken rules it set for itself..never allowed the essentials of a civilised society to take root. It was actually Pak's prob till it happens within it borders.

Where it begins to concern India & the region is whan this lack of " basics" causes probs in the region. India could not bear the burden of 30,000 refugees pouring in daily across the borders. I recall a surcharge in the form of a postage stamp was levied across the nation - which was a 1st of its kind - just to off set the economic burden.

What stopping a similar situation emerging on India W borders now after so many yrs ? After all, what has changed in Pak since '71 ? what lessons has it learnt ? It was the PA in EP then , now it may be the taliban in what is left of Pak. has dictarorship stopped ? Has any Pak leader left his job / chair & the nation in a better condition than what it was when he / she took over ? Has any dictator left on his own ?

So why should not the world be prepared for the ' worst ' ?

Lastly , to remind ourselves .. aren't we digressing from he topic ?

Again a distortion and absurd excused for Indian aggression in Pakistan. What Pashtun refugees were streaming into India to support Pashtunistan in the 1950's? What Baluch refugees were streaming in to India to support the Baluch freedom movement? What refugees were streaming into India in mid to late 1960's that you had to support separatist factions in East Pakistan?

And have you no sense while offering this absurd justification that supporting separatists, if 'refugees' was the problem, woudl in fact result in more destabilization and more refugees coming across the borders? And in fact that is exactly what happened in East Pakistan. Indian intervention started in the mid to lat 1960's and the refugee crises did not occur until later.

The same applies to Indian interference in Baluchistan and FATA - if India is so concerned about 'destabilization in the region' then why is it contributing to ti by supporting militant elements in Baluchistan and the North West. The answer is, becasue of the same reason it has always supported destabilization in Pakistan - it has not accepted Pakistan.

Any way, you are quite right - we have gone war off topic. I mean to only clarify that Indian intervention in East Pakistan was by no means altruistic or 'forced' - India started supporting violence and destabilizing Pakistan far earlier that 1971, and far earlier than the refugee crises.

Back to topic please, apologies for going off topic.