Indian Field Marshal about Pakistan Army in East Pakistan

[jhankar]

Its easier to say that Indians caught 93K prisoners which is some sort of a world record. If you see it from Pakistan point of view, if they wanted they could have fought till the last man, but the destruction and collateral damage of civilians would have been irreversible by the both armies. They surrendered to save the lives of the civilians and infrastructure.

 

[INDIC]

Got this from ZH's official fb page.

A short clip, yet explains so much about Pakistan Army's performance in the eastern front. An appreciation from the enemy. Words of late Field Marshal Sam Manekshaw.

https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=454595734598915

Those who can't access the video. Here are the important points he raised:

1. Pakistan Army fought very gallantly.
2. They had no chance at all, as they were a thousand miles away from their base.
3. Indian Army had almost 8-9 months for the preparations.
4. Indians had the superiority of almost 50 to 1.

Its Zaid Hamid again,

 

[jhankar]

Got this from ZH's official fb page.

A short clip, yet explains so much about Pakistan Army's performance in the eastern front. An appreciation from the enemy. Words of late Field Marshal Sam Manekshaw.

https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=454595734598915

Those who can't access the video. Here are the important points he raised:

1. Pakistan Army fought very gallantly.
2. They had no chance at all, as they were a thousand miles away from their base.
3. Indian Army had almost 8-9 months for the preparations.
4. Indians had the superiority of almost 50 to 1.

Here is the YouTube version of this video I uploaded.

 

[ashok321]

if they wanted they could have fought till the last man,

Above proves, in your own words that they did not fight bravely and waved white cloth for surrender. Bravery and valour is antonyms to submission and surrender......


We shall defend our island, whatever the cost may be, we shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender - WINSTON CHURCHIL

 

[dollarman]

Its easier to say that Indians caught 93K prisoners which is some sort of a world record. If you see it from Pakistan point of view, if they wanted they could have fought till the last man, but the destruction and collateral damage of civilians would have been irreversible by the both armies. They surrendered to save the lives of the civilians and infrastructure.

1. I believe logically Pak Army did the right thing by surrendering.

2. If you read some of the posts in this forum, including post number 13 in this thread, Pakistanis think of themselves as some kind of warrior race that never lose (despite the fact that as geographical location, it is possibly the most invaded place in South Asia), so the 93k banter comes in handy when you need to shut a few martial race keyboard warriors in this forum

 

[Bang Galore]

4. Indians had the superiority of almost 50 to 1.

Considering that over 93,000 soldiers of the Pakistani army surrendered, what is the basis of this statement?...that India had some 4.65 million troops operating in East Pakistan/ Bangladesh ?

 

[RazPaK]

Indians are so stupid.

There is a fine line between bravery and foolishness.

If the tables were turned, the Indians would have surrendered way before the fight even began.

 

[shuntmaster]

The biggest failure of Pakistan was its military doctrine in 1971, which was that 'the defense of the east lay in the west'. They concentrated more than 80% of their military assets in the western front with the intention that they will capture significant amount of Indian territories, and then negotiate with India from a position of strength regarding the East Pakistan. They kept minimal assets in the east knowing that it was indefensible. However this doctrine failed very very miserably because Indian military had learnt valuable lessons from 1965 war and were able to defend the territory very effectively on the western front, while going on all out attack mode on eastern front.
So, in effect, Pakistans major defeat was actually on the Western front, where the forces were more evenly matched, than in the East.

 

[ajtr]

Actually indians hijacked the victory of bangladesh and claimed it as their military victory.After the 3rd wold wra most of british colonies got free due to american and russian pressure on colonial powers of europe. these free colonies ever gave credit to usa and ussr for their freedom and instead major credit was given to freedom struggle in respective colonies.neither did usa /ussr asked for any credit from these colonies.

But indians being like bania even took the credit from bangladesh janata of their successful freedom struggle and showed it as indian victory.Problem was there is no victory for india in its victory column .from time immemorial there are only defeats in its dfeated column.hence in 1971 saw the best chance to show atleast one victory by dishonestly taking credit away from bangladeshis.

 

[shuntmaster]

Considering that over 93,000 soldiers of the Pakistani army surrendered, what is the basis of this statement?...that India had some 4.65 million troops operating in East Pakistan/ Bangladesh ?

Also, we need to understand that the Pakistanis were defending from well fortified and entrenched positions and Indians were attacking over a very long battlefront over a tough terrain with lots of rivers and waterways. Even on plains, a 10:1 advantage is the minimal required for any such operation..

Actually indians hijacked the victory of bangladesh and claimed it as their military victory.After the 3rd wold wra most of british colonies got free due to american and russian pressure on colonial powers of europe. these free colonies ever gave credit to usa and ussr for their freedom and instead major credit was given to freedom struggle in respective colonies.neither did usa /ussr asked for any credit from these colonies.

But indians being like bania even took the credit from bangladesh janata of their successful freedom struggle and showed it as indian victory.Problem was there is no victory for india in its victory column .from time immemorial there are only defeats in its dfeated column.hence in 1971 saw the best chance to show atleast one victory by dishonestly taking credit away from bangladeshis.

What to do, Gen. Niazi insisted that he wanted to surrender to the bania army, rather than to the bangalis. Hence, we have no option than to claim this victory over the pakistni army.

 

[dollarman]

Indians are so stupid.

There is a fine line between bravery and foolishness.

If the tables were turned, the Indians would have surrendered way before the fight even began.

The tables were turned, and we emerged victorious. You might want to re-check history:

Battle of Longewala - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

120 Indian soldiers held of 2000 Pakistani soldiers without surrendering.

Equation slightly got changed in that war to 1 Indian = 18 Pakistanis

 

[ashok321]

Indians are so stupid.

There is a fine line between bravery and foolishness.

If the tables were turned, the Indians would have surrendered way before the fight even began.

Only if the fish can ride the bycicle lol
I reckon Pakistan lacked the pivot to easily turn the tables on Indians..
Jo jeeta wo sikander.......its time you stop your tirade, futile excercise.....or you still want me to provide you with Najim Sethi youtube video?

 

[jhankar]

1. I believe logically Pak Army did the right thing by surrendering.

2. If you read some of the posts in this forum, including post number 13 in this thread, Pakistanis think of themselves as some kind of warrior race that never lose (despite the fact that as geographical location, it is possibly the most invaded place in South Asia), so the 93k banter comes in handy when you need to shut a few martial race keyboard warriors in this forum

It was never a war between Pakistan and India. It was actually a conflict between two brothers East and West Pakistan. It could have been solved without the intervention of any other country. It was transformed into a war by India. East Pakistan was actually very angry at that moment, and in the heat of the moment they helped India. West Pakistan kept its calm, as no one was thinking logically, and decided to surrender than to kill their own brothers.

 

[dollarman]

West Pakistan kept its calm, as no one was thinking logically, and decided to surrender than to kill their own brothers.

Are you kidding me? Pakistan killed well in excess of 100,000 (going by the most conservative estimates). To give you some perspective, the Bangladeshi Govt claims you killed 3 million.

Agreed on the first part of your post though. India was forced to intervene because all the refugees from Bangladeshis were pouring into our state, because you were killing them.

 

[jhankar]

The biggest failure of Pakistan was its military doctrine in 1971, which was that 'the defense of the east lay in the west'. They concentrated more than 80% of their military assets in the western front with the intention that they will capture significant amount of Indian territories, and then negotiate with India from a position of strength regarding the East Pakistan. They kept minimal assets in the east knowing that it was indefensible. However this doctrine failed very very miserably because Indian military had learnt valuable lessons from 1965 war and were able to defend the territory very effectively on the western front, while going on all out attack mode on eastern front.
So, in effect, Pakistans major defeat was actually on the Western front, where the forces were more evenly matched, than in the East.

I agree with you, "The defense of the East lay in the West" was not a well formed policy given Indian intentions to split Pakistan and the geographical distance between the East and West Pakistan.