India's role in making of Mukti Bahini, the forgotten terrorists

[Indus Pakistan]

Just to correct you, Rajiv Gandhi was killed by a Tamil Tigers suicide bomber. Why would Tamil Tigers kill Rajiv Gandhi if India is actually helping them? Again, feel free to correct me as I don't know too much about the Sri Lankan Civil War.

Off my head I think it was because in earlier period India had helped the Tigers but then under Rajiv decided it was not such a great idea and policy was changed. That led to backlash and Rajiv became a collateral of the Sri Lankan conflict.

* When war between Sri Lankan Tamils and the Sinhalese majority — about three-fourth of Sri Lanka’s 21 million people — erupted in 1983, India under Prime Minister Indira Gandhi took an active role. It hosted militant Tamil training camps in Tamil Nadu, from which the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) emerged as the most lethal group. India had both its national security and concerns about Pakistani, Chinese and United States influence in Sri Lanka in mind.

* Historians say those concerns, plus India’s growing desire to establish itself as a regional power, were behind a June 4, 1987, airdrop of relief supplies to the Tamil Tiger-held Jaffna Peninsula while it was under siege by the Sri Lankan army. Faced with the prospect of a direct Indian intervention, Sri Lankan President J.R. Jayewardene held talks with India that produced the July 29, 1987, Indo-Sri Lanka Accord. The LTTE, however, was excluded.

https://uk.reuters.com/article/idUKCOL223047
https://www.nytimes.com/1987/10/20/...ort-for-sri-lanka-rebels-appears-to-wane.html

 

[KhanBaba2]

The issue was exaggerated as quoted by Nixon and Kissinger. There was a reason why they ended up saying Indians are habitual liars.

1 out of 7 East Pakistani was a refugee in 1971. I guess that is a very small number for you.

Were Nixon and Kissinger the most honest brokers out there.

 

[TheGreatMaratha]

Just to correct you, Rajiv Gandhi was killed by a Tamil Tigers suicide bomber. Why would Tamil Tigers kill Rajiv Gandhi if India is actually helping them? Again, feel free to correct me as I don't know too much about the Sri Lankan Civil War.

Off my head I think it was because in earlier period India had helped the Tigers but then under Rajiv decided it was not such a great India and policy was changed. That led to backlash and Rajiv became a collateral of the Sri Lankan conflict.

* When war between Sri Lankan Tamils and the Sinhalese majority — about three-fourth of Sri Lanka’s 21 million people — erupted in 1983, India under Prime Minister Indira Gandhi took an active role. It hosted militant Tamil training camps in Tamil Nadu, from which the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) emerged as the most lethal group. India had both its national security and concerns about Pakistani, Chinese and United States influence in Sri Lanka in mind.

* Historians say those concerns, plus India’s growing desire to establish itself as a regional power, were behind a June 4, 1987, airdrop of relief supplies to the Tamil Tiger-held Jaffna Peninsula while it was under siege by the Sri Lankan army. Faced with the prospect of a direct Indian intervention, Sri Lankan President J.R. Jayewardene held talks with India that produced the July 29, 1987, Indo-Sri Lanka Accord. The LTTE, however, was excluded.

https://uk.reuters.com/article/idUKCOL223047
https://www.nytimes.com/1987/10/20/...ort-for-sri-lanka-rebels-appears-to-wane.html

I think India shouldn't have ventured into Sri Lanka then. I don't know what logic the Indian government had at that time to intervene in Sri Lanka. Maybe create an independent Tamil state in Sri Lanka? But that would have created a bad image for India in world politics. And what does India have to gain from an independent Tamil state in Sri Lanka? It would have eventually been recaptured by Sri Lanka anyway. Also, it would have given additional burden on India as well. I think that was just bad strategy by India.

 

[Vapnope]

1 out of 7 East Pakistani was a refugee in 1971. I guess that is a very small number for you.

Like i said you are repeating whatever was written in your textbooks, the reality however was way different. No independent body accepted this number as you continue to quote.

Nixon and Kissinger were the ones Indira chose to discuss this issue about. Maybe ask your state why they went to these people?

 

[Jackdaws]

Just to correct you, Rajiv Gandhi was killed by a Tamil Tigers suicide bomber. Why would Tamil Tigers kill Rajiv Gandhi if India is actually helping them? Again, feel free to correct me as I don't know too much about the Sri Lankan Civil War.
The rest of the points are spot on though. India was the leader of the Non-Aligned Movement in the post Word War 2 era while Pakistan was in the US camp. I think here again Pakistan should have just minded its own business instead of getting sucked into conflicts in Afghanistan. That was a wrong move.

Rajiv Gandhi initially helped the Tamil Tigers. There is a photo of Prabhakaran meeting Rajiv Gandhi in Delhi. Tamil minority was very badly treated in Lanka which led to LTTE. India initially supported LTTE. India then sent troops under IPKF to broker a peace but they ended up worsening the situation in Lanka. It's the last time India sent troops abroad under its own flag. Complete fiasco - I remember a Sri Lankan friend telling me an Indian officer was caught with more than 60kgs of stolen gold.

LTTE managed to kill Rajiv Gandhi and thought that they would even get sympathy and support from Tamil in India. They didn't.

 

[Indus Pakistan]

The reason why some members want the 1971 debacle hidden away is simple. Bangladesh is living reminder that Two Nation Theory failed. Islam was not in itself sufficient binding agent. It requires other more mundane and temporal threads to hold a nation together like geography, history etc.

It also established that One Nation Theory [that entire South Asia] is one is also not tenable. The fact that Bangladesh did not merge with India explodes the One Nation Theory at the same time demolishing the Two Natio Theory.

 

[Vapnope]

@KhanBaba2

President Nixon and Henry Kissinger then met in the Oval Office of the White
House on the morning of November 5, 1971, to discuss Nixon's conversation
with Prime Minister Gandhi on the previous day. Kissinger's overall
assessment was that "the Indians are bastards anyway. They are starting a
war there.... To them East Pakistan is no longer the issue. Now, I found it
very interesting how she carried on to you yesterday about West Pakistan."

(Ref: Document 180, Foreign Relations, 1969-1976, Vol XI, South Asia
Crisis, 1971.)

The US also let it be known to India, in no uncertain terms, that if they went
to war, there will be "unshirted hell to pay" (is a queer expression even in
yankee lexicon, presuming there is a shirted twin). It was further considered
that the Indians were suspicious of the US—they thought the US was pro-
Pakistan. "They will understand pressure if they believe we seriously want to
help." (Doc. 105) But look, "we gave India $50 million to help with the
refugees, yet they are refusing Thant's request for a UN presence on the
Indian side of the border"!
Kissinger went on to say: "There is no question that this is an issue of
profound emotion to the Indians". Privately, he said that the "Indians have a
tendency to build up hysteria from which they won't know how to escape".
His officers agreed: "Indian psychology is such that they may well paint
themselves into a corner to the point that the only alternative they can see is
the use of force." Kissinger said: "The Indians know they have received more
US aid than any other nation. However, when I was there, the press was
vicious and they made no effort to calm it down. I wonder if this is the result
of the situation, or whether it is helping to create it. If we assume that the
question of human suffering is a big factor in the Indian outrage (although I
have my own views on the Indian attitude towards human suffering), if they
knock off east Pakistan, it will produce an upheaval, with untold human
suffering in West Pakistan. I don't think the Indians have a master plan but
they could slide into a major crisis".
(Ref. Document 105, Foreign Relations, 1969-1979, Vol. XI, South Asian
Crisis, 1971.)

Conflict and diplomacy by Jaswant Singh & SP Bhattia

 

[TheGreatMaratha]

The reason why some members want the 1971 debacle hidden away is simple. Bangladesh is living reminder that Two Nation Theory failed. Islam was not in itself sufficient binding agent. It requires other more mundane and temporal threads to hold a nation together like geography, history etc.

It also established that One Nation Theory [that entire South Asia] is one is also not tenable. The fact that Bangladesh did not merge with India explodes the One Nation Theory at the same time demolishing the Two Natio Theory.

I personally think that language is a stronger binding agent than religion. BD separated as they fought for their Bangla language. India too was under threat of separation from Tamil Nadu when a controversial bill regarding language was about to be passed in the 1950s but it was retracted after there were a lot of protests in Tamil Nadu. Hindi boards were actually burned over there. Even in my state Maharashtra in a few cities like Mumbai and Pune, there is resentment against Hindi migrants. But the Indian state/government eventually respects local languages. I just want migrant Hindi speakers to respect local languages as well. They just come and expect others to talk in Hindi instead of themselves trying to learn local language.
Religion has never been a strong binding factor for nation states. Otherwise, you would have seen one European country and one Middle Eastern country. Ethnicity and languages are strong factors as well.

 

[KhanBaba2]

@KhanBaba2

President Nixon and Henry Kissinger then met in the Oval Office of the White
House on the morning of November 5, 1971, to discuss Nixon's conversation
with Prime Minister Gandhi on the previous day. Kissinger's overall
assessment was that "the Indians are bastards anyway. They are starting a
war there.... To them East Pakistan is no longer the issue. Now, I found it
very interesting how she carried on to you yesterday about West Pakistan."

(Ref: Document 180, Foreign Relations, 1969-1976, Vol XI, South Asia
Crisis, 1971.)

The US also let it be known to India, in no uncertain terms, that if they went
to war, there will be "unshirted hell to pay" (is a queer expression even in
yankee lexicon, presuming there is a shirted twin). It was further considered
that the Indians were suspicious of the US—they thought the US was pro-
Pakistan. "They will understand pressure if they believe we seriously want to
help." (Doc. 105) But look, "we gave India $50 million to help with the
refugees, yet they are refusing Thant's request for a UN presence on the
Indian side of the border"!
Kissinger went on to say: "There is no question that this is an issue of
profound emotion to the Indians". Privately, he said that the "Indians have a
tendency to build up hysteria from which they won't know how to escape".
His officers agreed: "Indian psychology is such that they may well paint
themselves into a corner to the point that the only alternative they can see is
the use of force." Kissinger said: "The Indians know they have received more
US aid than any other nation. However, when I was there, the press was
vicious and they made no effort to calm it down. I wonder if this is the result
of the situation, or whether it is helping to create it. If we assume that the
question of human suffering is a big factor in the Indian outrage (aou lthough I
have my own views on the Indian attitude towards human suffering), if they
knock off east Pakistan, it will produce an upheaval, with untold human
suffering in West Pakistan. I don't think the Indians have a master plan but
they could slide into a major crisis".
(Ref. Document 105, Foreign Relations, 1969-1979, Vol. XI, South Asian
Crisis, 1971.)

Conflict and diplomacy by Jaswant Singh & SP Bhattia

We were talking of East Pakistani refugees and atrocities on East Pakistani. I don't get the relationship of that with this post.

Nixon and Kissinger were not the most honest people. Nixon was forced to resign and required a pardon. Kissinger was going full tilt building a relationship with China. But in your quote, nowhere is it said that there was no refugee or atrocity.

 

[Vapnope]

We were talking of East Pakistani refugees and atrocities on East Pakistani. I don't get the relationship of that with this post.

Nixon and Kissinger were not the most honest people. Nixon was forced to resign and required a pardon. Kissinger was going full tilt building a relationship with China. But in your quote, nowhere is it said that there was no refugee or atrocity.

The book is about East Pakistan becoming Bangladesh. The figure that Indians tout is no where to be found, while US gave India $50 Million for refugees, Indian side didn't let UN observers to check the number of refugees in India. The duplicity and the deception by India is evident from the excerpt i posted.

 

[KhanBaba2]

Like i said you are repeating whatever was written in your textbooks, the reality however was way different. No independent body accepted this number as you continue to quote.

Nixon and Kissinger were the ones Indira chose to discuss this issue about. Maybe ask your state why they went to these people?

UNHRC report is not our textbook. https://www.unhcr.org/3ebf9bab0.html

How many refugees do you textbook say there were. Our textbooks here do no mention any number.

 

[masterchief_mirza]

Prick, I never hid them.

Nah. You see child, you're Hindustani. That makes you a snake lurking in the grass by default. You're just one of those rare types who is in denial about his usual lurking mannerisms. I would say you should be proud of whom you are. No need to deny anything. You're amongst friends.

 

[t1000]

India did have a role in training, financing and arming the muktibahini. But the real mastermind is the Soviet union.
The soviet union did massive ground work in that bengal region before that war. And i would say the SU is the primary reason india won that war. But then again geopolitical reality dictated that splitting off of bangladesh was an eventuality.
Basically it was part of the proxy war between SU and the USA, who used Ind and pak respectively.
The next war will also be the same; USA is now cozying up to India and China has roped in Pakistan.

 

[Sheikh Rauf]

India's role? We openly accepted it, we trained Mukti Bahini from the refugees who came here, gave them weapons at times too.

Those days of supporting armed freedom fighters are long gone. Post 9/11 world...

Then sud stop crying when jihadies come in kashmir we have millions of kashmiries who wants to do the same to india..but Pakistan have no polocy to use cross border like india have done.
But fate reality india will face.. you can keep jini in bottle for long...lets wait and see what these Terrorist RSS BJP will do in Kashmir.
We capture many of your monkies as well.. but we let your donkey go away on feb

 

[Dubious]

Find me 10 Indians who would openly accept that India funded terrorism against Pakistan back in 1971. I am not even talking about today.

A denying cohort still believe that they bombed 300 terrorists in Balakot! How do you intend to find 10?