Silverblaze
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Nov 25, 2012
- Messages
- 2,737
- Reaction score
- 3
- Country
- Location
Sarmila Bose, Dead Reckoning: Memories of the 1971 Bangladesh War. Enough to answer indian propaganda.
‘Indira Gandhi considered military strike on Pak’s nuke sites’
- Thread starter Zarvan
- Start date
Sarmila Bose, Dead Reckoning: Memories of the 1971 Bangladesh War. Enough to answer indian propaganda.
Having thrown a book randomly, kindly do the favour of quoting relevant parts which say that there was no rape and murder committed on a mass scale by the Pakistani Army in '70-'71. Please especially quote the parts which state that there were no UN-run abortion clinics due to the mass rape committed by the Pakistani Army....
Take your time.....
It does not suit from a citizen of the rape capital of the world where even the foreigners are not being spared from getting raped to talk about rapes of 200000-300000 women by an army which was never proved.
war&peace
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Aug 12, 2015
- Messages
- 33,771
- Reaction score
- 18
- Country
- Location
You are india but I end up liking most of your comments
1971 Bangladesh genocide - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Rape during the Bangladesh Liberation War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Bangladesh Genocide Archive
1971 Rapes: Bangladesh Cannot Hide History
Bangladesh war: The article that changed history - BBC News
The war Bangladesh can never forget - Asia - World - The Independent
http://www.univie.ac.at/bimtor/dateien/bangladesh_redress_2004_report_tortureinbangladesh.pdf
TankMan
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Aug 12, 2014
- Messages
- 3,213
- Reaction score
- 57
- Country
- Location
All you have done by quoting those articles, both from the same author, is prove that he is biased against Pakistan - when one journalist writes multiple articles with points so easily refutable - all to bash one particular country - his credibility becomes questionable.Yup...my mommy says that with two of "these" you can get anything you want from the boys!!!
Yes, hope you are around to LOL your way out of the mess when Pakistan's nuclear blackmail gamble meets its inevitable end.
Here's one of the articles that mention Pakistan's precarious nuclear program:
Pakistan: Maybe Not the Best Country in Which to Store Nuclear Weapons - The Atlantic
I would like to quote the first few sentences:
"Here's the thing: If you were looking for a safe place to store nuclear weapons, would you choose a country that is the epicenter of global jihadism, and that sees its military bases, and even its military's general headquarters, attacked with some regularity, and some success? If you answered no, you are correct! Once again this week, we see Pakistani radicals having some measure of success attacking a base at the heart of the country's military-nuclear complex."
This article was actually a follow up to one that was published the previous year: Pakistan: The Ally from Hell
The Ally From Hell - The Atlantic
Quoting an excerpt:
"Pakistan lies. It hosted Osama bin Laden (knowingly or not). Its government is barely functional. It hates the democracy next door. It is home to both radical jihadists and a large and growing nuclear arsenal (which it fears the U.S. will seize). Its intelligence service sponsors terrorists who attack American troops. With a friend like this, who needs enemies?"
But of course, you will LOL it all away. After all, they are just random journos who invest months in preparing a story. Not some insider like you with all the dope, right?
Meanwhile, an actual report based on an objective investigation shows that Pakistan's nuclear security is improving, and is the most improved in the region, surpassing that of your super-duper power nation.
Pakistan Garners Accolade for 'Most Improved' Nuclear Security | Global Security Newswire | NTI
India ranks below Pakistan in n-security index - The Hindu
Worry about your own country - if everything was fine and dandy in India, you wouldn't be trying to make yourself feel good by bashing another country.
Myth-busting the Bangladesh war of 1971 - Al Jazeera English
Behind the Myth of 3 million
Dead Reckoning by Sarmila Bose - review | Books | The Guardian
You post links, I post links - at the end of the day, we get to nowhere.
Like I said before, worry about your own country; and worry about the fact that you keep needing to bash Pakistan to feel good about your own country. Let us worry about our issues and past mistakes.
Okay smartass, lets see:
About the first link that you posted: Pakistan made the biggest jump based on a lower baseline. In the 2012 report, its performance was so bad that even a slight improvement would have a dramatic effect percentage-wise. You do understand the “baseline effect”, don’t you? Since you claim to be an “analyst”...
On the second link: Firstly, it relates to fissile material, not nuclear weapons. So you are actually spreading a canard. Nonetheless, I will point out even bigger subterfuge by you. The reason quite clearly stated in the report for India’s slightly lower score is that it does not share details about its fissile material stockpile. India has been ranked higher in terms of security of its stockpile. The areas in which Pakistan scored higher were in “publishing new regulations for physical security of its material” and starting a “centre of excellence”; both meaningless to the ACTUAL security of fissile material.
You clearly didn’t read either article, did you?
As for the “biased” reporter, yes, I know. Anything not convenient to you is biased. Allow me to suggest some more ”biased” reading for you:
The Terrorist Threat to Nuclear Weapons in Pakistan
WikiLeaks cables highlight Pakistani nuclear terror threat | World news | The Guardian
Terrorist Tactics in Pakistan Threaten Nuclear Weapons Safety | Combating Terrorism Center at West Point
Militants attack Pakistan nuclear air base - Telegraph
Keeping Pakistan's Nuclear Weapons Out of the Hands of Terrorists
Report: Pakistan Nuclear Facilities Attacked at Least Three Times by Terrorists | Fox News
https://books.google.co.in/books?id=w0tr4SO4_vwC&pg=PA91&lpg=PA91&dq=terrorist threat to pakistan nuclear weapons&source=bl&ots=UnJrLjOMAS&sig=uq3ePKS6frNZiKwcyAEdWDE48CY&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CDoQ6AEwBTgUahUKEwjVyv_lutnHAhXKHY4KHTmKAUo#v=onepage&q=terrorist threat to pakistan nuclear weapons&f=false
Pakistan and the Nuclear Nightmare | Foreign Policy
Top-secret U.S. intelligence files show new levels of distrust of Pakistan - The Washington Post
More biased reports about the nuclear walmart being run by your thieving messiah, AQ Khan
https://www.iiss.org/en/publications/strategic dossiers/issues/nuclear-black-markets--pakistan--a-q--khan-and-the-rise-of-proliferation-networks---a-net-assessmen-23e1
http://iis-db.stanford.edu/evnts/3889/Khan_network-paper.pdf
http://www.economist.com/node/11585265
A. Q. Khan Nuclear Chronology - Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
The A.Q. Khan Network and its Fourth Customer - Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
http://faculty.maxwell.syr.edu/rdenever/PPA 730-11/Albright and Hinderstein -- Khan.pdf
Closing Pandora's Box: Pakistan's Role in Nuclear Proliferation | Arms Control Association
You have no shame, do you? You belong to a country that peddles nuclear technology like candy floss.
TankMan
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Aug 12, 2014
- Messages
- 3,213
- Reaction score
- 57
- Country
- Location
Firstly, I do not claim to be an analyst. The claim is not my own - the title was given to me by this forum's senior members and moderators. If you have a problem with that, you can go ahead and contact @Slav Defence - I'm sure you'll have no problem proving your 'genius' and earning yourself a title.
And in your arrogance, you didn't read any of the articles - as expected.
''Their report gives Pakistani nuclear security an overall score of 46 on a 100-point scale, a three-point increase over its rating in the prior version of the NTI Nuclear Materials Security Index, published in 2012.''
The report is based on a 100-point scale, not a 'percentage-wise' analysis that would be effected by the baseline effect.
''A three point increase'' means that Pakistan's rating in 2012 was 43. In comparison, India's point rating as of 2014 is only 41.
Pakistan's ''so bad'' performance in 2012 was better than India's performance in 2014, despite all your 'improvements'.
Nuclear weapons are made of fissile material.
Non-weaponized fissile material can also be used in improvised dirty bombs by the terrorists that are so often cited as being potentially nuclear capable.
Saying that the index relates to 'fissile material' and ''not nuclear weapons'' is only testament to your ignorance.
If you are interested, read a little on the subject:
Appendix B: A Primer on Fissile Materials and Nuclear Weapon Design
By Owen R. Cote, Jr CSIA Studies in International Security, John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University.
Regulations are necessary. Previously U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission dictates were used in many cases, now Pakistan has its own specific regulations that are tailored for Pakistan's needs - which are undoubtedly a little different from that of the US.
And those are not the only areas in which Pakistan scored higher.
Quoting the article from The Hindu,
''Pakistan, however, scored higher in a number of areas, including: the existence of an independent regulatory agency; having invited peer review of its nuclear security arrangements; and having security and other personnel with access to nuclear materials subjected to additional vetting.''
That's clearly more than just 'publishing', as you claim.
Those links simply say ''there is a threat''. We know there is a threat. There is no doubt of that. But there is also no doubt that we can handle that threat.
As for 'proliferation', every country does it one way or another. Iran, for example, has the same right to nuclear weapons that Israel has, the only difference being that the former has to struggle and seek clandestine dealings with Pakistan while the latter has the open and direct support of the US. At the end of the day, both are doing the same thing - only difference being that geopolitics dictates that one is ''shameful'' while the other is perfectly fine.
The articles accuse AQ Khan, and by extension Pakistan, of dealing with Libya, Iran and North Korea - that is nothing 'shameful', even if the allegations were true. Libya, Iran and North Korea are countries and there is nothing shameful in one country dealing with other countries to forward its geopolitical interests.
My friend, If I was to start listing the things you ought to be ashamed of because of the country you belong to, we'd never get to the end of it.
Instead, I'll present to you this sher by Iqbal:
I spend much of my time looking at my own country's sins - perhaps you should too. Or maybe you find those so discomforting that you spend your time bashing other countries to feel better instead.
Last edited:
Thorough Pro
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Aug 23, 2008
- Messages
- 13,232
- Reaction score
- -21
- Country
- Location
In the end what matters is, what you do and not what you consider. A lot of such "considerations" and no action proves the "no balls" thesis.
Returning to power in 1980, the then Prime Minister Indira Gandhi had considered a military strike on Pakistan’s nuclear installations to prevent it from acquiring weapons capabilities, a declassified CIA document has claimed.
Such a consideration by the then Indian Prime Minister was being made when the US was in an advanced stage of providing its fighter jets F-16 to Pakistan, says the September 8, 1981, document titled ‘India’s Reaction to Nuclear Developments in Pakistan’, which was prepared by the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA).
A redacted version of the 12-page document was posted on the CIA website in June this year, according to which the then Indian government led by Gandhi in 1981 was concerned about the progress made by Pakistan on its nuclear weapons programme and believed that Islamabad was steps away from acquiring a nuclear weapon. The US had the same assessment.
“In the extreme case, if Indian concerns increase over the next two or three months, we believe the conditions could be ripe for a decision by Prime Minister Gandhi to instigate a military confrontation with Pakistan, primarily to provide a framework for destroying Pakistan’s nuclear facilities,” the then highly sensitive CIA report claimed.
At the time of writing of the report, the CIA said Gandhi had not taken any such decision in that regard.
According to the report, as Pakistan was in an advanced stage of producing plutonium and highly enriched uranium for use in nuclear weapons, Gandhi evidently responded to the threat by authorising Indian nuclear test preparations.
“In February (1981), excavation was begun in the Thar desert to permit the underground explosion of an Indian test device on short notice,” the CIA said, adding that in May, preparations had been completed by India for a 40-kiloton nuclear test.
The CIA said India reportedly was to explode the device about one week after the expected Pakistani test.
“Evidently, the Indian Government calculated that a Pakistani nuclear explosion per se would not constitute a national security threat, and that the damage to India’s image of pre-eminence in the region could be minimised by a resumption of the peaceful nuclear explosive (PNE) programme,” the CIA said.
“Prime Minister Gandhi probably has not made a decision to exercise a military option against Pakistan. In the extreme case, if India’s concern about deliveries of F-16s to Pakistan increases before the optimum time for exercising the military option (in October or November according to one report), the conditions could be ripe for Prime Minister Gandhi to carry out the contingency strike plan,” it said.
“Our best estimate, however, is that India will follow a wait and see strategy,” the report added.
‘Indira Gandhi considered military strike on Pak’s nuke sites’ | idrw.org
@Horus @nair @Oscar @GURU DUTT @OrionHunter @Irfan Baloch @syedali73 @TankMan @AUz @SpArK @MilSpec
As for Bangladesh:
GENDERCIDE.ORG
http://www.genocidewatch.org/bangladesh.html
http://www.kean.edu/~bgsg/Conference09/Papers_and_Presentations/Anis Ahmed_Paper_OperationSearchlight.pdf
Bangladesh War of Independence - New World Encyclopedia
Genocide and Justice in Bangladesh
Genocide and Justice in Bangladesh
Genocide 1971 in Bangladesh (former East Pakistan)
Nixon-led US let Pakistan Army commit genocide in 1971 - Rediff.com India News
http://tarekfatah.com/genocide-the-...-londons-sunday-times-that-woke-up-the-world/
US president Nixon complicit in East Pakistan genocide, author says | The National
Nixon, Kissinger and a Forgotten Genocide | History Today
Tragic silence over Bangladesh's babies of war of 1971 - South Asia Citizens Web
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/30/opinion/nixon-and-kissingers-forgotten-shame.html?_r=0
And what do you have in response? A book review, an Al jazeera riposte and a self-serving coverup...
If you are still shameless enough to argue whether the number of people killed was one million or three, or the number of women raped was 100,000 or 500,000 then feel free to do so.
"Most improved" means biggest jump from last year. Trying to hide behind point-wise as opposed to percentage is a lame try.
Do you know the amount of uranium that is smuggled across borders annually? To date, none of it has been used to make a dirty bomb. The first such instance, if that day does come, will be due to your own Nuclear Walmart AQ Khan.
Right, nothing shameful in distributing nuclear know-how to three of the greatest rogue regimes in the world after Pakistan. This strategic interest game you keep playing...what is your strategic interest? Wake up!!! If not for terror incubation and nuclear proliferation, you are of no consequence to the world. Who am I even arguing with?
This is called false equivalency. When we look at a mass-murderer or a serial rapist, we are not supposed to look inside ourselves and feel that we must be equally bad because we did steal get into fights or did try to sweet-talk that girl into bed when we were teenagers. You could argue that instead of hating the criminal, we could hate the focus on the crime, but what rubbish is it to say that "Is hamaam mein hum sub nange hain". Is there no premium on not being a terror-incubating, nuclear-proliferating, drug-peddling society? Then why shouldn't all countries behave like yours, if at the end of the day its all about internal navel-gazing to give your rogue country a free ride?
Go ahead, I am all ears...list them....
So that's it...saari hawaa nikal gayi? The literally thousands of references bearing testimony to the fact that your nukes could any day fall into Jihadi hands due to the efforts of your scummy zealot/corrupt military leaders is just a "threat" that you are capable of handling? Like you "handled" Osama bin laden living within meters of your defence academy. Like you "handled" the Quetta Shura being operated from Pakistan, like you "handled" your rise to being in the top ten failed states of the world?
Yaar your country is in the list of failed/failing states. You think that anyone in the world should not be concerned about your nukes knowing fully well what your rogue generals and thieving technicians (calling people like AQ Khan a scientist is an affront to the term) are capable of. Your Army/ISI sells heroine to meet expenses for chrissakes! Get some perspective man. Stop trying to defend the indefensible in order to prove your smartness. Focus instead on shaming your smug countrymen into action to clean up your mess.
TankMan
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Aug 12, 2014
- Messages
- 3,213
- Reaction score
- 57
- Country
- Location
What do you have in the first place?
Encyclopedia articles that say ''The number of people that died in the liberation war of Bangladesh is not known in any reliable accuracy.''
An article from an Israeli propaganda site, which you have posted twice, that quotes the fictional ''official figure'' of 3 million,
That followed by Tarek Fatah, Rediff and Indian blogs, and an NYT Editorial that criticizes American policy while repeating old figures of ''either 200 000 or 3 million''.
None of those articles cite any research or explanation as to how they got those figures, except ''official figure released by India and Bangladesh''. They are reporting what governments are saying, not claiming anything on their own.
On the other hand, the book and articles I quoted are based on research. You may question Sarmila Bose's credibility and criticize the sources, provided that you have actually read the book, but you can not claim that all your copy-pasted links that cite propaganda figures are more reliable than it.
Yes, there were atrocities. I'm not denying that. That's what happens when Mukhti Bahini terrorists are unleashed and a few divisions of soldiers trapped inside a piece of land surrounded by a hostile nation try to retake control. Mistakes are made. I won't even go into criticizing the political leadership at the time, I've said all that enough times before.
But it wasn't a genocide, and the 3 million figure is definitely false.
If you want more links, I can go ahead and quote Pakistani newspapers and blogs and fill up the whole page with an imposing wall of links - but that'll be pointless, as pointless as what you have posted.
If you still want to regurgitate another batch of bull - go ahead, if it makes you feel better. It's not changing my mind.
Yeah, it means biggest jump. A jump from 43 to 46, as opposed to India's 41. Read the article and stop trying to hide behind this idea of ''biggest jump'' and ''percentage'' like some illiterate who read a page from a book on statistics and can't stop himself from showing off his new-found knowledge.
You haven't attempted to refute the NTI, and are instead arguing on what they say - so that means you've accepted them as a reliable source. Let me quote them and end your little nonsensical argument.
Do some basic math, if you know how to, and subtract 3 from 46 to get Pakistan's old figure. What do you get? 43. Again, some basic math would tell you that 43 is greater than 41.
So, you are right that Pakistan made the biggest jump. But it was already 2 points ahead of India.
So you're saying Uranium can't be used to make a dirty bomb? Or that all the smugglers don't sell it to terrorists because of the goodwill in their hearts?
Who decides what is a ''rogue regime''? What's the criteria? Any weak country having powerful enemies is labelled a rogue regime, that title means nothing.
It changes from time to time. Right now it's the elimination of the TTP and Indian terrorist proxies in Balochistan to strengthen national integrity.
In the 80s it was to develop deterrence against India's nuclear weapons and large conventional force.
Similarly, I can say: If not for a large population, rapes and poverty, India is of no consequence to the world.
And since when did nations' purpose of existence become to please, or become of consequence to, ''the world''?
This is called missing the point. You claim moral superiority over Pakistan because it is a ''terror-incubating, nuclear-proliferating, drug-peddling society'' when India itself trained, funded and supported terrorist groups like the LTTE, Mukti Bahini, BLA, and so on. India was the first to introduce nuclear weapons to South Asia - do you not consider that proliferation?
You people are hypocrites of the higher order who have such a pathetic insecure mentality that they must constantly bash Pakistan to feel better about themselves.
If Pakistan is such a failure and you are such a big super-power, why are you and so many of your compatriots wasting so much of your energy bashing Pakistan on a Pakistani forum instead of comparing yourselves to developed countries and actual superpowers? Because doing that would burst your sanctimonious, inferiority-complex ridden bubble that India is some sort of superpower democracy.
Your only goal is to assure yourselves that you are better than Pakistan - which, according to you, is a ''failed state'' of no consequence to the world. Then why are you obsessed with it?
Even if those allegations were true, that means nothing. The CIA used, and continues to use, money from drugs to fund its operations. Does that make the US a failed or poor state? No, it just makes their intelligence agencies cunning and immoral, like all other intelligence agencies - only they were more effective at getting what they wanted to.
Meanwhile, if you were to look at your own intelligence agencies, high-ranking officers are trying to suicide because they get sexually harassed from within the Agency.
That's just one of the many, many things that could go on the list I was talking about.
Stop trying to peddle Indian propaganda in order to prove your perceived superiority. It doesn't exist. You are not superior to Pakistan. And deep down you know that very well.
I don't care about ''proving my smartness'' to random people on the internet, and I don't feel the need to assure myself of my country's superiority by going to foreign forums and bashing others' countries. I have faith in both my 'smartness' and my country, regardless.
Why do you think I'm here on PDF and not trolling Bharat Rakshak? Because I am interested in the affairs of my own countrymen. You are welcome to read through my post history which details more than enough of me arguing with my own countrymen about what is better for my own country.
Let me worry about me country, you worry about your own. As shown above, you have plenty to worry about in your own country.
Last edited:
Let me first deal with the three references that you had provided on Bangladesh.
First up, you would have realized that the first article (Al Jazeera) is a defence by Sharmila Bose of her own book, written in extremely poor style with generalizations about South Asians et al. She tries to use a narrative based on post-modernist deconstruction, liberally sprinkling phrases like “the other” which are favourite jargon of post-modernists. But the blatant stereotyping and emotional defence clearly point out that she is a charlatan.
Be that as it may, I do not see her mentioning anywhere that the genocide didn’t happen. You see, you never identified the grounds for quoting these references. If your contention is that the genocide and mass rape never happened, then having read the only three references that you could muster, I say that there is nothing in them to support your contention.
All she says is that her book ruffles those who have bought into the standard narrative on both sides. And in this, she herself says, that since any revision will make Pakistanis come out looking better, it will rile up Indians and Bangladeshis. She also goes ahead to state that she did not challenge the occurrence of the genocide at all, just the figures and surrounding events. So is that:
a) Supporting your contention that genocide and mass rape did not take place.
b) Provide any new insight apart from her own contention that the numbers and surrounding figures need to be reassessed.
Mind you, the reason that you were mistaken in quoting this article is because you never mentioned that you are not contesting the actual occurrence of genocide, but only the numbers and surrounding circumstances. That climb down was made by you in your very latest response, where you stated that yes, mistakes were made. It is standard revisionary tactics that are to be ignored.
Coming to the second reference: it’s a blog. And in case you didn’t notice, the blogger calls those who quote high figures for the genocide as “propagandists”. When I searched further, I found that his blog entry designed as an EBook is widely and selectively quoted by Pakistanis looking to wriggle out of a tight spot on the issue. I guess you guys have a standard “obfuscation 101” strategy and share notes....
I went through the blog entry. Firstly, it mentions no independent sources apart from three broad claims: a) that it was a rebellion and shit happens, b) Mujib suppressed relevant information on the genocide that would have helped in coming to an accurate figure, c) Mukti Bahini also engaged in killing wherever possible.
About the first claim, I do not wish to comment on its absurdity. No definition of genocide excludes rebellions, even if it were that. About the second claim, he does make a valid point that if certain figures, such as the number of compensation claimants were made public, the correct figure could be better ascertained. To that extent I accept his claim. But the impact of that on the numbers cannot be measured, because apart from the subjective assessment that Mujib deliberately suppressed the numbers, he has nothing substantial to offer. On the issue of Mukti Bahini killing Razakars, I am not privy to all facts. But let us assume that there would have been such cases - do you even know what the Razakars were upto? A death sentence was handed down as recently as June of this year to Razakar commander Hasan Ali for his role in the massacre of Bengalis. So the Mukti Bahini were supposed to not retaliate against the Razakars who had been slaughtering them, and wait out the slaughter – that’s his take.
So what do we take from this blog? There is no methodology expect anecdotal references, and selectively quoting sources. For every blog entry like his, there are a thousand that say otherwise. You chose this one as this is the only blog you could find from a non-Pakistani saying this. Even then, the best case scenario that you can make out of it is that the genocide figures were inflated. You should have made that caveat earlier, that you are not contesting the occurrence of genocide, just the numbers, don’t you think?
Finally, coming to the book review in the Guardian, the review itself states how faulty Sharmila Bose’s methodology is. What she did was take a few specific instances of atrocities, interview people related to the incident, arrive at conclusions based on interviews, and then extrapolated her conclusions onto the broader conflict. The work done by human rights agencies, et al, of correlating thousands of instances, was reduced down to a few interviews, including those of the perpetrators. Wow! This is the book you wanted to throw at me?
As for criticism of her book, the holy grail of your claim, let me start by quoting from a piece in the Sunday Guardian:
Bose is more Pakistani than Jinnah the Quaid
The reason that I doubt her grandiose and self-satisfied claim is that her previously published work on 1971 is replete with shoddy research and riddled with bias. Indeed, her arguments in her two articles published in Economic and Political Weekly (EPW) on 1971 are so specious and her stated methodology so laughably amateurish that it is hard to credit that they are the work of a historian who even aspires to impartiality.
Nor does Bose's previous history support her claim that she is an unbiased academic, concerned solely with setting the record straight. How many unbiased academics co-author articles with ex-US ambassadors advocating for the sale of F-16 fighter aircraft to Pakistan, as Bose did in 2005?.....
.....Her two EPW articles on 1971 are laughably one-sided and have been thoroughly eviscerated by critics. As Nayanika Mookherjee of Durham University points out in her response to Bose's piece (also published in EPW), the very title of Bose's first article "Anatomy of Violence: Analysis of Civil War in East Pakistan in 1971" is indicative of her bias, as by using the terms "civil war" and "East Pakistan" Bose apparently refuses to recognise the Bangladeshi government-in-exile's 10 April 1971 proclamation of independence, showing clear partiality to the Pakistani viewpoint.
Everywhere in her two EPW articles Bose gives priority to Pakistani accounts and dismisses Bangladeshi ones. Pakistani accounts are unquestioningly accepted and where there is a conflict in views, Bose treats the Pakistani version as both Gospel truth as well as evidence of the unreliability of the Bangladeshi account, a rhetorical trick which a grade-schooler could see through....
.... Bose has since gone on record questioning the official number of rapes (estimated as between 200, 000-400, 000) with the specious reasoning that it would not have been possible for Pakistani soldiers to rape so many in such a short period of time, nonsensical reasoning which is rendered even more problematic by the fact that she undercounts the number of Pak soldiers by two-thirds.
So this woman has basically taken interviews of Pakistani generals, taken their defence of the genocide and rape at face value, and has duly noted and dismissed the narratives of many more Bangladeshis. I would have liked to paraphrase instead of quoting so extensively, but by now I am aware of the tricks employed by Pakistani apologists.
Insofar as other criticism of her book is concerned, read:
Sarmila Bose and bad arithmetic
vol xlvi no 53 EPW Economic & Political Weekly 'Dead Reckoning': A Response | Nasrin Shilpe - Academia.edu
You want to know more about her research methodology? Read:
Forum
Which mentions that she accepts the statement of Pakistani Brigadier Taj that no women were tortured in Rajarbag to be true even though Taj was not present during the operation. But she invalidates the testimony of an eye witness of the incidents of rape done by Pakistani Army as the witness is illiterate. In another case, she asserted that since one rape victim feared for her life, she must have consented to having sex with Pakistani soldiers.
Bose greatly admired Gen Niazi, who was, in the words of Pakistani BrigadierF.B. Ali, (quoting from “Genetic Engineering in Bangladesh: “....a disgrace to the uniform. He was a fraud, a lecher and a coward. When he was General Officer Commanding (GOC) 10 Division, it was well known in the garrison (I was there) that his staff car would often be found standing in Heera Mandi (Lahore's red light district). As GOC EP he used to go around visiting troops and asking JCOs: how many Bengali women have you raped? When discussing his surrender with the Indian general, he tried to ingratiate himself by telling dirty jokes.”
Thoughts on <i>Dead Reckoning</i>
Finally, accounts refuting her unbiased credentials:
http://www.tehelka.com/2011/08/she-does-not-know-best/
Response: This account of the Bangladesh war should not be seen as unbiased | Comment is free | The Guardian
A Dhaka Debacle - Indian Express
Reading and writing 1971 - The Express Tribune
The right stuff: F-16s to Pakistan is wise decision - CSMonitor.com
I was going to answer your last post point-wise, but after reading the s**t that you had served up as irrefutable evidence undermining the testimony of thousands and a historical consensus, I have now understood that you are a bigger disgrace than I had thought. To refute a genocide, you cherry-picked a blog, a defence of her own book by a charlatan, and a review of that very book. You could not even quote relevant extracts from the “one book that tells all”, as you know that you will be exposed in a second.
Shame on you.
Since you insist on this "your apples are as bad as mine" trickery. No point playing this game any longer. I will simply post excerpts showing the involvement of Pakistani Army/ISI in peddling nukes and drugs. I will make it a point to tag you. You can refute it if you care. You can also quote excerpts showing that Indian actions are as bad, of which you have given no evidence except a sexual harassment story. I will refute or confirm them as I deem fit.
Similar threads
