Mukti Bahini must be given due credit for liberating Bangladesh: Gen Jacob

[Avisheik]

Simple question, do you think that Bangladesh would have been able to become independent without Indian Army help? I for one don't think so, because Pakistan could have continued to rape and kill of any Bengali resistance as they were doing for the previous 9 months before India got involved in war with Pakistan.

Not taking anything away from the Bangladeshi Muktis of course, they laid down their lives fighing Pakistanis. But the thing is, without Indian help, Bangladeshis like Muktis that opposed Pakistan would probably have been wiped out by them.




Don't know why you Bangladeshis are reacting negatively to this thread, if anything the General is praising the role of Bangladeshi Mukti Bahanis in 1971 war...

Let me answer that.

If India hadnt helped Bangladesh indirectly (provide food, training, refuge, weapons, intelligence etc to the bangladeshis) we would have lost.

However, even if india did not intervene militarily, we would have still won as the number of pakistani troops were getting lesser and lesser while the ranks of the mukti bahini was increasing. But, our independence would have been pushed back further. Indian military intervention sped up the inevitable.

 

[Machete]

Let me answer that.

If India hadnt helped Bangladesh indirectly (provide food, training, refuge, weapons, intelligence etc to the bangladeshis) we would have lost.

However, even if india did not intervene militarily, we would have still won as the number of pakistani troops were getting lesser and lesser while the ranks of the mukti bahini was increasing. But, our independence would have been pushed back further. Indian military intervention sped up the inevitable.

When comparing to Indian forces strength Pakistan is weak but Pakistan is second powerful nation in south asia. Mukti was not that effective to won Pakistan militarily , don't forget Pakistan had strong support of US in 1971.

India liberated east Pakistan its a history.

 

[Avisheik]

When comparing to Indian forces strength Pakistan is weak but Pakistan is second powerful nation in south asia. Mukti was not that effective to won Pakistan militarily , don't forget Pakistan had strong support of US in 1971.

However, you must remember these certain things

-Pakistani army was stranded in Bangladesh. They were cut off from the west. Not much reinforcements

-Supplies, ammunition, etc delivered to pakistan were decreasing due to bangladesh being surrounded by indian land and indian naval blockade

-Pakistan may be strong, but much of their heavy weaponry were in west pakistan.

-Most of the locals were hostile.

-Effective guerilla tactics, plus muktis were defectors from PA, so they would more or less know the strength and weakness of PA

A combination of these factors would have led to the defeat of PA ultimately, if the IA did not intervene

 

[CaPtAiN_pLaNeT]

When comparing to Indian forces strength Pakistan is weak but Pakistan is second powerful nation in south asia. Mukti was not that effective to won Pakistan militarily , don't forget Pakistan had strong support of US in 1971.

India liberated east Pakistan its a history.

Pakistan did not have the financial capability to carry on the attack for infinite period of time. Internally it would be problematic too as it was then feeding the public of west Pakistan that it is a war that they are basically fighting against India and it is winning. That time internet like today was not there that is the reason why they able to carry on the attack for 9 months without letting know the public the real history. Even it would not make sense economically for Pakistan to remain in Bangladesh where all the people from top to bottom were hostile apart from some Razaar, Al-Badr and Al-Shams etc.

With ot without India victory would be to the Bangladesh. If I can remember correctly even in school text book Indian contribution is not mentioned that much specially Indian as liberator.

 

[Machete]

However, you must remember these certain things

-Pakistani army was stranded in Bangladesh. They were cut off from the west. Not much reinforcements

-Supplies, ammunition, etc delivered to pakistan were decreasing due to bangladesh being surrounded by indian land and indian naval blockade

-Pakistan may be strong, but much of their heavy weaponry were in west pakistan.

-Most of the locals were hostile.

-Effective guerilla tactics, plus muktis were defectors from PA, so they would more or less know the strength and weakness of PA

A combination of these factors would have led to the defeat of PA ultimately, if the IA did not intervene

The bold part implies samething if there was no India naval blockade(one factor) BD formation become big question mark.

 

[EzioAltaïr]

Let me answer that.

If India hadnt helped Bangladesh indirectly (provide food, training, refuge, weapons, intelligence etc to the bangladeshis) we would have lost.

However, even if india did not intervene militarily, we would have still won as the number of pakistani troops were getting lesser and lesser while the ranks of the mukti bahini was increasing. But, our independence would have been pushed back further. Indian military intervention sped up the inevitable.

Mukti Bahini would have probably won with our indirect support, but it would be a long, drawn-out battle, lasting a really long time (not exclusive to Bangladesh, it applies to any civilian revolution).

India's direct involvement shortened the war to 14 days, and saved a lot of lives.

 

[notsuperstitious]

However, you must remember these certain things

-Pakistani army was stranded in Bangladesh. They were cut off from the west. Not much reinforcements

-Supplies, ammunition, etc delivered to pakistan were decreasing due to bangladesh being surrounded by indian land and indian naval blockade

-Pakistan may be strong, but much of their heavy weaponry were in west pakistan.

-Most of the locals were hostile.

-Effective guerilla tactics, plus muktis were defectors from PA, so they would more or less know the strength and weakness of PA

A combination of these factors would have led to the defeat of PA ultimately, if the IA did not intervene

And India denied overland flights to Pakistan. Without indias logistics and training to Mukti bahini and indeed support and shelter to millions and millions of east pakistanis, and with US and the west supporting pakistan, what chance did you have? You did not have a navy, airforce, or land route to get any supplies, how were you going to support tens of millions of displaced people and an army???

Of course the most important factor in war, the manpower - and motivated manpower that tore to pieces the racist stupid martial race theory - that was the bengalis themselves. Also they suffered tremendously and the sacrifices they made must be a source of immense pride for bangladeshis, or atleast thats what I thought before joining this forum.

Do you think the Mukti Bahini people wanted an Indian army intervention? It was the AL high command who were under Indian pressure to accept an intervention that made MB troops disheartened. MB was strong, it was gaining strength by days, PA troops were being killed in every zones by the Muktis themselves.

About 12,000 PA army/militia troops were killed by the time India intervened. Talk to any old time Pakistani, he will tell you how many dead bodies were moved to Karachi almost every day by plane. It was our war, Muktis wanted only arms from India and wanted to fight all by themselves.

Intervention by IA has caused a dent in our history, to tell you the truth. If you are a nationalist you will understand it. India has robbed us of our pride just by imposing IA on us. It is still unacceptable to us. So, do not ever think we will love IA or any other army that we think are foreign.

I think BD people did spectacularly well and I'm surprised you think IA's (India's role over and above just the 14 days) role denied you anything, if anything then probably a few hundred thousand less graves.

And nobodys asking you to love our army, 1.2 billion Indians love them, we are specifically discussing the 1971 war.

 

[CaPtAiN_pLaNeT]

The bold part implies samething if there was no India naval blockade(one factor) BD formation become big question mark.

As I mentioned even without Indian blockade it would be too costly for Pakistan.... distance is more then Pakistan to Italy... and carry out an attack for longer period of time at such a far distance place was beyond the financial capability of Pakistan.

 

[RazPaK]

Indians never had a victory in their life.

If Bangladeshi didn't betray us, they would have got spanked again.

 

[EzioAltaïr]

Indians never had a victory in their life.

If Bangladeshi didn't betray us, they would have got spanked again.

So according to your logic, Pakistan, that is supposed to have lost to ragtag "revolutionaries" from Bangladesh, had any chance of beating the Indians alone?

F**k logic.

 

[RazPaK]

So according to your logic, Pakistan, that is supposed to have lost to ragtag "revolutionaries" from Bangladesh, had any chance of beating the Indians alone?

F**k logic.

History says you got spanked, and that we were betrayed and you took the credit.

 

[Machete]

Pakistan did not have the financial capability to carry on the attack for infinite period of time. Internally it would be problematic too as it was then feeding the public of west Pakistan that it is a war that they are basically fighting against India and it is winning. That time internet like today was not there that is the reason why they able to carry on the attack for 9 months without letting know the public the real history. Even it would not make sense economically for Pakistan to remain in Bangladesh where all the people from top to bottom were hostile apart from some Razaar, Al-Badr and Al-Shams etc.

With ot without India victory would be to the Bangladesh. If I can remember correctly even in school text book Indian contribution is not mentioned that much specially Indian as liberator.

India provided ammunition,training to Mukti , and given asylum to BD refugees. Without our tri forces intervention your freedom would be impossible. Did Mukti plan to tackle tri-forces of Pakistan if yes provide the proof, Mukti was not LTTE okkk.

 

[CaPtAiN_pLaNeT]

And India denied overland flights to Pakistan. Without indias logistics and training to Mukti bahini and indeed support and shelter to millions and millions of east pakistanis, and with US and the west supporting pakistan, what chance did you have? You did not have a navy, airforce, or land route to get any supplies, how were you going to support tens of millions of displaced people and an army???

Of course the most important factor in war, the manpower - and motivated manpower that tore to pieces the racist stupid martial race theory - that was the bengalis themselves. Also they suffered tremendously and the sacrifices they made must be a source of immense pride for bangladeshis, or atleast thats what I thought before joining this forum.

Those people were mostly hindus who preferred to go to India. As I told even people of West Pakistan were remain in dark. Without Indian support Pakistani ruler at that time might not even justified the war as it was selling it like India vs. Pakistan war. Other then war only option was to hand over power to Shaikh Mujibur Rahman as the elected representative or mutual separation. Pakistan had no other option and it could not justified war of aggression and getting west support as it turned out India vs Pakistan.

Without Indian involvement 2 thing could have happened ... less blood shed and mutual separation and other is more blood shed and long time to get independence for say two to three years instead of 9 months.

 

[notsuperstitious]

History says you got spanked, and that we were betrayed and you took the credit.

According to Chanakya, we fought a flawless war and neutralised an irrational enemy forever from one side with minimum losses. Chanakya would be proud of our planners' decision not to open a front at east pakistan in 1965. All these are matters not for macho minds.

Your opinion is noted.

Those people were mostly hindus who preferred to go to India. As I told even people of West Pakistan were remain in dark. Without Indian support Pakistani ruler at that time might not even justified the war as it was selling it like India vs. Pakistan war. Other then war only option was to hand over power to Shaikh Mujibur Rahman as the elected representative or mutual separation. Pakistan had no other option and it could not justified war of aggression and getting west support as it turned out India vs Pakistan.

Without Indian involvement 2 thing could have happened ... less blood shed and mutual separation and other is more blood shed and long time to get independence for say two to three years instead of 9 months.

Just because you consider hindus second class bangladeshis, that does not change the fact that tens of millions of bangladeshis were given vital shelter by India that saved thousands of lives. You are welcome ingrate.

 

[Avisheik]

The bold part implies samething if there was no India naval blockade(one factor) BD formation become big question mark.

It was just a naval blockade to prevent supplies, however it did not result in a battle.

Same logic applies for US and USSR, they both send vessels but did not battle, thus they were termed as supporters not fighters. Same thing goes for the indian blockade