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

[EzioAltaïr]

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

Oh sure, whose history? The flawed history taught in Pakistani schools?

I can get you a picture of Niazi surrendering to a Punjabi.

File:1971 Surrender of Pakistan.gif - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Do you really need a better history lesson than that?

 

[CaPtAiN_pLaNeT]

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.

If not India it would be managed in some other way. The first thing as I said without Indian intervention Pakistan would not get west support to carry out the attack. Other option was to hand over power. Pakistan would have very less choice. It would not get public support as well of West Pakistan.

 

[RazPaK]

Oh sure, whose history? The flawed history taught in Pakistani schools?

I can get you a picture of Niazi surrendering to a Punjabi.

File:1971 Surrender of Pakistan.gif - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Do you really need a better history lesson than that?

Niazi saved his men.


Being outnumbered by traitors and Bhartis in a hostile environment, he held them off as long as he could.

 

[Machete]

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.

Don't think too much if India allowed its air space(alone) for Pakistan then what would be future of BD.

 

[EzioAltaïr]

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

But the Indian blockade quite actively stopped Pakistani shipping across the Indian Ocean.

And while the blockade on Bangladesh could be termed as support, our blockade on Karachi was the killing blow, where we sank a few ships, blew up most of their fuel supplies, and destroyed their only major dock, which prevented resupply for Pakistani troops in Bangladesh.

USA and Russia didn't fight, but India and Pakistan did.

 

[notsuperstitious]

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

Sending ships in international waters is not an act of war, naval blockade is. This is a defence forum, atleast lets get the basics right.

 

[CaPtAiN_pLaNeT]

Don't think too much if India allowed its air space(alone) for Pakistan then what would be future of BD.

As I said earlier public support and financial capability both would go against Pakistan's ruler. Result ---- I said in my earlier post.

 

[EzioAltaïr]

Niazi saved his men.


Being outnumbered by traitors and Bhartis in a hostile environment, he held them off as long as he could.

It doesn't matter what he did and how he did it, the fact is, he surrendered 50,000 troops, 15,000 paramilitary, and 20,000 supporters to save his a**. They all stayed in an Indian prison until next year, when we released them. So how was this saving?

Traitors, Bhratis, whoever it was who fought 'em, the fact remains that Pakistani Army lost to a combination of ragtag revolutionaries, and a country who were supposed to have been so weak, that supposedly 1 Pakistani soldier could have killed 10 Indian ones.

 

[Avisheik]

But the Indian blockade quite actively stopped Pakistani shipping across the Indian Ocean.

And while the blockade on Bangladesh could be termed as support, our blockade on Karachi was the killing blow, where we sank a few ships, blew up most of their fuel supplies, and destroyed their only major dock, which prevented resupply for Pakistani troops in Bangladesh.

USA and Russia didn't fight, but India and Pakistan did.

I did give india credit for the first part.

As for the second part, you are talking about operation python, which happened on 8-9 december(India declared war on 3rd dec). I wouldnt really call that a blockade.


Anyway my point is that(leaving aside humanities), we could have won without direct military intervention(india fighting the war for us) but wouldnt have have won without their support.

 

[EzioAltaïr]

I did give india credit for the first part.

As for the second part, you are talking about operation python, which happened on 8-9 december(India declared war on 3rd dec). I wouldnt really call that a blockade.

Operation Python and Operation Trident. Yeah it wasn't really a blockade. More like a bombardment or something.

Destroying a third of a country's fuel supply is not s mall thing you know. It obviously was a killing blow. Aside from that we had blockaded the entire Indian Ocean, even at Karachi, as evident from the sinking of the Panamian Gulf Star, and the SS Harmattan.

Anyway my point is that(leaving aside humanities), we could have won without direct military intervention(india fighting the war for us) but wouldn't have have won without their support.

And while I never denied the fact that the Mukti would have got their freedom if we had maintained the same indirect support as earlier, it would have been with a 100,000 more graves, and another 10 million refugees in India.

 

[Avisheik]

Sending ships in international waters is not an act of war, naval blockade is. This is a defence forum, atleast lets get the basics right.

I did not deny that a naval blockade is not an act of war. The only thing i claimed is that naval blockade did not see any active military combat. Thus no direct military intervention(no exchange of bullets or shells)

 

[Maira La]

Don't think too much if India allowed its air space(alone) for Pakistan then what would be future of BD.

Why would a neutral country allow its airspace to foreign fighters? Captain_Planet was talking of a scenario where India stays neutral. And you're talking of one where India supports Pakistan. Indian IQ.

 

[Avisheik]

Operation Python and Operation Trident. Yeah it wasn't really a blockade. More like a bombardment or something.

Destroying a third of a country's fuel supply is not s mall thing you know. It obviously was a killing blow. Aside from that we had blockaded the entire Indian Ocean, even at Karachi, as evident from the sinking of the Panamian Gulf Star, and the SS Harmattan.



And while I never denied the fact that the Mukti would have got their freedom if we had maintained the same indirect support as earlier, it would have been with a 100,000 more graves, and another 10 million refugees in India.

Thats what i mean by the humanities part. Agree with you though.

 

[EzioAltaïr]

I did not deny that a naval blockade is not an act of war. The only thing i claimed is that naval blockade did not see any active military combat. Thus no direct military intervention(no exchange of bullets or shells)

Indo-Pakistani Naval War of 1971 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Didn't see combat? Take a look at the infobox.

Pakistan

1,900 Killed in action †
1,413 captured (POW)
2 Destroyers[2]
1 Minesweeper[2]
1 Submarine[3][4]
3 Patrol vessels
7 Gunboats
18 Cargo,Supply and Communication ships
3 Merchant Navy ships captured[5]
10 small vessels captured[6]
Widespread damage to Chittagong Harbour
Pakistani main port Karachi facilities damaged/fuel tanks destroyed[2][7]
Pakistani airfields damaged and cratered[8]

India:

194 Killed in Action †
1 Frigate
Aircraft Alize 203[9][10]

These ships were sunk by black magic? They did see active combat on both fronts, since they damaged both Karachi and Chittagong hrabours, and sank gunboats in Bangladesh (obviously not in Karachi, at Karachi they had the big fish).

 

[EzioAltaïr]

Why would a neutral country allow its airspace to foreign fighters? Captain_Planet was talking of a scenario where India stays neutral. And you're talking of one where India supports Pakistan. Indian IQ.

India allowed the Pakistanis to fly over India. They banned the flights after a hijacking of an Indian Airlines flight in 1971, where the people were landed and released at Lahore, and the plane burnt. If we hadn't banned the flights, troops in Bangladesh would have permanent resupply routes.

There have been claims that RAW performed this hijacking as a false flag op, to get an excuse to ban Pakistani flights, before planning the liberation war.