What's new

Myths of 1971–Time for Redemption

Razakars were not more than 2 x Brigade strength.

During war, they were formed under 16th Infantry Division's brigade deployed near rajshahi and a brigade under 9th Infantry Division in Khulna.

The inflated figures of 100,000 Pakistan Troops (93000 POW, rest KIA) and 50,000 Razakars, totalling 150,000 meant that Indian Army and MB (200,000+100,000) gained just 2:1 superiority and East Pakistan collapsed within 2 weeks ? Take your crap back to BR or other indian forums.
You failed to send reinforcement to backup your forces. You relied on irregular soldiers to defend your country. Here is the excerpt from Niazi himself.

Niazi in his book ''The Betrayal of East Pakistan" has categorically said the Army of Razakars was formed by the Pakistan government to fight against the liberation forces.
Niazi also describes the formation of the Razakars, training and procurement of weapons and other logistics for them and deployment of the paramilitary vigilante force.
In his book, he says Jamaat-e-Islami, Nizam-i-Islam Party and several factions of Muslim League were known as rightist political parties at the time and the Army of Razakars was formed with the men recruited from these parties.
Military schools were set up to train the Razakars and a separate Razakars Directorate was established. The Razakars were provided with machine guns, sten guns and intelligence against Bangalee freedom fighters, their supporters and sympathisers.
"Seventy percent of the target ceiling, of 50,000 Razakars spread over all the districts of the province, was achieved. Battle schools were established to train Razakar platoon and company commanders. To provide an effective command structure to this organisation, about sixty young officers were selected to be appointed as Razakar Group Commanders," Niazi says.
 
.
Despite being outnumbered in both men and material, Pakistan Army and its valiant soldiers fought with zeal till the end. The gross myths against the Army not only negatively overshadow the sacrifices of our soldiers, but also blur the massacres carried out by the Mukti Bahini that was supported by India.

Pakistan was born with its heart split into two with almost 1,600 kilometers of hostile territory in between. After more than one hundred years of British East India Company’s rule and an additional 90 years of the British Raj, the subcontinent had finally achieved independence. What should have been a crowning achievement after years of anti-colonial struggle was marred by unimaginable violence, bloodshed, and economic, political, and social challenges.

One could blame the injudiciously drawn borders, which were created by a British lawyer, Sir Cyril Radcliffe who lacked the basic knowledge of the subcontinent and was given only five weeks to redraw the borders of South Asia. One could blame the increasingly hostile rhetoric that accompanied the rise of Hindu and Muslim nationalism or the divide-and-rule policies of the British. The denouement was a country in uncertain waters, wrought with unsurmountable challenges.

Conditions got worse in East Pakistan as compared to West Pakistan, and this was the beginning of what became Bangladesh. There is no doubt that mistakes were made, but the prolonged silence from Pakistan after the independence of Bangladesh gave room to biased narratives and distorted facts to maneuver to a point that the lines between fact and fiction became blurred. This piece is therefore an attempt to invalidate the myths with facts and clear the air.

Myth 1: No Development was Carried Out in East Pakistan

Prior to the independence, East Bengal was struggling and was thus significantly underdeveloped compared to West Bengal. East Bengal was the poorest part of the province of Bengal in the undivided subcontinent. It had the lowest percentage of urbanization, industrialization, literacy, electrical power capacity and per capita income at the time of independence. Kamal Matinuddin has mentioned in his book, Tragedy of Errors that out of a total of 1414 factories in undivided Bengal, only 314 were in East Bengal at the time of partition and those were owned by the Tatas, Birlas, and Dalmias, all Hindu industrialists who closed their businesses when Pakistan came into being.
There were no jute mills, and raw jute was exported to India for value addition. The jute industry was developed through the investment by West Pakistan. By the 1950s, East Bengal broke the jute production monopoly and became its largest producer. The Adamjee Jute Mills was the largest jute processing plant and its location in Narayanganj was nicknamed the Dundee of the East. East Pakistanis were employed in large numbers, with Crescent, Isphani, and Adamjee Jute Mills collectively employing 26,000 workers.
After partition, investments were encouraged by the Government through Pakistan Industrial Development Corporation (PIDC), Pakistan Industrial Credit and Investment Corporation (PICIC), and Industrial Development Bank of Pakistan (IDBP) in East Pakistan. The Ispahani family, the Africawala brothers and the Adamjee family were pioneers of industrialization in the region. Many of modern Bangladesh’s leading companies were born in the East Pakistan period.
During President Ayub’s industrialization period, the development of Chittagong Port, Chandraghona Paper Mills, and construction of railway, road, airline and river networks, took place with the help of the central government.

Myth 2: West Pakistan Imposed Urdu as the National Language

When Pakistan was made independent, each of its regions, namely Punjab, Sindh, Balochistan, North West Frontier Province (NWFP, now known as Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, KP), Bengal and others spoke a different language. Urdu had been the lingua franca of the Muslims of subcontinent, the language that united the people with a common concern and had played a vital role in invigorating Pakistan Movement. Quaid-i-Azam had declared that it should be the only official language–a language that was understood throughout the length and breadth of Pakistan.
Establishing Urdu as the national language did not, at all, mean that regional languages would cease to exist or flourish. However, the federal government addressed the grievances of East Pakistan by adding Bengali along with Urdu as the national language of Pakistan. The amendment remained intact in the 1956 and 1962 constitutions of Pakistan.

Myth 3: Bengalis were Discriminated Against in the Civil Services

It’s a common myth that Bengalis were not given their due representation in the civil services; however, facts portray a different picture altogether. Afrasiab Mehdi writes in his book, 1971 Fact and Fiction that in 1947, there was only one officer in the civil service from East Pakistan. In 1965, 34% were Bengalis and by 1969, the figure was 40.9%. In 1966, 60% of all seats were reserved for East Pakistan. And when the fall of Dhaka took place in 1971, Bengali representation had reached 196 in the civil services.

Myth 4: Operation Searchlight (March 25, 1971) was Launched against Innocent Civilians

Amidst ongoing political strife following the 1979 elections, President Yahya Khan announced the postponement of the National Assembly session. Dr. Junaid writes in his book, Creation of Bangladesh: Myths Exploded that the disgruntled Awami Leaguers took to the roads. There was killing, burning, looting, ambushing, brick-batting, and molestation of non-Bengalis by the militants of Awami League. Thousands of people lost their lives and the national flag was desecrated every day. Jailbreaks occurred regularly which made Operation Searchlight a necessity rather than a choice. Contrary to the false statements, Operation Searchlight was launched to control the lawlessness and bring the civil breakdown under control after unrest grew violent in nature.

Myth 5: Genocide of three Million Bengalis

The nonsensical figure of ‘three million genocide’ first appeared in an editorial of the Soviet Communist Party’s newspaper, Pravda. The same newspaper, days before publishing the figure, had asked in an editorial, “how many people of Bangladesh have been killed?” before coming up with the fictitious number. Syed Karim, Bangladesh’s first Foreign Secretary, who authored Sheikh Mujib: Triumph and Tragedy, the definitive biography on the life of Sheikh Mujib, writes, “As for the number of Bengalis killed in the course of the liberation war, the figure of 3 million mentioned by Mujib to David Frost in January 1972, was a gross overstatement.

This figure was picked up by him from an article in Pravda.”
Serajur Rahman, a British journalist of Bengali Muslim descent, in a letter titled, Mujib’s Confusion on Bangladeshi Deaths to The Guardian in 2011, wrote, “On 8 January 1972, I was the first Bangladeshi to meet independence leader, Sheikh Mujibur Rahman after his release from Pakistan... I explained that no accurate figure of the casualties was available but our estimate, based on information from various sources, was that up to three lakh (300,000) died in the conflict. To my surprise and horror, he told David Frost later that ‘three million of my people’ were killed by the Pakistanis. Whether he mistranslated ‘lakh’ as ‘million’ or his confused state of mind was responsible, I don't know, but many Bangladeshis still believe a figure of three million is unrealistic and incredible.”

M. Abdul Mu'min Chowdhury, a native of Sylhet and a Bengali nationalist who was a teacher at Dhaka University, explains in his book, Behind the Myth of Three Million, that after the fall of Dhaka, Sheikh Mujib formally instituted a 12-member inquiry committee to prove the validity of his claims. However, the draft report came with a casualty figure of 56,743, which included the mass killings.

Sarmila Bose in her book, Dead Reckoning writes that the claim of three million dead has been used widely by journalists and academia without any verification. They have failed to provide a single reference.

Richard Sisson and Leo Rose carried out detailed research on the birth of Bangladesh in their book, War and Secession: Pakistan, India, and the Creation of Bangladesh. The authors interviewed two Indian officials who had held responsible positions on the issue of Bangladesh in 1971. When questioned about the actual number of deaths in Bangladesh in 1971 attributable to the civil war, one replied “about 300,000.” Then, when he received a disapproving glance from his colleague, he changed it to “300,000 to 500,000...”

Lieutenant General Jagjit Singh Aurora, Commander in Chief of the Eastern Command of Indian Army, during the 1971 War rejected the three million figure. He said that Mujib’s figure was ‘absolutely impossible’ because Pakistan Army had ‘simultaneously fought within the country and at the borders.’
Renowned researchers have proved that 3 million was an impossible number in the time and geographic span. Most scholars and analysts conclude that the number of deaths in 1971 was between 50,000 and 100,000 people and that includes the mass killings of Biharis and West Pakistanis.

Myth 6: Pakistan Army was Responsible for all the Violence

Mukti Bahini were the main perpetrators of heinous crimes. By late 1970, Mukti Bahini, armed and trained by India, had begun undertaking subversive activities targeting power plants, railways, industries, bridges, fuel depots, looting banks, raiding warehouses, mining ships and killing non-Bengalis.
There are petrifying accounts of loot, arson, rape, massacre, and whole colonies burnt to ashes with inmates locked inside and burnt alive. The entire violence was targeted towards non-Bengalis, particularly Biharis, and more than 2000 were massacred. Non-Bengalis were taken to buildings to be burnt alive in thousands and guillotined in jute mills, turning the river waters red, choked with gruesome human corpses.
American Professor, Rudolph Rummel estimates that 150,000 Biharis were massacred by the vengeful victors of Mukti Bahini in a brutal bloodletting in 1971.

Hundreds of West Pakistanis, including Army officers, were massacred in Mymensingh Cantonment. Personnel from East Pakistan Rifles and East Bengal Regiment revolted and killed their West Pakistani colleagues, including the officers. Bengali locals had surrounded the cantonment, and those West Pakistanis who were trying to escape were killed by the mob.

Myth 7: 93,000 Pakistani Soldiers Surrendered

Lieutenant General Amir Abdullah Khan Niazi revealed the fighting strength of the Pakistan Army in his book, The Betrayal of East Pakistan. The actual fighting strength was 45,000 which includes 34,000 infantry troops along with 11,000 police, rangers, scouts and militia. The number of 93,000 was conjured up by Indians by including children, women, civilian administration officials and staff; non-combatant army personnel–nurses, doctors, barbers, cooks and shoemakers.

Myth 8: Indian Intervention was on Humanitarian Grounds, Unplanned, and Spontaneous

Contrary to the popular narrative, India's intervention was not on humanitarian grounds, but planned and strategic. These plans were made with the consent of Awami League leadership in an infamous meeting known as Agartala Conspiracy. The Awami League leadership and Mukti Bahini were mere pawns in India's grand plan to exploit the strained relations between the two regions of Pakistan.
As mentioned in the book, Creation of Bangladesh: Myths Exploded, from interviews of General Manekshaw, he was ordered by Prime Minister Indira Gandhi to attack Pakistan, but in March, Indian Army was not prepared to fight and needed six months to prepare for an attack. However, in the meantime, they were preparing, training and funding Mukti's militia.

During 1971, even before the direct military intervention, Mukti Bahini was provided military, logistic and economic support by India. After the war, despite several requests from the newly-formed Bangladeshi government, the Indian military establishment was delaying its troops’ withdrawal from the newly-created country. This caused serious bitterness between India and Bangladesh that later led to the killing of Mujibur Rahman by a Bangladeshi Army personnel, who considered Mujib an Indian puppet.

Indian Air Force had five operational airfields around East Pakistan along with eleven fighter squadrons while Pakistan Air Force had only one. In Nagaland, the Indian Armed Forces established a jungle airstrip for Mukti Bahini from where Indian Air Force-trained pilots conducted sorties by Otter DHC-3 aircraft. India's Eastern Command trained more than 400 naval commandos and frogmen to drown vessels in Chittagong, Chandpur and Narayanganj.

Myth 9: Creation of Bangladesh is the Negation of Two-Nation Theory

The creation of Bangladesh did not happen on religious lines, it happened due to political differences, fueled by bad decisions, regional politics, and mistrust. Moreover, the negation of the Two-Nation Theory would mean that after seceding from Pakistan, Bangladesh would merge into India, which it did not.

The importance of the Two-Nation Theory is further strengthened by the growing persecution of Muslims and other minorities in India. Prime Minister Narendra Modi, inspired by RSS and the Hindutva ideology, has successfully proven the validity of Two-Nation Theory. The words of Quaid-i-Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah accurately describe the current situation in India, “The Hindu Mahasabha wants to treat Muslims like Jews in Germany”. (Jamiluddin Ahmad, ‘Some Recent Speeches’).

Myth 10: Pakistan Army didn’t Fight Valiantly

The Pakistani soldiers were unprepared when it came to the battle with the trained Awami League members. In March, after the failure of political settlements, the Army took action to prevent a civil war situation. This proved to be counterproductive and given the situation, Pakistan had yet to fight a stronger enemy. Eventually, the Pakistan Army surrendered as it was fighting on two fronts. Pakistan Army in East Pakistan fought to keep the peace but had no choice as they were thousands of miles away from the base.

The Battle of Hilli was one such battle fought between Pakistani and Indian forces over 25 days in 1971. Outnumbered in men and material, Pakistani troops fought a heroic battle and the battle has been adopted by many foreign institutions for teaching war strategy.

During the East Pakistan War of 1971, the 4th FF Regiment, which at that time was commanded by then Colonel Muhammad Mumtaz Malik, was deployed in the forward areas of Hilli municipality. The regiment came under continuous and heavy air, artillery and armour attacks from the Indian Army. Despite enemy superiority in both numbers and firepower, C Company under the command of Major Muhammad Akram displayed prodigious feats of valour and inflicted heavy casualties on the adversary. Major Akram himself destroyed three Indian tanks with a 40 mm rocket launcher. His last words were “Hold out till last”. He embraced martyrdom and was posthumously awarded Nishan-e-Haider (NH).
In the Indo-Pakistani War of 1971, the Pakistan Army launched an offensive on the Western front against the enemy. Major Shabir Sharif, as commander of a company of the 6 Frontier Force Regiment, was ordered to capture high ground overlooking Grumukhi Khera and Beri, a village in the Sulemanki Sector. On December 3, 1971, in a well-organized action, he fought alongside his men and kept Indian attacks at bay. He cleared Jhangar Post by passing through the minefield laid by the enemy and swimming across a water obstacle, the Sabuna distributary, whilst under intense enemy fire and led his company to capture the objective. Remembered as ‘Fateh Saboona’, Major Sharif was Pakistan Army’s most decorated soldier who received both Nishan-e-Haider and Sitara-e-Jurat for his bravery. Colonel Satish Pal of Indian army paid tribute to Major Shabir Sharif in the words, “Politics apart, he was a fine soldier”.

On December 10, 1971, Sawar Muhammad Hussain (NH), took part in a dangerous mission and went out for reconnaissance and to fight enemy patrols. During reconnaissance, he spotted an enemy tank and directed a recoilless rifle crew towards the tank and then later destroyed 16 enemy tanks. He was hit in the chest by a burst of machine-gun fire while exposing himself as he was directing fire from recoilless rifles and was martyred.

On December 18, 1971, during the attack on the enemy at Pul Kanjri Post, his company was pinned down by the enemy fire and his machine-gun was destroyed by an Indian shell. The company of the 43 Punjab Regiment under the command of Major Subha Sadiq, who also embraced martyrdom in the same action, came for support and fought hard until the capture of the strategic town of Pul Kanjri. Even though Lance Naik Muhammad Mahfuz Shaheed (NH) was wounded in his legs by a shrapnel, he still moved towards an enemy bunker.

To this day, people do not realise the valiant efforts of Pakistan Army to keep the citizens of East Pakistan safe, but the tag of “surrender” shook the nation and overshadowed the battle victories. The heroism and dedication with which Pakistan fought Indian terrorism in 1971 is commendable.

Pakistan’s Stance on 1971 Saga

Pakistan and the Pakistanis of today fully recognize that in 1947, the nation was created with a unique state structure and recognize the historic role played by Bengali East Pakistanis in the long struggle against British colonialism culminating in its independence in 1947.
Looking at the history, Pakistan acknowledges that East and West Pakistan jointly ensured the survival of the new state against formidable odds in the first 24 years. Certain catastrophic errors were committed which were exploited by the inimical forces averse to a united Pakistan, which resulted in both regions suffering grave losses in terms of life, livelihood, and material.

This December marks the 51st anniversary of the fall of Dhaka and it’s important that we lay the past to rest and move forward towards a brighter future for both countries. Today, Pakistan accepts Bangladesh as an independent nation and respects the people and state of Bangladesh and is dedicated to forging friendly relations for a shared, prosperous future. In the dawning era of geoeconomics and economic integration, animosity of any kind does not benefit either country and only allows others to prosper at the cost of the two nations.
Hum ke thehray ajnabi itni madaraton ke baad,
Phir banein ge aashnaa kitni mulaqaaton ke baad.

After so much cordiality, we are once again strangers;
After how many meetings will we again be friends?


The writer is PhD scholar of Peace and Conflict Studies at CIPS, NUST, Islamabad.


Treatment of East Pakistanees by Civilians & Military

Witness to Surrender by Brigadier Siddiq Salik

Page 2


Capture05ac8cb2ebad3ca7.png


What did Pakistan Army expect?
 
.
You failed to send reinforcement to backup your forces. You relied on irregular soldiers to defend your country. Here is the excerpt from Niazi himself.

Niazi in his book ''The Betrayal of East Pakistan" has categorically said the Army of Razakars was formed by the Pakistan government to fight against the liberation forces.
Niazi also describes the formation of the Razakars, training and procurement of weapons and other logistics for them and deployment of the paramilitary vigilante force.
In his book, he says Jamaat-e-Islami, Nizam-i-Islam Party and several factions of Muslim League were known as rightist political parties at the time and the Army of Razakars was formed with the men recruited from these parties.
Military schools were set up to train the Razakars and a separate Razakars Directorate was established. The Razakars were provided with machine guns, sten guns and intelligence against Bangalee freedom fighters, their supporters and sympathisers.
"Seventy percent of the target ceiling, of 50,000 Razakars spread over all the districts of the province, was achieved. Battle schools were established to train Razakar platoon and company commanders. To provide an effective command structure to this organisation, about sixty young officers were selected to be appointed as Razakar Group Commanders," Niazi says.
If that is relevant, then why razakars had to be recruited, must also be explained. Indians conveniently skip over the fact that they had effectively imposed an aerial blockade on East Pakistan, by staging the Ganga Incident. That incident has uncanny similarities with Uri, and Pulwana incidents which were used to achieve political objectives. Reinforcement was also equally hazardous and expensive through the sea. It is funny how Indians try to disconnect from Mukti and the true extent of their nexus during 71 war, in order to make their victory be perceived as more hard fought and difficult....
 
.
If that is relevant, then why razakars had to be recruited, must also be explained. Indians conveniently skip over the fact that they had effectively imposed an aerial blockade on East Pakistan, by staging the Ganga Incident. That incident has uncanny similarities with Uri, and Pulwana incidents which were used to achieve political objectives. Reinforcement was also equally hazardous and expensive through the sea. It is funny how Indians try to disconnect from Mukti and the true extent of their nexus during 71 war, in order to make their victory be perceived as more hard fought and difficult....
We never denied our role in recruiting and arming Mukti bahini. They fought valiantly against razakars and your army. We mostly helped them by blockading your air and sea assets and made you helpless. I am questioning you war strategy and preparedness.
 
.
We never denied our role in recruiting and arming Mukti bahini. They fought valiantly against razakars and your army. We mostly helped them by blockading your air and sea assets and made you helpless. I am questioning you war strategy and preparedness.
Haha...Perhaps they also 'fought valiantly' against their own countrymen soon after, when they again looted and killed, this time to protect their emperor's throne. I am not sure I follow, u affected our war preparedness by blockading East Pakistan for months in advance, and actively subverting our hold through Mukti, and then our 'war preparedness' is questionable ?? 🤔
 
.
That PA didn't even have enough manpower to defend the Eastern Wing tells you all you need to know about how much they cared for it. They didn't give a shit. Why all this revisionism? Pakistan lost 1971, man up and admit that GHQ destroyed the country yet again by being inept at their job description.
 
.
No wonder I deal with idiots everyday. Why do I even bother to reply.

Now, you can stick that stamp on your forehead. 'atta boy
You need to display a little patience and maturity as a rank holder in this forum.

You latched on to my post with stamp and calling me names. I later on said clearly that the number of surrendered isn’t of much significance.
The significance here is, you creating a thread with a dubious agenda. Agenda to disown failure of your military and political leadership.

Why are you trying to confuse the members with details of Orbats? All this was analysed in much greater detail by Hamoodur Rahman Commission.
You don’t need to waste time on rif raf. Justice Hamoodur Rahman has clearly brought out bravery and superior planning of your commanders.

This is one of the paras from his report -

“7. In Part III of the present report, we have discussed and analysed at some length the concept of defence of East Pakistan adopted by Lt. Gen Niazi, and the manner in which he and his Divisional and Brigade Commanders formulated their plans to implement that concept within the resources available to them in East Pakistan. We have then narrated the important events involving the surrender of well-defended strong points and fortresses without a fight, desertion of his area of responsibility by a Divisional Commander, disintegration of brigades and battalions in frantic and foolish efforts to withdraw from certain posts , and abandoning of the wounded and the sick is a callous disregard of all human and military values.”

Please read the report written by your own Chief Justice. If one doesn’t feel like hanging his head in shame then I would withdraw my objections and declare Paksiatn a winner.

Before you launch on me again, please read my previous posts in which I have clarified about my stand on bravery of junior officers and soldiers.
People try to hide behind the valour of soldiers to defend larger planning and execution by the higher ups. These two are poles apart.
1971 is not about capability of your soldiers but about poor planning by your leaders - both military and political.

That PA didn't even have enough manpower to defend the Eastern Wing tells you all you need to know about how much they cared for it. They didn't give a shit. Why all this revisionism? Pakistan lost 1971, man up and admit that GHQ destroyed the country yet again by being inept at their job description.
I just brought out this fact and rank holders here are calling me what not.

I just reproduced sections of the Hamoodur Rahman Commission report which has clearly brought out all the aspects which some friends here are trying to deny and change.
 
Last edited:
.
You need to display a little patience and maturity as a rank holder in this forum.

You latched on to my post with stamp and calling me names. I later on said clearly that the number of surrendered isn’t of much significance.
The significance here is, you creating a thread with a dubious agenda. Agenda to disown failure of your military and political leadership.

Why are you trying to confuse the members with details of Orbats? All this was analysed in much greater detail by Hamoodur Rahman Commission.
You don’t need to waste time on rif raf. Justice Hamoodur Rahman has clearly brought out bravery and superior planning of your commanders.

This is one of the paras from his report -

“7. In Part III of the present report, we have discussed and analysed at some length the concept of defence of East Pakistan adopted by Lt. Gen Niazi, and the manner in which he and his Divisional and Brigade Commanders formulated their plans to implement that concept within the resources available to them in East Pakistan. We have then narrated the important events involving the surrender of well-defended strong points and fortresses without a fight, desertion of his area of responsibility by a Divisional Commander, disintegration of brigades and battalions in frantic and foolish efforts to withdraw from certain posts , and abandoning of the wounded and the sick is a callous disregard of all human and military values.”

Please read the report written by your own Chief Justice. If one doesn’t feel like hanging his head in shame then I would withdraw my objections and declare Paksiatn a winner.

Before you launch on me again, please read my previous posts in which I have clarified about my stand on bravery of junior officers and soldiers.


I just brought out this fact and rank holders here are calling me what not.

I just reproduced sections of the Hamoodur Rahman Commission report which has clearly brought out all the aspects which some friends here are trying to deny and change.
I wonder if Indians feel ashamed after reading the leaked Henderson Brooks report, or do they have enough courage to de-classify that ?? May be some hanging of heads in shame be in order after that...

You are quoting Hamood report to create the delusional perception that somehow there was a way for Pakistan to militarily resist forever w/o sustaining heavy losses. Whatever Indians achieved was under the shadow of total military dominance and blockade, it wasn't a hard fought equal terms fight, for the Indians. It does appear logical when all these factors are taken into account why Niazi decided to call it quits when he did, there was all downhill from there, in fact there always was, the geography was doomed,it was just really a matter of cutting down on the losses, even if they initially thought they had a plan to offer some resistance. The overall disadvantage of being stranded away from mainland was going to catch up somehow anyway. And Hamood report, was also meant to somewhat blame the military, as Bhutto wanted, so it does not include the whole picture, similar to Indian propaganda.
 
Last edited:
.
@Signalian this was the stamp released by your very own Pakistan. Read the numbers carefully.

Everything changes post facto with Pakistan. Why? Gradual change of facts to twist and change the history.

For Paksiatn, 1965 was a win. There have been many attempts already to turn Kargil into a victory. Now it’s turn of 1971?

East Pakistan was part of Pakistan. Pakistan should have deployed adequate assets for its security. Why didn’t you? Because it wasn’t considered Pakistan enough? What a shameful fact.

Later on claiming “we lost because of inadequate forces” smells of refusing to face the facts.Your entire Army was intact or you could have done this or that has no meaning now. Your Lt Gen sat down and signed the surrender papers. Pakistan surrendered on that fateful day.

Now claiming in hindsight that you could have fought on and defeated the entire universe is immaterial.

View attachment 904979

what idiots.... your very own General.. eat your hairy arse.. lol

 
. .
what idiots.... your very own General...
This interview brings out clearly the difference between your military leadership vs the Indian military leadership.

He is being professional in saying that your soldiers fought bravely. I have also said that your Junior Officers and Soldiers fought bravely.

Why didn’t they have a chance? What was the role of your military leaders ? Why weren’t they prepared? Didn’t they know that a war is coming? Why didn’t they deploy adequate troops for saving the eastern part of your nation?
These are the words of praise for your military leaders by your own Chief Justice .

“2. After analysing the evidence brought before the Commission, we came to the conclusion that the process of moral degeneration among the senior ranks of the Armed Forces was set in motion by their involvement in Martial Law duties in 1958, that these tendencies reappeared and were, in fact, intensified when Martial Law was imposed in the country once again in March 1969 by General Yahya Khan, and that there was indeed substance in the allegations that a considerable number of senior Army Officers had not only indulged in large scale acquisition of lands and houses and other commercial activities, but had also adopted highly immoral and licentious ways of life which seriously affected their professional capabilities and their qualities of leadership.”
 
Last edited:
.
what idiots.... your very own General.. eat your hairy arse.. lol

When you are led by idiot generals, it makes no difference how valiant or brave the foot soldiers are. That is precisely the reason why Pakistan has performed so poorly in wars, India despite having weak foot soldiers have strong and smart generals when it comes to battlefield tactics vis-a-vis Pakistan.
 
.
Why Operation Polo report remained classified?
Because it would have shown certain people in a light that Indian government doesn’t want to be shown. Did I say that this was fine? I didn’t because this thread is about 1971 war.

Why don’t you create a thread on Op Polo? I will put my point across. It is off topic for this thread.

Luckily establishment couldn’t manage to burn the supplementary report by Hamoodur Rahman Commission. Even better that this is a commision set up by your own government. Otherwise people wholud have dismissed it as Indian propaganda.

Sadly, everyone wants to disown this report because it doesn’t serve the purpose of propaganda and lies, that some sections want to spread post facto.
 
Last edited:
.
Whatever Indians achieved was under the shadow of total military dominance and blockade, it wasn't a hard fought equal terms fight, for the Indians.
Is it fine, if a country looses a battle because of poor planning?

If India tries total blockade and dominance today in some other part of your country, will that be fine?
Should an adversary say “I will not use dominance and blockade because it is unfair”. Really?

Why are you calling it far from mainland? Was it also not mainland? What did Paksiatn do since 1947 for its security?
When India started preparations, why didn’t they take heed? It wasn’t such a secret preparation after all? Why did they surrender when they had the capability to fight on for atleast two more weeks?

If they surrendered, is it Indian fault? Any country would love to have its adversary surrender without fighting. One can’t start crying later and say “oh I surrendered but I would have done this or that”. To karna tha na? Kia kyun nahi? Hathiyaar kyun daal diye?

Please read what Hamoodur Rahman Commission Report has to say on all these aspects.
He has clearly spelled out the damning short comings in this regard.

Compared to General Makeksahw whom the Indian Troops revered the reputation of your’s was complete opposite. This report has one good example of his exploits -

“16. During the present phase of our inquiry damaging evidence has come on the record regarding the ill repute of General Niazi in sex matters, and his indulgence in the smuggling of Pan. A mention may be made in this behalf of the statements made before us by Lt. Col. Mansoorul Haq (Witness No. 260), ex GSO-I, 9 div. Lt Cdr. A.A. Khan (Witness No. 262), of Pakistan navy, Brig I.R Shariff (Witness No. 269) former Comd. Engrs. Eastern Command, Mr. Mohammad Ashraf (Witness No. 275) former Addl. D.C. Dacca, and Lt. Col. Aziz Ahmad Khan (Witness No. 276). The remarks made by this last witness are highly significant: "The troops used to say that when the Commander (Lt. Gen. Niazi) was himself a raper, how could they be stopped. Gen. Niazi enjoyed the same reputation at Sialkot and Lahore."

With military leaders like this, it was never a battle on equal terms.
 
Last edited:
.
This interview brings out clearly the difference between your military leadership vs the Indian military leadership.

He is being professional in saying that your soldiers fought bravely. I have also said that your Junior Officers and Soldiers fought bravely.

Why didn’t they have a chance? What was the role of your military leaders ? Why weren’t they prepared? Didn’t they know that a war is coming? Why didn’t they deploy adequate troops for saving the eastern part of your nation?
These are the words of praise for your military leaders by your own Chief Justice .

“2. After analysing the evidence brought before the Commission, we came to the conclusion that the process of moral degeneration among the senior ranks of the Armed Forces was set in motion by their involvement in Martial Law duties in 1958, that these tendencies reappeared and were, in fact, intensified when Martial Law was imposed in the country once again in March 1969 by General Yahya Khan, and that there was indeed substance in the allegations that a considerable number of senior Army Officers had not only indulged in large scale acquisition of lands and houses and other commercial activities, but had also adopted highly immoral and licentious ways of life which seriously affected their professional capabilities and their qualities of leadership.”
Is it fine, if a country looses a battle because of poor planning?

If India tries total blockade and dominance today in some other part of your country, will that be fine?
Should an adversary say “I will not use dominance and blockade because it is unfair”. Really?

Why are you calling it far from mainland? Was it also not mainland? What did Paksiatn do since 1947 for its security?
When India started preparations, why didn’t they take heed? It wasn’t such a secret preparation after all? Why did they surrender when they had the capability to fight on for atleast two more weeks?

If they surrendered, is it Indian fault? Any country would love to have its adversary surrender without fighting. One can’t start crying later and say “oh I surrendered but I would have done this or that”. To karna tha na? Kia kyun nahi? Hathiyaar kyun daal diye?

Please read what Hamoodur Rahman Commission Report has to say on all these aspects.
He has clearly spelled out the damning short comings in this regard.

Compared to General Makeksahw whom the Indian Troops revered the reputation of your’s was complete opposite. This report has one good example of his this -

“16. During the present phase of our inquiry damaging evidence has come on the record regarding the ill repute of General Niazi in sex matters, and his indulgence in the smuggling of Pan. A mention may be made in this behalf of the statements made before us by Lt. Col. Mansoorul Haq (Witness No. 260), ex GSO-I, 9 div. Lt Cdr. A.A. Khan (Witness No. 262), of Pakistan navy, Brig I.R Shariff (Witness No. 269) former Comd. Engrs. Eastern Command, Mr. Mohammad Ashraf (Witness No. 275) former Addl. D.C. Dacca, and Lt. Col. Aziz Ahmad Khan (Witness No. 276). The remarks made by this last witness are highly significant: "The troops used to say that when the Commander (Lt. Gen. Niazi) was himself a raper, how could they be stopped. Gen. Niazi enjoyed the same reputation at Sialkot and Lahore."

With military leaders like this, it was never a battle on equal terms.

Thank you for recognizing that it was not a fair fight, if your people stop doing contrary propaganda too, than it would also be appreciated. Again u raise the subject of "war preparedness", or lack of it, which I have previously answered.

Now, regarding the point of morality and questionable reputation and actions:

Germans had questionable reputation, did they loose 'Battle of the Bulge' because Joachim Peiper committed the "Malmedy massacre" ??

Did the Germans manage to win the war because Hitler was not a womanizer, or land grabber??

Did the Japanese loose because Hirohito was a degenerate drunkard, or that their Army committed massacres in the name of the emperor, or that they practiced rape culture by keeping comfort women ??

Finally did the allies win because their military leaders were a benchmark of "morality" ??

So, how come degeneracy of our military leaders be the make or break reason for the fall of East Pakistan??
 
.
Back
Top Bottom