Pakistan will not apologise to Bangladesh: Qureshi

[vish]

Well staying out of a sovereign nations affairs, and not in fact intervening to make them worse, which is what support for the Mukti Bahini did (so India does take some blame for inflaming the situation to the point it eventually arrived at), would be an excellent suggestion.

Nations make policy mistakes all the time, it is for them to sort it out, not for hostile neighbors to intervene and make things worse, and then invade. There was no 'goodness of heart' on the part of India here - it was a cold calculated move to damage Pakistan -starting from the initial support before things got really out of hand, till the end.

I don't think anybody saw "Bangladesh" when the crisis began. We armed Mukti Bahini to poke you; we gave them serious thought once we realized either we live with the mess you created or we get in and sort things out ourselves.

Obviously there was no goodness of heart...

But, if I go by your definition of interfering the everybody does so 24/7; even Pakistan was doing so in Mizoram back then... only is it that sometimes the interference yields result.

The bottomline is you screwed up.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

The bottomline is you screwed up.

Indeed we did, and India played its part in inflaming the situation with its 'poking' - but the secession of Bangladesh was India's doing, not ours.

Like I said, nation's make policy mistakes all the time, and they also fix them. Note the policies of slavery and segregation followed by the US - it has resolved them to a large extent over time, as the nation has evolved. Pakistan would have done the same.

 

[vish]

Indeed we did, and India played its part in inflaming the situation with its 'poking' - but the secession of Bangladesh was India's doing, not ours.

How was it our doing? You left us with no choice. Either we live with the mess you created or we take matters in our hands. We, obvioulsy, chose the latter.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

How was it our doing? You left us with no choice. Either we live with the mess you created or we take matters in our hands. We, obvioulsy, chose the latter.

It was your doing by interfering and invading of course. Remember that the eventual humanitarian catastrophe was because of the war as well.

So had India not stoked the flames, and then initiated a war, things would not have gotten so out of hand, the unrest would have been quelled, and most of the refugees would have returned.

 

[vish]

It was your doing by interfering and invading of course. Remember that the eventual humanitarian catastrophe was because of the war as well.

So had India not stoked the flames, and then initiated a war, things would not have gotten so out of hand, the unrest would have been quelled, and most of the refugees would have returned.

AM what choice did we have?

We stepped in after things hit the fan, and they reason they hit the fan was not our poking through Mukti Bahini; it was the inherent Bengali nationalism (initially, Bengal was at the forefront of the Independance Movement) and West Pakistan's sheer arrogance.

If we would not have stepped in, thingts would have gotten worse and more refugees would have begun to flow into India. Even if you had bought things under control by force (nobody in West Pakistan was going to bargain with the Bengalis then), you would not have taken the refugees back in. In other words, millions of really-pissed non-Indian nationals would be living in India in rather bleak conditions, i.e. we would have been screwed.

You left us with no choice; we did not inflame the movement; we stepped in big-time only when it became our problem.

Pakistan made a mistake that had the harshest punishment.

 

[salman nedian]

Pakistan made a mistake that had the harshest punishment.

Who was India to invade? You could have asked Pakistan to control the refugees but no you took the opportunity infact accepted the so called refugees so that you can show them to world while the purpose of those so called refugees was to spread disturbance in Pakistan.

India was not innocent and she did the mistake which deserves the harshest punishment.

 

[cactuslily58]

It was your doing by interfering and invading of course. Remember that the eventual humanitarian catastrophe was because of the war as well.

So had India not stoked the flames, and then initiated a war, things would not have gotten so out of hand, the unrest would have been quelled, and most of the refugees would have returned.

AM,

I don't think it would have been as simplistic as that. Refugees rarely return. The Afgans have not returned from your western borders putting what I am sure a strain on the local administration & leading to all sorts of demographic problems.

It is an unfortunate thing when nations break more so under the circumstances that led up to Dec '71.

 

[vish]

Who was India to invade?

A country which had everything to loose if it did not intervene.

You could have asked Pakistan to control the refugees but no you took the opportunity infact accepted the so called refugees so that you can show them to world while the purpose of those so called refugees was to spread disturbance in Pakistan.

We did; you did not bother. These "so called refugees" were your own countrymen then. Your government did not give a hoot about them though.

India was not innocent and she did the mistake which deserves the harshest punishment.

Dude, we had no choice. Innocence is not in question here, and nor it is in any geo-political crisis.

We made a mistake in 1962; we paid the price.

 

[cactuslily58]

Who was India to invade? You could have asked Pakistan to control the refugees but no you took the opportunity infact accepted the so called refugees so that you can show them to world while the purpose of those so called refugees was to spread disturbance in Pakistan.

India was not innocent and she did the mistake which deserves the harshest punishment.

Who was most affected by the clamp down in E Pak ? India . It was the 1st time in history that a surcharge was imposed on commodities to off set the huge economic impact of the refugees.

As far as accepting the refugees is concerned what choice did we have ? Can Pak send back the refugees from Afghanistan ?

In world politics no one is innocent , everyone acts according to what they perceive as their national interests just as Pak considered Afghanistan as its own backyard all this while.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

AM,

I don't think it would have been as simplistic as that. Refugees rarely return. The Afgans have not returned from your western borders putting what I am sure a strain on the local administration & leading to all sorts of demographic problems.

It is an unfortunate thing when nations break more so under the circumstances that led up to Dec '71.

Refugees return if their is stability, and stability is what India did not allow in East Pakistan, by supporting various groups that added to the fire - so there is a direct correlation between India's covert involvement in East Pakistan and the resulting Chaos - you cannot isolate that important factor.

Did most of the refugees return after the war If they did then that indicates that they would have returned once stability returned to East Pakistan as well. If the refugees did not return after the war, then India's argument of 'being destroyed" (a very flimsy argument to begin with) does not hold up.

The stability to allow the GoP to assert control and address peoples grievances is what India denied Pakistan - choosing to inflame, and then initiate war. And the intent to declare war was months before the refugee crisis was at its peak - so that indicates a direct intent in exacerbating the crisis so that India could have the pretext for invasion.

Pakistan may have erred in how it governed, but those things happen in nations - and it is for nations ot resolve them.

Other nations cannot go around invading their neighbors at the slightest hint of unrest. Now if the situation had continued for a year or two I would have understood India's argument. As it stands, it was a deliberate attempt to inflame the situation, and then use the subsequent crisis to invade.

 

[cactuslily58]

Refugees return if their is stability, and stability is what India did not allow in East Pakistan, by supporting various groups that added to the fire - so there is a direct correlation between India's covert involvement in East Pakistan and the resulting Chaos - you cannot isolate that important factor.

Did most of the refugees return after the war If they did then that indicates that they would have returned once stability returned to East Pakistan as well. If the refugees did not return after the war, then India's argument of 'being destroyed" (a very flimsy argument to begin with) does not hold up.

The stability to allow the GoP to assert control and address peoples grievances is what India denied Pakistan - choosing to inflame, and then initiate war. And the intent to declare war was months before the refugee crisis was at its peak - so that indicates a direct intent in exacerbating the crisis so that India could have the pretext for invasion.

Pakistan may have erred in how it governed, but those things happen in nations - and it is for nations ot resolve them.

Other nations cannot go around invading their neighbors at the slightest hint of unrest. Now if the situation had continued for a year or two I would have understood India's argument. As it stands, it was a deliberate attempt to inflame the situation, and then use the subsequent crisis to invade.

India only intervened when things got out of hand. Instead of discussing amongst ourselves why don't we visit the BD Military Forum and see for ourselves what the locals of E Pak felt then.

A point of no return had reached once the Awami League was denied the option of making a Govt even after it claimed to have the max seats , the language issue wherein Urdu was given precedence over Bangla in E Pak.. etc etc. I do not wish to go into details.

As regards "invading"..the war started on 3rd Dec when pre- emptive strikes were made on 5 Indian airfields..& once war is declared surely you did not expect the Indian & Pakistani armies to stand on their sides of the border & throw pebbles at each other ?

No one expected the Pak Eastern Command to capitulate & surrender so quickly. The intention possibly was not to create BD as we now know it. It could have been the northern districts only.

Both countries had (& have) invested heavily in their Armed forces who were expected to deliver when called upon.

One did.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

India only intervened when things got out of hand. Instead of discussing amongst ourselves why don't we visit the BD Military Forum and see for ourselves what the locals of E Pak felt then.

A point of no return had reached once the Awami League was denied the option of making a Govt even after it claimed to have the max seats , the language issue wherein Urdu was given precedence over Bangla in E Pak.. etc etc. I do not wish to go into details.

As regards "invading"..the war started on 3rd Dec when pre- emptive strikes were made on 5 Indian airfields..& once war is declared surely you did not expect the Indian & Pakistani armies to stand on their sides of the border & throw pebbles at each other ?

No one expected the Pak Eastern Command to capitulate & surrender so quickly. The intention possibly was not to create BD as we now know it. It could have been the northern districts only.

Both countries had (& have) invested heavily in their Armed forces who were expected to deliver when called upon.

One did.

What purpose does asking people now about what they think about East Pakistan serve? The issue was then, and poor policies advanced by the central government existed, but as I have argued, even worse policies existed in other nations. The details of Pakistan's policies do not matter, that we had poor policies is not the argument, the argument is that the situation was inflamed by first covert Indian involvement and then overt.

Pakistan should have been able to work out its internal issues like other nations have.

I am sure the blacks in the US or the aborigines in Australia would have liked to have been freed from the yoke of oppression as well - but those nations have worked out their problems and rectified their faults. What happened in East Pakistan was nowhere close to that.

The official war may have begun with the bombing, but the covert intervention and massing of forces on the border declared India's intent quite clearly. Intelligence reports would have also verified that the preparations by India's army were of war. Records indicate that Indira Gandhi had essentially given the green light for war months in advance, so there can be no question over the intent of India to initiate war to dismember Pakistan.

Therefore the involvement of India, covert and overt, was both planned and contributed to the chaos that India used as justification. That is the point I am making.

The military preparednesses and performance of each side I am not addressing in this thread.

 

[salman nedian]

A Bangladeshi’s views about Pakistan.

.: PROBENEWS :.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Great read!

Thanks Salman.

And many Indians visiting Pakistan express similar sentiments, of a people friendly, caring and extremely hospitable, completely contrary to the 'India hating monsters' they have come to believe.

I'd say that if nothign else, the sentiment on the street, as observed by Indians, Bangladeshis and others, indicates that our curriculum, while being flawed, is nowhere close to the 'brainwashing, hate imbuing literature', that it is made out to be.

 

[roadrunner]

My notions had stemmed from the prevalent attitude of our pro-liberation buddhijibis, who have, through their own glorifications of our War of Liberation, somehow equated patriotism as anti-Pakistani feeling and instilled that in some of us. In fact, I still know people who think that to be a true patriot you would have to hate Pakistan, with all its institutions and people.

that's the impression i got also, except that it's quite common. Pakistanis otoh, have not been fed the same material