Pakistan will not apologise to Bangladesh: Qureshi

[vish]

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.

Again AM, what choice did we have?

Stay away and live with your mess?

 

[vish]

A Bangladeshi’s views about Pakistan.

.: PROBENEWS :.

Somewhat balanced read; if all that the author has said is indeed true then why is it that closer ties between the former two wings are still elusive?

And don't tell me people feel this way and that way; people are as a rule nice to their guests... realpolitik is obviously different.

 

[salman nedian]

Somewhat balanced read; if all that the author has said is indeed true then why is it that closer ties between the former two wings are still elusive?

And don't tell me people feel this way and that way; people are as a rule nice to their guests... realpolitik is obviously different.

Vish,
Remember when CBM’s were taken back in 2004 India was keen to proof that people to people contacts are more important but when we talk about the improving relations between Pak and BD, India seems to be more enthusiastic in reviving the bitter memories of 1971 that is the one of the reasons I see for the elusive relationship between 2 former wings

 

[vish]

Remember when CBM’s were taken back in 2004 India was keen to proof that people to people contacts are more important but when we talk about the improving relations between Pak and BD, India seems to be more enthusiastic in reviving the bitter memories of 1971 that is the only reason I see for the elusive relationship between 2 former wings

There is an elusive relation between the two wings because both do not see any "real" gain. We have nothing much to do with the animosity between the two ex-wings.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Again AM, what choice did we have?

Stay away and live with your mess?

This is becoming circular Vish.

Fact: India was also responsible for exacerbating that mess by supporting groups within East Pakistan.

Fact: Borders were opened to refugees and they were allowed to enter India, hence the argument of refugees flooding India and justifying the 'invasion' is disingenuous - they should have never been allowed in if India could not support them (a flawed argument considering how many Afghan refugees Pakistan supported and fro how long). They should have especially not been allowed in if supporting them would have placed a burden large enough to justify war.

Fact: India had planned to invade East Pakistan even before the situation got to the point where the pretext of refugees could officially be used to justify involvement.

Given the above, the argument of 'what choice did we have' is invalid since the alleged 'lack of choice' was a result of Indian interference, and in fact the 'choice' had been made a long time before the situation became untenable.

There is no moral justification for India's actions, the only justification is 'real politic' - India saw an opportunity to wound/destroy Pakistan, and it exploited it.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Somewhat balanced read; if all that the author has said is indeed true then why is it that closer ties between the former two wings are still elusive?

And don't tell me people feel this way and that way; people are as a rule nice to their guests... realpolitik is obviously different.

In terms of economic or tourism ties, there isn't much to speak of. So while diplomatically I don't think there is a lot of 'hostility', there just are not enough 'mutual interests' to encourage large scale people to people contacts, through trade or tourism as I mentioned, in order to create widespread changes in attitudes, on the Bangladeshi side at least.

Compare Bangladesh with Malaysia - given Malaysia's level of development, we have more shared interests with them than with Bangladesh, IMO.

 

[salman nedian]

In terms of economic or tourism ties, there isn't much to speak of. So while diplomatically I don't think there is a lot of 'hostility', there just are not enough 'mutual interests' to encourage large scale people to people contacts, through trade or tourism as I mentioned, in order to create widespread changes in attitudes, on the Bangladeshi side at least.

Compare Bangladesh with Malaysia - given Malaysia's level of development, we have more shared interests with them than with Bangladesh, IMO.

I think India invaded and expoited the opportunity in East Pakistan so that they can prove that ‘Two-Nation Theory’ was wrong and to me we have to show them that the theory is still alive and for that we have to improve our relations with Bangladesh and by forming a cooperation union not for any benefits but for our dignity and respect.

 

[vish]

This is becoming circular Vish.

I do agree but what can we do?

Fact: India was also responsible for exacerbating that mess by supporting groups within East Pakistan.

This is where you and I disagree; we poked you; not hit you with a sledgehammer.

Fact: Borders were opened to refugees and they were allowed to enter India, hence the argument of refugees flooding India and justifying the 'invasion' is disingenuous - they should have never been allowed in if India could not support them (a flawed argument considering how many Afghan refugees Pakistan supported and fro how long). They should have especially not been allowed in if supporting them would have placed a burden large enough to justify war.

So we should have told them; no boys, not in here. Even if borders were closed, the flow would not have stopped. Plus the Bengalis would have been pissed at us. We had no choice but to allow them; the mess later got out of hand and the results are there for everyone to see.

Fact: India had planned to invade East Pakistan even before the situation got to the point where the pretext of refugees could officially be used to justify involvement.

We never planned to invade before the situation made us really uncomfortable. Plus, why should we live with your mess?

Given the above, the argument of 'what choice did we have' is invalid since the alleged 'lack of choice' was a result of Indian interference, and in fact the 'choice' had been made a long time before the situation became untenable.

The lack of choice was your making. Either we live with your mess or intervene. If we would not have intervened nor supported the guerillas, your government would have continued on its present course; result: more refugees. You weren't going to take those refugees back, come what may.

There is no moral justification for India's actions, the only justification is 'real politic' - India saw an opportunity to wound/destroy Pakistan, and it exploited it.

Ofcourse we took the chance; but, we had our own compulsions.

 

[vish]

In terms of economic or tourism ties, there isn't much to speak of. So while diplomatically I don't think there is a lot of 'hostility', there just are not enough 'mutual interests' to encourage large scale people to people contacts, through trade or tourism as I mentioned, in order to create widespread changes in attitudes, on the Bangladeshi side at least.

Compare Bangladesh with Malaysia - given Malaysia's level of development, we have more shared interests with them than with Bangladesh, IMO.

Bang on target; both sides do not share much.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

I do agree but what can we do?

This is where you and I disagree; we poked you; not hit you with a sledgehammer.

Supporting violent militant groups that committed atrocities and supporting a violent seperatist movement is hardly a mere poke.

So we should have told them; no boys, not in here. Even if borders were closed, the flow would not have stopped. Plus the Bengalis would have been pissed at us. We had no choice but to allow them; the mess later got out of hand and the results are there for everyone to see.

If the refugees were going to place a burden large enough to necessitate war (and like I said before, I do not buy the 'burden' argument given Pakistan's own experience with refugees), then yes the refugees should not have been allowed in - we are talking of war after all, that could have spun out of control.

We never planned to invade before the situation made us really uncomfortable. Plus, why should we live with your mess?

Not true - the meeting of Indira Gandhi's cabinet and the subsequent demand from Manekshaw for more time occurred at a time when the refugees were nowhere close to a level that should have been a 'burden large enough to declare war', nor was any serious and sustained attempt made for a diplomatic resolution with Pakistan over it.

The 'mess' was not a major problem when the decision to invade was made, months in advance. The decisions to support violent groups was also made at a time when the 'mess' was not out of control - therefore the intention to make the situation worse is clear.

The lack of choice was your making. Either we live with your mess or intervene. If we would not have intervened nor supported the guerillas, your government would have continued on its present course; result: more refugees. You weren't going to take those refugees back, come what may.

More speculation - the mess was exacerbated because of Indian support, and without any sort of diplomacy and concerted attempts to deal with the situation, stating that Pakistan would have not done so and so is just that, speculation.

Again, India chose to support the groups in East Pakistan before the situation of refugees got out of control, and it made the decision to invade before the 'mess' became huge.

India's intentions to both exacerbate the situation and exploit it by bringing up retrospective arguments are clear.

 

[vish]

Supporting violent militant groups that committed atrocities and supporting a violent seperatist movement is hardly a mere poke.

It was a poke; post Operation Searchlight, when the refugee crisis began to manifest itself, the intensity increased.

If the refugees were going to place a burden large enough to necessitate war (and like I said before, I do not buy the 'burden' argument given Pakistan's own experience with refugees), then yes the refugees should not have been allowed in - we are talking of war after all, that could have spun out of control.

So we should tell them: guys, die in there. Do you think it was possible to prevent them from coming in?

Not true - the meeting of Indira Gandhi's cabinet and the subsequent demand from Manekshaw for more time occurred at a time when the refugees were nowhere close to a level that should have been a 'burden large enough to declare war', nor was any serious and sustained attempt made for a diplomatic resolution with Pakistan over it.

Indira Gandhi wanted a war so as to ensure a swift solution to India's problem -- refugees, which numbered quiet a lot. We had to wait due to your all-weather friends, who were checkmated by our treaty with the Soviet Union.

The 'mess' was not a major problem when the decision to invade was made, months in advance. The decisions to support violent groups was also made at a time when the 'mess' was not out of control - therefore the intention to make the situation worse is clear.

The decision was made post Operation Searchlight for reasons mentioned above. The resistance was a poke prior to that.

More speculation - the mess was exacerbated because of Indian support, and without any sort of diplomacy and concerted attempts to deal with the situation, stating that Pakistan would have not done so and so is just that, speculation.

Who's denying what you have said? But, what choice did we have? Not intervene and live with your mess?

Again, India chose to support the groups in East Pakistan before the situation of refugees got out of control, and it made the decision to invade before the 'mess' became huge.

It was obvious that the refugees would only increase in number.

India's intentions to both exacerbate the situation and exploit it by bringing up retrospective arguments are clear.

You made sure that the thing hit the fan; we exploited the situation, but had our own compulsions for the same.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Vish,

Indian support for militant groups in East Pakistan committing massacres and other atrocities ensured the situation would spiral out of control, you call it a poke, I don't see how considering that we had fought a war in 1965.

India's choice was to use diplomacy to explain its position with refugees - Pakistan's operation did not immediately send the wave of refugees India uses to justify its invasion, but India's decision to invade and support a militant movement, that exacerbated the situation, was made before the refugee problem became large enough to justify war.

Nations don't start making plans for war and destabilizing their neighbors at the first signs of unrest. The majority of the world would be fighting wars right now then.

Whats hard to understand about that?

If you support a groups that is part of the problem, then you are adding to the problem. If you support a group that leads to the inflammation of the situation, which you then use to justify your intervention militarily, which was also planned before the situation reached a breaking point, you have deliberately created the events that you needed to justify your military involvement.

 

[Flintlock]

^^^^Well, for the record, its Pakistan who pulled the trigger with a pre-emptive strike.

Also, India did not intend to occupy Pakistani territory, as testified by the Shimla Agreement where India returned all the captured territory back, unilaterally, even though India had no compulsion to do so.

Pakistan has not recognized India's generosity. (Yes, it was generosity, because India had by far the upper hand, and could have imposed very harsh conditions on Pakistan if she wanted to). However, humiliating a defeated nation only stirs up deep resentment, as seen in Post-WWI Germany. Hence, India sought to put an end to hostilities by giving a fair deal.

 

[vish]

Indian support for militant groups in East Pakistan committing massacres and other atrocities ensured the situation would spiral out of control, you call it a poke, I don't see how considering that we had fought a war in 1965.

The situation was very sudden; Prior to the arrest of Mujib and Operation Searchlight, the assistance that we offered was token. Post Searchlight, we knew things were going to get out of hand and you guys were on a one-way trip to heaven knows where.

India's choice was to use diplomacy to explain its position with refugees - Pakistan's operation did not immediately send the wave of refugees India uses to justify its invasion, but India's decision to invade and support a militant movement, that exacerbated the situation, was made before the refugee problem became large enough to justify war.

Diplomacy? You really think that would have worked? You were more than happy with people leaving. We supported the militant movement because nothing would have worked.

Nations don't start making plans for war and destabilizing their neighbors at the first signs of unrest. The majority of the world would be fighting wars right now then.

We made plans once we realised that this mess is ours.

Whats hard to understand about that?

If you support a groups that is part of the problem, then you are adding to the problem. If you support a group that leads to the inflammation of the situation, which you then use to justify your intervention militarily, which was also planned before the situation reached a breaking point, you have deliberately created the events that you needed to justify your military involvement.

The situation reached a breaking point with Operation Searchlight. The refugee crisis was big enough immediately after and was on way to becoming even larger. There was no looking back then; we had no choice with the refugee crisis looming big. Either we intervene or live with the mess you created for us.

Other than military involvement, we had no choice.

You guys goofed up and lost half your country.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

^^^

Vish,

You keep repeating the same tyhign without addressing the main issue, that India's plans were made, invasion and support for violent groups, before the situation got 'out of control'. This means that India's actions played a role in the situation getting out of control, and its plans for invasion before the situation got to a breaking point indicate clearly its intentions.

India's aim was to exploit the situation, exacerbate it, and then act to break Pakistan.

Just stating "do you think diplomacy would have worked" is not enough, a responsible nation would have attempted a serious and sustained effort at resolving the situation - India didn't - because, its goal was to make the situation worse justifying its military involvement.

As far as 'goofing up', no need to flame, every country has its challenges and it deals with them. In this case the situation was made worse by India's support for groups committing atrocities and fighting the State, and the fact that EP was separated from WP.

Stealth,

Pakistan 'officially' initiated the hostilities, by that time India's preparations for war were well known, as was its support for what would now be called 'terrorists' (per India in Kashmir).