Pakistan will not apologise to Bangladesh: Qureshi

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Just to add, in no way am I absolving the leadership of Pakistan for allowing the situaion to get to the point where it could be exploited.

We did mess up.

Nor do I hold it against India necessarily for acting as it did - haven't we been trying the same in Kashmir?

I just don't buy the argument that India, while it was making plans to invade and support the violent separatists, did not have a choice, or did so out of any great 'moral qualms'.

Real politic through and through.

 

[roadrunner]

Nor do I hold it against India necessarily for acting as it did - haven't we been trying the same in Kashmir?

I don't think Pakistan has. The difference is Kashmir was never legally resolved, Bangladesh, or East Pakistan was legally a part of Pakistan. This adds a degree of legitimacy to the rebellion in Kashmir, whereas there was no legitimacy for the intervention by India in East Pakistan.

 

[Flintlock]

^^^Agno. Pakistan govt. had a set of discriminatory policies, which was a real cause for complaint in Bangladesh. They were NOT treated as equals, and were treated as a virtual colony of West Pakistan.
Moreover, Pakistan did not hesitate from going to the extreme and killing opinion makers like University Professors, teachers, scientists, and practically wiped out the thinkers of that region, not to mention selective culling of the Hindu population.

It was a completely different situation, and Bangladeshis at the very least had significant cause for complaint.

In Kashmir however, Pakistan has been using Islamic militants to wage holy war, on no basis but radical Islam. This has not only created chaos in the valley, but endangered the very people who you guys claim to be helping by altering their culture from a peaceful one into a violent, self-destructive one.

Please don't compare the two situations.

 

[ejaz007]

^^^Agno. Pakistan govt. had a set of discriminatory policies, which was a real cause for complaint in Bangladesh. They were NOT treated as equals, and were treated as a virtual colony of West Pakistan.

Moreover, Pakistan did not hesitate from going to the extreme and killing opinion makers like University Professors, teachers, scientists, and practically wiped out the thinkers of that region, not to mention selective culling of the Hindu population.

It was a completely different situation, and Bangladeshis at the very least had significant cause for complaint.

In Kashmir however, Pakistan has been using Islamic militants to wage holy war, on no basis but radical Islam. This has not only created chaos in the valley, but endangered the very people who you guys claim to be helping by altering their culture from a peaceful one into a violent, self-destructive one.

Please don't compare the two situations.

Any proof of a policy that was discriminatory.

Any proof Pakistan Army or government carried out the killings.

A number of Indian states have complaints. Does this mean Pakistan can assist them as well.

Kashmir is not an integral part of India. The dispute is pending before UN and remember India took the case to the UN.

Indeed. East Pakistan was an internal Pakistani situation and India invaded an independent country.

 

[vish]

You keep repeating the same tyhign without addressing the main issue.

In my view, you are doing the same thing.

India's plans were made, invasion and support for violent groups, before the situation got 'out of control'.

The situation got out of control when you initiated Operation Searchlight. We came into the picture after that. The refugee crisis was going to occur sooner or later.

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.

Our actions ensure Bangladesh gets created; true. You laid the groundwork for the same.

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

It became our aim after you ensured that we either live with your mess or ensure the creation of Bangladesh. Did we invade East Pakistan in 1965?

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.

Diplomacy wouldn't have worked; everybody knew it. We made plans for intervention and did intervene after it became clear that if we do not act, we are going to pay the price for your mess. We entered the crisis only when we realised that things are going to get out of hand for us if we do not.

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.

I ain't flaming; do not accuse me of that. That is the truth.

If indeed I am, in my view, you are doing the same thing by accusing us of intervening without looking into the context.

Further, what other choice did we have besides intervening?

Diplomacy? Were you guys even interested?

UN? The result would have been a status quo with refugees inside India.

We had no choice.

 

[Tiki Tam Tam]

Any proof of a policy that was discriminatory.

Any proof Pakistan Army or government carried out the killings.

A number of Indian states have complaints. Does this mean Pakistan can assist them as well.

Kashmir is not an integral part of India. The dispute is pending before UN and remember India took the case to the UN.

Indeed. East Pakistan was an internal Pakistani situation and India invaded an independent country.

The very fact that Mujibur was not allowed to be the PM when he had the majority in the Parliament is in itself highly discriminatory. What more proof is required?

As far as the killings is concerned, Justice Hamdoor Rehman report is an interesting study as also the newspapers of the time

What makes you believe that Pakistan is not helping?

Kashmir is an integral part of India.

East Pakistan was an integral part of Pakistan till the Bengalis revolted. The Indian Army did assist them.

 

[GHATAK]

1. Legally kashmir is an integral part of India. If you konw about how the partition took place and how the certificate of accession was signed.

2. Morally Pak does not have the right over kashmir, if they had, they would not have given the north eastern part of kashmir to China. This clearly exposes the reality that pak wants instablity in Kashmir ie, India, and is not interested in the well being of Kashmiri's.

 

[ejaz007]

I know the rules of partition and those were not followed in the case of Kashmir. The instrument of accession that you all talk about is an illegal document. It is illegal because of two main reasons.

First the people of Kashmir had already revolted against the maharaja and every one knew they wanted to join Pakistan.

Secondly the instrument of accession was brough to Kashmir by an Indian official and was typed in India and according to some rumors (though this can not be confirmed) was already signed by the Indian side. Then the date on the instrument of accession was wrong and was signed back dated. It was signed somewhere in October however the date was changed.

I do not wish to start another hot debate and this is also not the right thread however the most important event that clearly indicates that Kashmir is not an integral part of India is that India itself took the matter to the UN. How can a nation take its internal matter to international forum and then sign resolutions on it which by the way state that a plebisite should be held to decide the future of the state.

 

[blain2]

1. Legally kashmir is an integral part of India. If you konw about how the partition took place and how the certificate of accession was signed.

2. Morally Pak does not have the right over kashmir, if they had, they would not have given the north eastern part of kashmir to China. This clearly exposes the reality that pak wants instablity in Kashmir ie, India, and is not interested in the well being of Kashmiri's.

Well the legality of the whole affair is in doubt. Unfortunately nobody is buying either the Indian or the Pakistani side of the story thus the disputed status of Kashmir.

Further, what other choice did we have besides intervening?

Diplomacy? Were you guys even interested?

The choice you had was the same as the one with any other country which has a neighbor with an internal conflict going on. You take in refugees and try to do the best you can...you ask the UN for aid and the UN obliges with aid for such refugees...so lets not waste time here by making simplistic assumptions about the Indian reasons for invading East Pakistan...it was a well thought out and conceived plan by the Indian leadership to cut Pakistan to size (something that most Pakistanis believe has been the plan of India from the get go).

The fact that Pakistanis let this happen to themselves is a fault of their own, however to suggest that India had no option but the military one is not the case. Even the US government had promised massive humanitarian aid to the Indian government to cope with the influx of refugees (this was recently revealed in the US archives made public at the Library of Congress), but the Indian government had other plans and refused.

 

[vish]

Well the legality of the whole affair is in doubt. Unfortunately nobody is buying either the Indian or the Pakistani side of the story thus the disputed status of Kashmir.


The choice you had was the same as the one with any other country which has a neighbor with an internal conflict going on. You take in refugees and try to do the best you can...you ask the UN for aid and the UN obliges with aid for such refugees...so lets not waste time here by making simplistic assumptions about the Indian reasons for invading East Pakistan...it was a well thought out and conceived plan by the Indian leadership to cut Pakistan to size (something that most Pakistanis believe has been the plan of India from the get go).

The fact that Pakistanis let this happen to themselves is a fault of their own, however to suggest that India had no option but the military one is not the case. Even the US government had promised massive humanitarian aid to the Indian government to cope with the flux of refugees (this was recently revealed in the US archives made public at the Library of Congress), but the Indian government had other plans and refused.

Yeah.. we should trust Nixon... and the UN would have done nothing. Humanitarian aid doesn't fix screwed up demographics.

We had other plans because those were the only ones that would have worked...

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Vish,

IG announced a day after Operation Searchlight that India would completely support the "Bangladeshi struggle for independence", the GoI allowed any refugees to enter into India and set up camps for them and armed and trained the Mukti Bahini.

Your argument of "no choice" is nothing but retrospective platitudes. India had plenty of choices, but it deliberately exacerbated the situation because it wanted the excuse to invade. The refugee argument raised by you is nonsense, since the sequence of events clearly indicates that the crisis may not have gotten out of control without Indian support for the violent militants in EP, and that the preparations for war started the day after (if not before) Op. Searchlight.

The time line is just not in your favor - there was nothing moral about this, this was a cold blooded plan to damage Pakistan.

Indira Gandhi at a public meeting on Nov, 30, 1970 observed, "India has never reconciled with the existence of Pakistan, Indian leaders always believed that Pakistan should not have been created and that Pakistan nation has no right exist".

IG's intent and motivations are made clear by that quote above.

 

[blain2]

Yeah.. we should trust Nixon... and the UN would have done nothing. Humanitarian aid doesn't fix screwed up demographics.

We had other plans because those were the only ones that would have worked...

Humanitarian aid helped you guys survive for at least 6 decades of your existence and here you are going off putting it down...ever wondered what USAID really was?

Nixon and the Americans in general have never held back humanitarian aid, they are by far the most generous and even in 1971, they had openly offered massive support for the refugees. The only part that I agree with in your post is "We had other plans because those were the only ones that would have worked."

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Here is another narration talking about how Indian support for the Mukti Bahini helped increase the destabilization, that Vish is using as justification for the war.

"In 1971, when Pakistan cracked down in East Pakistan, hundreds and thousands of refugees started pouring into India, into West Bengal, Assam and Tripura. The Prime Minister held a Cabinet meeting in her office. I was then summoned.

A very angry, grim-faced Prime Minister read out telegrams from the Chief Ministers of West Bengal, Assam and Tripura.

She then turned around to me and said, 'What are you doing about it?' And I said, 'Nothing, it's got nothing to do with me. You didn't consult me when you allowed the BSF, the CRP and RAW to encourage the Pakistanis to revolt. Now that you are in trouble, you come to me. I have a long nose. I know what's happening.' "

http://www.expressindia.com/latest-news/When-Sam-Bahadur-confronted-Indira-Gandhi/328297/

 

[Tiki Tam Tam]

AM,

When a person is larger than life and dead any old story sells.

Yes Sam was a charismatic chap, but to call Ms Gandhi dearie or what IE has stated is a bit too thick.

How come he was in the doghouse by the same Ms Gandhi's diktat when he said that if he has been a Pakistani what would be the outcome? That is innocuous a statement compared to the large than life defiant image being projected that he was some superhero.

He was a great General, but these chatty anecdotes makes one wonder where lies the truth and where lies fantasy!

I wish you knew the anecdotes said about me. It surprised my sister in law when two officers travelling in the same compartment were speaking about me without knowing that she was my sister in law. She narrated the story to me and I was astounded! I am supposed to have dropped my pants as a sign of protest to my CO!! Such rot prevails and multiplies if someone is a bit of a colourful chap!

 

[blain2]

Its amazing how all things incriminating are so quickly disowned as old stories..