What is common between 1971, 9/11, and 11/26?

[MilSpec]

Indian push of 60,000 insurgents followed by an attack on E. Pakistan back in 1971 was no better than

bunch of hijackers destroying Twin Towers
or
Beardo Mullahs attack on civilians in Mumbai.




Indira made a HUGE blunder back then and so many Indian posters and analysts fail to understand the implications and continue repeating foolish victory, just like Talibarbarians dance after mumbai, or Palestinian extremists dance after 9/11.


If Indian posters want respect for Indian borders,

then learn to respect other country's borders too.

Thank you.

Would you also put Allied intervention in Germany after the holocaust in the same list?

 

[Capt.Popeye]

you know me.

I will criticize your ideas but never YOU!

So quit these childish statements. You are a grown up (I am sure older and wiser than yours truly).


Whenever there is a victory,

some get "ribbons" even when they were just "also rans".

peace

Do you think that I give a $hit ?

I yam what I yam............ (read my avatar).

 

[FaujHistorian]

Would you also put Allied intervention in Germany after the holocaust in the same list?

Sandy Bahi

Please elaborate a bit more to help me understand your POV.

Are you by any chance implying the following?

1. --- Allied trained 60,000 Jews and pushed them into Hitler's Germany?
2. ---- These 60,000 Jewish insurgents had declared part of Germany as their separate homeland?
3. ---- Once Hitler defeated these 60,000 insurgents, Allied armies went into Germany and declared Germany as Jewish homeland.


I mean what kind of childish argument and pathetic history that would be?

so

I am sure you are more familiar with WW-2 than you let it out in your comment.

I am sure you know more about WW2

Thank you.

 

[Zabaniyah]

That is precisely what I've said @Loki in my post above, unequivocally.
And I'm not the only one, many others too have done so; among them, even Gen.Jacob has said so in the TV interviews. As well as Gen.Aurora. And whoever else who served; and who I've met. And V/Adm. M.K.Roy has written it down in his book, that will be recorded for eternity. If it had not been for them; the war would have played out differently.
But it will be pertinent to note that; if the Indian Forces had not entered, the Mukti Bahini could not have done the job alone. The pain and slaughter in East Bengal would have been long-drawn and horrific. With maybe no clear conclusion.
Rather Nixon would have eventually swung the balance to the side of the PA.

Actually, given the situation; the break-up of Pakistan was inevitable.

The PA not only had very limited intelligence on Awami/MB activities, but also fell critically short on logistics. Given Indian support, a naval blockade and geography (a very critical factor), the PA would not have been able to sustain against the guerrilla war.

The only difference being that it would have taken longer, and costed more lives on both sides. It was a matter of consequence for India to intervene on the Eastern Front.

I also happen to come across a story where they burned pictures of Kazi Nazrul Islam and praising pictures of Rabidranath Tagore because Tagore "looked" like a Muslim whereas Islam "looked" like a Hindu

They were culturally worlds apart. But I'd say it was lack of knowledge on their part.

I've seen and met quite a few of the Muktijoddhas. There are a few note-books (the kind used by school children) of their memories in my family home in India. First time I met them was in the aftermath of the war itself and the last time in 2005 in Chittagong. Do you know that they meet even now. One informal meeting place is in the vicinity of Agrabad in CTG.

That is interesting.

Nowadays though, I find it odd that they do not acknowledge enough toward the contributions made by India and the sacrifices of its soldiers that aided them in their fight like as if the MB are the star or something. A genuine acknowledgement that is. If India hadn't intervened, many wouldn't have probably been alive to have that gathering.

What politicians exchange to others is of no concern. In fact, it is irrelevant to the truth.

Coupled with other forms of hypocrisy and arrogance, I tend to avoid such gatherings and matters in Bangladesh these days. I maybe ignorant about the gathering you are referring to, but usually, they are filled with fake enthusiasm and cheap propaganda for the sake of vested interests.

Bangladeshis generally know very little about their own military history, and how it truly came to be. And this lack of knowledge is often misused by those very vested interests.

 

[FaujHistorian]

....the PA would not have been able to sustain against the guerrilla war.

.

Loki Bhai,

See my note/disclaimer first. then reply to my post. Thank you.

NOTE/DISCLAIMER: I am discussing this purely from political and military history and not as a fanboy for either of the warring parties.

Correction.

As per Indian TOP general Manekshaw detailed interviews, and Pakistani counter parts reports.

PA was able to overwhelm both Shahbeg Bahini and Mukti by end of November.

So this assumption is factually incorrect.


Remember Mukti (bengali) and Shahbeg (Indian) insurgency was just that.

insurgency.

And a well armed, well trained army can easily control such insurgencies.

Yes there is bloodshed in such things and ALL warring parties know this AHEAD of time.


Once Indian gov realized their insurgents have been defeated, they then sent in regular army across the international borders.


peace


p.s.

I wish Mujib had understoond Suhrawardy-Jinnah understanding of autonomous regions and worked for that instead of launching militant campaigns. Two brothers should never kill each other in the process of dividing ancestral property.

 

[Capt.Popeye]

Actually, given the situation; the break-up of Pakistan was inevitable.

The PA not only had very limited intelligence on Awami/MB activities, but also fell critically short on logistics. Given Indian support, a naval blockade and geography (a very critical factor), the PA would not have been able to sustain against the guerrilla war.

The only difference being that it would have taken longer, and costed more lives on both sides. It was a matter of consequence for India to intervene on the Eastern Front.

I also happen to come across a story where they burned pictures of Kazi Nazrul Islam and praising pictures of Rabidranath Tagore because Tagore "looked" like a Muslim whereas Islam "looked" like a Hindu

They were culturally worlds apart. But I'd say it was lack of knowledge on their part.



That is interesting.

Nowadays though, I find it odd that they do not acknowledge enough toward the contributions made by India and the sacrifices of its soldiers that aided them in their fight like as if the MB are the star or something. A genuine acknowledgement that is. If India hadn't intervened, many wouldn't have probably been alive to have that gathering.

What politicians exchange to others is of no concern. In fact, it is irrelevant to the truth.

Coupled with other forms of hypocrisy and arrogance, I tend to avoid such gatherings and matters in Bangladesh these days. I maybe ignorant about the gathering you are referring to, but usually, they are filled with fake enthusiasm and cheap propaganda for the sake of vested interests.

Bangladeshis generally know very little about their own military history, and how it truly came to be. And this lack of knowledge is often misused by those very vested interests.

You know @Loki; the genuine Muktijoddhas; esp the ones who fought and lost (something or the other) are genuinely appreciative of the Indian role and in a very dignified manner; at that.
I can attest to that, since I know it first hand.

But remember that (as we know) that the MB was a huge polyglot of people. A number among them were even opportunists in the final reckoning. That is what helped to do Mujib in finally; because it was people like that who rode "on his coat-tails" after the victory. Oddly, he knew some of them and what they were upto, but gave them a free hand. And paid the price for it.

The real ones; can be made out very quickly. Just a few questions can do the trick. As I said, the first ones that I saw were in the Artificial Limb Center of the Indian Army; they were either paraplegics or quadriplegic. Waiting for limbs and rehabilitation; then repatration back home.

So far as the PA was concerned; they were simply an Occupying Colonial Force. They had little relationship with or knowledge of the local people. And when they let loose their pogroms; they had written their 'ejection notices'.

 

[FaujHistorian]

.... the first ones that I saw were in the Artificial Limb Center of the Indian Army; they were either paraplegics or quadriplegic. Waiting for limbs and rehabilitation; then repatration back home.

This is the whole point of the thread.

I mourn the loss of Indian soldiers. They were pushed to death to satisfy INdian brahmin (Indira) desire to teach low castes their place.

So sad to see.

The same Brahmins now treat BDesh as their $hitting ground. Ask the current generation of BDesshis and they will tell you why they hate Indian Brahmin interference in their perceived lower castes's countries.

....
So far as the PA was concerned; they were simply an Occupying Colonial Force. They had little relationship with or knowledge of the local people. And when they let loose their pogroms; they had written their 'ejection notices'.

Use the same standard then for the Indian army fighting against Sant Bindranwalay.

Thank you.

 

[Zabaniyah]

Loki Bhai,

See my note/disclaimer first. then reply to my post. Thank you.
NOTE/DISCLAIMER: I am discussing this purely from political and military history and not as a fanboy for either of the warring parties.

Correction.

As per Indian TOP general Manekshaw detailed interviews, and Pakistani counter parts reports.

PA was able to overwhelm both Shahbeg Bahini and Mukti by end of November.

So this assumption is factually incorrect.


Remember Mukti (bengali) and Shahbeg (Indian) insurgency was just that.

insurgency.

And a well armed, well trained army can easily control such insurgencies.

Yes there is bloodshed in such things and ALL warring parties know this AHEAD of time.


peace

Oh, I am no fanboy. I can assure you.

Now tell me. How can the PA sustain a war given a naval blockade by the IN? Please look up Operation Trident and Operation Python.

It practically meant that they were completely cut off from their supplies. And without food, ammunition, supplies, weapons, etc. they cannot "overwhelm" them forever. That was the entire point of the blockade.

India simply wanted to finish the war quickly. Not prolong it.

I wish Mujib had understoond Suhrawardy-Jinnah understanding of autonomous regions and worked for that instead of launching militant campaigns. Two brothers should never kill each other in the process of dividing ancestral property.

Mujib?

The man was utterly clueless as to where to even start. And one who left behind a clueless nation in his image. So let alone comprehending history.

Building a war-torn nation from scratch is never easy.

You name it. Shutting down all opposition parties. All media outlets. His own militia. Nationalization of industry that are proven to be failed concepts. Forcing the medium of instruction in Bengali in schools and universities. And other fanciful delusions.

In fact, some of those are exactly the same things his daughter is trying to achieve right now.

 

[MilSpec]

Sandy Bahi

Please elaborate a bit more to help me understand your POV.

Hi,

No two conflicts in the world are same, each have their precursors, operational realities, terrain and most importantly the people.

Relations between India and pakistan were already at a low due to 1965 where pakistan had already attacked India which was still reeling from it's defeat to china...

Thus making pakistan a fair game.

Next was pakistan abhorrent genocide in east pakistan which saw mass exodus of refugees to India, which could practically collapse India's already down in the dirt economy...

Another aspect was the foresight of India being engaged with pakistan (backed by US and china) on both the flanks and nightmare it would have cause to India in the 21st century if India remained sandwiched between a military state, there was a serious need to nullify this threat.....

When 60,000 people of a region are willing to pick up arms against a dictatorial regime, it just doesn't remain a state sponsored insurgency, and this unlike kashmir was not a bid for amalgation of a disputed land into sponsor state (doing the sponsors bidding), but a full blown demand for secession...

The magnitude of the rebels was equivalent to vietnam and later afghans.

The question on Indian army's involvement was primarily due to genocide (thus the german reference) and partly due to the strategic vision of India (in my opinion).

When a million bengalis were being killed in east pakistan, should we have not done anything? Should we have stayed hostage to a dictatorial regime, which had already tried to instigate a war against India? Indians are known to have huge supply of patience, but that eventually does run out after a while, and that exactly is what pakistan miscalculated.

Attacking India, Threatening India, Disproportionate military buildup, Alliances with US and China, Blatant suppression of political process, Genocide in east pakistan, were good enough reasons for India to support secession of East Pakistan....

 

[FaujHistorian]

Hi,

No two conflicts in the world are same, each have their precursors, operational realities, terrain and most importantly the people.

Relations between India and pakistan were already at a low due to 1965..

While 65 crossing of LOC was a blunder

That in noway can justify crossing of IB aka international border in 1971.

Two wrongs do not make it right.


Secondly, and most importantly,

65 proved to India that Pakistan cannot do squat against India's overwhelming superiority in military numbers and logistics.


So I respectfully disagree with that line of argument.

 

[illusion8]

Were you really trying to say SOMETHING, Fauji ?

Full of gas and no outcome.

 

[MilSpec]

While 65 crossing of LOC was a blunder

That in noway can justify crossing of IB aka international border in 1971.

Two wrongs do not make it right.


Secondly, and most importantly,

65 proved to India that Pakistan cannot do squat against India's overwhelming superiority in military numbers and logistics.


So I respectfully disagree with that line of argument.

I appreciate the dialogue, but you have to see each conflict in it's own situational context and evaluate the broader strategic implications and lessons learnt....We cannot generalize these conflict as chain of events, but just as precursors to the strategic buildup. From 65 lessons were learnt by both sides, India made better procurement's and built it's own strategic roadmap and consolidated it's vision, india looked east , pakistan had it's tunnel vision on kashmir and failed to gauge India's intention in EP...After the elections, instead of de-escalating problems fueling in EP, Pakistani establishment helped India's strategic vision to fruition. If Mujib was made the PM, he would have still remained a stooge to the military HQ, but Bengalis would be happy knowing, banglar Bagh will take care of their issue, all impending issues could have been de-escalated....

 

[FaujHistorian]

I appreciate the dialogue, but you have to see each conflict in it's own situational context and evaluate the broader strategic implications and lessons learnt....We cannot generalize these conflict as chain of events, but just as precursors to the strategic buildup. From 65 lessons were learnt by both sides, India made better procurement's and built it's own strategic roadmap and consolidated it's vision, india looked east , pakistan had it's tunnel vision on kashmir and failed to gauge India's intention in EP...After the elections, instead of de-escalating problems fueling in EP, Pakistani establishment helped India's strategic vision to fruition. If Mujib was made the PM, he would have still remained a stooge to the military HQ, but Bengalis would be happy knowing, banglar Bagh will take care of their issue, all impending issues could have been de-escalated....

My problem with such arguments (even though made on the basis of some facts) is that it ignores what Patel said about Pakistan, or the resolutions of politicians in KolKatta Assembly back in 40s and 50s.

This is why it is exrtemely important for all of us to challenge the dogmatic stance prevailing in the two countries

and question it with keen observations.

Repeating prevailing notions is the first step towards ignorance, death and destruction for any region.


Truth will set you free and hopefully bring peace in the region.


peace

 

[rohitP]

Please learn about 1971 and India pushing 60,000 insurgents across international borders into E. Pakistan.

Now tell me if India was pushing "Islamists" into E. Pakistan.

hahahah

No, if you read the history of 1971, in 1971 the Islamists were on Pakistani state/army's side. Islamists like Jamaat and Razaakars were carrying out killings with support from Pak Army.

This is the whole point of the thread.

I mourn the loss of Indian soldiers. They were pushed to death to satisfy INdian brahmin (Indira) desire to teach low castes their place.

So sad to see.

The same Brahmins now treat BDesh as their $hitting ground. Ask the current generation of BDesshis and they will tell you why they hate Indian Brahmin interference in their perceived lower castes's countries.

Gandhis are not brahmins. They belong to the vaishya caste. The rest of your post is filled with similar lies, so im not even going to bother countering it.

 

[akshay gehlot]

Read up my dear Akshay readup

First insurgents went in then Pak army responded.

you are totally switching the timeline around.

This may be OK in 5th grade history class

but not during adult discussion.


Just remember that.

Thank you.

insurgents were fighting for thier independence . the same thing was done by bhagat singh and by subhash chandra bose who fought for OUR [india and pak] independence the only diff being they were fightjng against british and mukti bahni against pak opression. none of this would have happened if you had allowed mujibur rehman to form gov.