What's new

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

Well that's the issue.

Either bring the accused to court and hang the mofo

or

do not accuse at all.


That's the way it is under modern law.
The baniya in us could not resist the temptation of -
First - making sure the world knows about the massacres and
Second - Still having the heart to release the perpetrators in a general amnesty showing how humane we were. :D
 
.
Two brothers can distribute ancestral property in a peaceful way. every one is happy happy happy.

Two brothers kill each other's sons (their nephews) over property dispute. That is sad sad sad thing.

True!! I concur!

Why did younger brother started it in 1948, repeated in 1965, 1971, 1999 and till today?

That's a pathetic excuse.

That's like waiting for Bosinian conflict to be brought to court in the year of 2037.

Waiting for 40-50 years to start court proceedings, when most of the documents are gone.

Most of the big name players are gone too.

Mujeeb who got butchered by Bengalis for misleading and lying to them.
Indira who was butchered by his own bodyguards for desecrating most sacred temple for Sikhs
Bhutto hanged for killing his political opponent's dad

All the generals like Mankeshaw, Yahya, Tikka, Niazi, all gone.


And you say you will hold court hearing.

hahahahahaha

hahahah

Pathetic pathetic response to a HUGE tragedy.

But you will not understand dear.

you will not

Because you have closed your ears and shut your eyes

and constantly repeat

main na maanoo
main na maanoo
main na manoons.

Ye kya hai Fauji!!

What happen to you? Why are you transforming from Think Tank to thinking in side Tank (well)?
 
.
All three - 26/11, 9/11, and 1971 E. Pakistan/Bangladesh - involved Islamists who invoked their religion to justify massacring civilians.

God bless you solomon and your naivety... You never disappoint!
 
.
After the initial holocaust of the army crack-down in Dacca, the Pakistani authorities appear to have been pursuing in particular members of three identifiable groups, .

The same report considered Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, declaration of independence was illegal under international law,
Moreover, the Report equated crimes committed by the army and local collaborators against the people of Bangladesh with that of sufferings of Biharis.



So my dear

I still respect you for your effort to find some documents (as opposed to so many Indian and Pakistani kids who come on these threads to say one liners based on the government history books of respective countries.

Still, it is unfair that you bring in ICJ report here with selective reading.

my question still stands.

All of Pakistani top generals down to foot soldiers were POWs.

If Indian government had strong enough proof of any war crimes

They should have conducted their own hearings and convicted the generals.

Amnesty can always given after the conviction.


So please quit this tu tu main main.

Let's make sure we do not repeat bad history.

Thank you.
 
.
The same report considered Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, declaration of independence was illegal under international law,
Moreover, the Report equated crimes committed by the army and local collaborators against the people of Bangladesh with that of sufferings of Biharis.



<snip>

Still, it is unfair that you bring in ICJ report here with selective reading.

So? The same report also says "(a)s the army had resorted to force to impose their will, the leaders of the majority party were entitled to call for armed resistance to defeat this action by an illegal regime."


None of those is relevant in proving PA's act of genocide. You were denying genocide. So I quoted the relevant portion of the report to disprove your denial.


my question still stands.

All of Pakistani top generals down to foot soldiers were POWs.

If Indian government had strong enough proof of any war crimes

They should have conducted their own hearings and convicted the generals.

Amnesty can always given after the conviction.

It was not India's responsibility. After all PA didn't commit any genocide against Indians.

Also, as a side-note, Article 6 of Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Crime of Genocide states:

'Persons charged with genocide or any of the other acts enumerated in Article 3 shall be tried by a competent tribunal of the State in the territory of which the act was committed, or by such international penal tribunal as may have jurisdiction with respect to those Contracting Parties which shall have accepted its jurisdiction.'

The first part disqualified India from holding any trial and for the second part, India still hasn't accepted jurisdiction of International Criminal Court.

I suggest you quit this juvenile line of argument.

Thank you.
 
.
So this is how it goes. huh?

if the reality doesn't fit one's made up world,

then a decorated and honest General be damned.

His statements be damned

and dump the SOB, $hit on him just because he told the truth.

This is called prejudice of nth degree

Not too different from the blind and deaf Islamsts from our side of the border.

What a sad state of affairs we have.

What a sad state of affairs.

Do you even know what is THE TRUTH?
Your sermons are not the TRUTH. You are unfamiliar with History, but love to turn out some Gas and hope that you'll even get an audience? For your Voluminous but Meaningless Verbiage?
Of course you can play the role of a FaujComedian if so deign to.

Well that's the issue.

Either bring the accused to court and hang the mofo

or

do not accuse at all.


That's the way it is under modern law.


Is that your Law; some Medieval Mulla Law?
If there are no Accusations; there is no cause for Action. So this is how you suppress any Action?
 
.
All three - 26/11, 9/11, and 1971 E. Pakistan/Bangladesh - involved Islamists who invoked their religion to justify massacring civilians.

NO, not completely so. But partly so and in varying amounts in each case.
They simply involved Fanatics using the Cloak of some False Religious ideas to conduct massacres.
And there is one CRUCIAL DIFFERENCE; 1971 was entirely State Planned and organised as an extension of State Policy.
 
.
Couldn't agree more.

I was merely corroborating the fact that Manekshaw did in fact say something like that.

Quite some time ago, I had clarified it to a Bangladeshi, who got confused by this very quote . Below is the post:




Notice also, that Manekshaw never said '60,000'.

Shh...don't tell that to Fauj.



I apologise for not quoting the source.

That figure comes from Ms Gandhi's letter to Richard Nixon. The letter was dated May 13, 1971 and can be accessed at US Congress archive.

If you can't find it, let me know.

LOL; Fauji fits very well into a role of "FaujComedian" with his long-winded Windy stories that are high on Sentiment and Rhetoric and Homilies but low on Facts.
As Well-Meaning Entertainment that is fine; but as the nucleus of any serious discussion..............
 
.
Agreed that he wasn't a politician, but General Maneckshaw was top general who had the front row seat in the planning of Indian insurgency and eventual attack.

And the guy was deadly honest.

No doubt. He was a great soldier, and a great leader. Not good, but great.

Now please tell me one politician who fits that criteria when it comes to understanding the events unfolding during 1970s


Naga rebellion was not going to succeed in the long run. If India could crush Sikh rebellion in Punjab few years later, Nagas had no chances at all.

So we should look at NAGA issue in its conext and not attach too much value.


Dismemberment of E. Pakistan was on the card pretty much from 1948.

Yes, but they did succeed with the East Pakistan insurgency, is it not?

Probably some of a best covert operations ever. Another reason was intelligence failure on part of the West Pakistanis. A massive intelligence failure. They didn't even know who or where the Awami leaders were located. Very poor intelligence. That gave the Indians a massive advantage.

And I do not see any reason why the Nagas can be a different issue. The threat toward India was very real at the time. Geography also played a critical role since East Pakistan basically cut in between the mainland and north east India.

The threat probably still lingers to this day to a certain extent. And I can say that they are wary. They worked hard for the northeast during all these years to where it is now. And there still much work to be done on their part.

If the intellectuals from East and West wings had some brains, they would have picked up the book from Jinnah Suhrawady discussions in the late 40s.

My understanding from Jinnah Suhrawady discussions is that East and West wings would have eventually become fully autonomous units at some point.

Heck Mujib and Bhutto (had they been educated properly about their own miltiary history) could easily had come to the same conclusion where I Jinnah and Suhrawardy were few decades earlier.

So what Jinnah and Suhrawardy were discussion.

Same thing.

That E. Bengal should exist as an autonomous unity.

Bhutto was greedy. Mujib was an idiot. If he had let him rule, he wouldn't have lasted 6 months.

However Brits were totally against the idea of Balkanization. So the viceroy Wavell (and later Mountbatten) went with two state solution instead of 3 states.

I think it would have been better if independence happened under a more......"stable" environment. Doing so under violent riots was not favorable. Anyhow, that is history.

However in late 60s and early 70s, Brits were long gone, and the politicians Bhutto and Mujib should have come to the similar understanding.

So let me do a bit of could have should have thingy as a historian (which is not supposed to be done but let try anyways).

INsteand of actively planning an armed insurrection in 1968,

and 6 point agenda, an educated Mujib and informed Bhutto should have setup a 10 years long sunset period to end in 1978.

During this transitionary period, Mujib should have concentrated in E. Bengal

And Bhutto to do the same in W. Pak.

Once the 10 years were over, the two wings would have become autonomous.

Who would care of a figurehead old man is sitting in Islamabad or Dhaka.

Who would have cared.

But we would have avoided wars and rebellions, death and destruction of fellow brothers and sisters.

Would have could have

would have could have

would have could have, as historian would say while filled with great sorrow.


peace

Yes. But would the West Pakistanis agree to such? I do not think so. I don't think Mujib's demands were too much. They were at least fair.

As I said, what Bhutto should have done is let Mujib have his fun with power for a while. He was after all slain by the very people who had fought for him in the end.

Proxy warfare between India and Pakistan was very common back then. And still is. Though, not as intense as they used to be.

Anyhow, discussing about alternate history is kind of a waste of time.
 
.
...
If there are no Accusations; there is no cause for Action. So this is how you suppress any Action?


Accusations against Pak army in 1968, no action
Accusations against Pak army in 1969, no action
Accusations against Pak army in 1970, no action
Accusations against Pak army in 1971, no action
Accusations against Pak army in 1972, no action
Accusations against Pak army in 1973, no action
Accusations against Pak army in 1974, no action
Accusations against Pak army in 1975, no action
Accusations against Pak army in 1976, no action
Accusations against Pak army in 1977, no action
Accusations against Pak army in 1978, no action
Accusations against Pak army in 1979, no action
Accusations against Pak army in 1980, no action
Accusations against Pak army in 1981, no action
Accusations against Pak army in 1982, no action
Accusations against Pak army in 1983, no action
Accusations against Pak army in 1984, no action
Accusations against Pak army in 1985, no action
Accusations against Pak army in 1986, no action


,..
Mujib murdered no action
...
Bhutto hanged, no action
..
Indira murdered no action
...
...
Niazi dead, no action
...

Accusations against Pak army in 2012, no action
Accusations against Pak army in 2013, no action



So now your incessant references to "actions" are like the cuckooing of the village cock

Who does this thing daily

And people wakeup and go about their business without ever giving a damn.


So now you see the ACTION or is it in ACTION.


I'd have loved to see

Sam Mankeshaw, Indira, Niazi, Yahya, Bhutto, Mujib

all of them

in an international court

to separate the myth from reality


Because so many posters including yourself continue leveling accusations without an iota of courage to have had all these brought in the court.

Pathetic

isn't it.
 
.
@toxic_pus:
Regardless of whatever Maneckshaw called them; these very "cowards(sic)" harried their opposition. These "cowards" had (in most cases) never held a gun before in their lives and were fighting a professionally trained Army in a rural terrain that was strewn with mines; most of which were the Claymore Mines. Remember the density of mines laid in rural E.Bengal was one of the greatest ever laid in modern conflicts. Since the PA was reluctant in most cases to venture forth out of cities, towns and other built-up areas which were turned into citadels; into the surrounding hinterland. These "cowards" frequently fell like rag-dolls to these mines; "presumably when they were running away on seeing a burly Punjabi or Pathan", in Sam's words. If they were such "cowards", it stands to reason that they would never even have ventured into the mined areas.

But Remember; that these very same "cowards" ensured that the PA did not venture out when the IA drove in and bypassed all the citadels. These very same "cowards" worked very effectively as frogmen and sabotaged river boats carrying supplies in the country-side criss-crossed with rivers; where rivers were far more numerous than even rudimentary roads. Some of these "coward" frogmen relied on river-reeds turned into 'aqualungs' to make their attacks, since they had little else by way of eqpt. This has been very well documented by V/Adm. Mihir K.Roy in his book "War in the Indian Ocean". This Naval Offr. was the then DNI at NHQ with an active knowledge of the war on the ground and intimate knowledge of the proceedings. Surprisingly (sic), Mihir Roy speaks praisingly about these very same "cowards" !! Adm.Roy is no more, but Capt. M.N.Samant MVC, NM. IN (retd) is still around; to set the record straight.

But for these "cowards" and their "cowardice"; the IA columns could well have been bogged down in the rush in to East Bengal, more so towards Dhaka. History could have then taken a different turn.

Then all stories about pushing or sending them is simply poppy-cock; those "cowards" were already in. They never came out. They joined up in straggling groups or in droves (depending on their location and the ferocity of any recent pogrom conducted by the PA and their cohorts) to the nearest center of resistance, Some of these were so far that any effort to even reach the Indian border, was fraught with the risk of getting killed on the way. Funnily enough, a good bit of the Mukti Joddhas laid eyes on India only after the war; when they were evacuated to the ALC as Paraplegics and Quadriplegics to be be fitted with prostheses. And where I encountered them.

Remember also; that the Mukti Bahini formed out of these "cowards" was hardly an unitary monolithic body with any real heirarchy. All that happened later, on a very ad-hoc basis. Not all of them even held allegiance to the 'Mujib Bahini' which later morphed into the Mukti Bahini under the command of Col.M.A.G.Osmany.
Even the number of 60,000 is just off the cuff. Nobody can say how many were there, but estimates can peg the figure at nearly twice as many.

Most of all remember; that Sam was always the master of "the dramatic flourish"!



Just as you need to bring some FACTS to the table.
Its as simple as that..............Fauji.

The Mukti Bahini were mostly civilian fighters with little training and experience. While it was a rag-tag force, they were at least effective.

It was their support, as well as that of East Pakistanis (now Bangladeshis) that assured the IA's total victory.
 
.
Accusations against Pak army in 1968, no action
Accusations against Pak army in 1969, no action
Accusations against Pak army in 1970, no action
Accusations against Pak army in 1971, no action
Accusations against Pak army in 1972, no action
Accusations against Pak army in 1973, no action
Accusations against Pak army in 1974, no action
Accusations against Pak army in 1975, no action
Accusations against Pak army in 1976, no action
Accusations against Pak army in 1977, no action
Accusations against Pak army in 1978, no action
Accusations against Pak army in 1979, no action
Accusations against Pak army in 1980, no action
Accusations against Pak army in 1981, no action
Accusations against Pak army in 1982, no action
Accusations against Pak army in 1983, no action
Accusations against Pak army in 1984, no action
Accusations against Pak army in 1985, no action
Accusations against Pak army in 1986, no action


,..
Mujib murdered no action
...
Bhutto hanged, no action
..
Indira murdered no action
...
...
Niazi dead, no action
...

Accusations against Pak army in 2012, no action
Accusations against Pak army in 2013, no action



So now your incessant references to "actions" are like the cuckooing of the village cock

Who does this thing daily

And people wakeup and go about their business without ever giving a damn.


So now you see the ACTION or is it in ACTION.


I'd have loved to see

Sam Mankeshaw, Indira, Niazi, Yahya, Bhutto, Mujib

all of them

in an international court

to separate the myth from reality


Because so many posters including yourself continue leveling accusations without an iota of courage to have had all these brought in the court.

Pathetic

isn't it.

Were you really trying to say SOMETHING, Fauji ? :-)
 
Last edited:
. .
The Mukti Bahini were mostly civilian fighters with little training and experience. While it was a rag-tag force, they were at least effective.

It was their support, as well as that of East Pakistanis (now Bangladeshis) that assured the IA's total victory.

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.

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.

He has already moved on to his next brain-fart.

Brain-fart or Plain-fart ?
 
.
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.

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.



Brain-fart or Plain-fart ?


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
 
.
Back
Top Bottom