karan.1970
BANNED
- Joined
- Jan 3, 2010
- Messages
- 14,781
- Reaction score
- -20
- Country
- Location
They were preemptive since India was about to enter the war.
preemptive strikes are considered defensive in military doctrine.
Convinient excuse..
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
They were preemptive since India was about to enter the war.
preemptive strikes are considered defensive in military doctrine.
No they were not surrounded. You are talking about geography not actual troop strength.no, that was exactly the case.
East Pakistan was completely surrounded by India, they were out numbered by Indian troops and did not have support of the locals.
The army made a wise choice to surrender and save the solders lives vs fight a battle they had zero chance of winning.
Convinient excuse..
No they were not surrounded. You are talking about geography not actual troop strength.
When PA surrendered, India army had no town in its control, and only 3000 troops outside dhaka.
Are you trolling for the heck of it or do you seriously think that India was not going to enter the war?
Even your fellow Indians admit that India was gearing up for war.
Pakistani intelligence reported this and Pakistan decided to try and bring the fight to West Pakistan where we had greater assets.
Mate, I am talking about the war on the western front that was opened by Pakistan to relieve pressure on East Pakistan. India's strategic objectives not in Western Pakistan.
I am not questioning the decision to surrender, I was only saying, factually, Indian army was not exactly in the position to take dhaka within a week or so. They were surrounded by bengalis not Indian army.Yes they were surrounded, they were in hostile land with no place to retreat and no supplies or backup, and with India on all sides. That is the definition of surrounded. If PA had local support or a place to retreat to then they might have fought, but since they had nothing they decided to take the more sane option.
Convinient excuse..
Article 51
Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defence shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security.
huh?
You said some words in English but I think you were using Hindi grammar. Especially for that last sentence.
What are you saying?
Are you denying that India was gearing up for war?
if you are then you should listen to your fellow Indians who admit that this was the case.
Since that was the case Pakistan's preemptive strike are considered defensive and thus you cannot say we started the war.
New Recruit
I was just replying to a person who said pakistan was surrounded by Indian forces like portugal was, which was not the case. I am not arguing about why they surrendered.
how does a thread related to the Portugal defeat in Goa land up debating the 71 war?
You can imagine that they were indeed slaves under many nations....
i know my countries history better than you and i know more mysteries about it .. the soldiers surrendered cuz they realized that whom are they protecting if the bngalis are against them and with several other reasons ...
WTF portugal had land in india in 1960's , first time heard that , im learning some more history