What's new

Why didn't India take control of bangladesh?

1. Let's first understand the goals of India in the '71 War:

a. Politically India sought to annul the Two Nation Theory. But that proved to be a classical error on Indira Gandhi's part. The Two Nation Theory calls for recognition of the Muslims as a separate nation from the Hindus. The Muslim identity and aspirations of BD and Pakistan remain intact. In fact, India had forgotten that this idea was our brain-child. Further, whereas Pakistan was standing for the protection / well being of the Muslims in Hindu India, it is now the responsibility of BD as well.

b. Pakistan having flouted all the principles of war in BD, a defeat for her was clear from the beginning. India thus craved imperial status for her out of this victory. But the Indian people rejected her when she imposed emergency rule towards assuming dictatorial powers.

c. BD, it was assumed, would be an easy captive market. Again the calculations were wrong.

d. The raging Naxalite communist insurgency would get grind-ed during this war. This did happen but took longer time.

e. NE insurgencies would be quelled. Except for the Mizos, this did not happen. Even the Mizos would have carried on had the flower of their youth not been cut down by 8 E Bengal and MBs when PA officers led the Mizos into suicidal frontal attacks - something they were not used to.

f. There was great pressure on GOI from Bengalees in W Bengal and Tripura to take action for returning the 10 mlln refugees who were almost all Hindus and their kins.

g. The Soviets Politburo were convinced by veteran BD communist leader Moni Singh and socialist leader Muzaffar Ahmed to act. Kosygin-Breznev saw this an opportunity to get involved in an area in the neighborhood of US military presence. The Soviets urged/encouraged India to act assuring her of their support in case China or USA got involved directly.

h. An important factor was Indian military's opportunity to redeem itself from its pathetic performance in 1962 and 1965.

2. Since Sep 1971 Pakistan and USA were desperate to find some way to stop the war. The Shah of Iran, Lebanese PM, USA itself and others tried their hands only to be rebuffed by India each time. Indian Intel had kept a close watch on all BD officials preventing them from meeting any Western diplomats. Eventually India joined the war only for the last 13 days to steal victory from MB. Except for pockets of resistance like Hili, PA dispositions were in disarray. IA really had a clear walk through MB controlled territory up to Dhaka.

3. FYI, India did harbor desires to stay put in BD. DCs / DMs, SPs and civil admin officials at various levels had been earmarked from Indian admin cadre and kept stand-by. Subimol Dutta, originally from Patya, Chittagong was earmarked to be the Chief Secy. Eventually this fine man, and one of India's senior most bureaucrats, became India's High Commissioner at Dhaka.

4. The surrender at Dhaka took place on 16 Dec, but many other PA positions had capitulated earlier. As soon as that began occurring IA began looting and ransacking. Maj Jalil, Commander 9 Sector had in fact deployed his troops to resist Indians once they began acting like conquerors. Cases began to appear in the press also. There was even a Sikh soldier caught by villagers in Rangpur trying to rape a local girl. This was reported in the papers and the soldier was court martial-led. Several IA officers were court martial-ed for looting, and BA officers were sent to testify in these trials. As such Indians had understood they were most unwelcome here.

5. The first question Sheikh had asked Indira was for a date she would withdraw her troops. And this she did on Sheikh's birthday. This might have been the most sagacious decision by Indira or any Indian leader so far.

6. The water, soil and air of BD has never been healthy to any foreign invader. We have always resisted foreign occupation.
 
.
@asad71 : Asad Bhai, where did we go wrong ? Where did we go so terribly wrong that we had lost the hearts & minds of our Bengali brethren long before '71 or even a year or two before that ! And this is despite that the common Pakistani was always big...in fact huge on Muslim Brotherhood; heck we even gave refuge to the 4-6 million Afghans for 3 decades despite them thinking of ways to cut Pakistan up in their quest for Loy Afghanistan & abusing Pakistan incessantly ! Where did this disconnect between the people of the East & the West come from & why didn't we do anything about it ?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
.
This is not meant to be a troll thread, just want someone to point me to the right direction to read more about Indian motivations (or lack there of ) of not making Bangladesh part of India after Pakistani defeat? Was it part of a deal with the Bangladeshis and Pakistanis?

From what I understand (Wikipedia and google) India couldn't take control of Bangladesh, because although they were at conflict with west Pakistan, they wanted a Muslim country of their own and not be lumped back with India? Just need a more authentic source and not your "opinion" on this matter.

Thanks
Have we really seen the enemy? | Opinion | DAWN.COM
No one has told it that as early as 1948 prime minister Jawaharlal Nehru stated: “If today by any chance I were offered the reunion of India and Pakistan, I would decline it for obvious reasons. I do not want to carry the burden of Pakistan’s great problems.

I have enough of my own.”
 
.
Well I am happy that Bangladesh was created. Although would have preferred to let them go peacefully. Logistically, it was a nightmare for Pakistan to have an enemy between its Eastern and Western Wings. Whats done is done now. Pakistan should just develop now both economically and militarily and I wish Bangladesh to do the same.
 
.
Because there is nothing worth in Bangladesh that one should go through the pains to control it..except maybe the tiny strip of land near Noakhali (Feni) which could have been taken to give Indian NE access to sea.
 
.
Because there is nothing worth in Bangladesh that one should go through the pains to control it..except maybe the tiny strip of land near Noakhali (Feni) which could have been taken to give Indian NE access to sea.

***** !! You talking about my Home Town :butcher:
 
.
We never wanted and don't want BD to be our territory.

We always have wanted a good relationship based on co-operation on various issues ,bilateral trade with BD and a BD govt, which is friendly towards us; ensuring NE insurgent groups don't get refuge on BD soil.( one of primes reasons why we entered 1971 war.we are successful in this case. NE Insurgent groups haven't got refuge on BD soil sine its birth, barring Khalida Zia's tenures maybe. )

We want nothing more.

bullshit. you people knew that you could not take control of BD. otherwise you would have.
 
.
I am surprised at the level of maturity & lack of knowledge shown by some posters here .

Before jumping to silly conclusions on why India did not take EP within its fold in 71, pls look back and see post formation of the UN back in 48 and acceptance of the Political boundaries of nations who are a part of the UN when has any country succeeded in altering its IB by force or against the will of ppl concerned.

Saddam tried to do so & found himself on the business end of a hangman's noose. It simply cannot happen .

Next, why would India want to absorb what now is BD. No disrespect meant but what does BD have that India does not ?

Population, poverty, mouths to feed,religious issues and so many more. By the grace of God India has more than enough of all these - there is no need to add to them. We are good at creating problems for ourselves and need no help on this.

Some might argue on the advantage of connectivity to the east. Well, this is way too high a price to pay for connectivity - it can come through ' other means'.
 
. .
1. Let's first understand the goals of India in the '71 War:

a. Politically India sought to annul the Two Nation Theory. But that proved to be a classical error on Indira Gandhi's part. The Two Nation Theory calls for recognition of the Muslims as a separate nation from the Hindus. The Muslim identity and aspirations of BD and Pakistan remain intact. In fact, India had forgotten that this idea was our brain-child. Further, whereas Pakistan was standing for the protection / well being of the Muslims in Hindu India, it is now the responsibility of BD as well.

b. Pakistan having flouted all the principles of war in BD, a defeat for her was clear from the beginning. India thus craved imperial status for her out of this victory. But the Indian people rejected her when she imposed emergency rule towards assuming dictatorial powers.

c. BD, it was assumed, would be an easy captive market. Again the calculations were wrong.

d. The raging Naxalite communist insurgency would get grind-ed during this war. This did happen but took longer time.

e. NE insurgencies would be quelled. Except for the Mizos, this did not happen. Even the Mizos would have carried on had the flower of their youth not been cut down by 8 E Bengal and MBs when PA officers led the Mizos into suicidal frontal attacks - something they were not used to.

f. There was great pressure on GOI from Bengalees in W Bengal and Tripura to take action for returning the 10 mlln refugees who were almost all Hindus and their kins.

g. The Soviets Politburo were convinced by veteran BD communist leader Moni Singh and socialist leader Muzaffar Ahmed to act. Kosygin-Breznev saw this an opportunity to get involved in an area in the neighborhood of US military presence. The Soviets urged/encouraged India to act assuring her of their support in case China or USA got involved directly.

h. An important factor was Indian military's opportunity to redeem itself from its pathetic performance in 1962 and 1965.

2. Since Sep 1971 Pakistan and USA were desperate to find some way to stop the war. The Shah of Iran, Lebanese PM, USA itself and others tried their hands only to be rebuffed by India each time. Indian Intel had kept a close watch on all BD officials preventing them from meeting any Western diplomats. Eventually India joined the war only for the last 13 days to steal victory from MB. Except for pockets of resistance like Hili, PA dispositions were in disarray. IA really had a clear walk through MB controlled territory up to Dhaka.

3. FYI, India did harbor desires to stay put in BD. DCs / DMs, SPs and civil admin officials at various levels had been earmarked from Indian admin cadre and kept stand-by. Subimol Dutta, originally from Patya, Chittagong was earmarked to be the Chief Secy. Eventually this fine man, and one of India's senior most bureaucrats, became India's High Commissioner at Dhaka.

4. The surrender at Dhaka took place on 16 Dec, but many other PA positions had capitulated earlier. As soon as that began occurring IA began looting and ransacking. Maj Jalil, Commander 9 Sector had in fact deployed his troops to resist Indians once they began acting like conquerors. Cases began to appear in the press also. There was even a Sikh soldier caught by villagers in Rangpur trying to rape a local girl. This was reported in the papers and the soldier was court martial-led. Several IA officers were court martial-ed for looting, and BA officers were sent to testify in these trials. As such Indians had understood they were most unwelcome here.

5. The first question Sheikh had asked Indira was for a date she would withdraw her troops. And this she did on Sheikh's birthday. This might have been the most sagacious decision by Indira or any Indian leader so far.

6. The water, soil and air of BD has never been healthy to any foreign invader. We have always resisted foreign occupation.


:lol::lol:

Bangladesh is no problem for India,they can shout all they want.
 
.
bangladeshis would have turned around and rebelled against the indians clearly they wanted independence not subjection to indian rule!

BESIDES ONCE LIKE NEO from MATRIX you have opened your mind to independence you can never go back to being ruled by anyone else!
 
.
What looks me clear is that Bangladesh is rushing with "open arms"towards India to be united again..... .. While India is not showing green light yet... May be in future..... At that time we also will have " great piles" of cheap rhetories by bangalies on how it happened.....
 
.
Because there is nothing worth in Bangladesh that one should go through the pains to control it..except maybe the tiny strip of land near Noakhali (Feni) which could have been taken to give Indian NE access to sea.

Agree CHT and some part south east of chittagong with northern sylhet should have been part of NE India.PEople living their are ethnically and culturally similar to us.But now not much can be done , historical mistake we all have to live with..:cry:
 
.
no need for any land,bangladeshis voted for pakistan in 1947,we respect it and they should keep their land.

But no pole vaulting and all the pole vaulters,go back.
 
.
Problem is..... Pakistani and Bangladeshi here are trying in desperation to pin something down on India for its role in 1971. Before you cast aspersions on our role, it is your divisive politics which led to the division of your country. We just facilitated your breakup not to gain territory but to help free east Pakistan from West Pakistan's political and economic manipulations.

If Bangladesh had decided to join India in 1971 then it would have definitely disproved the two nation theory. Since they decided to remain independent I am not too sure if the theory has failed. If you ask me I would say that the theory was proposed to justify separation. Not much thought went into it. But if you look at Indian Muslims, then you can realize that the theory has its own flaws. I am not saying that there are no tension between Hindus and Muslims but when you see that it has been 65 years since independence and they got along well for most part then I feel that secularism still works.
 
.
Back
Top Bottom