What's new

Why is Bangladesh different?

No 1 to 50. This out of the horse's mouth.


And over 150,000 Mukti Bahini supported by entire population of Bangladesh in addition of the entire Indian army against not all of Pakistan Army but just a small command of 45,000 men 1,300 miles away from home is not a big deal.
Leave aside east where Niazi surrendered to only 3000 troops in dhaka.


What was your achievement in Western theatre of war where your land was annexed permanently by india forcing pak to sign shimla agreement and converting ceasefire line into LOC while karanchi was bombed after eating away your entire navy stationed there including civilian ships.

Operation Trident (1971) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

http://forbesindia.com/interview/close-range/lt-general-jfr-jacob-i-had-to-ignore-orders/26542/1

Operation Python - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
.
Niazi surrendered to only 3000 troops in dhaka.

What are you on about? Admiral Doenitz final commander, German armed forces surrenderd to a American infantry battalion. What does that establish. Fact is about 50k Pak soldiers surrounded by 75 million Bengalis 1,300 miles away from fighting 150,000 Mukhti Bahini were tired and worn out. Then India also invaded.

Thing about this. A small command of 50k entirely surrounded by hostile Bangali forces now had to face another enemy, India, defeat for this command was inevitable. This was not a Indian victory. It was a Bengali victory helped by India and even at that it was only the small command that was defeated.

And why not listen to the guy who was in charge on the Indian side instead giving your babble. He said India had 1 to 50 advantage. He said Pak forces despite overwhelming odds performed very well. He also says defeat was inevitable and foregone conclusion.

On the west if you had thew gumption of 1 billion people country why did you not grab all of Kashmir? Don't give me some convoluted plot about you were nice or charitable. You did not prevail in the west. That is where 90% of Pak armed forces were based.

In fact one of the Bengali plain had been that Pak had left hardly anything in the east to protect them. which was true.
 
.
What are you on about? Admiral Doenitz final commander, German armed forces surrenderd to a American infantry battalion. What does that establish. Fact is about 50k Pak soldiers surrounded by 75 million Bengalis 1,300 miles away from fighting 150,000 Mukhti Bahini were tired and worn out. Then India also invaded.

Thing about this. A small command of 50k entirely surrounded by hostile Bangali forces now had to face another enemy, India, defeat for this command was inevitable. This was not a Indian victory. It was a Bengali victory helped by India and even at that it was only the small command that was defeated.

And why not listen to the guy who was in charge on the Indian side instead giving your babble. He said India had 1 to 50 advantage. He said Pak forces despite overwhelming odds performed very well. He also says defeat was inevitable and foregone conclusion.

On the west if you had thew gumption of 1 billion people country why did you not grab all of Kashmir? Don't give me some convoluted plot about you were nice or charitable. You did not prevail in the west. That is where 90% of Pak armed forces were based.

In fact one of the Bengali plain had been that Pak had left hardly anything in the east to protect them. which was true.

@asad71 professional insight please.

1. Total West Pakistani soldiers deployed in BD + total escaped through Burma?
2. Total Bihari Razakar, Al Badar, Al Shams?
3. Total Bengalii Razakar, Al Badar, Al Shams?
4. Total Bengali Army+Police aided in East to Pakistan?
 
.
@asad71 professional insight please.

1. Total West Pakistani soldiers deployed in BD + total escaped through Burma?
2. Total Bihari Razakar, Al Badar, Al Shams?
3. Total Bengalii Razakar, Al Badar, Al Shams?
4. Total Bengali Army+Police aided in East to Pakistan?
They were indeed heavily outnumbered in east, american estimate was 10 days, it took 13 days to surrender which is not that bad. You surrender when there is no hope, they had no hope.
However on western front, pakistani were also less than stellar in their defense inspite of near matching troop numbers. There was fear that Indira will move troops from east to west, to invade(she did have invasion plan, we know now). I doubt we could have made much headway in kashmir but punjab was ripe to invade.

Within 13 days of war, India occupied 15,000 sq km land of west pakistan, of which 800 sq km was retained, and rest was returned as goodwill gesture. I would say western front was bigger blow to PA psyche.
 
.
What are you on about? Admiral Doenitz final commander, German armed forces surrenderd to a American infantry battalion. What does that establish. Fact is about 50k Pak soldiers surrounded by 75 million Bengalis 1,300 miles away from fighting 150,000 Mukhti Bahini were tired and worn out. Then India also invaded.

Thing about this. A small command of 50k entirely surrounded by hostile Bangali forces now had to face another enemy, India, defeat for this command was inevitable. This was not a Indian victory. It was a Bengali victory helped by India and even at that it was only the small command that was defeated.

And why not listen to the guy who was in charge on the Indian side instead giving your babble. He said India had 1 to 50 advantage. He said Pak forces despite overwhelming odds performed very well. He also says defeat was inevitable and foregone conclusion.

On the west if you had thew gumption of 1 billion people country why did you not grab all of Kashmir? Don't give me some convoluted plot about you were nice or charitable. You did not prevail in the west. That is where 90% of Pak armed forces were based.

In fact one of the Bengali plain had been that Pak had left hardly anything in the east to protect them. which was true.
With all due respect i didn't even mentioned the invasion of east pak and ultimate surrender all i asked the military achievement of Pak army in western sector that is west pakistan where 90% of your army stationed and invaded india by preemptive air strikes ?

you know the saying "The defense of the East lies in the West"

Evolution of Pakistan Eastern Command plan - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
.
How is global warming going to effect Bangladesh?
 
. .
What are you on about? Admiral Doenitz final commander, German armed forces surrenderd to a American infantry battalion. What does that establish. Fact is about 50k Pak soldiers surrounded by 75 million Bengalis 1,300 miles away from fighting 150,000 Mukhti Bahini were tired and worn out. Then India also invaded.

Thing about this. A small command of 50k entirely surrounded by hostile Bangali forces now had to face another enemy, India, defeat for this command was inevitable. This was not a Indian victory. It was a Bengali victory helped by India and even at that it was only the small command that was defeated.

And why not listen to the guy who was in charge on the Indian side instead giving your babble. He said India had 1 to 50 advantage. He said Pak forces despite overwhelming odds performed very well. He also says defeat was inevitable and foregone conclusion.

On the west if you had thew gumption of 1 billion people country why did you not grab all of Kashmir? Don't give me some convoluted plot about you were nice or charitable. You did not prevail in the west. That is where 90% of Pak armed forces were based.

In fact one of the Bengali plain had been that Pak had left hardly anything in the east to protect them. which was true.

Even if Pakistan has 300,000 troops they would have been defeated. Maybe it takes two months instead of two weeks
Individual Pakistani units fought hard. I think it was pointless. Niazi was a man enough to surrender his troops and spare the lives of his men
 
. . .
We will see if the Pakistani army opens fire on Punjabi Muslims

Punjabi are not traitors.. so we dont need any operation against Punjab... if Punjab give rise to TTP or BLA then u will see same here but its not gonna happen as Punjab is not law less area like Tribal area where ttp flourished...


btw What about thousands of Assames, Nagas, communists? why dont u kill hindi upper-caste mafia... what about the Hyderabad Massacre of Muslims during illegal occupation of Hyderabad? how many Hindu ur govt hanged? what about Sikh killings in Temple and on streets after Indira Gandi's death?.. What about Gujrat riots? what about Mumbai Riots in which 550 people died... how many hindu got Punishment of massacre of thousands? before questioning us go to ur shithole and talk about justice for them before being typical yindoo hypocrite...
 
.
What are you on about? Admiral Doenitz final commander, German armed forces surrenderd to a American infantry battalion. What does that establish. Fact is about 50k Pak soldiers surrounded by 75 million Bengalis 1,300 miles away from fighting 150,000 Mukhti Bahini were tired and worn out. Then India also invaded.

Thing about this. A small command of 50k entirely surrounded by hostile Bangali forces now had to face another enemy, India, defeat for this command was inevitable. This was not a Indian victory. It was a Bengali victory helped by India and even at that it was only the small command that was defeated.

And why not listen to the guy who was in charge on the Indian side instead giving your babble. He said India had 1 to 50 advantage. He said Pak forces despite overwhelming odds performed very well. He also says defeat was inevitable and foregone conclusion.

On the west if you had thew gumption of 1 billion people country why did you not grab all of Kashmir? Don't give me some convoluted plot about you were nice or charitable. You did not prevail in the west. That is where 90% of Pak armed forces were based.

In fact one of the Bengali plain had been that Pak had left hardly anything in the east to protect them. which was true.

@Atanz Ohhh mannnn......I am bored of hearing this 1500 Km away from home and few soldiers surrounded by whole army BS.

Nothing stopped the best army of the world sitting in west Pakistan to open a front on LoC and IB and teach India a good lesson.

I would say the one who surrender were more brave. They surrender to numbers, the one who kept shivering in west Pakistan were worse.
 
.
HomeOpinionFinance
12:00 AM, November 24, 2015 / LAST MODIFIED: 12:00 AM, November 24, 2015
OPEN SKY
Why is Bangladesh different?


Biru Paksha Paul
Bangladesh is categorised as a lower middle income country in the World Bank's country list. Economists now classify the country as a developing nation. In the past, we were defined as a third world country – a notion which no longer exists. Despite being defined from various angles, Bangladesh is distinctly a different country among its peers from a macro point of view.

In 1971, Bangladesh became independent defeating a mighty Pakistani army. But our economic power in comparison to Pakistan seemed much weaker after independence. No macro statistics ever showed any superiority of Bangladesh over Pakistan in the 1970s and 1980s, lending credence to the claim of the anti-liberation forces that abandoning Pakistan was a blunder. Bangladesh's economic fate began to change since the early 1990s when the country embarked on liberalisation. Although its South Asian neighbours including Pakistan started opening its economy at the same time, Bangladesh's performance began to outshine Pakistan's in most economic fronts, something our founding fathers dreamed long ago.


Liberalisation empowered Bangladesh to outperform Pakistan in terms of economic trends in investment, trade, and growth while more foreign aids flowed into the latter without strengthening its economic base. While Pakistan is struggling hard to remove its name from the list of “failed states”, Bangladesh has carved out a model of a vibrant economy. No one in the mid 1970s and early 1980s anticipated that Bangladesh would demonstrate a stable growth rate of more than 6 percent for more than a decade. That's exactly why Bangladesh is different.

If we can further liberalise our trade by reducing tariffs and non-tariff barriers and by removing age-old regulations, our growth will exceed even 7 percent. We have already outperformed India in many socio-economic indicators like life expectancy, infant mortality, and participation of women in the labour force. Our stability in growth and inflation is better than India's and actually the best in the region. That's also why Bangladesh is an example to many other countries.

Our geographic location provides us with a strategic advantage over our peers. Sri Lanka has a central position in the Indian Ocean, but it is an island state. In contrast, Bangladesh has a balanced sharing of land and sea so the country can take advantage of land transport with India, Nepal, Bhutan, and Myanmar. The open south side meeting the Bay of Bengal gives the nation the opportunity to navigate across the world and explore the benefits of the vastly-untapped blue economy. Thus Bangladesh can build its future as a hub of regional connectivity, attracting huge investments in infrastructure and communications. Only a few nations on earth enjoy such connectivity with thriving nations of Asia that include two emerging giants of the world: China and India. Our demographic dividend will be short-lived (another 40 years), but this geographic advantage will always be there. And that creates the difference for Bangladesh.

Bangladesh is also special among its peers in regards to the debt-GDP ratio. Its debt ratio, being 30 percent, is one of the lowest among countries of equal status. Only one or two other nations could achieve a persistent growth rate over 6 percent over a decade with such a low debt ratio. Both India's and Pakistan's debt ratio is close to 70 percent. While India successfully cultivated foreign loan to add value to its GDP, Pakistan failed, registering almost 4 percent growth over the last two decades. This distinction of Bangladesh also conveys a message of opportunity to borrow from outside to undertake mega projects that enhance growth potentials.

Participation of Bangladeshi women in the labour force is one of the highest in the region although there is room for improvement in the quality of employment. But the social mindset has already changed towards working women. Bangladesh will take advantage of this advancement in the future when more jobs will be created in the services sector now occupying 55 percent of GDP. Only a few countries on earth treasure that advantage.

Bangladesh has done very well in popularising the concept of financial inclusion - a much needed paradigm to ensure sustainable growth. While private sector credit occupies 40 percent of GDP, almost 30 percent of outstanding loans are now serving small and medium enterprises - an essential step to expand employment without concentration in the capital city. The banking industry is revolutionising their services and outreach. The central bank is tirelessly and passionately digitising the entire banking sector day by day.

The country is energy-hungry with inadequate infrastructure. Manpower still suffers from inefficiency. Higher education lacks quality. But Bangladesh has a track record of overcoming terrible odds in a reasonably short period of time. History will back me up on this. “A basket case” has now turned into a vibrant economy.

Bangladesh commands respect in the global stage for that.

The writer is chief economist of Bangladesh Bank.

Why is Bangladesh different? | The Daily Star

Our trade is already quite liberal... perhaps the most liberal in region... which is why we have trade deficit with every South Asian country...
 
.
those who aliened with India were traitors.. Generals or Bengali doesn't matter... Army decision of not giving power to Mujeeb was right... bcoz Bengali leadership was puppet of India as its today...
although i used to have a different view on this, i actually agree. Awami League's later waging of war on it's own citizens and country to let India colonize it showed that United Pakistan military leadership was right in not handing over power to Sheikh Mujib that soon. how can you let a party that is completely infiltrated by and is in bed with the enemy come to power?

@kobiraaz @asad71 @Saiful Islam @Stannis Baratheon @aazidane
 
.
although i used to have a different view on this, i actually agree. Awami League's later waging of war on it's own citizens and country to let India colonize it showed that United Pakistan military leadership was right in not handing over power to Sheikh Mujib that soon. how can you let a party that is completely infiltrated by and is in bed with the enemy come to power?

@kobiraaz @asad71 @Saiful Islam @Stannis Baratheon @aazidane
Agree about not giving Mujib power. It should have been Zia. He was our best statesman and did an excellent job at both 1971 and later in order to stop insurgency in the country without violence.
 
.

Pakistan Affairs Latest Posts

Country Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom