What's new

Myths of 1971–Time for Redemption

@Signalian this was the stamp released by your very own Pakistan. Read the numbers carefully.

Everything changes post facto with Pakistan. Why? Gradual change of facts to twist and change the history.

For Paksiatn, 1965 was a win. There have been many attempts already to turn Kargil into a victory. Now it’s turn of 1971?

East Pakistan was part of Pakistan. Pakistan should have deployed adequate assets for its security. Why didn’t you? Because it wasn’t considered Pakistan enough? What a shameful fact.

Later on claiming “we lost because of inadequate forces” smells of refusing to face the facts.Your entire Army was intact or you could have done this or that has no meaning now. Your Lt Gen sat down and signed the surrender papers. Pakistan surrendered on that fateful day.

Now claiming in hindsight that you could have fought on and defeated the entire universe is immaterial.

View attachment 904979
90,000 number was for everyone involving civil servants, teachers, army men etc.
I have posted many a times about the number of Pakistani troops which were present in Bangladesh in 1971 and none of the figure goes beyond 55000 (American secret paper says so). As Panzerkiel said in earlier comments that there were 34,000 soldiers at the start of the conflict and some sources say that number rose to 43000.

I don't see any Pakistani believing that we won in Bangladesh neither it is an attempt to rewrite the history however no one is going to allow Indians writers/historian to exaggerate numbers for their own macho image.
 
.
Thank you for recognizing that it was not a fair fight
What is a fair fight in a war?
It was not a cricket match or a football game where fair implementation of rules is seen as a fair or unfair fight.

It was a fight well planned by one side and poorly planned and executed by another.
Calling it an unfair fight is, as if one side used unfair means to win.
More troops - oh why? Both sides should have fielded equal numbers like in a sport. Are you demanding this?

It was a very very fair fight.
Germans had questionable reputation, did they loose 'Battle of the Bulge' because Joachim Peiper committed the "Malmedy massacre" ??

Did the Germans manage to win the war because Hitler was not a womanizer, or land grabber??

Did the Japanese loose because Hirohito was a degenerate drunkard, or that their Army committed massacres in the name of the emperor, or that they practiced rape culture by keeping comfort women ??
It worked out for them. Had they lost, they would have been also clobbered for these weaknesses. They were probably able to maintain focus inspite of these vices. Or just got lucky.

Moreover, are you justifying Niazi’s love for women and wine? Please read the report and decide for yourself. The commission felt that these affected war effort.

I think that these are important qualities seen in a leader. A leader is supposed to lead by example. I have quoted officers deposing that troops said “if Niazi can rape women, so can they”. Hell yes. That’s why high moral fabric is bedrock of professional armies.

So, how come degeneracy of our military leaders be the make or break reason for the fall of East Pakistan??
It does, when the military looses focus from its primary task. Running smuggling rackets for Pan leaves, grabbing land, women and similar vices can distract professionals from their tasks.

That is why all professional armies are very strict about them.
 
Last edited:
I don't see any Pakistani believing that we won in Bangladesh neither it is an attempt to rewrite the history however no one is going to allow Indians writers/historian to exaggerate numbers for their own macho image.
It is not about these numbers alone. OP has created this thread with a long list of aspects that he thinks have been wrongly archived.

I agree that some of the numbers quoted are insane and wrong.

Apart from that there is a lot that has been tried to be removed from the conscience of the PA by the OP. I wish it was that easy.

That includes rape and murder of innocent civilians, planning and execution of war and many more aspects. I say it again that numbers are indeed exaggerated.
But these crimes against civilians are still crimes. Lesser numbers don’t make it less heinous.
 
It is not about these numbers alone. OP has created this thread with a long list of aspects that he thinks have been wrongly archived.

I agree that some of the numbers quoted are insane and wrong.

Apart from that there is a lot that has been tried to be removed from the conscience of the PA by the OP. I wish it was that easy.

That includes rape and murder of innocent civilians, planning and execution of war and many more aspects. I say it again that numbers are indeed exaggerated.
But these crimes against civilians are still crimes. Lesser numbers don’t make it less heinous.
I agree to what you said in the last lines and you can find many books from our own military officers said it without ifs and buts.

The problem here at hand is that Indian sources demonize pakistan army to paint a stereotypical picture which serves their agenda well and that is what being contested most of the times by Pakistanis.

I don't see a sane mind in denial of ugly realities of the war.
 
I don't see a sane mind in denial of ugly realities of the war.
That number is very small. Read last 10 posts by Pak flags. There is a higher percentage that thinks, that war was an unfair game.
Most of them can’t separate bravery of soldiers from overall planning and execution. They look at both with same glasses which is far from correct.

FMs have gone to the extent of calling the report by your own commission as Indian propaganda.

Larger number thinks that it was lesser than a loss and no atrocities were done by your troops in East Pakistan.

Pakistanis already overwhelmingly believed that a lot numbers quoted about 1971 are incorrect. Then why this thread? This thread appears to be nothing more than an effort to further dilute negatives of that conflict.

There is not even a hint of guilt about atrocities done by the troops. All the effort is to call out Mukti Bahini and IA for the atrocities on women and civilians. And the basis of this is the disagreement on the quoted numbers.
Thanks to this thread, I came to know about and got to read Hamoodur Rahman Commission Report. What an eye opener?

It is surprising to see that why some people want to discover and repaint things that have been laid bare in that report. Report is so clear on various numbers that includes surrendered troops, civilians killed by PA, atrocities done by them, propaganda numbers spread by India and Bangladesh, reasons for failure etc etc.
It appears that @Signalian has selectively quoted sources that portrayed PA in best light and deliberately left out this report, which appears to be least coloured and biased with any motive.
 
Last edited:
That number is very small. Read last 10 posts by Pak flags. There is a higher percentage that thinks, that war was an unfair game.
Most of them can’t separate bravery of soldiers from overall planning and execution. They look at both with same glasses which is far from correct.

FMs have gone to the extent of calling the report by your own commission as Indian propaganda.

Larger number thinks that it was lesser than a loss and no atrocities were done by your troops in East Pakistan.

Pakistanis already overwhelmingly believed that a lot numbers quoted about 1971 are incorrect. The why this thread? This thread is appears to be nothing more than an effort to further dilute negatives of that conflict.

There is not even a hint of guilt about atrocities done by the troops. All the effort is to call out Mukti Bahini and IA for the atrocities on women and civilians. And the basis of this is the disagreement on the quoted numbers.
Thanks to this thread, I came to know about and got to read Hamoodur Rahman Commission Report. What an eye opener?

It is surprising to see that why some people want to discover and repaint things that have been laid bare in that report. Report is so clear on various numbers that includes surrendered troops, civilians killed by PA, atrocities done by them, propaganda numbers spread by India and Bangladesh, reasons for failure etc etc.
It appears that @Signalian has selectively quoted sources that portrayed PA in best light and deliberately left out this report, which appears to be least coloured and biased with any motive.
There is a minority on pdf that thinks nothing wrong was done in Bangladesh and pdf doesn't even represent all of Pakistan. You can see our newspapers every december and see for yourself how much has been written and discussed about Bangladesh war. A cursory look at this very forum can show you that nobody calls it a victory.

Should i quote Bihari official sources that claim that Indian army and Mukti bahini killed 150,000 Biharis and raped villages upon villages? I Should ask you to provide books written by IA which accept half of it !
Any Indian news outlet who would be willing to write a piece on it?
 
There is a minority on pdf that thinks nothing wrong was done in Bangladesh and pdf doesn't even represent all of Pakistan. You can see our newspapers every december and see for yourself how much has been written and discussed about Bangladesh war. A cursory look at this very forum can show you that nobody calls it a victory.
I too haven’t contested any of those numbers. I consider the numbers quoted in the commision’s report to be unbiased and accurate to whatever extent possible.

Few FMs have been claiming that it wasn’t a fair fight. Soldier to soldier we would have done this or that. As if someone stopped PA to deploy troops or work on the available intel. There are also few who justify lack of troops in that part because it was far away. These are baffling and juvenile. Sadly, few rank holders here, are the ones who are fanning these sentiments rather than putting the record straight. Can’t stop myself from contesting those claims.

May have got carried away a little on few of my posts though.
 
Despite being outnumbered in both men and material, Pakistan Army and its valiant soldiers fought with zeal till the end. The gross myths against the Army not only negatively overshadow the sacrifices of our soldiers, but also blur the massacres carried out by the Mukti Bahini that was supported by India.

Pakistan was born with its heart split into two with almost 1,600 kilometers of hostile territory in between. After more than one hundred years of British East India Company’s rule and an additional 90 years of the British Raj, the subcontinent had finally achieved independence. What should have been a crowning achievement after years of anti-colonial struggle was marred by unimaginable violence, bloodshed, and economic, political, and social challenges.

One could blame the injudiciously drawn borders, which were created by a British lawyer, Sir Cyril Radcliffe who lacked the basic knowledge of the subcontinent and was given only five weeks to redraw the borders of South Asia. One could blame the increasingly hostile rhetoric that accompanied the rise of Hindu and Muslim nationalism or the divide-and-rule policies of the British. The denouement was a country in uncertain waters, wrought with unsurmountable challenges.

Conditions got worse in East Pakistan as compared to West Pakistan, and this was the beginning of what became Bangladesh. There is no doubt that mistakes were made, but the prolonged silence from Pakistan after the independence of Bangladesh gave room to biased narratives and distorted facts to maneuver to a point that the lines between fact and fiction became blurred. This piece is therefore an attempt to invalidate the myths with facts and clear the air.

Myth 1: No Development was Carried Out in East Pakistan

Prior to the independence, East Bengal was struggling and was thus significantly underdeveloped compared to West Bengal. East Bengal was the poorest part of the province of Bengal in the undivided subcontinent. It had the lowest percentage of urbanization, industrialization, literacy, electrical power capacity and per capita income at the time of independence. Kamal Matinuddin has mentioned in his book, Tragedy of Errors that out of a total of 1414 factories in undivided Bengal, only 314 were in East Bengal at the time of partition and those were owned by the Tatas, Birlas, and Dalmias, all Hindu industrialists who closed their businesses when Pakistan came into being.
There were no jute mills, and raw jute was exported to India for value addition. The jute industry was developed through the investment by West Pakistan. By the 1950s, East Bengal broke the jute production monopoly and became its largest producer. The Adamjee Jute Mills was the largest jute processing plant and its location in Narayanganj was nicknamed the Dundee of the East. East Pakistanis were employed in large numbers, with Crescent, Isphani, and Adamjee Jute Mills collectively employing 26,000 workers.
After partition, investments were encouraged by the Government through Pakistan Industrial Development Corporation (PIDC), Pakistan Industrial Credit and Investment Corporation (PICIC), and Industrial Development Bank of Pakistan (IDBP) in East Pakistan. The Ispahani family, the Africawala brothers and the Adamjee family were pioneers of industrialization in the region. Many of modern Bangladesh’s leading companies were born in the East Pakistan period.
During President Ayub’s industrialization period, the development of Chittagong Port, Chandraghona Paper Mills, and construction of railway, road, airline and river networks, took place with the help of the central government.

Myth 2: West Pakistan Imposed Urdu as the National Language

When Pakistan was made independent, each of its regions, namely Punjab, Sindh, Balochistan, North West Frontier Province (NWFP, now known as Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, KP), Bengal and others spoke a different language. Urdu had been the lingua franca of the Muslims of subcontinent, the language that united the people with a common concern and had played a vital role in invigorating Pakistan Movement. Quaid-i-Azam had declared that it should be the only official language–a language that was understood throughout the length and breadth of Pakistan.
Establishing Urdu as the national language did not, at all, mean that regional languages would cease to exist or flourish. However, the federal government addressed the grievances of East Pakistan by adding Bengali along with Urdu as the national language of Pakistan. The amendment remained intact in the 1956 and 1962 constitutions of Pakistan.

Myth 3: Bengalis were Discriminated Against in the Civil Services

It’s a common myth that Bengalis were not given their due representation in the civil services; however, facts portray a different picture altogether. Afrasiab Mehdi writes in his book, 1971 Fact and Fiction that in 1947, there was only one officer in the civil service from East Pakistan. In 1965, 34% were Bengalis and by 1969, the figure was 40.9%. In 1966, 60% of all seats were reserved for East Pakistan. And when the fall of Dhaka took place in 1971, Bengali representation had reached 196 in the civil services.

Myth 4: Operation Searchlight (March 25, 1971) was Launched against Innocent Civilians

Amidst ongoing political strife following the 1979 elections, President Yahya Khan announced the postponement of the National Assembly session. Dr. Junaid writes in his book, Creation of Bangladesh: Myths Exploded that the disgruntled Awami Leaguers took to the roads. There was killing, burning, looting, ambushing, brick-batting, and molestation of non-Bengalis by the militants of Awami League. Thousands of people lost their lives and the national flag was desecrated every day. Jailbreaks occurred regularly which made Operation Searchlight a necessity rather than a choice. Contrary to the false statements, Operation Searchlight was launched to control the lawlessness and bring the civil breakdown under control after unrest grew violent in nature.

Myth 5: Genocide of three Million Bengalis

The nonsensical figure of ‘three million genocide’ first appeared in an editorial of the Soviet Communist Party’s newspaper, Pravda. The same newspaper, days before publishing the figure, had asked in an editorial, “how many people of Bangladesh have been killed?” before coming up with the fictitious number. Syed Karim, Bangladesh’s first Foreign Secretary, who authored Sheikh Mujib: Triumph and Tragedy, the definitive biography on the life of Sheikh Mujib, writes, “As for the number of Bengalis killed in the course of the liberation war, the figure of 3 million mentioned by Mujib to David Frost in January 1972, was a gross overstatement.

This figure was picked up by him from an article in Pravda.”
Serajur Rahman, a British journalist of Bengali Muslim descent, in a letter titled, Mujib’s Confusion on Bangladeshi Deaths to The Guardian in 2011, wrote, “On 8 January 1972, I was the first Bangladeshi to meet independence leader, Sheikh Mujibur Rahman after his release from Pakistan... I explained that no accurate figure of the casualties was available but our estimate, based on information from various sources, was that up to three lakh (300,000) died in the conflict. To my surprise and horror, he told David Frost later that ‘three million of my people’ were killed by the Pakistanis. Whether he mistranslated ‘lakh’ as ‘million’ or his confused state of mind was responsible, I don't know, but many Bangladeshis still believe a figure of three million is unrealistic and incredible.”

M. Abdul Mu'min Chowdhury, a native of Sylhet and a Bengali nationalist who was a teacher at Dhaka University, explains in his book, Behind the Myth of Three Million, that after the fall of Dhaka, Sheikh Mujib formally instituted a 12-member inquiry committee to prove the validity of his claims. However, the draft report came with a casualty figure of 56,743, which included the mass killings.

Sarmila Bose in her book, Dead Reckoning writes that the claim of three million dead has been used widely by journalists and academia without any verification. They have failed to provide a single reference.

Richard Sisson and Leo Rose carried out detailed research on the birth of Bangladesh in their book, War and Secession: Pakistan, India, and the Creation of Bangladesh. The authors interviewed two Indian officials who had held responsible positions on the issue of Bangladesh in 1971. When questioned about the actual number of deaths in Bangladesh in 1971 attributable to the civil war, one replied “about 300,000.” Then, when he received a disapproving glance from his colleague, he changed it to “300,000 to 500,000...”

Lieutenant General Jagjit Singh Aurora, Commander in Chief of the Eastern Command of Indian Army, during the 1971 War rejected the three million figure. He said that Mujib’s figure was ‘absolutely impossible’ because Pakistan Army had ‘simultaneously fought within the country and at the borders.’
Renowned researchers have proved that 3 million was an impossible number in the time and geographic span. Most scholars and analysts conclude that the number of deaths in 1971 was between 50,000 and 100,000 people and that includes the mass killings of Biharis and West Pakistanis.

Myth 6: Pakistan Army was Responsible for all the Violence

Mukti Bahini were the main perpetrators of heinous crimes. By late 1970, Mukti Bahini, armed and trained by India, had begun undertaking subversive activities targeting power plants, railways, industries, bridges, fuel depots, looting banks, raiding warehouses, mining ships and killing non-Bengalis.
There are petrifying accounts of loot, arson, rape, massacre, and whole colonies burnt to ashes with inmates locked inside and burnt alive. The entire violence was targeted towards non-Bengalis, particularly Biharis, and more than 2000 were massacred. Non-Bengalis were taken to buildings to be burnt alive in thousands and guillotined in jute mills, turning the river waters red, choked with gruesome human corpses.
American Professor, Rudolph Rummel estimates that 150,000 Biharis were massacred by the vengeful victors of Mukti Bahini in a brutal bloodletting in 1971.

Hundreds of West Pakistanis, including Army officers, were massacred in Mymensingh Cantonment. Personnel from East Pakistan Rifles and East Bengal Regiment revolted and killed their West Pakistani colleagues, including the officers. Bengali locals had surrounded the cantonment, and those West Pakistanis who were trying to escape were killed by the mob.

Myth 7: 93,000 Pakistani Soldiers Surrendered

Lieutenant General Amir Abdullah Khan Niazi revealed the fighting strength of the Pakistan Army in his book, The Betrayal of East Pakistan. The actual fighting strength was 45,000 which includes 34,000 infantry troops along with 11,000 police, rangers, scouts and militia. The number of 93,000 was conjured up by Indians by including children, women, civilian administration officials and staff; non-combatant army personnel–nurses, doctors, barbers, cooks and shoemakers.

Myth 8: Indian Intervention was on Humanitarian Grounds, Unplanned, and Spontaneous

Contrary to the popular narrative, India's intervention was not on humanitarian grounds, but planned and strategic. These plans were made with the consent of Awami League leadership in an infamous meeting known as Agartala Conspiracy. The Awami League leadership and Mukti Bahini were mere pawns in India's grand plan to exploit the strained relations between the two regions of Pakistan.
As mentioned in the book, Creation of Bangladesh: Myths Exploded, from interviews of General Manekshaw, he was ordered by Prime Minister Indira Gandhi to attack Pakistan, but in March, Indian Army was not prepared to fight and needed six months to prepare for an attack. However, in the meantime, they were preparing, training and funding Mukti's militia.

During 1971, even before the direct military intervention, Mukti Bahini was provided military, logistic and economic support by India. After the war, despite several requests from the newly-formed Bangladeshi government, the Indian military establishment was delaying its troops’ withdrawal from the newly-created country. This caused serious bitterness between India and Bangladesh that later led to the killing of Mujibur Rahman by a Bangladeshi Army personnel, who considered Mujib an Indian puppet.

Indian Air Force had five operational airfields around East Pakistan along with eleven fighter squadrons while Pakistan Air Force had only one. In Nagaland, the Indian Armed Forces established a jungle airstrip for Mukti Bahini from where Indian Air Force-trained pilots conducted sorties by Otter DHC-3 aircraft. India's Eastern Command trained more than 400 naval commandos and frogmen to drown vessels in Chittagong, Chandpur and Narayanganj.

Myth 9: Creation of Bangladesh is the Negation of Two-Nation Theory

The creation of Bangladesh did not happen on religious lines, it happened due to political differences, fueled by bad decisions, regional politics, and mistrust. Moreover, the negation of the Two-Nation Theory would mean that after seceding from Pakistan, Bangladesh would merge into India, which it did not.

The importance of the Two-Nation Theory is further strengthened by the growing persecution of Muslims and other minorities in India. Prime Minister Narendra Modi, inspired by RSS and the Hindutva ideology, has successfully proven the validity of Two-Nation Theory. The words of Quaid-i-Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah accurately describe the current situation in India, “The Hindu Mahasabha wants to treat Muslims like Jews in Germany”. (Jamiluddin Ahmad, ‘Some Recent Speeches’).

Myth 10: Pakistan Army didn’t Fight Valiantly

The Pakistani soldiers were unprepared when it came to the battle with the trained Awami League members. In March, after the failure of political settlements, the Army took action to prevent a civil war situation. This proved to be counterproductive and given the situation, Pakistan had yet to fight a stronger enemy. Eventually, the Pakistan Army surrendered as it was fighting on two fronts. Pakistan Army in East Pakistan fought to keep the peace but had no choice as they were thousands of miles away from the base.

The Battle of Hilli was one such battle fought between Pakistani and Indian forces over 25 days in 1971. Outnumbered in men and material, Pakistani troops fought a heroic battle and the battle has been adopted by many foreign institutions for teaching war strategy.

During the East Pakistan War of 1971, the 4th FF Regiment, which at that time was commanded by then Colonel Muhammad Mumtaz Malik, was deployed in the forward areas of Hilli municipality. The regiment came under continuous and heavy air, artillery and armour attacks from the Indian Army. Despite enemy superiority in both numbers and firepower, C Company under the command of Major Muhammad Akram displayed prodigious feats of valour and inflicted heavy casualties on the adversary. Major Akram himself destroyed three Indian tanks with a 40 mm rocket launcher. His last words were “Hold out till last”. He embraced martyrdom and was posthumously awarded Nishan-e-Haider (NH).
In the Indo-Pakistani War of 1971, the Pakistan Army launched an offensive on the Western front against the enemy. Major Shabir Sharif, as commander of a company of the 6 Frontier Force Regiment, was ordered to capture high ground overlooking Grumukhi Khera and Beri, a village in the Sulemanki Sector. On December 3, 1971, in a well-organized action, he fought alongside his men and kept Indian attacks at bay. He cleared Jhangar Post by passing through the minefield laid by the enemy and swimming across a water obstacle, the Sabuna distributary, whilst under intense enemy fire and led his company to capture the objective. Remembered as ‘Fateh Saboona’, Major Sharif was Pakistan Army’s most decorated soldier who received both Nishan-e-Haider and Sitara-e-Jurat for his bravery. Colonel Satish Pal of Indian army paid tribute to Major Shabir Sharif in the words, “Politics apart, he was a fine soldier”.

On December 10, 1971, Sawar Muhammad Hussain (NH), took part in a dangerous mission and went out for reconnaissance and to fight enemy patrols. During reconnaissance, he spotted an enemy tank and directed a recoilless rifle crew towards the tank and then later destroyed 16 enemy tanks. He was hit in the chest by a burst of machine-gun fire while exposing himself as he was directing fire from recoilless rifles and was martyred.

On December 18, 1971, during the attack on the enemy at Pul Kanjri Post, his company was pinned down by the enemy fire and his machine-gun was destroyed by an Indian shell. The company of the 43 Punjab Regiment under the command of Major Subha Sadiq, who also embraced martyrdom in the same action, came for support and fought hard until the capture of the strategic town of Pul Kanjri. Even though Lance Naik Muhammad Mahfuz Shaheed (NH) was wounded in his legs by a shrapnel, he still moved towards an enemy bunker.

To this day, people do not realise the valiant efforts of Pakistan Army to keep the citizens of East Pakistan safe, but the tag of “surrender” shook the nation and overshadowed the battle victories. The heroism and dedication with which Pakistan fought Indian terrorism in 1971 is commendable.

Pakistan’s Stance on 1971 Saga

Pakistan and the Pakistanis of today fully recognize that in 1947, the nation was created with a unique state structure and recognize the historic role played by Bengali East Pakistanis in the long struggle against British colonialism culminating in its independence in 1947.
Looking at the history, Pakistan acknowledges that East and West Pakistan jointly ensured the survival of the new state against formidable odds in the first 24 years. Certain catastrophic errors were committed which were exploited by the inimical forces averse to a united Pakistan, which resulted in both regions suffering grave losses in terms of life, livelihood, and material.

This December marks the 51st anniversary of the fall of Dhaka and it’s important that we lay the past to rest and move forward towards a brighter future for both countries. Today, Pakistan accepts Bangladesh as an independent nation and respects the people and state of Bangladesh and is dedicated to forging friendly relations for a shared, prosperous future. In the dawning era of geoeconomics and economic integration, animosity of any kind does not benefit either country and only allows others to prosper at the cost of the two nations.
Hum ke thehray ajnabi itni madaraton ke baad,
Phir banein ge aashnaa kitni mulaqaaton ke baad.

After so much cordiality, we are once again strangers;
After how many meetings will we again be friends?


The writer is PhD scholar of Peace and Conflict Studies at CIPS, NUST, Islamabad.

Unfortunately most of the essay in itself is a Big Myth.
Self denial has no limit.
3 million massacred is obviously a Myth and rape of millions of bengali women too, a historian then will document correct figures of civilians killed and women raped. Sharmila Bose has done but more work is required.

This is another attempt from duffer establishment to divert attention and throw out a fabricated false narrative.
Judicial murder of ZAB, assasination of BB, gross political engineering and crushing the will of people under boots, and latest assasination attempt on PMIK and successful assasination of Arshad Sharif Shaeed shows that establishment has learned dang, zilch, nothing.
What an audacious shamelessness.
انا للہ وانا الیہ راجعون

This is how jews denied everything God asked them to do but they ended up in conspiring to assasinate Jesus and then Deny the Last Messenger.

Self accountability people, self accountability if you want others don't do it.
 
Hilarious bhakts defending their actions on 1971. They are doing exactly the same *right now* in Myanmar what they did in east pak. Furthermore, if the tamil tigers displaced Sri Lanka like the mukhtis displaced east Pak they would do the same but are suspiciously quiet. Bhakts have zero shame and have zero respect for territorial integrity and sovereignty of its neighbours and have no shame admitting to this. For a nation whose unity hangs by a shoestring will be tested in the coming years with the tough calls Modi will have to make. Indians better pray Ukraine makes it as the western leaders have openly stated "the western rules based international order" will fall - the same international order that in 1947 facilitated capitulation of all the princely states in India that did not want to join GoI. But we all know Ukraine wont last against Russia. Then the bhakts will suddenly go quiet and not come to pdf beating their chests rationalising their hegemony in south asia.

@Signalian @Hakikat ve Hikmet
 
Last edited:
I too haven’t contested any of those numbers. I consider the numbers quoted in the commision’s report to be unbiased and accurate to whatever extent possible.

Few FMs have been claiming that it wasn’t a fair fight. Soldier to soldier we would have done this or that. As if someone stopped PA to deploy troops or work on the available intel. There are also few who justify lack of troops in that part because it was far away. These are baffling and juvenile. Sadly, few rank holders here, are the ones who are fanning these sentiments rather than putting the record straight. Can’t stop myself from contesting those claims.

May have got carried away a little on few of my posts though.
It wasn't a fair fight but then again wars aren't fair fights.

You said nothing about Indian side writing a thing about atrocities on Biharis !
 
You said nothing about Indian side writing a thing about atrocities on Biharis !
I didn’t because this thread isn’t about it.
Learnt to be on topic otherwise discussions can veer off which happens so often and often attempted to derail a thread.
 
.

What is a fair fight in a war?
It was not a cricket match or a football game where fair implementation of rules is seen as a fair or unfair fight.

It was a fight well planned by one side and poorly planned and executed by another.
Calling it an unfair fight is, as if one side used unfair means to win.
More troops - oh why? Both sides should have fielded equal numbers like in a sport. Are you demanding this?

It was a very very fair fight.

It worked out for them. Had they lost, they would have been also clobbered for these weaknesses. They were probably able to maintain focus inspite of these vices. Or just got lucky.

Moreover, are you justifying Niazi’s love for women and wine? Please read the report and decide for yourself. The commission felt that these affected war effort.

I think that these are important qualities seen in a leader. A leader is supposed to lead by example. I have quoted officers deposing that troops said “if Niazi can rape women, so can they”. Hell yes. That’s why high moral fabric is bedrock of professional armies.


It does, when the military looses focus from its primary task. Running smuggling rackets for Pan leaves, grabbing land, women and similar vices can distract professionals from their tasks.

That is why all professional armies are very strict about them.

Yeah right.....it wasn't a fair fight, and you triumphed at a not so fair fight.

Oh yes our 'Lady Luck'... When other nations loose, no less than a world war, it is because their commanders were 'unlucky', but in case of Pakistan it is because of the 'lecherous' ways of theirs. Rommel aka the 'Desert 🦊 ' was 'unlucky' , Paulus should have been unlucky at Stalingrad, since he was liked and respected by his troops, but Niazi's fault was not the war situation but 'Karma' entirely due to his own inadequacies.... What a logic. I did not know 'karma' could be racist.🤔

Stop trying to gaslight, and shame us during a logical argument, its silly. Try to argue on logic. Don't just try to 'drop mic' using the contents of Hamood report.
 
I didn’t because this thread isn’t about it.
Learnt to be on topic otherwise discussions can veer off which happens so often and often attempted to derail a thread.
I don't agree. Crimes against Biharis are relevant to this thread. Lack of mention of Mukti crimes is always one of the "Myths" of 71 war. It is done deliberately to keep the focus on Pakistan Army, and preserve the delusion that Pakistan lost because its Army sucked, end of story.
 
Oh yes our 'Lady Luck'... When other nations loose, no less than a world war, it is because their commanders were 'unlucky', but in case of Pakistan it is because of the 'lecherous' ways of theirs. Rommel aka the 'Desert 🦊 ' was 'unlucky' , Paulus should have been unlucky at Stalingrad, since he was liked and respected by his troops, but Niazi's fault was not the war situation but 'Karma' entirely due to his own inadequacies.... What a logic. I did not know 'karma' could be racist.🤔
What about scores who weren’t lecherous? You forgot to mention score of others who finally defeated all these you mentioned. Finally, this women thing might have caught up with them.
Niazi's fault was not the war situation
What was the war situation? No one was aware that war is coming? No intel? Please read the report by the commision. He brings out clearly, what was wrong in Niaz’s plan.
Niazi and his team sucked at each and every aspect of war effort. Planning as well execution. Had they not, the world wouldn't have been so harsh on them. And the vices you have quoted would have been termed as an asset. It is possible that he was simply an incompetent officer. That got aggravated by his lust for everything else but his professional pride.

Since you don’t seem to have any interest in reading the commission’s report and multitude of other accounts on Niazi, let me reproduce a part of the Hamoodur Rahman Commission Report-

“(1) Lt. Gen. A.A.K. Niazi, Commander, Eastern Command
(i) That he willfully failed to appreciate the imminence of all-out war with India, in spite of all indications to the contrary, namely the declarations of the Indian Prime Minister and other important Government leaders, the signing of the Indo-Soviet treaty in August, 1971, the amassing of eight divisions of the Indian Army, eleven squadrons of the Indian Air Force, and a large task force of the Indian Navy in and around East Pakistan , and the clear warning given to him by the GHQ on the basis of reliable intelligence regarding Indian plans of invasion of East Pakistan, with the consequence that he continued to deploy his troops in a forward posture although that deployment had become entirely unsuited for defence against open Indian aggression;
(ii) That he displayed utter lack of professional competence, initiative and foresight, expected of an Army Commander of his rank, seniority and experience, in not realising that the parts of his mission concerning anti- insurgency operations and ensuring that "no chunk of territory" was to be allowed to be taken over by the rebels for establishing Bangladesh, had become irrelevant in the context of the imminence of all-out attack by India on or about the 21st of November ,1971, and that the mast important part of his mission from that juncture onwards was to "defend East Pakistan against external aggression"' and "keep the Corps in being and ensure the entity of East Pakistan"' with the result that he failed to concentrate his forces in time , which failure later led to fatal results;
(iii) That he displayed culpable negligence in adopting the concept of fortresses and strong points without fully understanding its technical implications as regards their ability to lend mutual support, availability of the necessary reserves to strike at the enemy in the event of his by passing any of the fortresses or overwhelming them with superior numbers , and the existence of a non-hostile population, with the disastrous consequence that was forced to surrender even though several of the fortresses and strong points were still intact on the 16th of December, 1971;”

Try to argue on logic.

Logic? What’s your logic? That wine, women and corruption to the bones had nothing to do with this defeat? The what did?
 
Last edited:
Pakistan Army, and preserve the delusion that Pakistan lost because its Army sucked, end of story.
Paksiatn army didn’t suck. Just few big planners sucked and didn’t display acumen and foresight expected out of them. Leaders with clear understanding of what is most important. Niazi said that he has been tasked with saving every inch of the land. He didn’t have that much of manpower. He didn’t show acumen to use the available troop strength optimally. It was failure of PA to put right man for the job. Hence it was a failure of PA. History has been never kind to those who loose a war. In a win even the worst of mistakes are treated as dynamism but loss is a bitch.

Your argument about wine and women. Had Niazi defeated India, those traits may have become folklore and traits of successful men. That didn’t happen, is it?
 

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom