# 1971 India Pakistan War: Role of Russia, China, America and Britain



## Sergi

1971 India Pakistan War: Role of Russia, China, America and Britain
Sanskar Shrivastava on Sunday, 30 October 2011


It was in the year 1971 when the two South Asian rivals declared war on each other, causing a great loss to the lives, property and territory in case of Pakistan.

"As the topic sounds controversial, before we begin we would like to tell that every information in this article is sourced. The article was written after a detail analysis of various sources. All the relevant and immediate sources are listed at the end of the Article."



Before 1971, Bangladesh used to be a part of Pakistan as East Pakistan. According to Najam Sethi, a well respected and honoured journalist from Pakistan, East Pakistan always complained that they received less development funds and less attention from the West Pakistan (Punjabi) dominating government. Bengalis in East Pakistan also resisted the adoption of Urdu as the state language. The revenue from export, whether it was from the Cotton of West Pakistan or Jute of East Pakistan, was handled mainly by West Pakistan. Lastly, in an election conducted just some months before the war, the victory was gained by the East Pakistani leader and still he was not given the power, thus fueling the movement in East Pakistan.

Pakistani army started its operation in East Pakistan to contain the movement and anger among the Bengalis. It is reported that the army was involved in mass killing of public and mass rape of women. India was aware of this and was only waiting for a trigger to start the war. India started receiving huge number of refugees which became unmanageable, pushing it to intervene in the situation. The situation soon attracted the attention of many other countries. Thus the war later was not only between India and Pakistan, but many countries were involved in 1971 Indo Pakistani war (War of Liberation of Bangladesh) directly or indirectly.*

In May, Indira Gandhi wrote to Nixon about the 'carnage in East Bengal' and the flood of refugees, burdening India. After L K Jha (then the Indian ambassador to US) had warned Kissinger that India might have to send back some of the refugees as guerrillas, Nixon commented, 'By God, we will cut off economic aid [to India].'

A few days later, when the US president said 'the goddamn Indians' were preparing for another war, Kissinger retorted 'they are the most aggressive goddamn people around.'

US and China Connection, A Little Known Fact

(All Excerpts and Sources from 929 page long Volume XI of the Foreign Relations of the United States)

US sympathized with Pakistan, because of various reasons. Among them two reasons were that: firstly, Pakistan belonged to American led military Pact, CENTO and SEATO; secondly, US believed any victory of India will be considered as the expansion of Soviet influence in the parts gained by India with the victory, as it was believed to be a pro Soviet nation, even though they were non aligned.

In a telegram sent to US Secretary of State Will Roger, on March 28, 1971, the staff of the US consulate in Dhaka complained, 'Our government has failed to denounce the suppression of democracy. Our government has failed to denounce atrocities. Our government has failed to take forceful measures to protect its citizens while at the same time bending over backwards to placate the West Pakistan dominated government... We, as professional public servants express our dissent with current policy and fervently hope that our true and lasting interests here can be defined and our policies redirected in order to salvage our nation's position as a moral leader of the free world.'

This brought China in the picture. US needed help from China and the messenger was Pakistan. US *approached China*very secretly*on this issue, who was more than welcoming as itbelieved that their relations with US could improve from this onward.

During the second week of July, 1971, Kissinger arrived in Beijing, where he heard the words by then Chinese Prime Minister Zhou Enlai: "In our opinion, if India continues on its present course in disregard of world opinion, it will continue to go on recklessly. We, however, support the stand of Pakistan. This is known to the world. If they [the Indians] are bent on provoking such a situation, then we cannot sit idly by.' On this, Kissinger responded that China should know that the US also backs Pakistan on this issue.

Indira Gandhi, the Indian prime minister in those times decided to tour most of the Western capitals to prove Indian stand and gain support and sympathy for the Bengalis of East Pakistan. On November 4th and 5th she met Nixon in Washington. Nixon straight forwardly told her that a new war in the subcontinent was out of the question.

The next day, Nixon and Kissinger assessed the situation. Kissinger told Nixon: 'The Indians are bastards anyway. They are plotting a war.'

The pressure increased in East Pakistan, which attracted Indian attention. Indians were preparing for war and were concentrated on the Eastern front. To divert the pressure, on December 3, in the dark of night, even before India could attack East Pakistan, Pakistan opened western front and air raided six Indian Airfields in Kashmir and Punjab.

The CIA reported to the US President that Indian Prime Minister believes that the Chinese will never intervene militarily in North India, and thus, any action from China would be a surprise for India and Indian military might collapse in tensed situation caused by fighting in three different fronts (East, North and West).

Hearing this, on December 9, Nixon decided to send the aircraft carrier USS Enterprise into the Bay of Bengal to threaten India. The plan was to Surround India from all four sides and force them to retreat and leave East Pakistan.

On December 10, Nixon instructed Kissinger to ask the Chinese to move some troops toward the Indian frontier. 'Threaten to move forces or move them, Henry, that's what they must do now.' China feared any action on India might attract Soviet aggression. At this, US assured China that any action taken by Soviet Union will be countered by US to protect China.

Pakistani army had somehow maintained their position and resisted Indian advancement. They believed China is preparing to open the Northern front which will slow down or completely stop the Indian advancement. In fact, the myth of Chinese activity was also communicated to Pakistan's army to boost their moral, to keep their will to fight and hope alive. Lieutenant General A A K Niazi, the Pakistani army commander in Dhaka, was informed: "NEFA front has been activated by Chinese, although the Indians, for obvious reasons, have not announced it." But Beijing never did.

In Washington, Nixon analysed the situation thus: 'If the Russians get away with facing down the Chinese and the Indians get away with licking the Pakistanis...we may be looking down the gun barrel.' Nixon was not sure about China. Did they really intend to start a military action against India?

Soviet Union / Russian Role in the Indo Pakistan 1971 War.


As India had decided to go on with the war, and Indira Gandhi had failed to gain American support and sympathy for the Bengalis who were being tortured in East Pakistan, she finally took a hard move and on August 9, signed a treaty of peace, friendship and cooperation with Soviet Union.

The State Department historian says, 'in the perspective of Washington, the crisis ratcheted up a dangerous notch, India and the Soviet Union have signed a treaty of peace, friendship and cooperation.' It was a shock to America as this was what they feared, expansion of Soviet influence in South Asia. They feared that involvement of Soviet Union could sabotage their plan.

On December 4, just one day after Pakistan raided Indian airfields in Kashmir and Punjab declaring war on India, America's proxy involvement in the war was becoming clear. Thinking that the Soviet Union might enter the war if they come to know this, which could cause a lot of destruction to Pakistan and American equipment given to Pakistan, US ambassador to the United Nations George H W Bush [later 41st president of the United States and father of George Bush] introduced a resolution in the UN Security Council, calling for a cease-fire and the withdrawal of armed forces by India and Pakistan. Believing India can win the war and Indira Gandhi being determined to protect the interest of Bengalis, Soviet Union vetoed out the resolution, thus letting India fight for the cause. Nixon and Kissinger pressurized Soviets to a very extent but luck did not support them.




Video Translated by : Ella Salomatina, The World Reporter.

On 3rd December, 1971, the World was shaken by another war between India and Pakistan. Pakistani airforce raided Indian cities and airstrips. The Indian PM, Indira Gandhi, brought the country in the state of emergency and ordered Indian army to reflect the aggression. Fierce military operations developed on the ground, in the air and in the sea.

Historic document: "Confidential. December, 10, 1971. Moscow. For the DM Marshal Andrey Grechko.

According to the information from our ambassador in Delhi, in the very first day of the conflict the Indian destroyer 'Rajput' had sunk a Pakistani submarine with deep bombing. On December, 4 and 9, the speed boats of India had destroyed and damaged 10 Pakistani battle ships and vessels by Soviet anti ship P-15 missiles. In addition 12 Pakistani oil storage were burned in flame."

Britain and Soviet Confrontation


Confidential - The Commander of the Military Intelligence Service Gen. Pyotr Ivashutin.

"The Soviet Intelligence has reported that the English operative connection has come nearer to territorial India, water led by an aircraft carrier Eagle [On December 10]. For helping friendly India, Soviet government has directed a group of ships under the command of contr-admiral V. Kruglyakov."

Vladimir Kruglyakov, the former (1970-1975) Commander of the 10th Operative Battle Group (Pacific Fleet) remembers:

"I was ordered by the Chief Commander to track the British Navy's advancement, I positioned our battleships in the Bay of Bengal and watched for the British carrier "Eagle".

But Soviet Union didn't have enough force to resist if they encountered the British Carrier. Therefore, to support the existing Soviet fleet in the Bay of Bengal, Soviet cruisers, destroyers and nuclear submarines, equipped with anti ship missiles, were sent from Vladivostok.

In reaction English Navy retreated and went South to Madagascar.

Soon the news of American carrier Enterprise and USS Tripoli's advancement towards Indian water came.

V. Kruglyakov  I had obtained the order from the commander-in-chief not to allow the advancement of the American fleet to the military bases of India

"We encircled them and aimed the missiles at the 'Enterprise'. We had blocked their way and didn't allow them to head anywhere, neither to Karachi, nor to Chittagong or Dhaka".

The Soviet ships had small range rockets (only upto 300 KM). Therefore, to hold the opponent under the range, commanders ran risks of going as near to the enemy as possible.

"The Chief Commander had ordered me to lift the submarines and bring them to the surface so that it can be pictured by the American spy satellites or can be seen by the American Navy!' It was done to demonstrate, that we had all the needed things in Indian Ocean, including the nuclear submarines. I had lifted them, and they recognized it. Then, we intercepted the American communication. The commander of the Carrier Battle Group was then the counter-admiral Dimon Gordon. He sent the report to the 7th American Fleet Commander: 'Sir, we are too late. There are Russian nuclear submarines here, and a big collection of battleships'.

Americans returned and couldn't do anything. Soviet Union had also threatened China that, if they ever opened a front against India on its border, they will receive a tough response from North.

Role of Sri Lanka


Pakistani high commissioner in Colombo, Seema Ilahi Baloch said in her speech addressed to Lanka-Pakistan business council in Colombo in June, 2011 that Pakistan can never forget the help which Sri Lanka offered to Pakistan during the 1971 war between India and Pakistan.

"We in Pakistan cannot forget the logistical and political support Sri Lanka extended to us in 1971 when it opened its refueling facilities for us," she said.

Pakistani Aircraft destined to East Pakistan flew taking a round of India via Sri Lanka, since they could not fly over Indian sky. This forced Pakistan to get its aircrafts refueled on the way. Sri Lanka eager to help Pakistan, allowed Pakistani aircrafts for refueling at the Bandaranaike airport. 

The war ended with the surrender of Pakistani army as they missed American help due to quick Russians who blocked both America and China from preventing India to advance. With this, a new country named Bangladesh was formed, which was recognized by the whole world and by Pakistan in the following year with Shimla Agreement.


Source: 1971 India Pakistan War: Role of Russia, China, America and Britain | The World Reporter: News Opinion and Analysis http://www.theworldreporter.com/2011/10/1971-india-pakistan-war-role-of-russia.html#ixzz1ycKDW6pa



*Link
1971 India Pakistan War: Role of Russia, China, America and Britain | The World Reporter: News Opinion and Analysis*

Reactions: Like Like:
24


----------



## Pauper

Our nation should never forget what Russians did for us & should strengthen our relationship with them. I hope our politicians can also use Americans...

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Rajaraja Chola

Honestly mate 1971 has been discussed alot of times here !! 
It was a pinnacle , for the Indian Armed Forces and the birth of BD!!
We also saw the strategic checkmate given by Russia and india to US,UK and China!!

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Rusty

Can we put 71 on the ban list of topics?
It has been discussed to death and there is literally nothing more that can be said. 
Let's move on and look to the future.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## kumarkumar1867

A very knowledgeable Article .... Thanks 4 sharing !
Indians should never forget Russians are our best friends indeed while others are just bussiness allies.And our policies should speak the same.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Windjammer

> Role of Sri Lanka
> Pakistani high commissioner in Colombo, Seema Ilahi Baloch said in her speech addressed to Lanka-Pakistan business council in Colombo in June, 2011 that Pakistan can never forget the help which Sri Lanka offered to Pakistan during the 1971 war between India and Pakistan.
> 
> "We in Pakistan cannot forget the logistical and political support Sri Lanka extended to us in 1971 when it opened its refueling facilities for us," she said.
> 
> Pakistani Aircraft destined to East Pakistan flew taking a round of India via Sri Lanka, since they could not fly over Indian sky. This forced Pakistan to get its aircrafts refueled on the way. Sri Lanka eager to help Pakistan, allowed Pakistani aircrafts for refueling at the Bandaranaike airport.



Only non-combat aircraft were allowed to fly through Sri Lanka, I.E. the C-130 transport plane to evacuate civilians and the injured.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## hawx

look at the irony the same aircraft carrier is now at the shores of pakistan ready to attack,but alas they do not have any Russia to save them.......

karma is a *****......

Reactions: Like Like:
17


----------



## IceCold

So contrary to the popular believe here, the article states otherwise. Pakistan did not receive any help from any side. On the other hand, India was successful in getting USSR involved which not only supported India, but also made sure none of the other parties could intervene and assist Pakistan.
Though we lost the 71 war, i am happy we gave the Russians a piece of their own medicine in the Afghan theatre, resulting in their demise.



hawx said:


> look at the irony the same aircraft carrier is now at the shores of pakistan ready to attack,but alas they do not have any Russia to save them.......
> 
> karma is a *****......



get a life Indian, the news is already proved wrong. What are you babbling about??

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Windjammer

hawx said:


> look at the irony the same aircraft carrier is now at the shores of pakistan ready to attack,but alas they do not have any Russia to save them.......
> 
> karma is a *****......



Irony it is, the country you claim to have liberated, never misses an opportunity to give you a bloody nose.....that must be painful.

Reactions: Like Like:

9


----------



## Pauper

hawx said:


> look at the irony the same aircraft carrier is now at the shores of pakistan ready to attack,but alas they do not have any Russia to save them.......
> 
> karma is a *****......



May be China will come in there rescue.


----------



## Fazlu

Windjammer said:


> Irony it is, the country you claim to have liberated, never misses an opportunity to give you a bloody nose.....that must be painful.


 
Not really, Bangladesh is one of the few countries over which Indian government exerts considerable. Regardless of the administration being led by BNP, AL or the army.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## FullMetalJacket

Rusty said:


> Can we put 71 on the ban list of topics?
> It has been discussed to death and there is literally nothing more that can be said.
> Let's move on and look to the future.



This.................


----------



## Skull and Bones

Windjammer said:


> Irony it is, the country you claim to have liberated, never misses an opportunity to give you a bloody nose.....that must be painful.



Doesn't matter, as long as their government is our pet.


----------



## Zabaniyah

Uh oh...I sense a troll invasion coming to this thread 

Topic has been discussed many times.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Amolthebest

Windjammer said:


> Irony it is, the country you claim to have liberated, never misses an opportunity to give you a bloody nose.....that must be painful.



Going by that criteria you had got bloody full body in 1971.Sorry for rubbing salt on your wound

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## Markus

Windjammer said:


> Irony it is, the country you claim to have liberated, never misses an opportunity to give you a bloody nose.....that must be painful.



We have no expectations out of BL but atleast in 1971, we ensured that your eastern territory no longer needs to listen to Rawalpindi/Islamabad.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Sergi

Windjammer said:


> Irony it is, the country you claim to have liberated, never misses an opportunity to give you a bloody nose.....that must be painful.



Yes you are right. But you missed the fact that India get something more than their liberation. And your nose has been cut permanently. So we got care eventual red nose 



Rusty said:


> Can we put 71 on the ban list of topics?
> It has been discussed to death and there is literally nothing more that can be said.
> Let's move on and look to the future.



Yes you are right. I post this article cuz I think it to be interesting. Troll wasn't intentional. But as you know it happens everywhere here. 
I agree with look to the future. But we can't forget the past



kumarkumar1867 said:


> A very knowledgeable Article .... Thanks 4 sharing !
> Indians should never forget Russians are our best friends indeed while others are just bussiness allies.And our policies should speak the same.


Welcome


----------



## Don Jaguar

Markus said:


> we ensured that your eastern territory no longer needs to listen to Rawalpindi/Islamabad.



Sadly this is what we ourself ensured by our economic policies.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Sergi

Don Jaguar said:


> Sadly this is what we ourself ensured by our economic policies.



And truely that helped India to secure the East border.

*I wasnt aware of BRITISH role in 1971. Did anyone have more info on that ???*


----------



## IceCold

Don Jaguar said:


> Sadly this is what we ourself ensured by our economic policies.



This wasn't just the economics that led to this, there were far more important reasons that lead to this. For e.g when Awami League won, it should have been given the government both in the east and west but instead, Bhutto said you keep there while we stay here. Secondly why was Urdu being forced as the common language when they spoke bengali. Then of course vested interests come in of many and they are still in play.


----------



## tvsram1992

nickson is a dic* son . He is a loser other than barking on Indians he was unable to do anything , he got a reverse fu*k from USSR .

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Last Hope

hawx said:


> look at the irony the same aircraft carrier is now at the shores of pakistan ready to attack,but alas they do not have any Russia to save them.......
> 
> karma is a *****......



What what irony that, Pakistan has nearly developed an ACC killer missile/torpedo. Please don't ask for source now, I already made a thread and gave all the information. And according to my knowledge, your Intelligence/Navy know it too. Any foolish attempt to attack Pakistan would result in fatal decision for India. This is not ego but fact, which is a part of 'rules of use of nukes' by Pakistan.


----------



## Don Jaguar

IceCold said:


> This wasn't just the economics that led to this, there were far more important reasons that lead to this. For e.g when Awami League won, it should have been given the government both in the east and west but instead, Bhutto said you keep there while we stay here. Secondly why was Urdu being forced as the common language when they spoke bengali. Then of course vested interests come in of many and they are still in play.



Urdu was forced on them it was also wrong.


----------



## Windjammer

Markus said:


> We have no expectations out of BL but atleast in 1971, we ensured that your eastern territory no longer needs to listen to Rawalpindi/Islamabad.







Fazlu said:


> Not really, Bangladesh is one of the few countries over which Indian government exerts considerable. Regardless of the administration being led by BNP, AL or the army.





Skull and Bones said:


> Doesn't matter, as long as their government is our pet.






Amolthebest said:


> Going by that criteria you had got bloody full body in 1971.Sorry for rubbing salt on your wound








Sergi said:


> Yes you are right. But you missed the fact that India get something more than their liberation. And your nose has been cut permanently. So we got care eventual red nose



*I can give you all the telling replies, but the thread is already gone off topic, hence here is a little taste of the medicine, read and weep.*


> One of the disputed areas was a small sliver of land near the village of Pyrdiwah which the Indian Border Security Force (BSF) had occupied since the 1971 liberation of Bangladesh. The village was one of the Indian exclaves near the border of Bangladesh with the Indian state of Meghalaya.[24][25] Bangladesh claimed that the village was within its territory.[26] Five battalions of the 19th division of the Bangladesh Army, with additional personnel from the Bangladesh Rifles (BDR), attacked the positions of India's Border Security Force at Pyrdiwah at 01:00 hours on 16 April 2001.[27] India claimed that Bangladeshi troops overran and occupied the village, which was near the town of Dauki, and that Bangladeshi forces were holding more than 20 Indian soldiers hostage.[28] However, Bangladesh insisted that Indian forces launched an early-morning attack on their posts in the frontier district of Kurigram, which lay on the border with the Indian state of Assam, on the morning of 16 April.[28] Indian forces eventually responded but failed to retake the village. The combat remained limited to the border troops of the respective nations, though mortars were used in addition to automatic weapons fire. Between 10,000 and 20,000 villagers living in the area fled the fighting, with at least 17 suffering wounds.* Several villages were destroyed or heavily damaged in the fighting. 81 Indian and 2 Bangladeshi troops died during the conflict according to India, although Bangladesh claimed that 89 Indian soldiers were killed with 3 Bangladeshi fatalities.*[25][28] Top Indian border security sources claimed that the BDR personnel had retreated in the Meghalaya sector, while in the Assam sector, the Indian BSF had vacated positions seized from Bangladesh.[29] Fresh clashes erupted along the IndiaBangladesh border just hours after both sides voiced regret for the recent killings, but by midnight of 20 April firing had again stopped. An article reported that 6,000 Indian civilians had fled the region, and Indian government officials were attempting to convince villagers to return to their homes.[26]* The Indian BSF agreed to take back bodies of five of its soldiers at Rowmari sector, whilst the other 11-17 were classified as 'missing'. Bangladesh later agreed to return the dead Indian soldiers the next day.[29] Upon examining the bodies of the dead personnel, India alleged that the BSF men were tortured before being shot dead.[*30][31] Three Bangladeshi soldiers were also killed: two during combat and another who died of wounds sustained during operations.


Muhammad Shahid Sarwar - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Sergi

Last Hope said:


> What what irony that, Pakistan has nearly developed an ACC killer missile/torpedo. Please don't ask for source now, I already made a thread and gave all the information. And according to my knowledge, your Intelligence/Navy know it too. Any foolish attempt to attack Pakistan would result in fatal decision for India. This is not ego but fact, which is a part of 'rules of use of nukes' by Pakistan.



Sorry to tell you 'rules of use of Nukes' by Pakistan are bluff. Both countries know that if nuclear war happens India will be pushed back 50 years but Pak will be wiped out of the Map. 
And you need a Dum@ss leader to press nukes on other as its only the death wish for the one who press. Musharraf himself agreed that nuclear isn't option.
If suppose India opened a western front. Will Pakistan Nuke India ??? Saying yes is laughing stack. Before First Pakistani Nuclear missile touch down in India a massive counter strick will be in the air.



Windjammer said:


> *I can give you all the telling replies, but the thread is already gone off topic, hence here is a little taste of the medicine, read and weep.*
> 
> Muhammad Shahid Sarwar - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



I am weeping ... Nah ... May be its you. You are blaming it on me. 
I am not a fan of BD.  and it might be true incident but as long as war and conflicts are concerns I don't trust wiki 
I *told you yesterday I don't trust wiki*. You seem to have short memory  some reliable source

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Rusty

Sergi said:


> Sorry to tell you 'rules of use of Nukes' by Pakistan are bluff. Both countries know that if nuclear war happens India will be pushed back 50 years but Pak will be wiped out of the Map.
> And you need a Dum@ss leader to press nukes on other as its only the death wish for the one who press. Musharraf himself agreed that nuclear isn't option.
> If suppose India opened a western front. Will Pakistan Nuke India ??? Saying yes is laughing stack. Before First Pakistani Nuclear missile touch down in India a massive counter strick will be in the air.



You seriously think India can survive a nuclear attack? The USSR was the biggest country on earth and they still never said such foolish things. Just because you have more land does not mean you can simply absorb a nuclear attack.


----------



## Ambitious.Asian

nice article.......what a trustworthy friend "RUSSIA"

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## shiv

IceCold said:


> This wasn't just the economics that led to this, there were far more important reasons that lead to this. For e.g when Awami League won, it should have been given the government both in the east and west but instead, Bhutto said you keep there while we stay here. Secondly why was Urdu being forced as the common language when they spoke bengali. Then of course vested interests come in of many and they are still in play.



I am not bad mouthing any one here but according to my experience ( more than 15 years in Delhi now ) punjabis have a misconception that be it in pakistan( through reading of literature ) or in north India think that they are some kinda smart people.. everything be it their dance form to language to body language evokes some kind of jealousy among on lookers or somehow they are more cheerful and smart and are creative etc etc... and compared to them all are kinda dull and slow people .. This is not too explicit but kinda more implicit at a sub conscious level..
This crude machismo ingrained in their psyche forced some asinine people like bhutto to shove down their life style and language on the bengalis which led to the partition..

I have seen the kind of interactions bengalis ( West Bengal ) and punjabis have here in delhi.. I am just guessing that the mutual feeling for the East Bengalis and West pakistanis ( dominated by punjabis ) was just ahead of this curve only


----------



## Sergi

Rusty said:


> You seriously think India can survive a nuclear attack? The USSR was the biggest country on earth and they still never said such foolish things. Just because you have more land does not mean you can simply absorb a nuclear attack.


Yes offcourse India will servive against Pakistan. 
USSR was locking horn with USA. That's different. I know you see Pakistan on the same level of India. But I beg to differ you. 
If India and China is considered. China will be push back to 100 years with 80 % destruction and India will be destroyed 95% and be in stone age.

Nuclear war happen for say 1/2 mins max. How much you can throw before blowing up. The EMP generated in that will take down all flying things be it planes or guided missiles as all electronics will be fried


----------



## Rusty

Sergi said:


> Yes offcourse India will servive against Pakistan.
> USSR was locking horn with USA. That's different. I know you see Pakistan on the same level of India. But I beg to differ you.
> If India and China is considered. China will be push back to 100 years with 80 % destruction and India will be destroyed 95% and be in stone age.



Of course India and Pakistan are not on the same level, you have 1/6th of the earth's population in your border. 
But nukes don't take population into account. By recent estimates, Pakistan actually has more nukes then India. In a nuclear war Pakistan will be wiped, but so will 90% of India. And then don't forget radiation which will poison the remainder. 

Again, it's really foolish to think that you can absorb a nuclear attack.


----------



## IND151

Sam Manekshaw decided to wait for winter for launching operation in east Pakistan even after soviet assurance

he knew that Himalayan passes will be closed in winter and china wont be able to help pak

but Chinese refused to help pak (not surprisingly)

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## tvsram1992

Rusty said:


> Of course India and Pakistan are not on the same level, you have 1/6th of the earth's population in your border.
> But nukes don't take population into account. By recent estimates, Pakistan actually has more nukes then India. In a nuclear war Pakistan will be wiped, but so will 90% of India. And then don't forget radiation which will poison the remainder.
> 
> Again, it's really foolish to think that you can absorb a nuclear attack.


In case of nuclear war ,
We have our genes spread across the world . Atleast we will have our representatives . But there will be no Pakistan to celebrate that . Now dont say Muslim world blah blah . Nukes are to save you , not to destroy you . The remaining 10% of India will recover the population in 40 years


----------



## Sergi

Rusty said:


> Of course India and Pakistan are not on the same level, you have 1/6th of the earth's population in your border.
> But nukes don't take population into account. By recent estimates, Pakistan actually has more nukes then India. In a nuclear war Pakistan will be wiped, but so will 90% of India. And then don't forget radiation which will poison the remainder.
> 
> Again, it's really foolish to think that you can absorb a nuclear attack.


Didn't you read what I say ???
Did I say Pakistan don't have capacity to Nuke India ???
Radiation ??? Forget India whole Asia will have its taste. 

All I said is it's one launch attack. Pakistan will not get second chance. But India will. Atmost 40 % area will come under direct attack. Say 35 % get destroyed and total 70 % radiated. Still 30 will remain unharmed. And we didn't even take BMDS in calculation.

I said lets stop nuclear senario here. As we are going a lot off topic. If you want to discuss open a new thread. Let's stick to 71 here. 

*I am curious about British role in 71. I heard it first time. Does any body have more info on that ???*


----------



## Rusty

So your point is that you are willing so sacrifice your country for 40 year (I still don't buy it) just to wipe Pakistan off the map?

Pretty sad state of mind in my opinion.


----------



## tvsram1992

Rusty said:


> So your point is that you are willing so sacrifice your country for 40 year (I still don't buy it) just to wipe Pakistan off the map?
> 
> Pretty sad state of mind in my opinion.


dude dont make fun of your self , we dont have first attack policy, it wont happen unless Pakistan wants to sacrifice itself for destroying 40% India .

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Sergi

@Rusty: what's wrong with your state of Mind ??? How come you came to that conclusion ???
Read my posts where I said India should nuke pak ??? 
See with open eyes I was replying to nuclear policy and I said its bluff  hope you get it


----------



## Rusty

Sergi said:


> @Rusty: what's wrong with your state of Mind ??? How come you came to that conclusion ???
> Read my posts where I said India should nuke pak ???
> See with open eyes I was replying to nuclear policy and I said its bluff  hope you get it



my state of mind is fine, it's yours that I am worried about. 
You seem to think that a nuclear war is no big thing and even if India takes a few hits "it will only take 40 years to recover"

Nuclear wars are no small matter and lets all pray that things never escalate to that point.


----------



## Sergi

Rusty said:


> my state of mind is fine, it's yours that I am worried about.
> You seem to think that a nuclear war is no big thing and even if India takes a few hits "it will only take 40 years to recover"
> 
> Nuclear wars are no small matter and lets all pray that things never escalate to that point.



Now I am starting to worry about you state of mind ... Again.
Let me explain step by step
1. India didn't have first use policy. hope you know that. 
2. I write it clearly. Even Musharraf ( 8 sec attack beliver) didn't think nuclear war is a option. 
3. What I am saying is Pakistan is bluffing on Nuclear use. To prove that I explain all worst case senario. And it isn't my fantasy. If you search a little you will find what I write is correct. 
4. Let me tell you evenif India nuke Pakistan firstly and didn't give Pakistan any chance to react the nuclear radiation will affect all Asia. Didn't I write about taste ??? I am not in favour of that. I don't want radiation hazards even if we get rid of Pakistan. Is that clear ???
5. Political situation in India is and won't go to crisis like Pakistan has reputation of that. 
6. So anyone using Nukes will be Pakistan. 
7. If you don't know Nuke are spotted before launch with Satellite. India have that capability.

*And you conclusion that I seems to think a nuclear war is no big thing even if India takes few hit depends on ??? Please explain*

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## danger007

Rusty said:


> Of course India and Pakistan are not on the same level, you have 1/6th of the earth's population in your border.
> But nukes don't take population into account. By recent estimates, Pakistan actually has more nukes then India. In a nuclear war Pakistan will be wiped, but so will 90% of India. And then don't forget radiation which will poison the remainder.
> 
> Again, it's really foolish to think that you can absorb a nuclear attack.




No country will allow you use single nuke forget about double digit................ we will never launch nuke on pakistan or any country..... But pakistan purely depended on nuke's....... you are right if you launch nuke on us, that radiation affect will remains over 100+ years and also that radiation will affect neighbor nation's...... So that mean you are just turning them against pakistan by launching nuke ......... and their won't be any future for you........ even china can't help you in that case....


----------



## SamantK

Windjammer said:


> Irony it is, the country you claim to have liberated, never misses an opportunity to give you a bloody nose.....that must be painful.


 exactly, when has doing the right thing earned appreciation ?


----------



## cybertron

Rusty said:


> So your point is that you are willing so sacrifice your country for 40 year (I still don't buy it) just to wipe Pakistan off the map?
> 
> Pretty sad state of mind in my opinion.



Indians are not the ones playing the "nuclear" trumphet at every drop of a nail.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## RayOfLight

Russians are True Friends.... US policy is full of sh1t even in 2012...


----------



## SamantK

IceCold said:


> So contrary to the popular believe here, the article states otherwise. Pakistan did not receive any help from any side. On the other hand, India was successful in getting USSR involved which not only supported India, but also made sure none of the other parties could intervene and assist Pakistan.
> Though we lost the 71 war, i am happy we gave the Russians a piece of their own medicine in the Afghan theatre, resulting in their demise.
> 
> 
> 
> get a life Indian, the news is already proved wrong. What are you babbling about??


 It is really deplorable that you form opinions without reading much, however I am compelled to post a very interesting piece about US support to Pakistan below


> The Men Behind Yahya in the Indo-Pak War of 1971
> By Stephen R. Shalom, professor of Political Science, William Paterson University, New Jersey.
> 
> In 1971, Pakistan became engulfed in civil war. Pakistan consisted of two regions separated by more than 1,000 miles, with India in between. The two regions shared a Muslim majority, but differed in language, ethnicity and culture. West Pakistan politically dominated the more numerous, largely Bengali population of the East and exploited them economically. The callous indifference shown by the authorities in Islamabad in the West to a devastating cyclone that struck the East in November 1970 further inflamed separatist sentiment.
> When the military government of Yahya Khan permitted the country's first free elections in December, the Awami League, a middle-class Bengali nationalist party headed by Sheik Mujibur Rahman (Mujib), swept 167 of the 169 East Pakistan seats, giving it an absolute majority in the National Assembly. But Yahya then announced that he was postponing the convening of the Assembly. Calls for independence and communal violence erupted in the East and on the evening of March 25-26 the Pakistani army - that is to say, West Pakistani troops - arrested Mujib and launched a brutal crackdown on the Awami League and on Bengalis more generally.
> In the center of Dacca, the main city of East Pakistan, the army set fire to 25 square blocks and then mowed down those trying to escape. Thousands were massacred in Dacca in the first few days and the killings spread throughout the countryside. Bengali guerrilla resistance led to further bloody reprisals. U.S. consular officials in Dacca reported privately to Washington that "selective genocide" was going on. A World Bank mission reported in July that in every city it visited there were areas razed and in every district there were "villages which have simply ceased to exist." Sober estimates by the summer put the death toll between two and three hundred thousand. ("When one fights, one does not throw flowers," Yahya told the press). Literally millions of Bengalis fled across the border into India in what was probably history's largest one-way movement of refugees in so short a time.
> World opinion was horrified at the carnage. But from the Nixon administration, there was not a word of condemnation. Officers at the U.S. consulate in Dacca, East Pakistan, sent a cable to Washington dissenting from the official policy: "Our government has failed to denounce the suppression of democracy. Our government has failed to denounce atrocities....we have chosen not to intervene, even morally" - whereupon Nixon ordered the Consul-General transferred.
> The U.S. moral failure began earlier. At the beginning of March, in a meeting of top policymakers called the Senior Review Group (SRG), a State Department official suggested that the U.S. try to discourage Yahya from using force. According to one insider, the official did not press the point "after Kissinger cautioned SRG members to keep in mind President Nixon's 'special relationship' with Yahya.... SRG members concluded that 'massive inaction' was the best policy for the U.S.." "All agencies agreed that the U.S. should not get involved."
> Nixon's "special relationship" with the Pakistani dictator had two sources: (1) a general fondness for right-wing generals. (When Yahya visited Washington in October 1970, Nixon assured him that "nobody has occupied the White House who is friendlier to Pakistan.") (2) Yahya had agreed to let Pakistan serve as the jumping off point for Kissinger's secret trip to China in July 1971. Kissinger wrote that "Pakistan was our sole channel to China; once it was closed off it would take months to make alternative arrangements." This excuse is nonsense. Romania had already been established as an alternate channel, and there was no reason for a secret channel. As Kissinger acknowledged, the Chinese opposed the trip's secrecy. It was insisted upon by Nixon and Kissinger.
> Ten days before the bloodbath, the CIA, the Pentagon and electronic intelligence sources all detected the Pakistani military preparations, yet Washington chose not to warn the Bengalis. The day after the violence erupted, Kissinger told a high level meeting that President Nixon "doesn't want to do anything.... He does not favor a very active policy."
> Private communications between the U.S. and Pakistan were extremely restrained. Nixon warmly praised Yahya for his statesmanship and expressed understanding of his difficult circumstances.
> In their rampage, Pakistani troops used U.S. weapons, among others. Public criticism of U.S. policy forced the administration to announce in April a ban on further arms deliveries to Islamabad. Two months later it was discovered that the ban did not apply to arms licenses issued before March 25. To do otherwise, the State Department explained, would "be interpreted as sanctions" and "seen as an unwarranted intrusion into an essentially internal problem." To cut off arms "would cause Pakistan to rely exclusively on other sources of supply" - a rather lame excuse given that the main other source was China, with whom the U.S. was now establishing ties.
> The pre-March 25 licenses were supposed to cover only "non-lethal" military equipment, but reporters found that "non-lethal" included ammunition. Asked when ammunition might be considered lethal, a State Department spokesperson replied that this was "a theological question." After March 25, ten ships sailed from the U.S. with military cargo bound for Pakistan worth some $5 million. Congress further discovered that the Department of Defense continued to approve weapons requests from the Pakistani military after March 25. The State Department testified that these approvals, worth some $10 million, could not override the ban on issuing new arms export licenses, but certainly they did not give Yahya a very strong message of U.S. disapproval of his actions. By July 1971, the U.S. was the only western nation still delivering military goods to Pakistan. By early November, Washington finally announced that the military pipeline had finally dried up.
> Substantial international humanitarian assistance was sent to East Pakistan (where famine threatened) and to India (where all the refugees were massed). The World Bank recommended in June that no new development aid go to West Pakistan until a political accommodation was reached in the East. Britain, Sweden, the Netherlands, and West Germany among others suspended their aid, but the U.S. did not. As the U.S. representative at a meeting of aid donors declared, "the U.S. did not plan to use aid as a lever to secure a political solution."
> Despite administration objections, the House of Representatives voted to suspend aid. This provoked Nixon's first public statement on U.S. policy toward the crisis: "We are not going to engage in public pressure on the Government of West Pakistan. That would be totally counterproductive." U.S. development aid continued to flow to Pakistan.
> Nixon's support for military and economic aid, and his statement that the crisis was an internal Pakistani matter, must have strengthened the dictator's resolve. "Don't squeeze Yahya at this time," Nixon instructed U.S. officials, May 2.
> The U.S. was a major contributor to the international relief operations in East Pakistan. A State Department official believes that this aid was intended to "defuse pressures upon the White House to exert influence on Yahya to make meaningful political concessions." At a meeting on July 31, when the Deputy AID administrator suggested that Washington recommend to Yahya that the army be removed from civilian-type administration in East Pakistan so that relief efforts could go forward, Kissinger barked: "Why is it our business how they govern themselves?"
> In the meantime, guerrilla war raged in East Pakistan and India increasingly provided training, arms and bases for Bengali guerrillas. Pakistani and Indian troops exchanged artillery fire across the border and made some cross-border incursions. In late November, Indian troops took up positions in East Pakistan. On December 3, the Pakistani air force launched attacks on Indian airfields and a full scale war was on. Two weeks later, Pakistan's armed forces in the East surrendered to the Indians and a cease-fire was agreed to in the West. Bangladesh became an independent nation.
> The millions of refugees that had poured into India between March and December 1971 had caused incredible hardship for the government in New Delhi. The refugees were concentrated in the Indian state of West Bengal, where they constituted more than 20% of a chronically impoverished population. Recurrent outbreaks of disease, including cholera, threatened to spread beyond the camps. Hundreds of thousands of additional refugees were living among the general Indian population, competing for scarce jobs. Indian officials considered it essential that the refugees return to their homes, but this was obviously never going to happen as long as the West Pakistani army was running amok in the East.
> Another Indian motive for intervention was more problematic. Indian officials believed that Bengali independence forces would become increasingly radicalized. Eventually the guerrillas would defeat the Pakistani army, which was essentially fighting a colonial war a thousand miles from home. The longer it took to achieve victory the more likely the leadership of the movement - and of post-independence Bangladesh - would fall to the left. The Indian government already had enough difficulties with its own volatile Bengali population: New Delhi routinely took over the West Bengal state government for being too radical. Indian leaders were unwilling to accept an independent leftist Bengali nation just over the border.
> In November and December, Yahya virtually cut himself off from all outside influences except his almost daily visits with the U.S. ambassador. Despite this unusual opportunity for leverage, the U.S. did not press Yahya to accept either the independence of Bangladesh or the release of Mujib. When full-scale war broke out in early December, Kissinger told top policy-makers, "I am getting hell every half hour from the President that we are not being tough enough on India.... He wants to tilt in favor of Pakistan." Kissinger told his Senior Review Group as early as July 30, 1971 - more than four months before the war - that "the President has said repeatedly that we should lean toward Pakistan."
> On December 4, the U.S. ambassador to the UN, George Bush Sr., began his remarks with what one commentator has called "unconscious irony." "It is time for the UN to bring the great moral authority of this body effectively and quickly to bear to preserve the peace between two of its largest members." The time for the UN to have acted was back in March, not nine months and hundreds of thousands of corpses later. Secretary General U Thant had tried to get the Security Council to deal with the crisis in July, but neither the U.S. nor anyone else was interested in hearing the issue.
> Bush declared in the Security Council in December that Pakistan's "tragic mistake" did not entitle India to use force. The U.S. introduced a resolution in the Security Council and then, after a Soviet veto, in the General Assembly, calling for an immediate cease-fire and troop withdrawal. Kissinger told U.S. officials that he was willing to have the resolution include a general reference to political accommodation in East Pakistan but "we will certainly not imply or suggest any specifics, such as the release of Mujib." The General Assembly endorsed the resolution by a wide margin.
> There was a serious danger that the war between India and Pakistan might spread. For some months, officials in Islamabad warned that in the event of war, China would not be neutral, and Indian leaders - who signed a friendship treaty with the Soviet Union in October - replied that they would not be alone either. Kissinger reportedly suggested in Islamabad in July that it would be helpful if India received a signal from China that it was strongly committed to maintaining the unity of Pakistan and that in case of war, China would not remain a "silent spectator." In December, Kissinger thought there was a real possibility that Beijing might go to war. He instructed his assistant that if the Chinese informed the U.S. that they were going to move, Washington should reply that it would not ignore Soviet intervention. Apparently, no word of discouragement was to be offered, though the entire region might be consumed in war, and the U.S. guarantee would, if anything, make a Chinese decision for war more likely. However, the Chinese proved more restrained than Kissinger and did not get involved.
> Kissinger asked his advisers whether the U.S. could authorize the transfer to Pakistan of military equipment from allies such as Jordan. Told that it would be illegal, Kissinger sent letter to Jordan, Saudi Arabia and Iran keeping open the possibility of weapons transfers and letting the Indians know these transfers were being contemplated. When Jordan's King Hussein requested permission to send eight U.S. jets to Pakistan, Nixon authorized sending ten and promised Hussein that they would be replaced.
> Nixon and Kissinger claimed to be worried that India would not content itself with defeating Pakistani forces in the East, but was determined to destroy West Pakistan as well, even though Indian military moves in the West were basically defensive holding actions. Washington dispatched a naval task force headed by the nuclear-armed aircraft carrier "Enterprise" to the Bay of Bengal. On December 10, the commander of Pakistan troops in the East tried to arrange a cease-fire and transfer of power to Bangladeshi officials. Encouraged by the prospects of U.S. and Chinese intervention on his side, Yahya ordered his troops to fight on. (Civilians continued to suffer: as it retreated the Pakistani army killed Bengali non-combatants, and Bengal-is killed non-Bengali Pakistanis.) On December 16, Pakistani forces in the East surrendered unconditionally.
> Despite the end of the war, conditions in Bangladesh were still grim. Washington did provide food aid, but in September 1974 it threatened to cut off the aid unless Bangladesh stopped exporting jute (its principle crop) to Cuba. In 1975, the Mujib government in Dacca was overthrown in a military coup, perhaps with U.S. involvement, and the new regime became heavily dependent on the U.S., China and Saudi Arabia, while cutting its ties to Moscow and New Delhi.
> 
> Source: "The U.S. Response to Humanitarian Crises," Z Magazine, Sept. 1991. Available online (with footnotes) at web site: http://www.zmag.org/zmag/articles/ShalomHumnCri.html
> 
> For more information about the author, and selected writings, see his web site: William Paterson University - Page not found
> 
> ---
> 
> The White House Tapes
> 
> "The Indians put on their sanctimonious peace Gandhi-like, Christ-like attitude," Nixon told George Bush Sr., then U.S. ambassador to the UN on December 8, 1971. "Aggression is wrong," he lectured Bush. "Those god damn communist countries are engaged in it, but even if a democracy [such as India] engages in it, it's wrong."
> 
> For image-sake, Nixon told advisers it was paramount to convince people he was neither anti-India nor pro-Pakistan, but instead "pro-peace."
> 
> In private, however, Nixon denigrated the Indians. "The Indians just smother you out there with all their devious tricky things," he once said to McCormack.
> 
> Source: Mark Wilkinson, "White House tapes show Nixon's bias against India," Rediff on Net, October 27, 2000. Online at: http://www.hvk.org/articles/1000/80.html

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Sergi

^^^ nice post

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## IceCold

samantk said:


> It is really deplorable that you form opinions without reading much, however I am compelled to post a very interesting piece about US support to Pakistan below



Yeah well your interesting piece was too long for me to read.


----------



## Surenas

Don't know much about the war, but if I'm correctly India easily defeated Pakistan in this war?


----------



## tvsram1992

Surenas said:


> Don't know much about the war, but if I'm correctly India easily defeated Pakistan in this war?


 No we defeated them utterly . 100k troops surrendered , lost their territory , despite they did preemptive raids on Indian air bases, they failed .


----------



## Surenas

tvsram1992 said:


> No we defeated them utterly . 100k troops surrendered , lost their territory , despite they did preemptive raids on Indian air bases, they failed .



Aha, which Pakistani politician or general was responsible for the defeat? Why did they lost?


----------



## Hello_10

Sergi said:


> 1971 India Pakistan War: Role of Russia, China, America and Britain
> Sanskar Shrivastava on Sunday, 30 October 2011
> 
> 
> It was in the year 1971 when the two South Asian rivals declared war on each other, causing a great loss to the lives, property and territory in case of Pakistan.
> 
> "As the topic sounds controversial, before we begin we would like to tell that every information in this article is sourced. The article was written after a detail analysis of various sources. All the relevant and immediate sources are listed at the end of the Article."
> 
> 
> 
> Before 1971, Bangladesh used to be a part of Pakistan as East Pakistan. According to Najam Sethi, a well respected and honoured journalist from Pakistan, East Pakistan always complained that they received less development funds and less attention from the West Pakistan (Punjabi) dominating government. Bengalis in East Pakistan also resisted the adoption of Urdu as the state language. The revenue from export, whether it was from the Cotton of West Pakistan or Jute of East Pakistan, was handled mainly by West Pakistan. Lastly, in an election conducted just some months before the war, the victory was gained by the East Pakistani leader and still he was not given the power, thus fueling the movement in East Pakistan.
> 
> Pakistani army started its operation in East Pakistan to contain the movement and anger among the Bengalis. It is reported that the army was involved in mass killing of public and mass rape of women. India was aware of this and was only waiting for a trigger to start the war. India started receiving huge number of refugees which became unmanageable, pushing it to intervene in the situation. The situation soon attracted the attention of many other countries. Thus the war later was not only between India and Pakistan, but many countries were involved in 1971 Indo Pakistani war (War of Liberation of Bangladesh) directly or indirectly.*
> 
> In May, Indira Gandhi wrote to Nixon about the 'carnage in East Bengal' and the flood of refugees, burdening India. After L K Jha (then the Indian ambassador to US) had warned Kissinger that India might have to send back some of the refugees as guerrillas, Nixon commented, 'By God, we will cut off economic aid [to India].'
> 
> A few days later, when the US president said 'the goddamn Indians' were preparing for another war, Kissinger retorted 'they are the most aggressive goddamn people around.'
> 
> US and China Connection, A Little Known Fact
> 
> (All Excerpts and Sources from 929 page long Volume XI of the Foreign Relations of the United States)
> 
> US sympathized with Pakistan, because of various reasons. Among them two reasons were that: firstly, Pakistan belonged to American led military Pact, CENTO and SEATO; secondly, US believed any victory of India will be considered as the expansion of Soviet influence in the parts gained by India with the victory, as it was believed to be a pro Soviet nation, even though they were non aligned.
> 
> In a telegram sent to US Secretary of State Will Roger, on March 28, 1971, the staff of the US consulate in Dhaka complained, 'Our government has failed to denounce the suppression of democracy. Our government has failed to denounce atrocities. Our government has failed to take forceful measures to protect its citizens while at the same time bending over backwards to placate the West Pakistan dominated government... We, as professional public servants express our dissent with current policy and fervently hope that our true and lasting interests here can be defined and our policies redirected in order to salvage our nation's position as a moral leader of the free world.'
> 
> This brought China in the picture. US needed help from China and the messenger was Pakistan. US *approached China*very secretly*on this issue, who was more than welcoming as itbelieved that their relations with US could improve from this onward.
> 
> During the second week of July, 1971, Kissinger arrived in Beijing, where he heard the words by then Chinese Prime Minister Zhou Enlai: "In our opinion, if India continues on its present course in disregard of world opinion, it will continue to go on recklessly. We, however, support the stand of Pakistan. This is known to the world. If they [the Indians] are bent on provoking such a situation, then we cannot sit idly by.' On this, Kissinger responded that China should know that the US also backs Pakistan on this issue.
> 
> Indira Gandhi, the Indian prime minister in those times decided to tour most of the Western capitals to prove Indian stand and gain support and sympathy for the Bengalis of East Pakistan. On November 4th and 5th she met Nixon in Washington. Nixon straight forwardly told her that a new war in the subcontinent was out of the question.
> 
> The next day, Nixon and Kissinger assessed the situation. Kissinger told Nixon: 'The Indians are bastards anyway. They are plotting a war.'
> 
> The pressure increased in East Pakistan, which attracted Indian attention. Indians were preparing for war and were concentrated on the Eastern front. To divert the pressure, on December 3, in the dark of night, even before India could attack East Pakistan, Pakistan opened western front and air raided six Indian Airfields in Kashmir and Punjab.
> 
> The CIA reported to the US President that Indian Prime Minister believes that the Chinese will never intervene militarily in North India, and thus, any action from China would be a surprise for India and Indian military might collapse in tensed situation caused by fighting in three different fronts (East, North and West).
> 
> Hearing this, on December 9, Nixon decided to send the aircraft carrier USS Enterprise into the Bay of Bengal to threaten India. The plan was to Surround India from all four sides and force them to retreat and leave East Pakistan.
> 
> On December 10, Nixon instructed Kissinger to ask the Chinese to move some troops toward the Indian frontier. 'Threaten to move forces or move them, Henry, that's what they must do now.' China feared any action on India might attract Soviet aggression. At this, US assured China that any action taken by Soviet Union will be countered by US to protect China.
> 
> Pakistani army had somehow maintained their position and resisted Indian advancement. They believed China is preparing to open the Northern front which will slow down or completely stop the Indian advancement. In fact, the myth of Chinese activity was also communicated to Pakistan's army to boost their moral, to keep their will to fight and hope alive. Lieutenant General A A K Niazi, the Pakistani army commander in Dhaka, was informed: "NEFA front has been activated by Chinese, although the Indians, for obvious reasons, have not announced it." But Beijing never did.
> 
> In Washington, Nixon analysed the situation thus: 'If the Russians get away with facing down the Chinese and the Indians get away with licking the Pakistanis...we may be looking down the gun barrel.' Nixon was not sure about China. Did they really intend to start a military action against India?
> 
> Soviet Union / Russian Role in the Indo Pakistan 1971 War.
> 
> 
> As India had decided to go on with the war, and Indira Gandhi had failed to gain American support and sympathy for the Bengalis who were being tortured in East Pakistan, she finally took a hard move and on August 9, signed a treaty of peace, friendship and cooperation with Soviet Union.
> 
> The State Department historian says, 'in the perspective of Washington, the crisis ratcheted up a dangerous notch, India and the Soviet Union have signed a treaty of peace, friendship and cooperation.' It was a shock to America as this was what they feared, expansion of Soviet influence in South Asia. They feared that involvement of Soviet Union could sabotage their plan.
> 
> On December 4, just one day after Pakistan raided Indian airfields in Kashmir and Punjab declaring war on India, America's proxy involvement in the war was becoming clear. Thinking that the Soviet Union might enter the war if they come to know this, which could cause a lot of destruction to Pakistan and American equipment given to Pakistan, US ambassador to the United Nations George H W Bush [later 41st president of the United States and father of George Bush] introduced a resolution in the UN Security Council, calling for a cease-fire and the withdrawal of armed forces by India and Pakistan. *Believing India can win the war and Indira Gandhi being determined to protect the interest of Bengalis, Soviet Union vetoed out the resolution, thus letting India fight for the cause.* *Nixon and Kissinger pressurized Soviets to a very extent but luck did not support them.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Video Translated by : Ella Salomatina, The World Reporter.
> 
> On 3rd December, 1971, the World was shaken by another war between India and Pakistan. Pakistani airforce raided Indian cities and airstrips. The Indian PM, Indira Gandhi, brought the country in the state of emergency and ordered Indian army to reflect the aggression. Fierce military operations developed on the ground, in the air and in the sea.
> 
> Historic document: "Confidential. December, 10, 1971. Moscow. For the DM Marshal Andrey Grechko.
> 
> According to the information from our ambassador in Delhi, in the very first day of the conflict the Indian destroyer 'Rajput' had sunk a Pakistani submarine with deep bombing. On December, 4 and 9, the speed boats of India had destroyed and damaged 10 Pakistani battle ships and vessels by Soviet anti ship P-15 missiles. In addition 12 Pakistani oil storage were burned in flame."
> 
> Britain and Soviet Confrontation
> 
> 
> Confidential - The Commander of the Military Intelligence Service Gen. Pyotr Ivashutin.
> 
> "The Soviet Intelligence has reported that *the English operative connection has come nearer to territorial India, water led by an aircraft carrier &#8220;Eagle&#8221; [On December 10]. For helping friendly India, Soviet government has directed a group of ships under the command of contr-admiral V. Kruglyakov.*"
> 
> Vladimir Kruglyakov, the former (1970-1975) Commander of the 10th Operative Battle Group (Pacific Fleet) remembers:
> 
> "I was ordered by the Chief Commander to track the British Navy's advancement, I positioned our battleships in the Bay of Bengal and watched for the British carrier "Eagle".
> 
> *But Soviet Union didn't have enough force to resist if they encountered the British Carrier. Therefore, to support the existing Soviet fleet in the Bay of Bengal, Soviet cruisers, destroyers and nuclear submarines, equipped with anti ship missiles, were sent from Vladivostok.*
> 
> *In reaction English Navy retreated and went South to Madagascar.*
> 
> *Soon the news of American carrier Enterprise and USS Tripoli's advancement towards Indian water came*.
> 
> V. Kruglyakov &#8220; I had obtained the order from the commander-in-chief not to allow the advancement of the American fleet to the military bases of India&#8221;
> 
> "We encircled them and aimed the missiles at the 'Enterprise'. We had blocked their way and didn't allow them to head anywhere, neither to Karachi, nor to Chittagong or Dhaka".
> 
> The Soviet ships had small range rockets (only upto 300 KM). Therefore, to hold the opponent under the range, commanders ran risks of going as near to the enemy as possible.
> 
> "The Chief Commander had ordered me to lift the submarines and bring them to the surface so that it can be pictured by the American spy satellites or can be seen by the American Navy!' It was done to demonstrate, that we had all the needed things in Indian Ocean, including the nuclear submarines. I had lifted them, and they recognized it. Then, we intercepted the American communication. The commander of the Carrier Battle Group was then the counter-admiral Dimon Gordon. He sent the report to the 7th American Fleet Commander: *'Sir, we are too late. There are Russian nuclear submarines here, and a big collection of battleships'.*
> 
> *Americans returned and couldn't do anything. Soviet Union had also threatened China that, if they ever opened a front against India on its border, they will receive a tough response from North*.
> 
> Role of Sri Lanka
> 
> 
> Pakistani high commissioner in Colombo, Seema Ilahi Baloch said in her speech addressed to Lanka-Pakistan business council in Colombo in June, 2011 that Pakistan can never forget the help which Sri Lanka offered to Pakistan during the 1971 war between India and Pakistan.
> 
> "We in Pakistan cannot forget the logistical and political support Sri Lanka extended to us in 1971 when it opened its refueling facilities for us," she said.
> 
> Pakistani Aircraft destined to East Pakistan flew taking a round of India via Sri Lanka, since they could not fly over Indian sky. This forced Pakistan to get its aircrafts refueled on the way. Sri Lanka eager to help Pakistan, allowed Pakistani aircrafts for refueling at the Bandaranaike airport.
> 
> The war ended with the surrender of Pakistani army as they missed American help due to quick Russians who blocked both America and China from preventing India to advance. With this, a new country named Bangladesh was formed, which was recognized by the whole world and by Pakistan in the following year with Shimla Agreement.
> 
> 
> Source: 1971 India Pakistan War: Role of Russia, China, America and Britain | The World Reporter: News Opinion and Analysis 1971 India Pakistan War: Role of Russia, China, America and Britain | The World Reporter: News Opinion and Analysis
> 
> 
> *Link
> 1971 India Pakistan War: Role of Russia, China, America and Britain | The World Reporter: News Opinion and Analysis*





Sergi said:


> *I am curious about British role in 71. I heard it first time. Does any body have more info on that ???*



right now Indian economy has taken a large size but till 70s and 80s, per capita income of Russia was more than 12 times to that of China and around 11 times bigger than India. there was only US Vs SU/Russia till 1990 and Pakistan was in group of US/UK since 1947 while India had joined SU by mid 60s. during 1971 war, Pakistan was heaving equipped with US's/western arms while India was equipped with Russian arms only, like how Mig21 performed for India during that war. while British interests was just to keep India within limits with keeping Pakistan in this region to engage India with Pakistan only. SU/Russia used Veto very frequently in favor of India during that period while US/UK just tried to catch India somewhere to put different sanctions on India which were defeated by SU's Veto's. India openly formed NAM against NATO, did nuclear test in 1974 which angered US/UK much and then they put sanctions on India and since then India couldnt get uranium fuel supply since 1974 till 2009, neither India got any help from NSG in terms of any nuclear energy co-operation till 2009. even during nuclear deal drama in late 2008, between India and West, heavy dramas were made and many times it looked like that deal was gone but somehow it could be agreed after heavy negotiations..........

India and US/UK were never together, neither during British Rule nor since Independence in 1947. it was in fact indian first PM Mr Nehru for was among the founder member of NAM against NATO. even if Indian professionals migrated to US from 50s to 90s, (similarly how British have been taking Indian top skills during last 2 centuries), it was heavily criticized by Indian media as they named it 'Brain Drain' as there were not enough engineering/ medical institutes in India till late 90s and the creamy layer was being taken by US's firms by offering good salaries to Indian professionals, like how British also took Indian creamy layer during last 2 centuries . and even right now, sometimes it looks like China is the prime target of US/West ,or, sometimes it looks like that they have put India on the first target and they are trying to negotiate with rest of the world........................


----------



## Hello_10

Fazlu said:


> Not really, Bangladesh is one of the few countries over which Indian government exerts considerable. Regardless of the administration being led by BNP, AL or the army.



but in fact it has been proved that Ms Indira Gandhi did a mistake for going for Independence of Bangladesh in 1971. Indira Gandhi might have adopted a co-operative attitude with Pakistan in 1971 which might have solved many big issues with Bangladesh with which India is struggling right now. If Bangladesh might have remained part of Pakistan, Bangladesh was going to have same type of fencing on the border like how India has with Pakistan right now. and as West Pakistan was a more wealthy state till 1971, because of their natural resources and farm rich Punjab, if Bangladesh might have remained part of Pakistan then at least the 30mil Illegal Bangladeshi living in India might have gone to Pakistan during 70s and 80s. even right now, defense budget of Bangladesh is hardly $1.2bil which would increase Pakistan's defence budget to hardly $7.2bil while Indian defense budget is $40bil? then, how India got anything by parting Pakistan, other than heavy influx of Bangladeshi people who are just running from Bangladesh


----------



## tvsram1992

Surenas said:


> Aha, which Pakistani politician or general was responsible for the defeat? Why did they lost?


We cant credit the loss to one person . Its was the failure of their intelligence and their army . They failed to prevent RAW entering their territory . Pakistan was feeling insecure , despite help from NATO they failed to attack Indian bases successfully . They were unable to take the advantage of their first move . First they underestimated us , got their *** burnt , then they overestimated us and surrendered to us . 
You can study in more detail here . See right for generals , casualities 
Indo-Pakistani War of 1971 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is how they lost utterly
They lost their submarine , Pakistan lost half its navy, a quarter of its air force and a third of its army , Moreover, the army had failed to fulfill its promises of fighting to the last man. The eastern command had laid down arms after losing only 1,300 men in battle. In West Pakistan 1,200 military deaths had accompanied lackluster military performance."

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## IceCold

tvsram1992 said:


> This is how they lost utterly
> They lost their submarine , Pakistan lost half its navy, a quarter of its air force and a third of its army , *Moreover, the army had failed to fulfill its promises of fighting to the last man. The eastern command had laid down arms after losing only 1,300 men in battle. In West Pakistan 1,200 military deaths had accompanied lackluster military performance."*



It was not the army but the politicians who surrendered. I can relate examples to that but then again what purpose will it serve. So give it a rest.

Wikipedia by the way is hardly a reliable source that you are quoting here.


----------



## Windjammer

tvsram1992 said:


> No we defeated them utterly . 100k troops surrendered , lost their territory , despite they did preemptive raids on Indian air bases, they failed .



Utter nonsense, the often gloated figure of 90k troops is just Bharti BS, the combat troops number was no more than 45k, rest were from like Police and other utility services,....do you even know what the term pre-emptive means or you just picked up the term from the six day Arab Israeli war. Pakistan launched strikes in the Western theatre on the evening of 3rd December 1971, where as air battles and border skirmishes had already taken place in the Eastern sector in the last week of November, after that both countries were at a war footing, unlike the Arab countries, it's not as if India wasn't expecting a war.
Furthermore, Pakistan was fighting an enemy several times it's own size 1000 miles away separated by enemy territory, without the benefit of any supplies or reinforcements...... some years later, what happened to the Indian Army in Sri Lanka aka India's Vietnam, should suffice to put a lid on any gloating.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Markus

Yes, its true that out of 90K POWs, the pak army members were around 45-50K but even thats a huge number.

Can anyone answer as to why they chose to surrender rather than go down fighting?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## DESERT FIGHTER

Windjammer said:


> Utter nonsense, the often gloated figure of 90k troops is just Bharti BS, the combat troops number was no more than 45k, rest were from like Police and other utility services,....do you even know what the term pre-emptive means or you just picked up the term from the six day Arab Israeli war. Pakistan launched strikes in the Western theatre on the evening of 3rd December 1971, where as air battles and border skirmishes had already taken place in the Eastern sector in the last week of November, after that both countries were at a war footing, unlike the Arab countries, it's not as if India wasn't expecting a war.
> Furthermore, Pakistan was fighting an enemy several times it's own size 1000 miles away separated by enemy territory, without the benefit of any supplies or reinforcements...... some years later, what happened to the Indian Army in Sri Lanka aka India's Vietnam, should suffice to put a lid on any gloating.


 
The number was between 30-32K, 1 PAF sqd and no radar or air cover....sanctions etc... and still the indian navy couldnt enter our territory coz it was all mined...


----------



## 45'22'

Pakistani Nationalist said:


> The number was between 30-32K, 1 PAF sqd and no radar or air cover....sanctions etc... and still the indian navy couldnt enter our territory coz it was all mined...


how come u mined the sea plz explain,regarding Indian navy,the purpose was a blockade and it was successful

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Windjammer

Pakistani Nationalist said:


> The number was between 30-32K, 1 PAF sqd and no radar or air cover....sanctions etc... and still the indian navy couldnt enter our territory coz it was all mined...


Yea, single PAF squadron of obsolete F-86s facing Ten IAF units, three of them equipped with MiG-21s, where is moral in that... still the Tail Choppers managed to shoot twice the number Indian aircraft in air combat than what they lost ..



Markus said:


> Yes, its true that out of 90K POWs, the pak army members were around 45-50K but even thats a huge number.
> 
> Can anyone answer as to why they chose to surrender rather than go down fighting?



It was a political decision by the same scum bags who recalled General Tikka back from the Eastern Sector earlier.


----------



## Markus

Windjammer said:


> It was a political decision by the same scum bags who recalled General Tikka back from the Eastern Sector earlier.



Well, thats terrible for your army.

Surrendering in '71 has put a big blot on its reputation that they have still not managed to erase !!!

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Rusty

Surenas said:


> Don't know much about the war, but if I'm correctly India easily defeated Pakistan in this war?



India won a war that it had every single advantage in. 
East Pakistan was cut off from West Pakistan by hostile India, they had no back up, or logistics, and were completely surrounded by India. They were also fighting in a hostile environment and didn't have the support of the people. Finally, India is 7x bigger then Pakistan and has 1/6th of the earths population so Pakistan cannot match India in sheer numbers or size. The military decided that there was no point in fighting as they would lose any ways, so they decided to save the lives of their men. 

Basically the war was gift warped for India and honestly, even a baby would have won that war given all those advantages. 

The thing is, Indians like to gloat about this because it is their greatest moment in the last 1000 years. Have have suffered humiliation for a millennium, the greatest thing they have managed to achieve in that time is an easy victory over Pakistan.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Windjammer

Markus said:


> Well, thats terrible for your army.
> 
> Surrendering in '71 has put a big blot on its reputation that they have still not managed to erase !!!



All this happened before our life time, those with their head on their shoulders, understand that fighting a war away from home with one hand tied, against a much larger enemy was a no win situation, however in 2001 stand off, the PA proved it's mettle. !!


----------



## digitaltiger

Last Hope said:


> What what irony that, Pakistan has nearly developed an ACC killer missile/torpedo. Please don't ask for source now, I already made a thread and gave all the information. And according to my knowledge, your Intelligence/Navy know it too. Any foolish attempt to attack Pakistan would result in fatal decision for India. This is not ego but fact, which is a part of 'rules of use of nukes' by Pakistan.



Your Avatar name compliments your comment  Last hope......


----------



## SamantK

IceCold said:


> Yeah well your interesting piece was too long for me to read.


 And you post authoritative statements with this attitude?


----------



## Sergi

Hello_10 said:


> right now Indian economy has taken a large size but till 70s and 80s, per capita income of Russia was more than 12 times to that of China and around 11 times bigger than India. there was only US Vs SU/Russia till 1990 and Pakistan was in group of US/UK since 1947 while India had joined SU by mid 60s. during 1971 war, Pakistan was heaving equipped with US's/western arms while India was equipped with Russian arms only, like how Mig21 performed for India during that war. while British interests was just to keep India within limits with keeping Pakistan in this region to engage India with Pakistan only. SU/Russia used Veto very frequently in favor of India during that period while US/UK just tried to catch India somewhere to put different sanctions on India which were defeated by SU's Veto's. India openly formed NAM against NATO, did nuclear test in 1974 which angered US/UK much and then they put sanctions on India and since then India couldnt get uranium fuel supply since 1974 till 2009, neither India got any help from NSG in terms of any nuclear energy co-operation till 2009. even during nuclear deal drama in late 2008, between India and West, heavy dramas were made and many times it looked like that deal was gone but somehow it could be agreed after heavy negotiations..........
> 
> India and US/UK were never together, neither during British Rule nor since Independence in 1947. it was in fact indian first PM Mr Nehru for was among the founder member of NAM against NATO. even if Indian professionals migrated to US from 50s to 90s, (similarly how British have been taking Indian top skills during last 2 centuries), it was heavily criticized by Indian media as they named it 'Brain Drain' as there were not enough engineering/ medical institutes in India till late 90s and the creamy layer was being taken by US's firms by offering good salaries to Indian professionals, like how British also took Indian creamy layer during last 2 centuries . and even right now, sometimes it looks like China is the prime target of US/West ,or, sometimes it looks like that they have put India on the first target and they are trying to negotiate with rest of the world........................



Hello_10 I know what you write. I was asking something different. What was British role in 71 exactly if you know please share it too.



Windjammer said:


> Utter nonsense, the often gloated figure of 90k troops is just Bharti BS, the combat troops number was no more than 45k, rest were from like Police and other utility services,....do you even know what the term pre-emptive means or you just picked up the term from the six day Arab Israeli war. Pakistan launched strikes in the Western theatre on the evening of 3rd December 1971, where as air battles and border skirmishes had already taken place in the Eastern sector in the last week of November, after that both countries were at a war footing, unlike the Arab countries, it's not as if India wasn't expecting a war.
> Furthermore, Pakistan was fighting an enemy several times it's own size 1000 miles away separated by enemy territory, without the benefit of any supplies or reinforcements...... some years later, what happened to the Indian Army in Sri Lanka aka India's Vietnam, should suffice to put a lid on any gloating.


Actual figure is in 90K and not all where combatants. Army that surrender was about 45/50K. I agree with most of part but you missed one important point in defeat - Hostile natives. People in BD were actually fighting against Pak and with India. They were welcoming IA. It was the MAJOR reason for defeat. And you can give the credit for that to the Atrocites by PA. so in somehow they dig their own grave. 
Let there be any political crisis if PA hadn't abused BDs by force there wasn't any chance of war. But you guies seem to forget that. 

BTW but when I read some comments on 62 Pak members have different opinions about No supply , hostile terrain and underprepared men theory. Double standard

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## tvsram1992

IceCold said:


> It was not the army but the politicians who surrendered. I can relate examples to that but then again what purpose will it serve. So give it a rest.
> 
> Wikipedia by the way is hardly a reliable source that you are quoting here.


 half of them was army  Take a break i dont think you have 45k politicians . Dont blame your leadership ,it is incapability of your army .
You want me to give sources other than wiki ?  Then would you agree you are loser ?



Windjammer said:


> Utter nonsense, the often gloated figure of 90k troops is just Bharti BS, the combat troops number was no more than 45k, rest were from like Police and other utility services,....do you even know what the term pre-emptive means or you just picked up the term from the six day Arab Israeli war. Pakistan launched strikes in the Western theatre on the evening of 3rd December 1971, where as air battles and border skirmishes had already taken place in the Eastern sector in the last week of November, after that both countries were at a war footing, unlike the Arab countries, it's not as if India wasn't expecting a war.
> Furthermore, Pakistan was fighting an enemy several times it's own size 1000 miles away separated by enemy territory, without the benefit of any supplies or reinforcements...... some years later, what happened to the Indian Army in Sri Lanka aka India's Vietnam, should suffice to put a lid on any gloating.


 ok 45k trrps is not a joke and remaining 45k are not common men , they are also part of security .  Dont you know in 1999 we are 7 times larger than you? LTTE was defeated in SL ad our objectives were achieved .  Can you quote air battles on eastern front ? Else just STFU . Go and learn the definition of preemptive strike , before the war break out your planes violated and attacked our bases and still you lost .  When you are speaking about IA in SL do look at your current situation where Drones are flying and US killing your soldiers , terrorists destroying at your bases and Abbotabad operation , insecure life , attack on jail , .... More over in SL war our casualities on main land was very low where as terrorists are freely roaming in your cities . You want links for all of above ?



Rusty said:


> India won a war that it had every single advantage in.
> East Pakistan was cut off from West Pakistan by hostile India, they had no back up, or logistics, and were completely surrounded by India. They were also fighting in a hostile environment and didn't have the support of the people. Finally, India is 7x bigger then Pakistan and has 1/6th of the earths population so Pakistan cannot match India in sheer numbers or size. The military decided that there was no point in fighting as they would lose any ways, so they decided to save the lives of their men.
> Basically the war was gift warped for India and honestly, even a baby would have won that war given all those advantages.
> The thing is, Indians like to gloat about this because it is their greatest moment in the last 1000 years. Have have suffered humiliation for a millennium, the greatest thing they have managed to achieve in that time is an easy victory over Pakistan.


When East Pakistan is part of you why didnt you have enough armament there rather than speaking bull sh*t here that lack of logistics 1000s of miles away ? Who prevented you in taking secure measures before war . Stop complaining like a kid . Your army promised to fight till death but showed their backs and surrender . I know it hurts you but its a fact . Next time keep in mind that


Rusty said:


> India is 7x bigger then Pakistan and has 1/6th of the earths population so Pakistan cannot match India in sheer numbers or size.


Dont try to act that you are brave here ... since you know the factors just stfu .

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## IND151

Rusty said:


> India won a war that it had every single advantage in.
> East Pakistan was cut off from West Pakistan by hostile India, they had no back up, or logistics, and were completely surrounded by India. They were also fighting in a hostile environment and didn't have the support of the people. Finally, India is 7x bigger then Pakistan and has 1/6th of the earths population so Pakistan cannot match India in sheer numbers or size. The military decided that there was no point in fighting as they would lose any ways, so they decided to save the lives of their men.
> 
> Basically the war was gift warped for India and honestly, even a baby would have won that war given all those advantages.
> 
> *The thing is, Indians like to gloat about this because it is their greatest moment in the last 1000 years. Have have suffered humiliation for a millennium, the greatest thing they have managed to achieve in that time is an easy victory over Pakistan.*



Maratha rule on Peshawar, marathas defeating mughals in 27 years of war, our control over Siachin glacier .................ring any bells?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## T90TankGuy

^^^ no need to remind them . they just need to look around at any map and they are reminded of it .

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## shiv

jbgt90 said:


> ^^^ no need to remind them . they just need to look around at any map and they are reminded of it .



Kashmir is still with us inspite of we being a land of infidels and allah (supposedly) being on their side ..


----------



## LimPeh

Rusty said:


> Can we put 71 on the ban list of topics?
> It has been discussed to death and there is literally nothing more that can be said.
> Let's move on and look to the future.



Haha you can't do that mate. You'd lose all your Indian audience on this forum instantly. Those poor chaps have nothing else to talk about besides that one victory which was a pure fluke. Give them the chance to keep denying the fact that the only reason they won was because they walked right smack into a civil war and picked a side. Let the poor fellows have a _false sense of_ national pride for once.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Rusty

IND151 said:


> Maratha rule on Peshawar, marathas defeating mughals in 27 years of war, our control over Siachin glacier .................ring any bells?



how long did that last?
You people were humiliated for 1000 years, 800 under Muslim rule and 200 under British. 
And now you are gloating over things like Siachin and Bangladesh. 

C'mon man, any non baised observer would say "so what, you are 1/6th of the Earth's humaity and you beat up on a country 7x smaller then you. What you want a cookie for your "achievements" ? "



LimPeh said:


> Haha you can't do that mate. You'd lose all your Indian audience on this forum instantly. Those poor chaps have nothing else to talk about besides that one victory which was a pure fluke. Give them the chance to keep denying the fact that the only reason they won was because they walked right smack into a civil war and picked a side. Let the poor fellows have a _false sense of_ national pride for once.



So absolutely true.


----------



## LimPeh

shiv said:


> Kashmir is still with us inspite of we being a land of infidels and allah (supposedly) being on their side ..



Only because the other side made several tactical blunders and followed a path which worked against them. They've only lost the battles, not the war. They've been showing some pretty good results in the WoT of late, and looks like they are cleaning up their act. Very soon they'd be resurging fast like how Sri Lanka is doing today. Don't forget that Pakistan is way smaller than India with loads of resources too. Once they are able to utilize their advantages well, they'd be definitely a threat to India once again. _You boys have way more mess to clean up in your own homes_

And with big Brother  right next door amassing battalions at the border, getting increasingly edgy over South Tibet which is rightfully his, all the Pakistanis have to do is to wait for that opportune moment when your forces are swamped by the superior PLA.

Don't think Kashmir will stay with you my friends, it never was yours to begin with.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## tvsram1992

LimPeh said:


> Haha you can't do that mate. You'd lose all your Indian audience on this forum instantly. Those poor chaps have nothing else to talk about besides that one victory which was a pure fluke. Give them the chance to keep denying the fact that the only reason they won was because they walked right smack into a civil war and picked a side. Let the poor fellows have a _false sense of_ national pride for once.


Idiot false flag troll . The poor chaps are the ones who surrendered shameless not following promise that they would fight till death of last Soldier . You know your dear country lost its territory , almost half of its military . Atleast we won four wars despite Pakistan attacked us . Where were you when Chinese were boasting about 1962 ? Atleast we have a reason to feel proud of , what does your country has? Not Singapore , Iam asking about Pakistan .
Reply to me ill say who are poor people .

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## SamantK

LimPeh said:


> Don't think Kashmir will stay with you my friends, it never was yours to begin with.


 It was handed over to us on a platter because some desperate Pakistanis would not have waited..

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## LimPeh

tvsram1992 said:


> Idiot false flag troll . The poor chaps are the ones who surrendered shameless not following promise that they would fight till death of last Soldier . You know your dear country lost its territory , almost half of its military . Atleast we won four wars despite Pakistan attacked us . Where were you when Chinese were boasting about 1962 ? Atleast we have a reason to feel proud of , what does your country has? Not Singapore , Iam asking about Pakistan .
> Reply to me ill say who are poor people .



Nope I'm not Pakistani and I'm Singaporean and the reason I'm siding Pakistanis here is because I don't like India, the nation and the people. Very simple. You don't have to be a Pakistani to hate India. You just need to be a normal human being with a sound thought process to know that India is an oversold lemon. Any one with a brain would hate India, not just Pakistanis.


----------



## aanshu001

Rusty said:


> how long did that last?
> You people were humiliated for 1000 years, 800 under Muslim rule and 200 under British.
> And now you are gloating over things like Siachin and Bangladesh.
> 
> So absolutely true.



Dude it was like your part of land was not under British and if you study history in 800 years of so called Muslim rule except Mugals the maximum Indian sub-continent (except Delhi, Deccan & Bengal) was always under Independent rule of Rajpoots, Gujars, and south was nearly untouched. The most controlled was Mugal Empire that also coz of Rajpoot-Mugal friendship. From time of Akbar the main General were Rajpoot (Raja Bhawandhas) till Aurangzeb (Raja Maan Singh). 

And concept of Pakistan was barely 5-7 year old before Independence until 1942 Mr. Jinnah was confuse what to do only after that he raised his voice strongly for a Muslim Country, That is one major reason lack of leadership and democratic structure which failed after tragic death of Mr. Jinnah.



Rusty said:


> how long did that last?
> You people were humiliated for 1000 years, 800 under Muslim rule and 200 under British.
> And now you are gloating over things like Siachin and Bangladesh.
> 
> So absolutely true.



Dude it was like your part of land was not under British and if you study history in 800 years of so called Muslim rule except Mugals the maximum Indian sub-continent (except Delhi, Deccan & Bengal) was always under Independent rule of Rajpoots, Gujars, and south was nearly untouched. The most controlled was Mugal Empire that also coz of Rajpoot-Mugal friendship. From time of Akbar the main General were Rajpoot (Raja Bhawandhas) till Aurangzeb (Raja Maan Singh). 

And concept of Pakistan was barely 5-7 year old before Independence until 1942 Mr. Jinnah was confuse what to do only after that he raised his voice strongly for a Muslim Country, That is one major reason lack of leadership and democratic structure which failed after tragic death of Mr. Jinnah.


----------



## Shinigami

LimPeh said:


> Nope I'm not Pakistani and I'm Singaporean and the reason I'm siding Pakistanis here is because I don't like India, the nation and the people. Very simple. You don't have to be a Pakistani to hate India. You just need to be a normal human being with a sound thought process to know that India is an oversold lemon. Any one with a brain would hate India, not just Pakistanis.


 
and i am an eskimo living in sri lanka.

why dont u stop lying and get back to your sweat shop

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Gautam

China and US supported but still pakistn surrendered to India? now that must be very shameful and humiliating

can any pakistani member tell us how did it feel like?

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## shiv

Gautam said:


> China and US supported but still pakistn surrendered to India? now that must be very shameful and humiliating
> 
> can any pakistani member tell us how did it feel like?



they dug their own grave

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## IceCold

tvsram1992 said:


> half of them was army  Take a break i dont think you have 45k politicians . Dont blame your leadership ,it is incapability of your army .
> You want me to give sources other than wiki ?  Then would you agree you are loser ?



You stupid Fcuk understand my post and then write your BS. You dont think? do you really think i give a damn about what you piss drinkers really think. 
Pakistan lost in 71, do you think i believe it otherwise? Then you are a moron. I specifically quoted the part where he mentioned about the numbers of Pakistan army being destroyed. Now STFU



samantk said:


> And you post authoritative statements with this attitude?



Its the original article posted by one of your kind that i quoted. As for the attitude, have a look in the mirror. I don't intend to enter into a useless debate with your kind over something that has been discussed so many times over, yet you guys feel some sort of inner satisfaction that makes one of you to open such threads every now and then.


----------



## IND151

Sergi said:


> Hello_10 I know what you write. I was asking something different. What was British role in 71 exactly if you know please share it too.
> 
> 
> Actual figure is in 90K and not all where combatants. Army that surrender was about 45/50K. I agree with most of part but you missed one important point in defeat - Hostile natives. People in BD were actually fighting against Pak and with India. They were welcoming IA. It was the MAJOR reason for defeat. And you can give the credit for that to the Atrocites by PA. so in somehow they dig their own grave.
> Let there be any political crisis if PA hadn't abused BDs by force there wasn't any chance of war. But you guies seem to forget that.
> 
> *BTW but when I read some comments on 62 Pak members have different opinions about No supply , hostile terrain and underprepared men theory. Double standard *



not surprising


----------



## SamantK

IceCold said:


> Its the original article posted by one of your kind that i quoted. As for the attitude, have a look in the mirror. I don't intend to enter into a useless debate with your kind over something that has been discussed so many times over, yet you guys feel some sort of inner satisfaction that makes one of you to open such threads every now and then.


 Crying does not help a dicussion at hand, if you think you have dicussed enough why post on such threads.. If you see enough threads about India are being posted by your fratenity, so am I crying here? 
However, even after discussing so many times some Elite members here still believe that there was no help from US.. 

Also, if you knew the facts, does not matter who or what was quoted, then there was no need to lie regardless and which only served to satisfy your ego..


----------



## IND151

Rusty said:


> how long did that last?
> You people were humiliated for 1000 years, 800 under Muslim rule and 200 under British.
> And now you are gloating over things like Siachin and Bangladesh.
> 
> *C'mon man, any non baised observer would say "so what, you are 1/6th of the Earth's humaity and you beat up on a country 7x smaller then you.* What you want a cookie for your "achievements" ? "
> 
> 
> 
> So absolutely true.



mughals had 2 to 3 times bigger army than marathas also had allies



> Despite the Mughal army's vast numerical superiority, the empire's treasury, and the support of allies such as the Siddhis, Portuguese, Golkonda and Bijapur sultanates, the war ended in 1707 with a victory for the Maratha Empire.[2][3][4] On his side,* Aurangzeb commanded an army numbering half a million soldiers which was more than three times that of the Maratha army*, a powerful artillery, lakhs of horses and thousands of elephants. The total number of battles fought was in hundreds. Aurangzeb threw everything he had in this war, but lost it all.[2]



the point i want to make that, the *claim of some members *on forum that* India won all war due to massive size and numerical superiority* is* not entirely true*

*Maratha kingdom was barely 1/6th in size than today's Pakistan, but they defeated an empire which was nearly thrice large than today's Pakistan*


----------



## Jackdaws

If anything stands out during the War of 1971 - it is quite simply this - 

Every country tried to protect its self-interest - there was absolutely no altruism. 

USA - USA was a staunch Pakistani ally because the Pakistanis were helping thaw relations between China and USA. But their hands were tied behind their back because of Pakistani action on ground against the Bengalis had captured popular imagination. 

China - Besides becoming a communist counterweight to USSR (after Sino-Soviet split); China wanted to economically succeed. 

Pakistan - Of course Pakistan was counting on its allies and of course Pakistan wanted to keep itself united. Of course the allies deserted Pakistan because they could not realistically sell the story of helping Pakistanis to their own people. 

USSR - They did not do anything to help India. They just saw a potential new ally in Bangladesh and weaken the American sphere of influence in Asia.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## SamantK

IND151 said:


> mughals had 2 to 3 times bigger army than marathas also had allies'
> 
> [QUOTE]Despite the Mughal army's vast numerical superiority, the empire's treasury, and the support of allies such as the Siddhis, Portuguese, Golkonda and Bijapur sultanates, the war ended in 1707 with a victory for the Maratha Empire.[2][3][4] On his side,* Aurangzeb commanded an army numbering half a million soldiers which was more than three times that of the Maratha army*, a powerful artillery, lakhs of horses and thousands of elephants. The total number of battles fought was in hundreds. Aurangzeb threw everything he had in this war, but lost it all.[2]
> the point i want to make that, the claim of some members on forum that* India won all war due to massive size and numerical superiority* is not entirely true
> 
> *Maratha kingdom was barely 1/6th in size than today's Pakistan, but they defeated an empire which was nearly thrice large than today's Pakistan*



You dint even have to respond to these, these arguments are for the ones who want to hide behind reasons however unrelated.. all we can say is thier army was in BD not to fight a war, it was present there for an inhuman thing which led to its downfall..


----------



## IceCold

samantk said:


> Crying does not help a dicussion at hand, if you think you have dicussed enough why post on such threads.. If you see enough threads about India are being posted by your fratenity, so am I crying here?
> However, even after discussing so many times some Elite members here still believe that there was no help from US..
> 
> Also, if you knew the facts, does not matter who or what was quoted, then there was no need to lie regardless and which only served to satisfy your ego..



Oh shut up. You feel the need to post useless nonsense and you want it to go unchecked. Maybe you need to go and read the article AGAIN. The popular believe by Indians was that Pakistan got all the help while the Indians were alone, yet we defeated Pakistan. Can you point out to me what help that was because i surely can point out the help the Russians provided. So who exactly is lying here. 
Have a look at post # 76, this is the kind of believe i was referring to.


----------



## LimPeh

IceCold said:


> Oh shut up. You feel the need to post useless nonsense and you want it to go unchecked. Maybe you need to go and read the article AGAIN. *The popular believe by Indians was that Pakistan got all the help while the Indians were alone, yet we defeated Pakistan.* Can you point out to me what help that was because i surely can point out the help the Russians provided. So who exactly is lying here.
> Have a look at post # 76, this is the kind of believe i was referring to.



Their history books forgot to add in one tiny detail though. That India actually walked right into the middle of a major civil war in Pakistan and took advantage of her internal problems at that point.

When you actually factor that in, and present the events as they had actually occurred, it becomes a way different scenario. Basically they are real good at hitting below the belt but yet like to make claims of being heroes who fight fair.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## SamantK

IceCold said:


> Oh shut up. You feel the need to post useless nonsense and you want it to go unchecked. Maybe you need to go and read the article AGAIN. The popular believe by Indians was that Pakistan got all the help while the Indians were alone, yet we defeated Pakistan. Can you point out to me what help that was because i surely can point out the help the Russians provided. So who exactly is lying here.
> Have a look at post # 76, this is the kind of believe i was referring to.


 Silly you, where and when did 'I' claim that India did not recieve any help, just putting their submarines to deter the USN was enough of a help. 

If you cannot read the article I posted which proved to be too log for you, its not my mistake that you are still a baby which has to be nipple fed.. 

Some hole you are and btw the feeling is mutual only im civilized enough not to respond in kind..


----------



## IceCold

LimPeh said:


> Their history books forgot to add in one tiny detail though. That India actually walked right into the middle of a major civil war in Pakistan and took advantage of her internal problems at that point.
> 
> When you actually factor that in, and present the events as they had actually occurred, it becomes a way different scenario. Basically they are real good at hitting below the belt but yet like to make claims of being heroes who fight fair.



That is the whole point yet the super duper army could not move an inch in either 2001 stand off nor after the Mumbai drama despite of the tall claims made. The only thing they can ponder on and feel proud is their sponsored terrorism in East Pakistan.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## SamantK

LimPeh said:


> Their history books forgot to add in one tiny detail though. That India actually walked right into the middle of a major civil war in Pakistan and took advantage of her internal problems at that point.


 And you forgot one piece of info, it was genocide and millions of refugees started crossing over the border into India... were you in the Pakistani Army then? 



> When you actually factor that in, and present the events as they had actually occurred, it becomes a way different scenario. Basically they are real good at hitting below the belt but yet like to make claims of being heroes who fight fair.


 Yes, we are evil Bhramin Yindoos... im sure you cannot help either ways.. 



IceCold said:


> That is the whole point yet the super duper army could not move an inch in either 2001 stand off nor after the Mumbai drama despite of the tall claims made. The only thing they can ponder on and feel proud is their sponsored terrorism in East Pakistan.


 We never wanted to unlike you guys who dint give a damn about world politics, but how could you, the people of Pakistan never had a true elected representative.. so every leader came, got his ego satisfied or defeated and then became the part of Pakistan's infamous history..

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Kyusuibu Honbu

LimPeh said:


> Their history books forgot to add in one tiny detail though. *That India actually walked right into the middle of a major civil war in Pakistan* and took advantage of her internal problems at that point.



Of your Indophobic perversion masks the fact that it was Pakistan that instigated the war, by launching operation Chengiz Khan.

Operation_Chengiz_Khan

India responded in self-defence, which is perfectly legal from the UN charter.



> Article 51: Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of collective or individual self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. Measures taken by members in 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.







> When you actually factor that in, and present the events as they had actually occurred, it becomes a way different scenario.






> Basically they are real good at hitting below the belt



We take that as a compliment, thank you!



> but yet like to make claims of *being heroes* who fight fair.



Ever heard of Longewala, 

Battle_of_Longewala

By the way, what was Singapore stance in this war?


What was Singapore's reaction to the massacre of East Pakistanis?

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## IceCold

samantk said:


> Silly you, where and when did 'I' claim that India did not recieve any help, just putting their submarines to deter the USN was enough of a help.
> 
> If you cannot read the article I posted which proved to be too log for you, its not my mistake that you are still a baby which has to be nipple fed..
> 
> Some hole you are and btw the feeling is mutual only im civilized enough not to respond in kind..



I said popular believe you moron. If you cant read properly or have a comprehension problem, that's not my fault. You posted an article and quoted it yourself so that others could not.....how convenient of you? 

As for being civilized, shove it where the sun does not shine.


----------



## SamantK

IceCold said:


> I said popular believe you moron. If you cant read properly or have a comprehension problem, that's not my fault. You posted an article and quoted it yourself so that others could not.....how convenient of you?
> 
> As for being civilized, shove it where the sun does not shine.


 hahaha, you seems to be lost on the idea of copy paste.. anyways.. have fun trolling... your reasoning is as degraded as you mouth..


----------



## IceCold

samantk said:


> We never wanted to unlike you guys who dint give a damn about world politics, but how could you, the people of Pakistan never had a true elected representative.. so every leader came, got his ego satisfied or defeated and then became the part of Pakistan's infamous history..



Ahh the usual holier then thou attitude. We never wanted to but the Evil Pakistanis needed to be taught a lesson so we did.



samantk said:


> hahaha, you seems to be lost on the idea of copy paste.. anyways.. have fun trolling... your reasoning is as degraded as you mouth..



You don't copy paste on a forum genius. At least learn how you post an article with a source and not just copy paste things so that others can quote. Now get lost. You are a waste of time.


----------



## SamantK

IceCold said:


> Ahh the usual holier then thou attitude. We never wanted to but the Evil Pakistanis needed to be taught a lesson so we did.
> 
> You don't copy paste on a forum genius. At least learn how you post an article with a source and not just copy paste things so that others can quote. Now get lost. You are a waste of time.


 Oh it seems I have touched a raw nerve.. its ok Kid.. here is the link read it up.. dont ask me to feed it again.. 

The Men Behind Yahya in the Indo
Another one here

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB79/


----------



## CZAR

LimPeh said:


> Haha you can't do that mate. You'd lose all your Indian audience on this forum instantly. Those poor chaps have nothing else to talk about besides that one victory which was a pure fluke. Give them the chance to keep denying the fact that the only reason they won was because they walked right smack into a civil war and picked a side. Let the poor fellows have a _false sense of_ national pride for once.



lessons in national pride from a dude from a city state?! That's like a vegetarian talking about juicy steak. The combined land holding of a few relatives of mine is more than the total size of Singapore. You don't belong here, son. Go pick a fight somewhere else.


----------



## Zeeshan360

Ice cold is **** hurt it seems

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## BATMAN

Apparently, It was not alone USSR


----------



## tvsram1992

edited :i dont like to use bad words , would request icecold to do same . we are senior/elite members atleast we should have some sense in using abusive language
danger007 , happy ?


----------



## danger007

whats wrong with you guys.... alot of personal attacks going on...


----------



## Amolthebest

Bottomline is we won and we create Bangladesh. End of the thread.


----------



## KS

Rusty said:


> C'mon man, any non baised observer would say "so what, you are 1/6th of the Earth's humaity and you beat up on a country 7x smaller then you. "



Typical Pakistani self-glorification.

Indian Army is just above twice the size of Pakistani Army and in 65 and 71, a significant part of the IA was also stationed on the Chinese border while Pakistan had no such concerns and its entire army was focussed towards India.

So in the end it was a war between two armies of roughly the same size.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## LimPeh

CZAR said:


> lessons in national pride from a dude from a city state?! That's like a vegetarian talking about juicy steak. The combined land holding of a few relatives of mine is more than the total size of Singapore. You don't belong here, son. Go pick a fight somewhere else.



True we are small. I believe each slum in your nation is probably bigger than Singapore. Doesn't change the fact that we have made it and you are still struggling. We are rich, you are dirt poor, and you are left with no choice but to flock to our 'little city state' in planeloads to eke out a meagre living to feed your families. If your people had any national pride or self-respect, your talents would be staying behind in your own country fixing the problems over there. Not wh0ring their talents out to tiny dots like us.
China sends their people over too, but they keep their BEST within their own country, and that is exactly why China is everything India is not. So don't teach me about patriotism or national pride. 

The only thing you seem apt at doing is to keep falling back on a 4 decade old event, having beaten a country 1/10th your size, which was already being wrecked by civil war. If that helps u regain a sense of national pride, keep at it and knock yourselves out. 

Those who talk too much get on my nerves really. Even worse when I'm forced to start listening to crap from beggars.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## LimPeh

Amolthebest said:


> Bottomline is we won and we create Bangladesh. End of the thread.



In other words, you walked in on a way smaller neighbor and screwed up his home royally for him. And yet you act surprised when militants come over from there and wreck havoc in your own financial slums. While you are basking in your '71 glory, why not enlighten us on how your security forces royally screwed up in the whole Mumbai fiasco.

And while you are at that, please also tell us, how the Pakistanis were able to sneak their forces into India, not once or twice but so many times!?

Kargil, you had no clue what was going on till some farmers tipped you off.
Mumbai, you had no clue what was going on even way after the attack had started.

Rising power? More like a bunch of blur-c0cks!

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Amolthebest

LimPeh said:


> True we are small. I believe each slum in your nation is probably bigger than Singapore. Doesn't change the fact that we have made it and you are still struggling. We are rich, you are dirt poor, and you are left with no choice but to flock to our 'little city state' in planeloads to eke out a meagre living to feed your families. If your people had any national pride or self-respect, your talents would be staying behind in your own country fixing the problems over there. Not wh0ring their talents out to tiny dots like us.
> China sends their people over too, but they keep their BEST within their own country, and that is exactly why China is everything India is not. So don't teach me about patriotism or national pride.
> 
> The only thing you seem apt at doing is to keep falling back on a 4 decade old event, having beaten a country 1/10th your size, which was already being wrecked by civil war. If that helps u regain a sense of national pride, keep at it and knock yourselves out.
> 
> Those who talk too much get on my nerves really. Even worse when I'm forced to start listening to crap from beggars.



I think spanking in 1979 from small Vietnam hasve taken a toll on your logical thinking. My sympathies.



LimPeh said:


> In other words, you walked in on a way smaller neighbor and screwed up his home royally for him. And yet you act surprised when militants come over from there and wreck havoc in your own financial slums. While you are basking in your '71 glory, why not enlighten us on how your security forces royally screwed up in the whole Mumbai fiasco.
> 
> And while you are at that, please also tell us, how the Pakistanis were able to sneak their forces into India, not once or twice but so many times!?
> 
> Kargil, you had no clue what was going on till some farmers tipped you off.
> Mumbai, you had no clue what was going on even way after the attack had started.
> 
> Rising power? More like a bunch of blur-c0cks!



Please dont give us advice. You got spanking in 1979.Kargil we won . In order to hate India you are are supporting terrorists attacks like 26/11. But it seems you are too emotional unlike other Chinese members.My sympathies.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Kyusuibu Honbu

LimPeh said:


> True we are small. I believe each slum in your nation is probably bigger than Singapore.



In area, number of residents?



> Doesn't change the fact that we have made it and you are still struggling. We are rich, you are dirt poor, and you are left with no choice but to flock to our 'little city state' in planeloads to eke out a meagre living to feed your families.



Very good of Singapore.



> If your people had any national pride or self-respect, your talents would be staying behind in your own country fixing the problems over there. Not wh0ring their talents out to tiny dots like us.



Will you say the same about Singapore?




> China sends their people over too, *but they keep their BEST within their own countr*y, and that is exactly why China is everything India is not. So don't teach me about patriotism or national pride.



Any statistics to back that up?



> The only thing you seem apt at doing is to keep falling back on a 4 decade old event,



In your perception, mostly certainly maybe.



> having beaten a country 1/10th your size, which was already being wrecked by civil war.



Don't recall India _having beaten a country 1/10th her size, which was already being wrecked by civil war._




> If that helps u regain a sense of national pride, keep at it and knock yourselves out.



We have myriad things to feel proud.



> Those who talk too much get on my nerves really.



You must really hate yourself then. 



> Even worse when I'm forced to start listening to crap from beggars.



Then why beg?

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Kyusuibu Honbu

LimPeh said:


> In other words, you walked in on a way smaller neighbor and screwed up his home royally for him.



After all my effort in post 89 to educate you, seem like you"re too thick.




> And yet you act surprised when militants come over from there and wreck havoc in your own financial slums.



Comparing an act of terrorism to a conventional war, kudos to your intellect again.




> While you are basking in your '71 glory,
> 
> why not enlighten us on how your security forces royally screwed up in the whole Mumbai fiasco.



The attack was the first of its kind for any nation on the planet. 



> And while you are at that, please also tell us, how the Pakistanis were able to sneak their forces into India, not once or twice but so many times!?



In 1965, Most of those involved in operation Gibralter were captured.



> Kargil, you had no clue what was going on till some farmers tipped you off.



There are no farmers near that part of border.




> Mumbai, you had no clue what was going on even way after the attack had started.



I'm sorry, the terrorist didn't declare to us they were coming.



> Rising power? More like a bunch of *blur-c0cks*!



Ok, we get it, you must be watching **** in the other tab, the genitals have been blurred/censored and you"ve had a Freudian slip.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Windjammer

KS said:


> Typical Pakistani self-glorification.
> 
> Indian Army is just above twice the size of Pakistani Army and in 65 and 71, a significant part of the IA was also stationed on the Chinese border while Pakistan had no such concerns and its entire army was focussed towards India.
> 
> So in the end it was a war between two armies of roughly the same size.



Armies can't fight without arms and ammunition.
In 1971, Pakistan was under sanctions while India was under no such restrictions, besides, the troops fighting in Eastern sector were cut off from the mainland, with no form of supplies or reinforcements, furthermore they had to fight with the Muktis in the backyard and IA at the border, And the 10:1 air force ratio was also a factor in the East.


----------



## Kyusuibu Honbu

Windjammer said:


> Armies can't fight without arms and ammunition.
> In 1971, Pakistan was under sanctions while India was under no such restrictions, besides, the troops fighting in Eastern sector were cut off from the mainland, with no form of supplies or reinforcements, furthermore they had to fight with the Muktis in the backyard and IA at the border, And the 10:1 air force ratio was also a factor in the East.



Er.....Pakistan was receiving supplies from China from the Karakorm highway.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Amolthebest

Windjammer said:


> Armies can't fight without arms and ammunition.
> In 1971, Pakistan was under sanctions while India was under no such restrictions, besides, the troops fighting in Eastern sector were cut off from the mainland, with no form of supplies or reinforcements, furthermore they had to fight with the Muktis in the backyard and IA at the border, And the 10:1 air force ratio was also a factor in the East.



Cutting down supply of ammo. is one of the achievements of the war. We achieved it in 1971. And you are giving excuse like that which is making your war management even worst.Please grow up. War is a war and a victory is a victory which after ruling 30 years the whole nation your army is still starving for. Not a single victory in your account. I can understand your frustration.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## tvsram1992

Windjammer said:


> Armies can't fight without arms and ammunition.
> In 1971, Pakistan was under sanctions while India was under no such restrictions, besides, the troops fighting in Eastern sector were cut off from the mainland, with no form of supplies or reinforcements, furthermore they had to fight with the Muktis in the backyard and IA at the border, And the 10:1 air force ratio was also a factor in the East.


Brother i dont think you were starving of arms and ammunition . As a NATO ally , you were getting support from US , UK and rest of NATO as well as China . I would say your reason for losing the war is over estimation . Also remember nobody asked you not to prepare war at eastern front . Apart from that strong leadership is also one of the factor for Indian Victory .

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Amolthebest

Syama Ayas said:


> Er.....Pakistan was receiving supplies from China from the Karakorm highway.



Dont rub salt on his eternal wounds. am sure China had given them more than their own people in 1971


----------



## LimPeh

Syama Ayas said:


> After all my effort in post 89 to educate you, seem like you"re too thick.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Comparing an act of terrorism to a conventional war, kudos to your intellect again.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The attack was the first of its kind for any nation on the planet.
> 
> 
> 
> In 1965, Most of those involved in operation Gibralter were captured.
> 
> 
> 
> *There are no farmers near that part of border*.
> _Yeah ok, not farmers, but it was the locals who reported an intrusion_
> 
> I'm sorry, *the terrorist didn't declare to us they were coming.*
> 
> _Of course they won't tell you, LOL you are retarded or something? I'm sure you have intelligence agencies in your country right? Like how the Israelis have their Mossad and the Americans have the CIA? Or is Bollywood the only thing you guys good in?_
> 
> Ok, we get it, *you must be watching **** in the other tab, the genitals have been blurred/censored and you"ve had a Freudian slip.*


_My bad, I apologize, please replace that with "incompetent idiots". Thanks_


----------



## Gautam

why a pakistani living in Singapore is so much frustrated?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## SamantK

Windjammer said:


> Armies can't fight without arms and ammunition.
> In 1971, Pakistan was under sanctions while India was under no such restrictions, besides, the troops fighting in Eastern sector were cut off from the mainland, with no form of supplies or reinforcements, furthermore they had to fight with the Muktis in the backyard and IA at the border, And the 10:1 air force ratio was also a factor in the East.


 oye, havent you read the article I posted in another thread about sanctions on Pakistan??

Being an elite member have some decency and read up what has been posted before you dint not respond to the post then but yo carry on this self-pitying attitude of being under sanctions.. Read these two links and if you can debunk them then talk otherwise we are well off without your BS...

These links have been posted in my previous post on the same thread
The Men Behind Yahya in the Indo
Another one here

The Tilt: The U.S. and the South Asian Crisis of 1971


----------



## Kyusuibu Honbu

LimPeh said:


> _My bad, I apologize, please replace that with "incompetent idiots". Thanks_



Learn to quote the post properly when replying to them.



> Of course they won't tell you, LOL you are retarded or something?



Looks like sarcasm seems beyond intellect. 




> I'm sure you have intelligence agencies in your country right?



We do, a simple google search would have answered that.



> Like how the Israelis have their Mossad and the Americans have the CIA?



Attributing the Mumbai attacks response to intelligence failure, finally i'm noticing logical argument something i can agree upon.

But then is effectiveness of an intelligence agency a panacea to terrorism? In that case we should have never had 9/11 or 7/11 or Belsan hostage crisis.



> Or is Bollywood the only thing you guys good in?



There are various other things, another simple google search can

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## SamantK

Syama Ayas said:


> Er.....Pakistan was receiving supplies from China from the Karakorm highway.


 From Jordan too..



> Document 28 http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB79/BEBB28.pdf
> White House, Telephone Conversations (Telcon), Dated December 4 and December 16, 1971, 11 pp. Includes Cover Sheet Dated January 19, 1972
> Source: NPMP, NSC Files, Country Files: Middle East, Box 643.
> 
> These telcons show Nixon and Kissinger's knowledge of third party transfers of military supplies to Pakistan. Haig summarizes the Telcons to Kissinger by writing that the telcons, "confirm the President's knowledge of, approval for and, if you will, directive to provide aircraft to Iran and Jordan," in exchange for providing aircraft to Pakistan. The telcons also show that Kissinger and Nixon, following the advice of Barbara Walters, decide to put out a White House version of the facts involved with the South Asian crisis through John Scali. Nixon express his desire to, "get some PR out on the- - put the blame on India. It will also take some blame off us."
> 
> Document 32 http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB79/BEBB32.pdf
> Event Summary by George H.W. Bush, December 10, 1971, 7 pp.
> Source: George Bush Presidential Library. George H.W. Bush Collection. Series: United Nations File, 1971-1972, Box 4.
> 
> UN Ambassador Bush describes the December 10 meeting between Kissinger and the Chinese delegation to the United Nations. While discussing the India-Pakistan crisis, Kissinger reveals that the American position on the issue was parallel to that of the Chinese. Kissinger disclosed that the U.S. would be moving some ships into the area, and also that military aid was being sent from Jordan, Turkey, and Iran. Some of this aid was illegally transferred because it was American in origin. Bush also reports that Kissinger gives his tacit approval for China to provide militarily support for Pakistani operations against India. Bush expresses his personal doubts in the administration's "Two State Departments thing," and takes issue with Kissinger's style, in one instance calling him paranoid and arrogant.
> 
> 
> Document 36 http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB79/BEBB36.pdf
> Memcon, Huang Ha, T'ang Wen-sheng, Shih Yen-hua, Alexander Haig, Winston Lord, Top Secret/Sensitive, Exclusively Eyes Only, December 12, 1971 (3:50-4:20), 9 pp.
> Source: RG 59, PPC S/P, Directors Files (Winston Lord), Box 330.
> 
> In a discussion of the India-Pakistan situation, Haig declares that the U.S. is doing everything it can do to facilitate transfers of fighter planes and military supplies from Jordan, Iran, and Saudi Arabia to Pakistan.





Need more windjammer, i can keep them coming... As much as I hate to say this but my @ss embargo..

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Kyusuibu Honbu

samantk said:


> From Jordan too..



Iran too...........but China was the significant one, i guess


----------



## Windjammer

Syama Ayas said:


> Er.....Pakistan was receiving supplies from China from the Karakorm highway.


Ya, for our fleet of American aircraft and Tanks, the supplies were indeed coming from China. 



Amolthebest said:


> Cutting down supply of ammo. is one of the achievements of the war. We achieved it in 1971. And you are giving excuse like that which is making your war management even worst.Please grow up. War is a war and a victory is a victory which after ruling 30 years the whole nation your army is still starving for. Not a single victory in your account. I can understand your frustration.



Since you tend to repeat the same in every thread to lend credit to your self, let me put a lid on it, since you are just a victim of your own media propaganda, here is a wake up call. Read' weep.

VK Shashikumar: Pakistan still occupies four kargil peaks

Near Tiger Hill, Point 5353 still Pak-occupied - Indian Express


----------



## SamantK

Windjammer said:


> Ya, for our fleet of American aircraft and Tanks, the supplies were indeed coming from China.
> 
> 
> 
> Now you go to Kargil?? Anyways the source below is US archives and not Indian..
> 
> Document 28 http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB79/BEBB28.pdf
> White House, Telephone Conversations (Telcon), Dated December 4 and December 16, 1971, 11 pp. Includes Cover Sheet Dated January 19, 1972
> Source: NPMP, NSC Files, Country Files: Middle East, Box 643.
> 
> These telcons show Nixon and Kissinger's knowledge of third party transfers of military supplies to Pakistan. Haig summarizes the Telcons to Kissinger by writing that the telcons, "confirm the President's knowledge of, approval for and, if you will, directive to provide aircraft to Iran and Jordan," in exchange for providing aircraft to Pakistan. The telcons also show that Kissinger and Nixon, following the advice of Barbara Walters, decide to put out a White House version of the facts involved with the South Asian crisis through John Scali. Nixon express his desire to, "get some PR out on the- - put the blame on India. It will also take some blame off us."
> 
> Document 32 http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB79/BEBB32.pdf
> Event Summary by George H.W. Bush, December 10, 1971, 7 pp.
> Source: George Bush Presidential Library. George H.W. Bush Collection. Series: United Nations File, 1971-1972, Box 4.
> 
> UN Ambassador Bush describes the December 10 meeting between Kissinger and the Chinese delegation to the United Nations. While discussing the India-Pakistan crisis, Kissinger reveals that the American position on the issue was parallel to that of the Chinese. Kissinger disclosed that the U.S. would be moving some ships into the area, and also that military aid was being sent from Jordan, Turkey, and Iran. Some of this aid was illegally transferred because it was American in origin. Bush also reports that Kissinger gives his tacit approval for China to provide militarily support for Pakistani operations against India. Bush expresses his personal doubts in the administration's "Two State Departments thing," and takes issue with Kissinger's style, in one instance calling him paranoid and arrogant.
> 
> 
> Document 36 http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB79/BEBB36.pdf
> Memcon, Huang Ha, T'ang Wen-sheng, Shih Yen-hua, Alexander Haig, Winston Lord, Top Secret/Sensitive, Exclusively Eyes Only, December 12, 1971 (3:50-4:20), 9 pp.
> Source: RG 59, PPC S/P, Directors Files (Winston Lord), Box 330.
> 
> In a discussion of the India-Pakistan situation, Haig declares that the U.S. is doing everything it can do to facilitate transfers of fighter planes and military supplies from Jordan, Iran, and Saudi Arabia to Pakistan.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Need more windjammer, i can keep them coming... As much as I hate to say this but my @ss embargo..
Click to expand...


----------



## Gautam

Syama Ayas said:


> Iran too...........but China was the significant one, i guess


you mean pakistan was getting help from multiple countries during 1971 war but still India managed to cut pakistan in 2 different pieces? 

oh my - that must be very shameful to pakistan.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Windjammer

samantk said:


> oye, havent you read the article I posted in another thread about sanctions on Pakistan??
> 
> Being an elite member have some decency and read up what has been posted before you dint not respond to the post then but yo carry on this self-pitying attitude of being under sanctions.. Read these two links and if you can debunk them then talk otherwise we are well off without your BS...
> 
> These links have been posted in my previous post on the same thread
> The Men Behind Yahya in the Indo
> Another one here
> 
> The Tilt: The U.S. and the South Asian Crisis of 1971



Oye, listen idiot, enough of your nonsense, you people are delusional in fact just a bunch of drama queens.
It's a proven fact that the 7th fleet was there to vacate US citizens not to lend support to Pakistan.
Before ranting the same tune over and over, make your self worthy and find out at what distance did the US carrier entered Bay of Bengal.....fan boy.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## SamantK

Gautam said:


> you mean pakistan was getting help from multiple countries during 1971 war but still India managed to cut pakistan in 2 different pieces?
> 
> oh my - that must be very shameful to pakistan.


 Saudi too.. and F-104s too not just some ammunition..

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## LimPeh

Syama Ayas said:


> Learn to quote the post properly when replying to them.
> 
> 
> 
> Looks like sarcasm seems beyond intellect.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We do, a simple google search would have answered that.
> 
> 
> 
> Attributing the Mumbai attacks response to intelligence failure, finally i'm noticing logical argument something i can agree upon.
> 
> But then is effectiveness of an intelligence agency a panacea to terrorism? In that case we should have never had 9/11 or 7/11 or Belsan hostage crisis.
> 
> 
> 
> There are various other things, another simple google search can



In case you are unaware, one of those people who died in that Mumbai massacre was a Singaporean sister who was there on a conference. So don't get the wrong idea that I'm glorifying that episode. But I also have to point out that over here, we didn't blame the terrorists for her death. Terrorists are terrorists, they kill. But her death can be attributed to how your security forces royally screwed up the operation. Yes, we blame you for it. Had you gotten your act together, you would have saved lives, not seen so many dead people.


----------



## SamantK

Windjammer said:


> Oye, listen idiot, enough of your nonsense, you people are delusional in fact just a bunch of drama queens.
> It's a proven fact that the 7th fleet was there to vacate US citizens not to lend support to Pakistan.
> Before ranting the same tune over and over, make your self worthy and find out at what distance did the US carrier entered Bay of Bengal.....fan boy.


 I did not say the 7th Fleet delivered the aid to you, dint you read the links, look back some excerpts as to how US sent you aid.. through Jordan, Iran, Saudi and China..

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Amolthebest

Windjammer said:


> Oye, listen idiot, enough of your nonsense, you people are delusional in fact just a bunch of drama queens.
> It's a proven fact that the 7th fleet was there to vacate US citizens not to lend support to Pakistan.
> Before ranting the same tune over and over, make your self worthy and find out at what distance did the US carrier entered Bay of Bengal.....fan boy.



Your frustration is very visible. Not helping your debate

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Windjammer

Gautam said:


> you mean pakistan was getting help from multiple countries during 1971 war but still India managed to cut pakistan in 2 different pieces?
> 
> oh my - that must be very shameful to pakistan.



A self praising rather dreaming micro power ended up getting a bloody nose by a few thousand TT, in fact it became known as India's Vietnam.....***** footed 12 months on the border and didn't have the courage to advance an inch.....lost nearly 900 men without a bullet being fired......how pathetic.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Hellfire

Windjammer said:


> *Since you tend to repeat the same in every thread to lend credit to your self, let me put a lid on it, since you are just a victim of your own media propaganda, *



I am sure you appreciate the military tenability of features is an over riding principle in holding of positions. Lets not even go into that direction. We hold enough of your positions across LC (as decided by Simla Pact) for this to be of insignificance. Your repeated attempts at continuing BAT actions in order to facilitate take over of forward locations and forcing India to break the ceasefire are proving futile as it is. It is the only thing you hope to achieve ie to break the ceasefire in order to present India as the Enemy #1 to the various splinter jihadists (thus easing your own pressures) who are taking on your security forces across Pakistan and openly have challenged the authority of PA and GoP successfully and leading to an increase in internal strife and casualties. You possibly cant take an overt action for fear of international repercussions so your tactic of trying to get India to break the ceasefire by keeping the LC active. So even when the media publishes reports like these we are unfazed.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## LimPeh

Windjammer said:


> A self praising rather dreaming micro power ended up getting a bloody nose by a few thousand TT, in fact it became known as India's Vietnam.....***** footed 12 months on the border and didn't have the courage to advance an inch.....lost nearly 900 men without a bullet being fired......how pathetic.



Eh bro, don't forget, the Tamil Tigers opened a can of arse whoop on them Indians and killed their Prime Minister in their own backyard lol!

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Amolthebest

Windjammer said:


> A self praising rather dreaming micro power ended up getting a bloody nose by a few thousand TT, in fact it became known as India's Vietnam.....***** footed 12 months on the border and didn't have the courage to advance an inch.....lost nearly 900 men without a bullet being fired......how pathetic.



By mentioning Vietnam you might upset some all weather Chinese friends(read: 1979 spanking) here. Not good for your health.Amd kargil was bigger blunder fr pakistan than India. Pakistan got bad reputation in allover the world. Mushy took over the government. he accepted offer in war of terrorism of US after 9/11 and it created mess for todays Pakistan. Please dont console yourself in maximum limits.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Gautam

samantk said:


> Saudi too.. and F-104s too not just some ammunition..


but pakistan knew that India is far bigger than its size and they were fighting in a territory which was far away from them (normally pakistanis say this lol) then why did they take a self destroying step of attacking India? 

i mean- is it because they were over confident that they are getting help from multiple countries and that they can easily take on India?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Amolthebest

Windjammer said:


> A self praising rather dreaming micro power ended up getting a bloody nose by a few thousand TT, in fact it became known as India's Vietnam.....***** footed 12 months on the border and didn't have the courage to advance an inch.....lost nearly 900 men without a bullet being fired......how pathetic.



By mentioning Vietnam you might upset some all weather Chinese friends(read: 1979 spanking) here. Not good for your health.Amd kargil was bigger blunder fr pakistan than India. Pakistan got bad reputation in allover the world. Mushy took over the government. he accepted offer in war of terrorism of US after 9/11 and it created mess for todays Pakistan. Please dont console yourself in maximum limits.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Hellfire

Windjammer said:


> A self praising rather dreaming micro power ended up getting a bloody nose by a few thousand TT, in fact it became known as India's Vietnam.....***** footed 12 months on the border and didn't have the courage to advance an inch.....lost nearly 900 men without a bullet being fired......how pathetic.



Dear Sir war is always the extension of your foreign policy as you are well aware. The art of war fully subscribes to threat of war to get the adversary nation to do own will. Objective achieved - Musharraf ensured stricter control over trained cadres of Army and attachment of the same with PA regular units to check cross LC infiltration. Objective achieved. In addition the extended deployment ensured economically you had a greater negative impact - an impact that is still having its effect felt till date resulting in people like you leaving your own nation to settle abroad accepting the fact that Pakistan has become a hopeless case. No wonder you preach about Pakistani achievements - grass is greener on other side as always.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Amolthebest

LimPeh said:


> Eh bro, don't forget, the Tamil Tigers opened a can of arse whoop on them Indians and killed their Prime Minister in their own backyard lol!



Dont forget the same medicine taste in 1979 spanking.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Hellfire

LimPeh said:


> Eh bro, don't forget, the Tamil Tigers opened a can of arse whoop on them Indians and killed their Prime Minister in their own backyard lol!



And what became of them I wonder? Where are they? You think the SLA was able to achieve total victory without tacit Indian approval for destruction of LTTE? Wake up dear and read about the Tamil struggle ....... get your facts straight about IPKF operations ..... then ta,lk

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Windjammer

samantk said:


> I did not say the 7th Fleet delivered the aid to you, dint you read the links, look back some excerpts as to how US sent you aid.. through Jordan, Iran, Saudi and China..



The Jordanian F-104 arrived some say after the war while others say in the closing days.
Let me ask you, even if the claims are true and tons of arms and ammo was landing in West Pakistan, how did that benefit the forces fighting in the Eastern sector, there was a single F-86 squadron based in Dacca, which was grounded within 48 hours of war because of runway damage, India on the other hand had 10 squadrons attacking in East Pakistan, so how did the so called supplies from everywhere helped the fight in the East. Try to comprehend the psyche of the scenario before expanding your chests.


----------



## Hellfire

LimPeh said:


> In case you are unaware, one of those people who died in that Mumbai massacre was a Singaporean sister who was there on a conference. So don't get the wrong idea that I'm glorifying that episode. But I also have to point out that over here, we didn't blame the terrorists for her death. Terrorists are terrorists, they kill. But her death can be attributed to how your security forces royally screwed up the operation. Yes, we blame you for it. Had you gotten your act together, you would have saved lives, not seen so many dead people.



right mr superhero ... try stopping a terrorist on indiscriminate fire rampage .... i would like to know how a subsequent military action could have saved lives lost retrospectively? The dead were dead even before the military forces were positioned. Loss of life due to direct crossfire was very low. Most of the casualties were incurred in the initial assault by the terrorists itself.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Gautam

Windjammer said:


> A self praising rather dreaming micro power ended up getting a bloody nose by a few thousand TT, in fact it became known as India's Vietnam.....***** footed 12 months on the border and didn't have the courage to advance an inch.....lost nearly 900 men without a bullet being fired......how pathetic.


 
look at the topic and look at what you just wrote! 
looks like you're still in trauma that India had cut pakistan in 2 different pieces

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Amolthebest

hellfire said:


> And what became of them I wonder? Where are they? You think the SLA was able to achieve total victory without tacit Indian approval for destruction of LTTE? Wake up dear and read about the Tamil struggle ....... get your facts straight about IPKF operations ..... then ta,lk


 

It's too much to expect from him. There is no free media and freedom of expression in his 'original' country. he just read what his government wants to read.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## SamantK

Gautam said:


> but pakistan knew that India is far bigger than its size and they were fighting in a territory which was far away from them (normally pakistanis say this lol) then why did they take a self destroying step of attacking India?
> 
> i mean- is it because they were over confident that they are getting help from multiple countries and that they can easily take on India?


 According to me, Yaha was banking on all the love he saw from Nixon.. 

Pakistan and even US knew that eventually India can go to war with 2 valid reasons : (1)continued military repression in the East, (2) the refugee flow into India.. Still Yaha thought that India would not do so maybe ignoring the USSR support to India... The situation they created was a grave which they kept digging

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Hellfire

Windjammer said:


> The Jordanian F-104 arrived some say after the war while others say in the closing days.
> Let me ask you, even if the claims are true and tons of arms and ammo was landing in West Pakistan, how did that benefit the forces fighting in the Eastern sector, there was a single F-86 squadron based in Dacca, which was grounded within 48 hours of war because of runway damage, India on the other hand had 10 squadrons attacking in East Pakistan, so how did the so called supplies from everywhere helped the fight in the East. Try to comprehend the psyche of the scenario before expanding your chests.



The execution of ops in east were a fine case study of application of rules of war as enunciated by Von Clausewitz. Period. You cant possibly give any excuse and all your posts are trying to do exactly that

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## LimPeh

hellfire said:


> And what became of them I wonder? Where are they? You think the SLA was able to achieve total victory without tacit Indian approval for destruction of LTTE? Wake up dear and read about the Tamil struggle ....... get your facts straight about IPKF operations ..... then ta,lk



Eh wait a second. I thought it was Pakistan that helped Sri Lanka this time to defeat the LTTE? How did u guys get involved? Yeap I read about the IPKF but that was long ago and ended in a failure did it not?


----------



## SamantK

Windjammer said:


> The Jordanian F-104 arrived some say after the war while others say in the closing days.
> Let me ask you, even if the claims are true and tons of arms and ammo was landing in West Pakistan, how did that benefit the forces fighting in the Eastern sector, there was a single F-86 squadron based in Dacca, which was grounded within 48 hours of war because of runway damage, India on the other hand had 10 squadrons attacking in East Pakistan, so how did the so called supplies from everywhere helped the fight in the East. Try to comprehend the psyche of the scenario before expanding your chests.


 The original concept is that you guys lost in the west too, if you were good enough to put pressure on the west the scenario would have been different.. Expanding my chest? I was only after your argument that Whole Pakistan, you never distinguished between east or west rather you kept parroting the whole of Pakistani Army, in west too... Indeed battle of longewala was fought in the west..

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Amolthebest

Windjammer said:


> The Jordanian F-104 arrived some say after the war while others say in the closing days.
> Let me ask you, even if the claims are true and tons of arms and ammo was landing in West Pakistan, how did that benefit the forces fighting in the Eastern sector, there was a single F-86 squadron based in Dacca, which was grounded within 48 hours of war because of runway damage, India on the other hand had 10 squadrons attacking in East Pakistan, so how did the so called supplies from everywhere helped the fight in the East. Try to comprehend the psyche of the scenario before expanding your chests.



Now you are talking on topic. see there are two things PA could do

1) You can use all this huge supply on western front and create tensions for India on second front. You failed miserably. You guys were huge failular on western front to..

2)And as I aid closing and blocking your eastern front supplies is big achievement and success for India. But when I mentioned this you got emotional and angry and post some kargil links (I answered them too) .

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Gautam

samantk said:


> According to me, Yaha was banking on all the love he saw from Nixon..
> 
> Pakistan and even US knew that eventually India can go to war with 2 valid reasons : (1)continued military repression in the East, (2) the refugee flow into India.. Still Yaha thought that India would not do so maybe ignoring the USSR support to India... The situation the created was a grave which they kept digging


i heard that the people of west pakistan were not aware of the real situation. the media was instructed to write glorifying stories about PA and that how they were winning the war with India. nobody knew that pakistan was actually losing. 

further- it must have been very hard for pakistanis to digest the two nation theory. the liberation of Bangladesh was a denial to this so called theory. do you think they are ashamed of this? i mean- their post suggest otherwise.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Amolthebest

Bangladesh creation is ultimate blow for two nation theory which was reason behind creation of Pakistan. Now can anybody give me other reason behind creation of Pakistan when two nation theory is failed miserably in 1971.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Gautam

Amolthebest said:


> Bangladesh creation is ultimate blow for two nation theory which was reason behind creation of Pakistan. Now can anybody give me other reason behind creation of Pakistan when two nation theory is failed miserably in 1971.


yeah i was thinking the same. the creation of Bangladesh denied that theory. the theory used to say that Muslims can't live with majority Hindus. but it turned out that Muslims can't even live with Muslims lol. 

while in India- Muslims are growing and living quite comfortably. 
i think that theory was just a human error.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## SamantK

Gautam said:


> i heard that the people of west pakistan were not aware of the real situation. the media was instructed to write glorifying stories about PA and that how they were winning the war with India. nobody knew that pakistan was actually losing.



I would quote the times magazine here 


> On a visit to Sehjra, a key town in a Pakistani salient that pokes into Indian territory east of Lahore where Indian troops are advancing, Clark found turbaned men working in the fields while jets flew overhead and artillery sounded in the distance. "There are free tea stalls along the road," he reported, "and teen-agers throw bags of nuts, plus oranges and bananas into the Jeeps carrying troops to the front, and shout encouragement. When our Jeep stops, kids surround it and yell at us, demanding that we write a story saying their village is still free and not captured, as claimed by Pakistani radio.





> In the chill, arid air of Islamabad, West Pakistan's military regime was finding it difficult to come to grips with the extent of the country's ruin. Throughout the conflict there had been a bizarre air of unreality in the West, as Pakistani army officials consistently claimed they were winning when quite the reverse was true. Late last week the Pakistani government still seemed unable to accept its defeat simultaneously with the announcement of the cease-fire, officials handed newsmen an outline of Yahya's plans for a new constitution. Among other things, it provides "that the republic shall have two capitals, at Islamabad and at Dacca." It adds:"The principal seat of Parliament will be located in Dacca." That will, of course, be news to Bangladesh.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Gautam

^^ 
lol that was hilarious of pakistan. 

can any pakistani tell us what were the news you were getting those days? did ur media say that u wer winning against india?


----------



## A1Kaid

Pakistan will have to avenge this defeat. Next major war may well be a two-front war for Hind, and pieces of Hind will fall off the body.


----------



## IPL5

A1Kaid said:


> Pakistan will have to avenge this defeat. Next major war may well be a two-front war for Hind, and pieces of Hind will fall off the body.



http://*************.net/ill-violated-dead-smiley-9436.gif


----------



## Windjammer

samantk said:


> The original concept is that you guys lost in the west too, if you were good enough to put pressure on the west the scenario would have been different.. Expanding my chest? I was only after your argument that Whole Pakistan, you never distinguished between east or west rather you kept parroting the whole of Pakistani Army, in west too... Indeed battle of longewala was fought in the west..



First read the behaviour pattern in the following link and then look at this thread.....i say the author has hit the nail on the head.

http://www.defence.pk/forums/world-affairs/189712-india-meet-internet-hindus.html

On topic, the concept is far from truth because the Indian warlords are on record that PAF was attacking Indian targets as late as 17th December.....and the Longewala wasn't the only major incident on the Western front, check out what happened in the Mukreian Rail yards or the Okha Naval station.



Gautam said:


> ^^
> lol that was hilarious of pakistan.
> 
> can any pakistani tell us what were the news you were getting those days? did ur media say that u wer winning against india?



Stop your freeking trolling, before you are kicked off in a pink saree.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Gautam

^^i know its a possibility. since i don't have trolling licence like greens here. 

anyways- can you tell me what news you were getting those days?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Windjammer

Gautam said:


> ^^i know its a possibility. since i don't have trolling licence like greens here.
> 
> anyways- can you tell me what news you were getting those days?



Well it did happen before my life time...none the less, since Indian media is the last word in reality, hence the world must have had a good laugh.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## LimPeh

Windjammer said:


> Well it did happen before my life time...none the less, since Indian media is the last word in reality, hence the world must have had a good laugh.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## SamantK

Windjammer said:


> First read the behaviour pattern in the following link and then look at this thread.....i say the author has hit the nail on the head.
> 
> http://www.defence.pk/forums/world-affairs/189712-india-meet-internet-hindus.html


 Obvious attempt at trolling me mate but im in a good enough mood..





> On topic, the concept is far from truth because the Indian warlords are on record that PAF was attacking Indian targets as late as 17th December.....and the Longewala wasn't the only major incident on the Western front, check out what happened in the Mukreian Rail yards or the Okha Naval station.



Can I have some solid references?? Not your air force history? I cant find much bout these two incidents.. 





> Stop your freeking trolling, before you are kicked off in a pink saree.


 From your off-topic rants of 'Internet Hindu' it seems you are doing the same.



Windjammer said:


> Well it did happen before my life time...none the less, since Indian media is the last word in reality, hence the world must have had a good laugh.


 Mr Intelligent dude, a picture from a scanned book means nothing, please prove first that it indeed was a propaganda picture..
Also, the proof I have been giving you were not Indian, dint you read them yet?

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Jackdaws

Windjammer said:


> Well it did happen before my life time...none the less, since Indian media is the last word in reality, hence the world must have had a good laugh.



What's the name of this propaganda film? Let's see if it exists or is just another product of Pakistani lies.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## karan.1970

Jackdaws said:


> What's the name of this propaganda film? Let's see if it exists or is just another product of Pakistani lies.



Do you really need an answer.. I am told there was a proposal in Pakistan to classify the returned 93000 POWs as tourists returning from India to spin the whole thing in a positive manner. This is nothing compared to that

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## SamantK

karan.1970 said:


> Do you really need an answer.. I am told there was a proposal in Pakistan to classify the returned 93000 POWs as tourists returning from India to spin the whole thing in a positive manner. This is nothing compared to that


 Sometimes I think that since this particular book shows India in poor light, some believe that it must be true - without giving an iota of though


----------



## danger007

A1Kaid said:


> Pakistan will have to avenge this defeat. Next major war may well be a two-front war for Hind, and pieces of Hind will fall off the body.




Try hard like Kargil..................

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Gautam

karan.1970 said:


> Do you really need an answer.. I am told there was a proposal in Pakistan to classify the returned 93000 POWs as tourists returning from India to spin the whole thing in a positive manner. This is nothing compared to that


  
so pakistan was trying to treat them as tourists to avoid humiliation? 
lol that's height of dead trying

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## karan.1970

A1Kaid said:


> Pakistan will have to avenge this defeat. Next major war may well be a two-front war for Hind, and pieces of Hind will fall off the body.



Hum ko mallom hai jannat ki haqueeqat lekin, Dil ke behlane ko Ghalib, yeh khayal accha hai  

frankly, you guys right now need to worry about parts falling off your own country. 

And for once, try to do something on your own.. Sometimes you need USA for support, sometimes China. Thats why Pakistani in last 65 years has moved from one disappointment to another..

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Hellfire

LimPeh said:


> *Eh wait a second. I thought it was Pakistan that helped Sri Lanka this time to defeat the LTTE? How did u guys get involved? Yeap I read about the IPKF but that was long ago and ended in a failure did it not?*



Pakistan did naught. Your history and knowledge of facts is totally askew. The LTTE was raised in order to deflect the problem of Tamil activism for reunification of the Tamil occupied territories of SL with mainland TamilNadu. (The cholas affected migration of Tamil populance to places like Sumatra Thailand present day Singapore Malaysia etc) LTTE was totally trained and armed by the indians in 1980s with the SL then especially leaning towards US. In addition it was meant to deny US or any other power space for own bases. The final objective was to integrate the territories (that is claimed by some quarters as being aim by the then Indian PM Indira Gandhi who formulated the so called Indira Doctrine on lines of US' Monroe Doctrine).

The Indo-SL accord was signed with Rajiv Gandhi landing in Colombo and Indian naval warships deployed just outside Colombo harbour and Para Units being airlifted and escorted to SL. It was the classic example of coercive diplomacy. The trouble started when Indian political leadership failed to define IPKF's role. In intial stages LTTE cadres would melt away when IPKF troops came and any LTTE cadres which were trapped they would surrender to Indians and RAW would take them debrief them and then release them again. This was the situation. The then president of SL Jayewardhane then got in touch with LTTE as Indians failed to establish a Tamil eelam in SL constitution as per LTTE's hopes and SL wanted Indian army out and subsequently the IPKF-LTTE conflict started. 

This ended with Rajiv Gandhis regime being voted out and Tamils in India applying pressure for recal of troops. The LTTE decided to teach their former friend Rajiv Gandhi a lesson and assasinate him. Doing so created the problems for LTTE. Now there was no direct support for them from Indian government and also the routes for their escape were slowly being squeezed out. But as 90s was the era of Indian economic liberalisation and coalition politics no government was too keen to work towards the problem. (with Tamil regional parties being strong partners in central governments) It culminated in increased spirit of cooperation with SL to enhance trade and other ties. This had its natural repercussions especially post Dec 13 attack on Parliament in india and subsequent Indian deployment on anti-terror basis on western border. This left Indian position on LTTE untenable and hence low profiel support came to SL with real time int being provided by Indians (overflights by Indian ELINT and Recce aircrafts ex-Bangalore were common during SLA ops) through satellite and other air assets. Military-techincal support and advices were also given at the same time to SLA. The political financial and military backing to LTTE was cut off and denial of sea for LTTE supplies was enforced by joint IN SLN patrols. 

When you say IPKF ended a failure - we agree. Because no clear cut objectives were given. Neither was it told to make SL a part of India (as per original plan) nor was it told to crush LTTE (which was seen by IPKF as a necessary and crucial part of overall plan which was being run by RAW and GoI). Thus no objectives were achieved. We lost men for no return.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Abu Zolfiqar

hawx said:


> look at the irony the same aircraft carrier is now at the shores of pakistan ready to attack,but alas they do not have any Russia to save them.......
> 
> karma is a *****......



what in Gods good name are you talking about


----------



## SamantK

Abu Zolfiqar said:


> what in Gods good name are you talking about


 Maybe he meant this, but exaggerated it a bit

http://www.defence.pk/forums/pakist...oves-uss-enterprise-into-pakistani-water.html


----------



## LimPeh

hellfire said:


> Pakistan did naught. Your history and knowledge of facts is totally askew. The LTTE was raised in order to deflect the problem of Tamil activism for reunification of the Tamil occupied territories of SL with mainland TamilNadu. (The cholas affected migration of Tamil populance to places like Sumatra Thailand present day Singapore Malaysia etc) LTTE was totally trained and armed by the indians in 1980s with the SL then especially leaning towards US. In addition it was meant to deny US or any other power space for own bases. The final objective was to integrate the territories (that is claimed by some quarters as being aim by the then Indian PM Indira Gandhi who formulated the so called Indira Doctrine on lines of US' Monroe Doctrine).
> 
> The Indo-SL accord was signed with Rajiv Gandhi landing in Colombo and Indian naval warships deployed just outside Colombo harbour and Para Units being airlifted and escorted to SL. It was the classic example of coercive diplomacy. The trouble started when Indian political leadership failed to define IPKF's role. In intial stages LTTE cadres would melt away when IPKF troops came and any LTTE cadres which were trapped they would surrender to Indians and RAW would take them debrief them and then release them again. This was the situation. The then president of SL Jayewardhane then got in touch with LTTE as Indians failed to establish a Tamil eelam in SL constitution as per LTTE's hopes and SL wanted Indian army out and subsequently the IPKF-LTTE conflict started.
> 
> This ended with Rajiv Gandhis regime being voted out and Tamils in India applying pressure for recal of troops. The LTTE decided to teach their former friend Rajiv Gandhi a lesson and assasinate him. Doing so created the problems for LTTE. Now there was no direct support for them from Indian government and also the routes for their escape were slowly being squeezed out. But as 90s was the era of Indian economic liberalisation and coalition politics no government was too keen to work towards the problem. (with Tamil regional parties being strong partners in central governments) It culminated in increased spirit of cooperation with SL to enhance trade and other ties. This had its natural repercussions especially post Dec 13 attack on Parliament in india and subsequent Indian deployment on anti-terror basis on western border. This left Indian position on LTTE untenable and hence low profiel support came to SL with real time int being provided by Indians (overflights by Indian ELINT and Recce aircrafts ex-Bangalore were common during SLA ops) through satellite and other air assets. Military-techincal support and advices were also given at the same time to SLA. The political financial and military backing to LTTE was cut off and denial of sea for LTTE supplies was enforced by joint IN SLN patrols.
> 
> When you say IPKF ended a failure - we agree. Because no clear cut objectives were given. Neither was it told to make SL a part of India (as per original plan) nor was it told to crush LTTE (which was seen by IPKF as a necessary and crucial part of overall plan which was being run by RAW and GoI). Thus no objectives were achieved. We lost men for no return.



No wait a second. That entire history I know as well. Wikipedia is a good source. I was talking about the recent success the Sri Lankans had against the LTTE. The recent episode just two years ago that also happened to create some controversy over human rights and stuff. 

I was under the impression that Pakistan was the nation helping out this time round. I was under the impression that India had washed her hands off the whole affair after Rajiv Ghaandi got killed? Feel free to correct me though.



karan.1970 said:


> Do you really need an answer.. I am told there was a proposal in Pakistan to classify the returned 93000 POWs as tourists returning from India to spin the whole thing in a positive manner. This is nothing compared to that



93 000 Pakistani tourists in India? Yeah right...what did their government say these guys were seeing? Taj Mahal? In the middle of a war?

Spin some better yarns please and no need to paint other nationalities as bumbling idiots just to make yourselves look good.


----------



## Hellfire

LimPeh said:


> No wait a second. That entire history I know as well. Wikipedia is a good source. I was talking about the recent success the Sri Lankans had against the LTTE. The recent episode just two years ago that also happened to create some controversy over human rights and stuff.
> 
> I was under the impression that Pakistan was the nation helping out this time round. I was under the impression that India had washed her hands off the whole affair after Rajiv Ghaandi got killed? Feel free to correct me though.



The present coalition in India is having DMK as a member. Since the present government came to power in 2003 end the same party DMK has been lending support to it.

As I pointed out earlier the LTTE had been an Indian brainchild. Post -Gandhi assassination there was only one non-coalition government that of PV Narasimha Rao who was more keen on economic liberalisation and also loathe to involve itself in SL as one of the reasons attributed to Rajiv Gandhi's losing elections was the fact that IPKF was seen by majority of Indians as a worthless intervention (again I repeat that since there was no clear mandate either to the army or to public about what the intervention was to achieve the casualties sustained could not be justified). Post Rao government all the governments in India were coalition and short lived and hence none was having either the time or the inclination to indulge in SL affairs as support of pro-LTTE Tamil parties was essential. This allowed the dominance of LTTE over SLA in late 90s and early 2000s as they were being armed and provisioned by both India and other nations based Tamil groups. Officially Indian govt had washed off its hands of the affair. RAW and MI had its interests which were met by insertion of various assets into LTTE. In a significantly small scale the support to SLA was being increased as terrorism in J&K had also made Indian position untenable of supporting LTTE in name of revolution and declaring the Kashmiri groups as terrorists. 

Post 9/11 there was tremendous support for Indian position in US and especially post Parliament the protracted deployment of forces along Pakistani border enabled India to achieve the diplomatic coup it wanted. With the changing dynamics involved India could not afford to be seen as supporting LTTE (even non-action was considered a support in the post 9/11 era) and both the Vajpayee and then Manmohan govts had Tamil parties support which was crucial for continuance of government in power (the former had AIADMK and the latter has DMK: both these parties have pro-LTTE elements). So the balance was that publicly India was not involved any further in this issue but through covert actions India along with US aimed to reduce and cut off the economic and logistical support to LTTE and then India started arming SL by giving weaponry (eg Indira Radars for detection of LTTE ACs post their raid on Colombo airfield) and providing real time intelligence by aerial and space based assets. Infact during the final offensives Indian aircrafts gave a 24x7 coverage for Int for advancing SLA troops.

In addition SL was not imposed upon not to seek military hardware from other countries. So there may have been few items purchased by SLA from China as also Pakistan.

Had pakistan intervened in SL you would have seen LTTE being revived and rearmed by Indians. Something akin to what is happening in Tibet.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## LimPeh

hellfire said:


> The present coalition in India is having DMK as a member. Since the present government came to power in 2003 end the same party DMK has been lending support to it.
> 
> As I pointed out earlier the LTTE had been an Indian brainchild. Post -Gandhi assassination there was only one non-coalition government that of PV Narasimha Rao who was more keen on economic liberalisation and also loathe to involve itself in SL as one of the reasons attributed to Rajiv Gandhi's losing elections was the fact that IPKF was seen by majority of Indians as a worthless intervention (again I repeat that since there was no clear mandate either to the army or to public about what the intervention was to achieve the casualties sustained could not be justified). Post Rao government all the governments in India were coalition and short lived and hence none was having either the time or the inclination to indulge in SL affairs as support of pro-LTTE Tamil parties was essential. This allowed the dominance of LTTE over SLA in late 90s and early 2000s as they were being armed and provisioned by both India and other nations based Tamil groups. Officially Indian govt had washed off its hands of the affair. RAW and MI had its interests which were met by insertion of various assets into LTTE. In a significantly small scale the support to SLA was being increased as terrorism in J&K had also made Indian position untenable of supporting LTTE in name of revolution and declaring the Kashmiri groups as terrorists.
> 
> Post 9/11 there was tremendous support for Indian position in US and especially post Parliament the protracted deployment of forces along Pakistani border enabled India to achieve the diplomatic coup it wanted. With the changing dynamics involved India could not afford to be seen as supporting LTTE (even non-action was considered a support in the post 9/11 era) and both the Vajpayee and then Manmohan govts had Tamil parties support which was crucial for continuance of government in power (the former had AIADMK and the latter has DMK: both these parties have pro-LTTE elements). So the balance was that publicly India was not involved any further in this issue but through covert actions India along with US aimed to reduce and cut off the economic and logistical support to LTTE and then India started arming SL by giving weaponry (eg Indira Radars for detection of LTTE ACs post their raid on Colombo airfield) and providing real time intelligence by aerial and space based assets. Infact during the final offensives Indian aircrafts gave a 24x7 coverage for Int for advancing SLA troops.
> 
> In addition SL was not imposed upon not to seek military hardware from other countries. So there may have been few items purchased by SLA from China as also Pakistan.
> 
> Had pakistan intervened in SL you would have seen LTTE being revived and rearmed by Indians. Something akin to what is happening in Tibet.



Ok I got a better picture of the whole thing now. Thanks for taking the time to reply.


----------



## no_koadsheding_plz

just got this new item .. thought its best to share here then creating a seterate thread..
Soviet satellites spied into Pak during 1971 war

Soviet satellites spied into Pak during 1971 war




> WashingtonSoviet Union had extensively used satellites to photograph Indian, Pakistani and southern Chinese border during 1971 India Pakistan war, says an US declassified report. Analysis of limited data from 10 orbiting spacecrafts of the Soviets during November 1971 indicated a high level of intelligence collection in the India-Pakistan area. The spacecrafts included three high-resolution photo reconnaissance and seven electronic intelligence satellites.
> 
> The data indicated a primary photographic collection effort of airfields in India and Pakistan. Other major military targets were Pakistani Army headquarters at Peshawar and Rawalpindi, Pakistani naval facilities, and an oil refinery and storage facilities at Karachi.
> 
> The Soviets also observed the southern Chinese border to include the sub district headquarters at Jihkatse near the Sino-Bhutan border and the Gilgit Road, which crosses the Chinese-Pakistan border through the Khunjerab Pass.INP


----------



## Srinivas

Windjammer said:


> Irony it is, the country you claim to have liberated, never misses an opportunity to give you a bloody nose.....that must be painful.



Yeah recent cricket tour of BD to Pakistan is a finest example.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Abu Zolfiqar

sukhoi_30MKI said:


> Yeah recent cricket tour of BD to Pakistan is a finest example.



the team we had already thrashed barely a few months prior? surely you could have come up with something better than that


----------



## Carl Johnson

Read this ! Although its a bit long and old but interesting .





Every time I have a conversation with friends and colleagues about India-Pakistan, most of them complain about what they think as India&#8217;s failure to teach Pakistan a lasting lesson during the 1971 war.

I often wondered as to why did Indira Gandhi&#8217;s government let Pakistan off despite being in a dominant position during the war, which resulted in the creation of Bangladesh. Available archival material suggest international pressure on India was one of the reasons why Prime Minister Gandhi could not take any decisive action against West Pakistan (today&#8217;s Pakistan).

A recent blog post by Anuj Dhar revealed damning details of India&#8217;s war objectives during the 1971 war. Anuj&#8217;s new book, CIA&#8217;s eye on South Asia, has a detailed account of what happened in 1971 and why India did not (or could not) take decisive action against West Pakistan. The book compiles declassified CIA records regarding South Asia and also reveals the reason behind the abrupt end of the Bangladesh war. I had downloaded these declassified documents last year but never read them entirely. But after reading Anuj&#8217;s blog, I decided to dig into the old records.

The declassification of vital CIA and US State Department documents relating to South Asia reveals that the American spy agency (CIA) had a vital source in Mrs Gandhi&#8217;s cabinet. CIA&#8217;s &#8216;reliable source&#8217; leaked India&#8217;s war objectives to the US, thereby compromising India&#8217;s plan to teach Pakistan a lasting lesson.

The details of Mrs Gandhi&#8217;s Cabinet briefings were also known to the CIA within hours. The minutes of the National Security Council meeting in Washington on December 6, 1971 sheds some light on this. The CIA director Richard Helms informed the meeting that: &#8220;We have a report which covers Madam Gandhi&#8217;s strategy as delivered to her Cabinet at 11 pm on December 3, 1971&#8230;&#8230;The objectives in the west (Pakistan) are to destroy Pakistan&#8217;s armour and in the east to totally liberate the area.&#8221;

An information cable of the CIA dated December 7, 1971 reveals details of Mrs Gandhi&#8217;s briefing to her Cabinet on the India-Pakistan war. The information, attributed to a reliable source, includes India&#8217;s war objectives as reiterated by Mrs Gandhi. They were:

The quick liberation of Bangladesh
The incorporation into India of the southern part of Azad Kashmir for strategic rather than territorial reasons (because India has no desire to occupy any West Pakistan territory)
To destroy Pakistani military striking power so that it never attempts to challenge India in the future

The CIA report also added that the Indian Prime Minister had informed her Cabinet that India would not accept any ceasefire till Bangladesh was liberated.

Shuja Nawaz, a Pakistani political and strategic analyst, in his book Crossed Swords: Pakistan, Its Army, and the Wars Within, says: &#8220;Mrs Gandhi asked her defence chiefs to be ready to drive into Sialkot and then proceed as deep as possible even upto Rawalpindi with the aim of destroying Pakistan. The CIA managed to get actual minutes of the meeting and passed them to Washington urgently.&#8221;

The author, however, does not mention the source of the information he has revealed in his book.

In another disclosure, the CIA director informed the Washington Special Actions Group in a meeting on December 8, 1971 that Mrs Gandhi had told her Cabinet that &#8220;she had expected a more balanced view from the Chinese. She expressed the hope that the Chinese would not intervene physically in the north, but said that the Soviets had said the Chinese would be able to &#8216;rattle the sword.&#8217; She also said that the Soviets have promised to counterbalance any such action.&#8221;

The disclosure of India&#8217;s war objectives by the mole resulted in an aggressive policy by the US to save West Pakistan from the Indian assault.

In a meeting with the Chinese Permanent Representative to the UN (Ambassador Huang Hua) on December 10, 1971 , Henry Kissinger (President Nixons&#8217;s NSA) said, &#8220;we have an intelligence report according to which Mrs Gandhi told her cabinet that she wants to destroy the Pakistani army and air force and to annex this part of Kashmir, Azad Kashmir, and then to offer a ceasefire. This is what we believe must be prevented and this is why I have taken the liberty to ask for this meeting with the Ambassador.&#8221;

A memorandum (dated December 11, 1971) for President Nixon by Henry Kissinger states: &#8220;According to a reliable source Mrs Gandhi&#8217;s staff as of Thursday was still saying that, as soon as the situation in the East is settled, India will launch a major offensive against West Pakistan and hope that all major fighting will be over by the end of the month.&#8221;

It also goes on to say that D P Dhar , a close confidante of Indira Gandhi and former Ambassador to then USSR, was in Moscow to sound out the Soviets on India&#8217;s intentions towards West Pakistan.

The United States administration was absolutely convinced &#8211; thanks to the reliable source they had in Prime Minister Gandhi&#8217;s Cabinet &#8211; that India had offensive plans for West Pakistan. President Nixon, in a telephonic conversation with his National Security Assistant Henry Kissinger on December 8, 1971, said that China could be a decisive factor in restraining the Indian advance.

&#8220;The Chinese thing I still think is a card in the hole there. I tell you a movement of even some Chinese toward that border could scare those goddamn Indians to death,&#8221; he told Kissinger .

The US even threatened the Soviet Union with a major confrontation if they did not convince India to stop the offensive. In a back channel message to then US Ambassador in Pakistan on December 10, 1971 , Kissinger asks him to tell Pak President Yahya Khan that the US has issued a strong demarche to the Soviets and warned them that the US will not permit any aggression against West Pakistan.

&#8220;President added that should Indian offensive be launched in the West, with Soviet acquiescence, a US/Soviet confrontation would ensue,&#8221; Kissinger&#8217;s message further adds.

There are numerous such details in the declassified documents which clearly point towards the US concern regarding the future of West Pakistan. It would not be too far fetched to say that had the crucial details of India&#8217;s war plans remained a secret, the history of South Asia would have been totally different. The US did everything (even supplied arms to Pakistan via Iran, Jordan) to save West Pakistan and they succeeded in the end.

This brings us to the most important question. Who leaked India&#8217;s war plans?

Interestingly, India was aware of the presence of a CIA mole who leaked the war plans. This was revealed in a meeting between then Foreign Minister Swaran Singh and top US officials in 1972. In the meeting, which took place on October 5, 1972, Singh told the US officials that Government of India (GOI) had its own sources and knew that CIA has been in contact with people in India in &#8220;abnormal ways&#8221;.

&#8220;GOI had information that proceedings of the Congress Working Committee were known to the US officials within two hours of meetings,&#8221; Singh told the US Secretary of State William Rogers.

Various accounts in the media have speculated about different names in the former PM&#8217;s Cabinet who might have worked for the CIA.

Jack Anderson, an American investigative journalist, reported about the existence of a CIA mole in the Indira Gandhi cabinet. Anderson got the Pulitzer Prize for national reporting in 1972 for his reports on US&#8217; tilt away from India towards Pakistan during Bangladesh&#8217;s war for independence. Details regarding the mole and the information he passed on to the CIA can also be found in The Anderson Papers and The Man who kept the secrets (based on the life of CIA Director Richard Helms &#8211; Written by Thomas Powers).

Noted Indian lawyer A G Noorani, in his essay titled The CIA papers, published in the August 11-24, 2007 issue of fortnightly Frontline, states, &#8220;the mole in Mrs Gandhi&#8217;s Cabinet performed freely for the CIA all through 1971 till he was compromised. She did not sack him, however, ever forgiving of &#8216;human&#8217; weakness. He survived.&#8221;

While referring to the declassified material and the above mentioned books, Noorani further says that the CIA had penetrated the Indian Government at every level. The agency received reports on &#8220;troops movements, logistics, strategy, and even some of Prime Minister Indira Gandhi&#8217;s secret conversations.&#8221;

&#8220;Was it not a matter of concern that her anxious queries to the Soviet Ambassador and his replies reached Henry Kissinger&#8217;s table while the war was on,&#8221; Noorani inquires.

While all the available information points towards a possible mole in Mrs Gandhi&#8217;s Cabinet during the 1971 war, we still don&#8217;t know his identity. I won&#8217;t speculate on the names here but the Indian Government should learn from the US and declassify old records.

Anuj, meanwhile, had filed an RTI application with the Prime Minister&#8217;s Office and the Ministry of External Affairs to seek information about the alleged mole in Mrs Gandhi&#8217;s Cabinet. But as always, the request has been turned down.

Withholding all the information since independence by giving lame excuses that declassifying it might affect India&#8217;s foreign relations with other countries is not acceptable. The nation has a right to know the information surrounding such an important episode.


Did a CIA mole compromise India&#8217;s 1971 war plans?


----------



## Indus Pakistan

*^^^*

@ Karizma

Well the *good* news is USA will not help Pakistan in 2012 like it did in 1971. The *bad* news is Pakistan does not have half it's army trapped in a swamp amongst teeming Bangali's.

So why not finish off doing what you failed to do in 1971 because Uncle Sam spoilt the party? Now chances are Uncle SAm might even help you.

So go for it boys !!!

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Abu Zolfiqar

the Islamic Republic will never be friendly to the enemies


----------



## lightoftruth

Abu Zolfiqar said:


> the Islamic Republic will never be friendly to the enemies


is russia included ?


----------



## lkozhi

Rusian Help in 1971 indo pak war - YouTube


----------



## Slayer786

BlindArcher said:


> u idiot ur 2800 soldiers + full tank regiment + light weight artillery carrier WITH FULL BATTLE PREPARATION wanted to come to THAR n capture it ..
> THey were stopped and demolished and kicked back to their field by 120 patrolling troop soldiers with merely 5 light artillery carrier vehicles UN PREPARED FOR BATTLE .
> 
> THEY HOLDED UR MASSIVE TANKS N 2800 SOLDIERS FOR 6 HOURS..
> 
> soo DUDE WAKEUP ..
> 
> 120 NE YE HAAL KIYA TO SOCH 13.5 LACKS ACTIVE +21.42 LACKS RESERVED + 13 LACKS PARAMILITARY =4.9 LACKS SOLDIERS KYA HAAL KARENGE TUMHARAA ..
> 
> 
> INDIA ALWAYS BEEN A FRIENDLY STATE .. ITS UU THAT CAN'T BEHAVE WELL.
> 
> 
> ABHI BHI SHAK HAI ???
> 
> 
> AJAAAAAAAAA





lol. U gullible indians believe the lies of your army. Stil think it was your ground troops who defeated the Pakistan tank battalion. It was only the IAF, your coward soldiers were hiding in their barracks. But yes, IAF two planes attacked and repulsed our battalion and we lost half of the tanks and had to withdraw.
But lets not write stupid fantasies and make fictional movies like border. LOL.


----------



## Slayer786

BlindArcher said:


> OOPS I FORGOT TO MENTION 1 MORE THING..
> 
> OUR ARMY DINT TELL LIES, BTW IT WAS OVER ENGLISH CHANNEL (WIKIPEDIA)
> 
> READ IT ALL..
> 
> CHINA'S ROLE, WHICH DINT CAME OUT THAT TIME..
> 
> 
> 
> IT WASNT US ,, IT WAS U TO COME INTO OUR LAND , WE JUST KIKED UR BUTT NOTHING ELSE.
> 
> 6 DAYS BEFORE THAT UR AIRFORCE CAME INTO OUR TERRITORY BOMBING OUR 6 CITIES ,,
> 
> LATER WHAT HAPPENED TO UU WE ALL KNOW..
> 
> I DONT WANT TO BE ARROGANT AND NOR IAM ANIT PAK ..
> 
> I LOVE THAT PLACE AND ALSO GOT DOZEN PAK FRNDS ..
> 
> BUT MOST U PEOPLE ARNT TAUGHT WELL IN SCHOOL.








> * THE BATTLE of Longewala*
> 
> THE BATTLE of Longewala is part of army folklore. This is a* fairy tale* of 100 odd soldiers and their steely resolve, which forced an entire Pakistani brigade, backed by an armoured regiment of 45 tanks, to retreat in the 1971 war. This fascinating story was also captured on celluloid in the film &#8216;Border&#8217;, directed by JP Dutta. The battle of Longewala has been told and retold in military journals and is held out as a shining example to students graduating from the military academies. The sheer valour displayed by Major Kuldeep Singh Chandpuri and his alpha team is just an unmatched feat.
> Longewala TankBut some war veterans have challenged this story after 37 years. Major General (retd), Atma Singh Hansara, told Hindustan Times in an interview,* &#8220;I dispute the ground battle completely. It is mockery of army ethos. No ground battle was fought and the army had merely rehearsed it on a sand model after the ceasefire to cover up the incompetence of senior military commanders.&#8221;*
> 
> Air marshal, MS Bawa, who was directly involved in the war, also agrees with Hansara. He says,* &#8220;This is a challenge. There was no contact between the enemy and the army.&#8221; He further said that the Pakistani thrust was blunted entirely by air action alo*ne.
> Atma SinghThis controversy made me go through some facts related to the battle. It is very hard for me to believe, as the story of Longewala has motivated several youngsters to join the forces. I tried to read the available journals, articles, magazines and accounts of war heroes to know the truth.
> The Air Force War diary says that this turned out to be a clean battle, one of its kinds. This is the most decisive battle fought between Indian Air Force (IAF) and armour. Even Major General, RF Khambatta, GOC, 12 Infantry Division, lends credence to the Air Force&#8217;s claim. Pakistan General, Muqeem, in his book &#8216;Crisis of Leadership in Pakistan&#8217;, mentions that large number of vehicles, tanks and guns got bogged in sand. *The enemy was the master of skies and destroyed 18 tanks and other vehicles at his leisure.* The army documents related to war seems to nail the controversy. It only gives credit to Chanpuri&#8217;s men for &#8216;holding out&#8217; a lonely post. The document says, &#8220; At Longewala that day, IAF added a glorious new chapter. This was the straight battle between the Pakistan armour and IAF hunters. The bulk of Pak armoured regiment was destroyed by air action alone.&#8221;
> *Truth, it is said, is often the first casualty in the war.* The controversy has raised several questions that need to be answered. If this is the truth, then why the army is keeping the lie still alive? Is the army taking more credit than it deserves? What incompetence military commanders are trying to hide? If former officers are correct, then what has propelled them to speak now? They should have protested before or even when the film Border was released?
> *The Indian army has been in news for wrong reasons, and it is time more facts were opened to put an end to this (de)famed battle*. But let&#8217;s not make any conclusions unless we hear from both the forces. It is better not to conclude with half knowledge. This is something related to the dignified and respected Indian armed forces, and thus, it is in the interest of services that the truth about the Longewala battle be told to the citizens.
> 
> Source:india.targetgenx.com/



As I wrote earlier, the truth was that only the IAf played a part in the battle in which they defeated the Pak army battalion who had to withdraw as they could not fight the IAF. There was no Indian soldiers as depicted in the Indian movie 'Border", that is all b.uulshit. So letsw comeback to the reality. It would have been a boring movie to watch without any brave soldiers defeating the enemy, thats why the movie was made. 
But a lot of indians as usual were fooled into believing trhe false lies of indian soldiers bravery. 

I also have indian friends and I dont hate India but dont like it when truth is not told.


----------



## Aka123

This is a 1 year old thread.


----------



## Saleem

Aka123 said:


> This is a 1 year old thread.



old is gold????


----------



## Koovie

BlindArcher said:


> i will appreciate if u read that message again ..
> 
> i wrote HOLED FOR 6 HOURS .
> 
> READ IT AGAIN U ILLITERATE.
> 
> I DINT SAID 120 DEFEATED 2800 NOOB SOLDIERS ...
> 
> ACTUALLY THING IS THAT U SEE WHAT U WANT TO SEE , BUT FACTS ARE DIFFERENT .
> 
> 
> I DONT THINK SO U KNOW 1% OF 1971.. ALSO I CANT WRITE IT ALL.. BETTER U WATCH SOME YOUTUBE DOCUMENTARY
> 
> 
> AND FOR FUTURE BEFORE WRITING AND QUOTING AND MAKING *** OF UR SELF TRY READ THE COMMENT PROPERLY .
> ONCE AGAIN. WE HOLD FOR 6 HOURS..
> 
> 
> THATS NOT EASY AGAINST 2800 SOLDIERS AND TANK REGIMENTS.
> 
> EVEN IF U ARE IN BUNKER ..
> 
> BUNKER CANT PROTECT U AGAINST MASSIVE FORCES ,, ITS INDIAN BLOOD AND LOVE FOR COUNTRY AND LAND WHICH CAN
> 
> 
> NEVER MIND .. U WONT GET IT



Seriously, learn to master the capslock please.


----------



## Koovie

BlindArcher said:


> *and u really dont know whom u talking to son ..*
> dnt teach comptr or keyboard to me

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Slayer786

BlindArcher said:


> u idiot ur 2800 soldiers + full tank regiment + light weight artillery carrier WITH FULL BATTLE PREPARATION wanted to come to THAR n capture it ..
> *THey were stopped and demolished and kicked back to their field by 120 patrolling troop soldiers with merely 5 light artillery carrier vehicles UN PREPARED FOR BATTLE .*
> 
> THEY HOLDED UR MASSIVE TANKS N 2800 SOLDIERS FOR 6 HOURS..
> 
> soo DUDE WAKEUP ..
> 
> 120 NE YE HAAL KIYA TO SOCH 13.5 LACKS ACTIVE +21.42 LACKS RESERVED + 13 LACKS PARAMILITARY =4.9 LACKS SOLDIERS KYA HAAL KARENGE TUMHARAA ..
> 
> 
> INDIA ALWAYS BEEN A FRIENDLY STATE .. ITS UU THAT CAN'T BEHAVE WELL.
> 
> 
> ABHI BHI SHAK HAI ???
> 
> 
> AJAAAAAAAAA



Well I was just replying to your statement that no 120 soldiers were there who took part in that battle. There was NO BRAVERY done from any indian mai ka laal, it was only IAF which defeated the Pak army battalion. As without air cover they were sitting ducks, so naturally that was going to happen.

Also, it is funny when you write that India is a friendly state. None of its neighbours really like it, they tolerate it as it is a bully. It has fought wars with two if its neighbours. Send its soldiers to another where they were quite easily ambushed and killed and still were resnted by the govt of that country who started blaming India for arming the rebels. 
And FYI, we have tried all that we could to induce a war, its just you pathetic indians who are scared to attack us. We started the Kargil war, and you guys after getting your behind whopped complained to the USA who ordered our bhagora PM to withdraw. After that we did the Indian parliament attack and then after doing a drama of mobilix\zing a million men to attck us, you guys went limp again as usual. Then we did the Mumbai attacks, and really hoped this time you indian would have the b.alls to attack us. But being cowards as you are, that also just petered out with nothing happening. 

And we are still waiting..............


----------



## Slayer786

BlindArcher said:


> ACTUALLY REASONING U BEING STILL WAITING IS YOU WERE NEVER THREAT OR COMPETITION TO US. ..
> WE ACTUALLY IGNORED YOU FOR U,.. EXACTLY SAME AS FATHER DO TO HIS MISCHIEVOUS KID.
> FATHER MUST RESPECT BEING FATHER , HE MUST NOT HIT THAT KI. AND IF HE HITS THE KID IS DEAD. .
> 
> SO U BETTER BE WAITING THEN DYING. MAY ALLAH TEACH U GOOD WAY,, BETTER DO IT FOR UR COUNTRY AND MAKE JOBS AND BRING EMPLOYMENT TO YOUR COUNTRY,
> 
> I RECENTLY HEARD UR GOV OFFICES HAVE CUTOFF A/C TO SAVE ELECTRICITY.
> 
> ND 1 MORE FOR GOOD DAY,,
> 
> UR PAK-US F-16 DEALS.. LOL WORLD LAUGHED AT UU NOOBS,, NO MONEY AND STILL WANTS WORLDS BEST FIGHTER PLANES,
> GIVE THANKS TO UR BIG BROTHER US..
> 
> HE OBLIGE U SO MUCH, EVEN AFTER FINDING OSAMA FROM UR COUNTRY,
> 
> BY OSAMA I CAN RECALL THAT UR GOV DINT EVEN KNEW WHEN THIS OPERATION TOOK PLACE,,
> OSAMA'S HIDEOUT WAS MERELY 2-3 KMS FROM ARMY HEADQUARTERS ..
> LOL,
> 
> ND U SAY U ARE PREPARED AND WAITING.
> 
> UCANT FIGHT TALIBAN N U WANT TO FIGHT INDIA.. ARE U MAD SON ?
> 
> REALLY ASK UR SELF IF UR STATE IS IN POSITION TO ACT LYK U SAYING .
> 
> I WISH GOOD BRAIN TO U N UR PPL.




What are you talking about. LOL. Cmon relax. I know reality bites. But it must have really bitten your behind. No need to go off topic. If you cant accept the reality of your fake baravdo soldiers taking credit for nothing, than its pointless to argue here.


----------

