What's new

This War Guaranteed That India Would Dominate South Asia

Ace of Spades

FULL MEMBER
Feb 6, 2017
1,449
30
3,758
Country
Pakistan
Location
Netherlands
There's no denying that Pakistan lost 1971. In history, many renowned empires have lost wars and then won again.

The geography of Bangladesh with a six time bigger hostile land in between that was actively participating in conspiring against Pakistan, and the internal revolt meant that Pakistan lost even before the war started.

There is no shame in accepting the defeat and lets accept that India played well in fueling the communal riots in Bangladesh and was successful in seeding hate between two populations of a country.

An army can fight many times larger enemy without fear if the population is on its back. When a soldier sees love of people who are waiting for their soldiers to come back as victors, soldiers also put their lives at risk and do not hesitate in sacrificing it when needed. However, when a soldier sees hate in the eyes of a population which he is fighting for, he loses his will and strength to fight and just accepts the defeat. This is exactly what happened in 1971 when people didn't want to live with the western part and they didn't consider Pakistan army their own army. Our army was considered an occupying force by a big chunk of the population and there was a civil war going on. India fully took advantage (as it is in Indian nature to not leave such an opportunity.. they are also famous for backstabbing.. if anyone doubts this fact, just keep looking at Afghan situation.. India can accept Taliban government if Taliban throw a tiny bone to them).

That said, whether that defeat (which was more of a civil war than a one-to-one military conflict) didn't instill any fear in the hearts of Pakistanis. Why? because we still think it wasn't a conflict on equal footing.. Was India able to subdue Pakistan as a result of 1971 war? Could it stop Pakistan from becoming a nuclear power? Has India been able to control Kashmir movement and stop Pakistan from supporting Kashmiris? The answer for all these questions is a big "No".

In most part of last four decades, Pakistan got involved with another neighbor. There was a huge influx of refugees that put a dent on economy big time (and they are still here). On one side of the border, there was a hostile country that doesn't leave a single opportunity to harm us, on the other side we have two countries, one is continuously at war, and the other is under the strictest sanctions. Any country's economy is heavily dependent on the trade with its neighbors, the passages through those neighbors give way to trade with other countries too. Pakistan despite its amazing geography couldn't obtain any benefit due to wars, sanctions and hostilities around her. Result is that we lagged behind, but not by a huge margin. India, which hasn't faced any such issues should have been at least competing with China, but we see where India stands despite huge investments from the west. We can say that Indian performance is far from impressive.

Now is the opportunity for Pakistan to capitalize what India is going through.. just a Bangladesh like situation. If you see, Indian confidence is overflowing (same as in Pakistan before 1971).. This over confidence is the recipe for disaster.

If war breaks out tomorrow, internal civil situation in Kashmir may give us an opportunity of a lifetime.. specially when our synergy with China is at peak. We are getting a lot of military hardware from an emerging superpower and there is no fear of sanctions (that has always been the case with Pakistan while India enjoyed full access to Russian hardware). I don't usually talk about two front war, but the chances are bright that if war breaks out, for India, it will be a two front war in which it will lose Kashmir to Pakistan and China.

We have also not taken into account another actor in the region... Afghan Taliban. By nature, they are sympathetic towards oppressed Muslims all around the world. For them, politics doesn't exist and we have seen this in the last 20 years of conflicts. Good thing is that Taliban are fully in line with how Pakistan thinks.

So yes, India couldn't gain much after 1971s victory although it could have capitalized that. Next war will be an interesting war between the two nuclear armed nations and in my opinion, India has to lose a lot in that war.

@Mangus Ortus Novem @Blacklight @StormBreaker @Ace of Spades
I agree with your analysis, india will indeed be on the loosing side. However, for Pakistan the biggest factor would be economics. IMO, instead of looking for big scale war, Pakistan should exploit, sikhs in India, Muslim situation in India and make it very costly for Indian forces to stay in Kashmir. Once the internal rift increases further and thanks to RSS and modi, Pakistan will get far bigger benefits, not just Kashmir. For now Pakistan should focus on Afghanistan... and on some sort of security arrangement with China+turkey like nato...
 

GumNaam

ELITE MEMBER
Sep 23, 2016
11,474
-1
15,651
Country
Pakistan
Location
United States
You indians should take such propaganda items written by Indian websites and shove it up your back sides. Shameless creatures.
Here's What You Need To Remember: Pakistan’s humiliation in 1971 spurred it into developing an atomic bomb. With India also armed with atomic weapons, South Asia now lives under the shadow of nuclear war.

This is what happens when you chop a nation in half.

Before December 3, 1971, Pakistan was a country suffering from a split personality disorder. When British India became independent in 1947, the country was divided into Hindu India and Muslim Pakistan. The problem was that East Pakistan and West Pakistan were almost a thousand miles apart, and wedged in between them was archenemy India. Imagine if the United States only consisted of the East Coast and West Coast, and Russia controlled all of North America in between.


Thirteen days later, Pakistan had been amputated. Indian troops had conquered East Pakistan, which became the new nation of Bangladesh. More than ninety thousand Pakistani soldiers were taken prisoner, half the Pakistani Navy had been sunk and the Indian Air Force came out on top. It was total humiliation, and not just for Pakistan. The United States and Britain sent aircraft carriers in a futile attempt to intimidate India, and ended up facing off against Soviet warships. Pakistan’s defeat also spurred its rulers to begin the development of nuclear weapons.

The 1971 India-Pakistan War, the third major conflict between the two nations in twenty-five years, was sparked by unrest in East Pakistan. The Bengalis of East Pakistan, who constituted 54 percent of Pakistan’s population at the time, chafed under the rule of West Pakistan. The two Pakistans belonged to different ethnic groups and spoke different languages.

Bengali demands for autonomy were rebuffed. By mid-1971, an East Pakistan guerrilla movement had emerged, supported by India. Pakistan’s military-controlled government cracked down hard, killing up to three million Bengalis in what has been described as a genocide. By November, both India and Pakistan were preparing for war.

On December 3, Pakistan launched a preemptive air strike against Indian airfields, ironically trying to emulate how the Israeli Air Force had destroyed Egyptian airpower in 1967. The difference was that the Israelis committed two hundred aircraft and wiped out nearly five hundred Egyptian aircraft in a few hours; Pakistan committed fifty aircraft and inflicted little damage. The air war featured the full panoply of Cold War jets, pitting Pakistani F-104 Starfighters, F-86 Sabres, MiG-19s and B-57 Canberras against Indian MiG-21s, Sukhoi-7s, Hawker Hunters and Folland Gnats, as well as Hawker Sea Hawks flying from the Indian carrier Vikrant.

Both sides claimed victory in the air war. Chuck Yeager, who was in Pakistan advising their air force, claimed the Pakistanis “whipped their asses.” The Indians claim Yeager was crazy. However, it does appear that India had the upper hand in the air, controlling the skies over East Pakistan and losing about forty-five aircraft to Pakistan’s seventy-five. The maneuverable little Indian Gnat, a British-made lightweight fighter (its predecessor was called the Midge), proved so successful against Pakistani F-86s that the Indians dubbed it the “Sabre Slayer.”

At sea, there is no question that India won. The Indian Navy dispatched missile boats, armed with Soviet-made Styx missiles, to strike the western port of Karachi, sinking or badly damaging two Pakistani destroyers and three merchant ships, as well as fuel tanks. Indian ships blockaded East Pakistan from reinforcements and supplies. Notable was India’s use of the carrier Vikrant to conduct air strikes on coastal targets, as well as conducting an amphibious landing on Pakistani territory.

Pakistan retaliated by dispatching the submarine Ghazi to mine Indian ports. While stalked by an Indian destroyer, the Ghazi mysteriously blew up.

As for the ground war, the best that can be said is that if Napoleon himself had faced Pakistan’s strategic dilemma, he would have sulked off to St. Helena. Isolated by land and blockaded by sea, no army could have defended East Pakistan against even a moderately competent foe, let alone the nine Indian divisions that quickly captured the East Pakistan capital of Dhaka. East Pakistani forces surrendered on December 16.

To add insult to the defeat of Pakistan and its proudly Muslim rulers, the Indian campaign was planned by Maj. Gen. J. F. R. Jacob—an Indian Jew descended from a family that fled Baghdad in the eighteenth century.

One issue that hampered Pakistan’s war effort would soon become familiar in Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan and other ethnically divided nations. In 1971, Bengalis comprised a significant part of the Pakistani military, especially in technical jobs.

Meanwhile, the superpowers were flexing their muscles. Despite its cruelty toward the Bengalis, and the opposition of U.S. diplomats, President Richard Nixon and National Security Adviser Henry Kissinger backed Pakistan against pro-Soviet India (see the Nixon-Kissinger transcripts here). Task Force 74, centered on the aircraft carrier Enterprise, steamed into the Bay of Bengal, as did the British carrier Eagle. Why India would have been intimidated into a cease-fire, even as its tanks were rolling into Dhaka, is a mystery. America’s attempt to deter India from defeating Pakistan became a case study of the limitations of relying on the threat of force to compel other nations to change their behavior.

In fact, what the U.S. Navy accomplished was to chill U.S.-Indian relations for years. Even more disturbing were the Soviet cruisers, destroyers and submarines shadowing Task Force 74. A war between two Southwest Asian nations could have triggered a superpower showdown at sea, and perhaps World War III.

In the end, India had demonstrated its military superiority. Pakistan lost half its territory and population. Perhaps more important, Pakistani illusions that an Islamic army could rout the “weak” Hindus had been disproved. Following the 1947 and 1965 wars, the 1971 war was the third major conflict between India and Pakistan. It was also the last. Despite some hostilities in Kargil and other spots on the border, India and Pakistan have not fought a major war in forty-five years.

Unfortunately, Pakistan’s humiliation in 1971 spurred it into developing an atomic bomb. With India also armed with atomic weapons, South Asia now lives under the shadow of nuclear war. The next major India-Pakistan clash could be the last.

- - - - - - - - - -
Michael Peck is a frequent contributor to the National Interest and is a regular writer for many outlets like WarIsBoring. He can be found on Twitter and Facebook. This article first appeared several years ago.

https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/war-guaranteed-india-would-dominate-south-asia-145092
here's what you need to know...an article written by a redneck racist islamophobic white supremacist can't change the harsh reality that Pakistan's defeat in 71 is only owed to the fact that Pakistan was in the middle of a civil war where the 52% mainstream majority Pakistan had rebelled against the rule of the 48% minority 1000 miles away where even east Pakistani military personnel had rebelled creatinga situation where there were tanks but not enough crew members, rifles but not enough shooters, planes but not enough pilots & ships but not enough pilots & not owed to the nonexistent, fictional indian "military prowess & might" that at best, exists only in bollywood movies! it was a loose loose situation where the west Pakistani forces were outnumbered 15 to 1 without including the indian forces...the fate was sealed by none other than our own selfish politicians who would rather see half the nation break away while staying in power instead of giving power to the opponent who had won the elections fair & square. india merely facilitated the already sealed fate...so eastern front was doomed no matter what. but since I just live to abuse the indian sanghis & burst the balloon of their already fragile & feeble ego, I would like to rub this into their face from one of their own ex military officials who admits that even in 71, the self proclaimed "powerful" indian military couldn't achieve any significant victory on the western front IN SPITE of Pakistan's military might bring halved in strength due to east Pakistani military personnel rebelling...
now as for Pakistan going nuclear, 71 was the wake up call that Pakistan cannot rely on allies like the u.s. who instead of stepping in as it was supposed to, used the delay tactics primarily on account of being scared of the u.s.s.r. that had already physically sent advisors & equipment to india while itself being on a victory high against the u.s. in the vietnam war...it was completely natural for Pakistan to pursue a nuclear weapons program...the smiling buddha just provided the perfect excuse & the moral high ground to Pakistan to pursue its nuclear weapons program.

conclusion: india was not, is not & will not be any sort of a military "power" worthy of any mention.
 

Jackdaws

ELITE MEMBER
Jan 20, 2010
12,757
-50
11,071
Country
India
Location
India
If that were true, then india would have invaded Pakistan, stayed their for a week and then pulled back. They didn't because they couldn't. It's one thing to fight an enemy of only 40,000 that is 3000 kms away from home and is surrounded by 100 million hostile bengalis and a further 500 million hostile indians, it's anothet thing to attack the Pakistani mainland and even ATTEMPT to invade it. Even now, india is more than 7× bigger than Pakistan and has the full backing of the West and Russia yet remains FAR TOO WEAK and powerless to take on the Pakistani military.







But CPEC is now taking care of our economy that got scuppered because of the American war on terror 2001 - 2019................it's really funny when indians like you have to hide behind an American flag and try to be something that they are not..........:lol:....... :azn:
No they wouldn't. Do you know how expensive it is? The sheer number of resources required to keep an urban area ticking after it is captured? That too with a hostile population?

Small towns and villages are another matter - a few troops can manage.
 

Sheikh Rauf

SENIOR MEMBER
Aug 24, 2014
5,742
-10
4,375
Country
Pakistan
Location
Qatar
Here's What You Need To Remember: Pakistan’s humiliation in 1971 spurred it into developing an atomic bomb. With India also armed with atomic weapons, South Asia now lives under the shadow of nuclear war.

This is what happens when you chop a nation in half.

Before December 3, 1971, Pakistan was a country suffering from a split personality disorder. When British India became independent in 1947, the country was divided into Hindu India and Muslim Pakistan. The problem was that East Pakistan and West Pakistan were almost a thousand miles apart, and wedged in between them was archenemy India. Imagine if the United States only consisted of the East Coast and West Coast, and Russia controlled all of North America in between.


Thirteen days later, Pakistan had been amputated. Indian troops had conquered East Pakistan, which became the new nation of Bangladesh. More than ninety thousand Pakistani soldiers were taken prisoner, half the Pakistani Navy had been sunk and the Indian Air Force came out on top. It was total humiliation, and not just for Pakistan. The United States and Britain sent aircraft carriers in a futile attempt to intimidate India, and ended up facing off against Soviet warships. Pakistan’s defeat also spurred its rulers to begin the development of nuclear weapons.

The 1971 India-Pakistan War, the third major conflict between the two nations in twenty-five years, was sparked by unrest in East Pakistan. The Bengalis of East Pakistan, who constituted 54 percent of Pakistan’s population at the time, chafed under the rule of West Pakistan. The two Pakistans belonged to different ethnic groups and spoke different languages.

Bengali demands for autonomy were rebuffed. By mid-1971, an East Pakistan guerrilla movement had emerged, supported by India. Pakistan’s military-controlled government cracked down hard, killing up to three million Bengalis in what has been described as a genocide. By November, both India and Pakistan were preparing for war.

On December 3, Pakistan launched a preemptive air strike against Indian airfields, ironically trying to emulate how the Israeli Air Force had destroyed Egyptian airpower in 1967. The difference was that the Israelis committed two hundred aircraft and wiped out nearly five hundred Egyptian aircraft in a few hours; Pakistan committed fifty aircraft and inflicted little damage. The air war featured the full panoply of Cold War jets, pitting Pakistani F-104 Starfighters, F-86 Sabres, MiG-19s and B-57 Canberras against Indian MiG-21s, Sukhoi-7s, Hawker Hunters and Folland Gnats, as well as Hawker Sea Hawks flying from the Indian carrier Vikrant.

Both sides claimed victory in the air war. Chuck Yeager, who was in Pakistan advising their air force, claimed the Pakistanis “whipped their asses.” The Indians claim Yeager was crazy. However, it does appear that India had the upper hand in the air, controlling the skies over East Pakistan and losing about forty-five aircraft to Pakistan’s seventy-five. The maneuverable little Indian Gnat, a British-made lightweight fighter (its predecessor was called the Midge), proved so successful against Pakistani F-86s that the Indians dubbed it the “Sabre Slayer.”

At sea, there is no question that India won. The Indian Navy dispatched missile boats, armed with Soviet-made Styx missiles, to strike the western port of Karachi, sinking or badly damaging two Pakistani destroyers and three merchant ships, as well as fuel tanks. Indian ships blockaded East Pakistan from reinforcements and supplies. Notable was India’s use of the carrier Vikrant to conduct air strikes on coastal targets, as well as conducting an amphibious landing on Pakistani territory.

Pakistan retaliated by dispatching the submarine Ghazi to mine Indian ports. While stalked by an Indian destroyer, the Ghazi mysteriously blew up.

As for the ground war, the best that can be said is that if Napoleon himself had faced Pakistan’s strategic dilemma, he would have sulked off to St. Helena. Isolated by land and blockaded by sea, no army could have defended East Pakistan against even a moderately competent foe, let alone the nine Indian divisions that quickly captured the East Pakistan capital of Dhaka. East Pakistani forces surrendered on December 16.

To add insult to the defeat of Pakistan and its proudly Muslim rulers, the Indian campaign was planned by Maj. Gen. J. F. R. Jacob—an Indian Jew descended from a family that fled Baghdad in the eighteenth century.

One issue that hampered Pakistan’s war effort would soon become familiar in Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan and other ethnically divided nations. In 1971, Bengalis comprised a significant part of the Pakistani military, especially in technical jobs.

Meanwhile, the superpowers were flexing their muscles. Despite its cruelty toward the Bengalis, and the opposition of U.S. diplomats, President Richard Nixon and National Security Adviser Henry Kissinger backed Pakistan against pro-Soviet India (see the Nixon-Kissinger transcripts here). Task Force 74, centered on the aircraft carrier Enterprise, steamed into the Bay of Bengal, as did the British carrier Eagle. Why India would have been intimidated into a cease-fire, even as its tanks were rolling into Dhaka, is a mystery. America’s attempt to deter India from defeating Pakistan became a case study of the limitations of relying on the threat of force to compel other nations to change their behavior.

In fact, what the U.S. Navy accomplished was to chill U.S.-Indian relations for years. Even more disturbing were the Soviet cruisers, destroyers and submarines shadowing Task Force 74. A war between two Southwest Asian nations could have triggered a superpower showdown at sea, and perhaps World War III.

In the end, India had demonstrated its military superiority. Pakistan lost half its territory and population. Perhaps more important, Pakistani illusions that an Islamic army could rout the “weak” Hindus had been disproved. Following the 1947 and 1965 wars, the 1971 war was the third major conflict between India and Pakistan. It was also the last. Despite some hostilities in Kargil and other spots on the border, India and Pakistan have not fought a major war in forty-five years.

Unfortunately, Pakistan’s humiliation in 1971 spurred it into developing an atomic bomb. With India also armed with atomic weapons, South Asia now lives under the shadow of nuclear war. The next major India-Pakistan clash could be the last.

- - - - - - - - - -
Michael Peck is a frequent contributor to the National Interest and is a regular writer for many outlets like WarIsBoring. He can be found on Twitter and Facebook. This article first appeared several years ago.

https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/war-guaranteed-india-would-dominate-south-asia-145092
oh zapper your mouth it was indian dagger on our back which indian think of braveness what they did in 71.. 90grand is just exagerrated figured cuz indian had been crying and Pakistani never bothered to count. it sudnt happend but i am glad Bangali got seprated cuz they were not us anyways. British and Us never came to fight cuz indian were sitting on russian lap, it was enough for US and british to stay away. Other wise almost 50 years indian just planning like cold star $#it or spreading terrorism and barking on international media that Pakistan is sending terrorist to india when indian are killing their own people with the help of their army to Blame Pakistan.
but they cant shake a inch of Pakistan.. 1.3 billion make any stupidity we had make sure there will nothing left to anyone enjoy.
 

Jackdaws

ELITE MEMBER
Jan 20, 2010
12,757
-50
11,071
Country
India
Location
India
The biggest reason why India mostly dominates South Asia (though we've seen massive push back in the last 5ish years) is because of the war on terror, and the US wanting to counter China.

It's not a secret that Pakistan was doing better economically than India, before the war on terror began. It's also no secret that as soon as China became a threat to US dominance, India experienced massive economic growth and success, mostly related to foreign investment mainly from the US and Western Europe.
I think Pakistan's boom years were from the early 60s to around 1989. After the Soviet withdrawal and collapse of the USSR, Pakistan's nuclear program came under the cross hairs and the Pressler amendments and sanctions kicked in. I think that's when the decline of Pakistan's economy began. I remember watching Pakistan's PM ( Benazir) on evening news make an appeal to release F-16s that Pakistan had already paid for but withheld...
India dominates South Asia because of its soft power : Yoga, Bollywood, Buddha, Gandhi...it is able to project this soft power far beyond the borders of South Asia. That image of Nehruvian colorful, inclusive India of is taking a beating under the Modi-Shah duo. But the roots are very strong.

Pakistan was only doing better than India until the 1960s. And that too only West Pakistan which was helped by the fact that they were treating their Eastern wing as a Colony. After that, any uptick in economy was because of American largesse, not because of any economic policy.

Indian economy while socialist and following the Soviet model kept concentrating on what it called "self reliance". When the British left, except for mills and a few factories India (as well as Pakistan) were completely reliant on imports for finished goods.

That's where Nehru's penchant for building Institutions, Instititutes and factories comes in. Within a generation - even with meagre resources he built the IITs, the IIMs, the medicine schools, started the Space Programme with Sarabhai - built companies like HMT which made watches and tractors - basically instilled a sense of nationhood. The list is mind boggling.

We lost out on the 80s when India should have abandoned socialism once the institutions were built. But since the 90s - India has been on a great growth trajectory.
 

PAKISTANFOREVER

ELITE MEMBER
Aug 15, 2015
15,777
-3
25,664
Country
United Kingdom
Location
Pakistan
No they wouldn't. Do you know how expensive it is? The sheer number of resources required to keep an urban area ticking after it is captured? That too with a hostile population?

Small towns and villages are another matter - a few troops can manage.



A hostile population????????...........:lol:............You would have faced a force that would have made ISIS look like choir boys and your kind know it.................:lol:.........by stating the above you have admitted that india didn't have what it takes to even think about invading the Pakistan mainland.
 

Jackdaws

ELITE MEMBER
Jan 20, 2010
12,757
-50
11,071
Country
India
Location
India
A hostile population????????...........:lol:............You would have faced a force that would have made ISIS look like choir boys and your kind know it.................:lol:.........by stating the above you have admitted that india didn't have what it takes to even think about invading the Pakistan mainland.
Lol. Is that what you think? Is that why they easily took Turtuk in Baltistan and Chachro in Sindh?
It wasn't the mainland. The mainland housing 55% of the population had already been liberated. Giving it an area wise argument is cluthing at straws. It's like the Americans losing New York state and saying "Hey we still have Texas, which is 7 times the size of New York."
 

PAKISTANFOREVER

ELITE MEMBER
Aug 15, 2015
15,777
-3
25,664
Country
United Kingdom
Location
Pakistan
Lol. Is that what you think? Is that why they easily took Turtuk in Baltistan and Chachro in Sindh?
It wasn't the mainland. The mainland housing 55% of the population had already been liberated. Giving it an area wise argument is cluthing at straws. It's like the Americans losing New York state and saying "Hey we still have Texas, which is 7 times the size of New York."




Do you have ANY evidence or proof for those above claims? IF what you say is true then remember to post the links here.

Also, bangladesh is 1/6 The size of Pakistan. Not even 17% the size of Pakistan. Since when did 17% = 55%?

bangladesh forming their own nation after having been a part of the Pakistan federation is like saying india lost 35% of it's former territory in the creation of Pakistan.
 

Jackdaws

ELITE MEMBER
Jan 20, 2010
12,757
-50
11,071
Country
India
Location
India
Do you have ANY evidence or proof for those above claims? IF what you say is true then remember to post the links here.

Also, bangladesh is 1/6 The size of Pakistan. Not even 17% the size of Pakistan. Since when did 17% = 55%?

bangladesh forming their own nation after having been a part of the Pakistan federation is like saying india lost 35% of it's former territory in the creation of Pakistan.
Just like New York is 1/6th the size of Texas. Do you think the Americans would be fine with losing New York?

East Pakistan housed 55% of the total population of Pakistan. In terms of size, East Bengal was between Sindh and Pakistani Punjab.

Which claims? Turtuk and Chachro? Google them.
 

PAKISTANFOREVER

ELITE MEMBER
Aug 15, 2015
15,777
-3
25,664
Country
United Kingdom
Location
Pakistan
Just like New York is 1/6th the size of Texas. Do you think the Americans would be fine with losing New York?

East Pakistan housed 55% of the total population of Pakistan. In terms of size, East Bengal was between Sindh and Pakistani Punjab.

Which claims? Turtuk and Chachro? Google them.


As you are the one making the claims, IF what you say is true then it is YOUR responsibility to present the evidence and proof for ALL of them, not mine's. If you don't then it means it's just more indian FAKE NEWS and propaganda. Nothing more.

The bangladeshi population is irrelevant as they are RACIALLY and generically different to Pakistanis and are in fact the same as you indians. Which is why they found it easy to ally themselves with you, as you are essentially the same people.

bangladesh was created for the same reason why india lost 35% of it's territory in the creation of Pakistan. You CANNOT form a nation with people who are completely different to you in terms of race, DNA, genetics, culture and heritage. Simple as.
 

Jackdaws

ELITE MEMBER
Jan 20, 2010
12,757
-50
11,071
Country
India
Location
India
As you are the one making the claims, IF what you say is true then it is YOUR responsibility to present the evidence and proof for ALL of them, not mine's. If you don't then it means it's just more indian FAKE NEWS and propaganda. Nothing more.

The bangladeshi population is irrelevant as they are RACIALLY and generically different to Pakistanis and are in fact the same as you indians. Which is why they found it easy to ally themselves with you, as you are essentially the same people.

bangladesh was created for the same reason why india lost 35% of it's territory in the creation of Pakistan. You CANNOT form a nation with people who are completely different to you in terms of race, DNA, genetics, culture and heritage. Simple as.
Lol. OK. Is that why Bhutto was saying even after you had surrendered that he wanted to have a loose federation and still be the Pakistan of old?
 

PAKISTANFOREVER

ELITE MEMBER
Aug 15, 2015
15,777
-3
25,664
Country
United Kingdom
Location
Pakistan
Lol. OK. Is that why Bhutto was saying even after you had surrendered that he wanted to have a loose federation and still be the Pakistan of old?



That was a mere formality nothing more. It's like gandhi and hindu nationalists in 1947 who were claiming that Pakistan should be merged back with india. Even today, hindu nationalists and politicians are claiming that Pakistan should be taken back and merged into a "United india"............:lol::

https://www.indiatoday.in/india/sto...5-rss-leader-indresh-kumar-1479998-2019-03-17

Here in 2020, NO-ONE in Pakistan even thinks about bangladesh or having ANY sort of link or relationship with them......:azn:



PS Can you provide ANY evidence or Proof that Bhutto said that or are they more indian fairy tales?
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Total: 1, Members: 0, Guests: 1)


Top Bottom