What's new

195 Pak army men to be tried by Dhaka for war crimes

Status
Not open for further replies.
Yet Indians did mange to house, feed and pay stipend for their work(they were put to work building highways in India) for nearly three years.
In Nuremberg Nazis were captured, tried and executed/sentenced with in one year. what makes you think Indian could not have punished Pakistani war criminal in three years.It was just a question of will.

You are confusing Shimla agreement (1972) with Delhi Agreement (1974)..It was in Shimla agreement that all these pledges were made, where as there were no agreements on Prisoner transfer until 1974 Delhi Agreement.

Zulfikar Ali Bhutto came to Shimla as the head of a defeated nation with nothing to bargain. 93,000 Pakistani prisoners were in India and the tehsil of Shakargarh as well as large tracts of desert were under Indian occupation.

Bhutto pleaded Indira to go easy on him, and surprisingly that is what she did.

All that Pakistan conceded at Shimla was that it would not use force to solve the Kashmir problem and it would deal with the issue bilaterally. It is indeed astonishing that a militarily weak and defeated nation promising 'non use of force' against another country 7 times its size, being seen as a concession.


You are entitled to your opinion, but hard fact is, that Pakistani state did do something horrible in East Pakistan and they never answered for it and we know this fact because, ten million people do not leave their homes and run into an enemy state for nothing.
mate check your geography India is no where near 7 times the size of Pakistan, in fact India is not even 4 times the size of Pakistan but only 3.6 times that's just a slightly more then 3 & a half times ,
India Indian administered Kashmir 1,240,480 sq mi (note that I have added 1650 sq mi of contested territory of siachen minus the daulat beg oldi area & west wards since it was always under Indian control & we don't contest that area as its an issue between India & China (LAC))
BBC News - India profile - Key facts
Pakistan 307,374 sq mi plus Pakistan administered Kashmir = 338,000 sq mi ( note that I have minus the 1,650 sq mi of contested territory of siachen as its occupied by India)
BBC News - Pakistan profile - Key facts

now 1,240,480 sq mi / 338,000 sq mi = 3.6

so even after the separation of east pak & occupation of siachen in 1984 India is only 3.6 times the size of Pakistan
 
Last edited:
It was never a question of will and comparing Nuremberg with 71 is an abuse of history. On what charges were they to be tried? Pakistan never invaded another country, they were engaged in an anti-insurgency operation on their own land it was India that invaded. So if they were to be tried, please mention the charges as well.

They would be tried and punished on the same charges as khymer rouge,Saddam Hussain or Kosvo war criminal were tried and hanged for i.e Committing genocide.

Nazis faced Nuremberg not just because they had invaded other countries and lost but to huge extent treatment of Jews
in Germany as well as captured areas.
Similar to what west Pakistani army adopted towards Bengali population of East Pakistan and to larger extent towards Hindu population of East Pakistan.
Delhi Agreement was for the forceful expulsion of Biharis and Non-Bengalis from refugee camps in India and Bangladesh. You might want to look it up again.

Wrong!
What you might want to look up is, how Pakistani POWs were transferred to Pakistan under the very same agreement and not Shimla agreement.

There was no way India could have kept the 90,000 and what he ended up conceding was a lot in itself. India was not going to keep them indefinitely anyway.

Indians kept them for better part of three years, it was not as if they were getting free lunches, they were made to work hard for their two square meals a day.

Indian jingoism at its finest, they weren't going into a wrestling match, it was entirely up to him to accept the terms of any agreement proposed to him or reject it. Him asking for "going easy" makes no sense and has no place in International Diplomacy.


You need to seriously revise your history, the agreement made Pakistan pledged to avoid involving a third party into the Kashmir and Sir Creek disputes which meant that India could escape the political pressure that it had to face from the NATO countries.

Indian had all aces up its sleeve in this negotiation, could have made Pakistan pay through it nose, for its POWs instead settled for luke warm consolation prize.India has never given into western pressure where Kashmir is concerned..
What you do not realize, that back then India had the tools settle Kashmir dispute once in for all on its terms.
.It is considered as one of the blunders of 1971 was, on how easily Pakistanis were let of the hook.

I have addressed the matter in much detail in the last few pages, I have dissected numbers, produced testimonies and separated fact from fable. You are free to read through or continue to live in denial and assert with no facts or figure to back yourself up, the same regurgitated story of a genocide that never was whilst conveniently overlooking the slaughter of unarmed West Pakistanis and Biharis. Don't talk to me about opinions, present historical references, even the instances you quoted above are faulty.


BBC News - Bangladesh war: The article that changed history


mascarenhas_genocide.jpg


On 13 June 1971, an article in the UK's Sunday Times exposed the brutality of Pakistan's suppression of the Bangladeshi uprising. It forced the reporter's family into hiding and changed history.

Abdul Bari had run out of luck. Like thousands of other people in East Bengal, he had made the mistake - the fatal mistake - of running within sight of a Pakistani patrol. He was 24 years old, a slight man surrounded by soldiers. He was trembling because he was about to be shot.

So starts one of the most influential pieces of South Asian journalism of the past half century.

Written by Anthony Mascarenhas, a Pakistani reporter, and printed in the UK's Sunday Times, it exposed for the first time the scale of the Pakistan army's brutal campaign to suppress its breakaway eastern province in 1971.

Nobody knows exactly how many people were killed, but certainly a huge number of people lost their lives. Independent researchers think that between 300,000 and 500,000 died. The Bangladesh government puts the figure at three million.

The strategy failed, and Bangladeshis are now celebrating the 40th anniversary of the birth of their country. Meanwhile, the first trial of those accused of committing war crimes has recently begun in Dhaka.

There is little doubt that Mascarenhas' reportage played its part in ending the war. It helped turn world opinion against Pakistan and encouraged India to play a decisive role.

Prime Minister Indira Gandhi told the then editor of the Sunday Times, Harold Evans, that the article had shocked her so deeply it had set her "on a campaign of personal diplomacy in the European capitals and Moscow to prepare the ground for India's armed intervention," he recalled.

Not that this was ever Mascarenhas' intention. He was, Evans wrote in his memoirs, "just a very good reporter doing an honest job".

He was also very brave. Pakistan, at the time, was run by the military, and he knew that he would have to get himself and his family out of the country before the story could be published - not an easy task in those days.

"His mother always told him to stand up and speak the truth and be counted," Mascarenhas's widow, Yvonne, recalled (he died in 1986). "He used to tell me, put a mountain before me and I'll climb it. He was never daunted."

When the war in what was then East Pakistan broke out in March 1971, Mascarenhas was a respected journalist in Karachi, the main city in the country's dominant western wing, on good terms with the country's ruling elite. He was a member of the city's small community of Goan Christians, and he and Yvonne had five children.



The conflict was sparked by elections, which were won by an East Pakistani party, the Awami League, which wanted greater autonomy for the region.

While the political parties and the military argued over the formation of a new government, many Bengalis became convinced that West Pakistan was deliberately blocking their ambitions.

The situation started to become violent. The Awami League launched a campaign of civil disobedience, its supporters attacked many non-Bengali civilians, and the army flew in thousands of reinforcements.

On the evening of 25 March it launched a pre-emptive strike against the Awami League, and other perceived opponents, including members of the intelligentsia and the Hindu community, who at that time made up about 20% of the province's 75 million people.

In the first of many notorious war crimes, soldiers attacked Dhaka University, lining up and executing students and professors.

Their campaign of terror then moved into the countryside, where they battled local troops who had mutinied.

Initially, the plan seemed to work, and the army decided it would be a good idea to invite some Pakistani reporters to the region to show them how they had successfully dealt with the "freedom fighters".

Foreign journalists had already been expelled, and Pakistan was also keen to publicise atrocities committed by the other side. Awami League supporters had massacred tens of thousands of civilians whose loyalty they suspected, a war crime that is still denied by many today in Bangladesh.

Eight journalists, including Mascarenhas, were given a 10-day tour of the province. When they returned home, seven of them duly wrote what they were told to.

But one of them refused.

Yvonne Mascarenhas remembers him coming back distraught: "I'd never seen my husband looking in such a state. He was absolutely shocked, stressed, upset and terribly emotional," she says, speaking from her home in west London.

"He told me that if he couldn't write the story of what he'd seen he'd never be able to write another word again."

Clearly it would not be possible to do so in Pakistan. All newspaper articles were checked by the military censor, and Mascarenhas told his wife he was certain he would be shot if he tried.

Pretending he was visiting his sick sister, Mascarenhas then travelled to London, where he headed straight to the Sunday Times and the editor's office.

_57359444_013349237-1.jpg
Indians and Bengali guerrillas fought in support of East Pakistan
Evans remembers him in that meeting as having "the bearing of a military man, square-set and moustached, but appealing, almost soulful eyes and an air of profound melancholy".

"He'd been shocked by the Bengali outrages in March, but he maintained that what the army was doing was altogether worse and on a grander scale," Evans wrote.

Mascarenhas told him he had been an eyewitness to a huge, systematic killing spree, and had heard army officers describe the killings as a "final solution".

Evans promised to run the story, but first Yvonne and the children had to escape Karachi.

They had agreed that the signal for them to start preparing for this was a telegram from Mascarenhas saying that "Ann's operation was successful".

Yvonne remembers receiving the message at three the next morning. "I heard the telegram man bang at my window and I woke up my sons and I was: 'Oh my gosh, we have to go to London.' It was terrifying. I had to leave everything behind.

"We could only take one suitcase each. We were crying so much it was like a funeral," she says.

To avoid suspicion, Mascarenhas had to return to Pakistan before his family could leave. But as Pakistanis were only allowed one foreign flight a year, he then had to sneak out of the country by himself, crossing by land into Afghanistan.

The day after the family was reunited in their new home in London, the Sunday Times published his article, under the headline "Genocide".

'Betrayal'
It is such a powerful piece of reporting because Mascarenhas was clearly so well trusted by the Pakistani officers he spent time with.

I have witnessed the brutality of 'kill and burn missions' as the army units, after clearing out the rebels, pursued the pogrom in the towns and villages.

I have seen whole villages devastated by 'punitive action'.

And in the officer's mess at night I have listened incredulously as otherwise brave and honourable men proudly chewed over the day's kill.

'How many did you get?' The answers are seared in my memory.

Continue reading the main story
“Start Quote
This was one of the most significant articles written on the war”

Mofidul HuqLiberation War Museum
His article was - from Pakistan's point of view - a huge betrayal and he was accused of being an enemy agent. It still denies its forces were behind such atrocities as those described by Mascarenhas, and blames Indian propaganda.

However, he still maintained excellent contacts there, and in 1979 became the first journalist to reveal that Pakistan had developed nuclear weapons.

In Bangladesh, of course, he is remembered more fondly, and his article is still displayed in the country's Liberation War Museum.

"This was one of the most significant articles written on the war. It came out when our country was cut off, and helped inform the world of what was going on here," says Mofidul Huq, a trustee of the museum.

His family, meanwhile, settled into life in a new and colder country.

"People were so serious in London and nobody ever talked to us," Yvonne Mascarenhas remembers. "We were used to happy, smiley faces, it was all a bit of a change for us after Karachi. But we never regretted it."​

mate check your geography India is no where near 7 times the size of Pakistan, in fact India is not even 4 times the size of Pakistan but only 3.6 times that's just a slightly more then 3 & a half times ,
India Indian administered Kashmir 1,240,480 sq mi (note that I have added 1650 sq mi of contested territory of siachen minus the daulat beg oldi area & west wards since it was always under Indian control & we don't contest that area as its an issue between India & China (LAC))
BBC News - India profile - Key facts
Pakistan 307,374 sq mi plus Pakistan administered Kashmir = 338,000 sq mi ( note that I have minus the 1,650 sq mi of contested territory of siachen as its occupied by India)
BBC News - Pakistan profile - Key facts

now 1,240,480 sq mi / 338,000 sq mi = 3.6

so even after the separation of east pak & occupation of siachen in 1984 India is only 3.6 times the size of Pakistan

Not to nitpick but we are more than seven time your size in many areas economy and population being prime examples.
 
Last edited:
It wasn't 90k soldiers, almost half of the POWs were civilians and about 50k were actual military personnel. So roughly 40k Pakistani civilian and personnel, and 50k military personnel make up the 90k POW total count in 1971. Question is how can 50k soldiers with limited ammunition go on to kill 3 million people and rape a quarter million women in 14 days....It is physically impossible both in terms of time, supplies, logistics, ground reality, etc.

It was not even 50K soldiers. It was 40K Pak Army regular soldiers & rest 15K were Paramilitary & Police personal.
 
It is more of a symbolic gesture to remember the victims of the biggest genocide since WW2 and give them some sort of a justice. Good step imo. Of course no one expects the perpetrators of the genocide to cooperate.
 
They would be tried and punished on the same charges as khymer rouge,Saddam Hussain or Kosvo war criminal were tried and hanged for i.e Committing genocide.

Nazis faced Nuremberg not just because they had invaded other countries and lost but to huge extent treatment of Jews
in Germany as well as captured areas.
Similar to what west Pakistani army adopted towards Bengali population of East Pakistan and to larger extent towards Hindu population of East Pakistan.

The claim is entirely fabricated and is unacceptable as a reliable estimate in academia, it's use in court proceeding is a question that does not even arise.

From the article you yourself posted:

Nobody knows exactly how many people were killed, but certainly a huge number of people lost their lives. Independent researchers think that between 300,000 and 500,000 died. The Bangladesh government puts the figure at three million

Notice that this is not solely the Bengali death count but the total death count of the entire war, most of it is comprised of Biharis who were butchered and their deaths were subsequently masked by the Bangladeshis to suit the "Victim" narrative.

Wrong!
What you might want to look up is, how Pakistani POWs were transferred to Pakistan under the very same agreement and not Shimla agreement.

The Delhi Agreement was a means to finish the proceedings and formalize them them, the release had been finalized in the negotiations before Simla. Delhi Agreement was signed between the Foreign Ministers of both counties, the repatriation of POWs is beyond the power of either of their portfolios.

Indians kept them for better part of three years, it was not as if they were getting free lunches, they were made to work hard for their two square meals a day.

I hardly think that they were putting in the same work as regular labour and were getting the same perks. There was only so much work India could draw from them before it would be deemed contrary to human rights and the Geneva Convention.

Indian had all aces up its sleeve in this negotiation, could have made Pakistan pay through it nose, for its POWs instead settled for luke warm consolation prize.India has never given into western pressure where Kashmir is concerned..
Wat you do not realize, that back then India had the tools settle Kashmir dispute once in for all on its terms.
.It is considered as one of the blunders of 1971 was, on how easily Pakistanis were let of the hook.h

I don't think you understand the gravity of concessions that Pakistan had to make in the Simla Agreement, if India could have made Pakistan pay through it's nose, why don't you hypothesize for me what the more stringent demands could have been?
 
Last edited:
The claim is entirely fabricated and is unacceptable as a reliable estimate in academia, it's use in court proceeding is a question that does not even arise.



The Delhi Agreement was a means to finish the proceedings and formalize them them, the release had been finalized in the negotiations before Simla. Delhi Agreement was signed between the Foreign Ministers of both counties, the repatriation of POWs is beyond the power of either of their portfolios.



I hardly think that they were putting in the same work as regular labour and were getting the same perks. There was only so much work India could draw from them before it would be deemed contrary to human rights and the Geneva Convention.



I don't think you understand the gravity of concessions that Pakistan had to make in the Simla Agreement, if India could have made Pakistan pay through it's nose, why don't you hypothesize for me what the more stringent demands could have been?
wow bro, i am impressed
 
As for the efficacy of Anthony Mascarensa's articles, you might want to read "Dead Reckoning" by Sarmila Bose. If you wish, I will post excerpts for you. It details on how Mascarenhas made a career for himself by using rumours and producing non-corroborated storied from his room in the Intercontinental Hotel. He was never a witness to any of the conflict and simply used whatever the popular sentiment reflected in East Pakistan.
 
As for the efficacy of Anthony Mascarensa's articles, you might want to read "Dead Reckoning" by Sarmila Bose. If you wish, I will post excerpts for you. It details on how Mascarenhas made a career for himself by using rumours and producing non-corroborated storied from his room in the Intercontinental Hotel. He was never a witness to any of the conflict and simply used whatever the popular sentiment reflected in East Pakistan.
thank you, i would appreciate that ^_^
 
thank you, i would appreciate that ^_^

"...his (Mascarenha's) description of the army's attack on the Hindu area of Shankaripara in old Dhaka on 25-26 March--where he was not present--is given without citing any source and turns out to be entirely inaccurate according to the information obtained from my interviews with the survivors of Shankaripara""-Dead Reckoning, pg.10 , Sarmila Bose, Oxford University Press

thank you, i would appreciate that ^_^


War and Secession by Sisson and Rose is another very well researched and dispassionately compiled book on the 71 War and the East Pakistan Insurgency. In case you're interesting in reading up on the issue.
 
As for the efficacy of Anthony Mascarensa's articles, you might want to read "Dead Reckoning" by Sarmila Bose. If you wish, I will post excerpts for you. It details on how Mascarenhas made a career for himself by using rumours and producing non-corroborated storied from his room in the Intercontinental Hotel. He was never a witness to any of the conflict and simply used whatever the popular sentiment reflected in East Pakistan.

Do I read Sarmila Bose and Dead Reckoning! Her "field research" has been debunked many times over and doesn't worth a toilet paper. For starter she based her research on findings of HR commission and never actually went to BD or interviewed witnesses. She actually lobbied to US for selling F16s to Pakistan back in 2005 and is more Pakistani than MA Jinnah!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Pakistan Defence Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom