1971 East Pakistan Tragedy HISTORY REVISITED REALITY & MYTHS Series Part 01 - 05

[Bilal9]

I’ve already admitted that Bengalis were mistreated , so I don’t need you to tell me, i have accepted that I’m not defending my Gov, they have done blunders , they tried to quash a revolt which they themselves and east Pakistanis created. The Bengalis 6 demands were also ludicrous they wanted Bengali to be national language!!!!

Bhai - this is not correct. The "Chhay Dafa" movement was a demand for greater autonomy and to stop flight of capital from East to West Pakistan. The issue was economic inequity, not things like language choices or imposition.

Six point movement - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The seed for this was sown by poor foresight. The seed of cessation and ludicrous demands became a tree. It wouldn’t have got any traction if the discrimination hadn’t started earlier.

The statement that, separation was inevitable, is made to justify the folly of those who had sown those seeds.

Seeds were sown by RAW agents in East Pakistan (mainly academics) and the Military Junta played right into those machinations.

Yahya and Bhutto were the main perpetrators of this division (which was bloody by design) - and so was the Sheikh. In fact the Sheikh and Bhutto planned this whole "Pakistan Torha" affair.

 

[James David]

There are zero military lessons. All the lessons are political

No Military Lessons, Pakistan lost half the country. End of story.

 

[nahtanbob]

No Military Lessons, Pakistan lost half the country. End of story.

No military strategy will compensate against larger well armed rival who is arming your half of your population that happens to be angry

 

[Chandragupt Maurya]

No military strategy will compensate against larger well armed rival who is arming your half of your population that happens to be angry

It is true that the Bengalis were able to achieve independence because they constituted a significant portion of the population and received military training and support from India. Additionally, the geographical proximity of Bengal to India facilitated Indian intervention in the region. However, the situation would be more challenging for India to intervene in the cases of Balochistan and Pashtunistan, as these regions do not share borders with India and have smaller populations. Furthermore, the Pakistani establishment has been involved in settling Punjabis in these areas, similar to their actions in Kashmir, where the original Kashmiri population has been largely replaced by Punjabis on the Pakistani side.

 

[Signalian]

There are zero military lessons.

Revisit and study battles in all terrains.

No Military Lessons,

For outsiders perhaps, yet it was an insurgency infested war along with conventional war in one theater which was lost while the other theater saw firstly offensive warfare and then defensive warfare in some battles.

 

[nahtanbob]

Revisit and study battles in all terrains.

you need to get serious counseling

1. the majority of the population hates you
2. you are surrounded on 3 sides by enemy territory and the 4th side is sea
3. there is 1000 miles of enemy land between your home base and land you are trying to defend
4. your opponent is 3x larger than you
5. there is little qualitative difference between both sides

let me know if you disagree with any of the above

 

[Signalian]

you need to get serious counseling

1. the majority of the population hates you
2. you are surrounded on 3 sides by enemy territory and the 4th side is sea
3. there is 1000 miles of enemy land between your home base and land you are trying to defend
4. your opponent is 3x larger than you
5. there is little qualitative difference between both sides

let me know if you disagree with any of the above

Just to continue what I was saying, as one example:
An insurgency started in Baluchistan a couple of years after 1971 which lasted from 1973-77. The lessons learnt from East Pakistan debacle were put into action to curb it down.

Another example:
The four-brigade structure of 14th infantry division fell inadequate for the defence of East Pakistan, and there was no Corps HQ under which the hastily brought in under-strength infantry divisions could be managed which caused another chaos. The divisional formations from then on were assigned to Corps HQ.

More examples.
The armoured divisions remained poised for action throughout the war but were never sent into action. Then the dismal performance of T-59 in the desert. The race for Nuke capability. The acquisition of Mirages and F-6 for PAF, as within 6 years the celebrated F-86 Sabre seemed falling short everywhere. The disbandment of Marines and many other changes were brought in from the lessons learnt militarily including doctrines.

 

[nahtanbob]

Just to continue what I was saying, as one example:
An insurgency started in Baluchistan a couple of years after 1971 which lasted from 1973-77. The lessons learnt from East Pakistan debacle were put into action to curb it down.

Another example:
The four-brigade structure of 14th infantry division fell inadequate for the defence of East Pakistan, and there was no Corps HQ under which the hastily brought in under-strength infantry divisions could be managed which caused another chaos. The divisional formations from then on were assigned to Corps HQ.

More examples.
The armoured divisions remained poised for action throughout the war but were never sent into action. Then the dismal performance of T-59 in the desert. The race for Nuke capability. The acquisition of Mirages and F-6 for PAF, as within 6 years the celebrated F-86 Sabre seemed falling short everywhere. The disbandment of Marines and many other changes were brought in from the lessons learnt militarily including doctrines.

The Baluchistan insurgency lacked the following points

1. the majority of the population hates you (number of Balochs is a fraction of the number of East Pakistanis)
2. you are surrounded on 3 sides by enemy territory and the 4th side is sea (geographically contiguous with rest of Pakistan)
3. there is 1000 miles of enemy land between your home base and land you are trying to defend (geographically contiguous with rest of Pakistan

There is nothing that will change the outcome.

You were advised to seek a political solution by your American and Chinese friends

 

[kingQamaR]

The Baluchistan insurgency lacked the following points

1. the majority of the population hates you (number of Balochs is a fraction of the number of East Pakistanis)
2. you are surrounded on 3 sides by enemy territory and the 4th side is sea (geographically contiguous with rest of Pakistan)
3. there is 1000 miles of enemy land between your home base and land you are trying to defend (geographically contiguous with rest of Pakistan

There is nothing that will change the outcome.

You were advised to seek a political solution by your American and Chinese friends

Gov of Pakistan 1971, like any other country would have had to launched similar operation against foreign funded separatists wanting to break up the union regardless of their demands & issues Forget about right and wrongs of east Pakistan, or talking to them Every Gov has a duty To protect its borders irrespective how badly they were drawn or how it came in possession of an area thousands miles away from the mother country. I will bring you back to king George of England who waged a bloody war with its own cousins the 13th colonials who rebelled against the England. Wanting independence, becoming United States , so hopefully this will settle the madness pak gov had to do to keep the country together.

 

[Signalian]

The Baluchistan insurgency lacked the following points

1. the majority of the population hates you (number of Balochs is a fraction of the number of East Pakistanis)
2. you are surrounded on 3 sides by enemy territory and the 4th side is sea (geographically contiguous with rest of Pakistan)
3. there is 1000 miles of enemy land between your home base and land you are trying to defend (geographically contiguous with rest of Pakistan

There is nothing that will change the outcome.

You were advised to seek a political solution by your American and Chinese friends

Not really. The insurgency ended in 77 and then with the WOT, some 25 years later came in prominence again which means the lessons learnt in 1971 were effectively employed militarily however military actions don’t always mean a killing field but curbing the situation during deployment.

 

[nahtanbob]

Not really. The insurgency ended in 77 and then with the WOT, some 25 years later came in prominence again which means the lessons learnt in 1971 were effectively employed militarily however military actions don’t always mean a killing field but curbing the situation during deployment.

Even today India can break East Pakistan out of Pakistan in a full blown revolt. Anti-tank missiles, shoulder fired anti-aircraft missiles and anti-ship missiles can neutralize conventional forces you send to East Pakistan.

Look may be there are tactical things to be learnt. There is nothing strategic that has changed about East Pakistan. It is indefensible against Indian attack.

You had 100,000 troops in 1971 in East Pakistan. Today maybe you send 300,000. It is still too small a force to defend the country

Gov of Pakistan 1971, like any other country would have had to launched similar operation against foreign funded separatists wanting to break up the union regardless of their demands & issues Forget about right and wrongs of east Pakistan, or talking to them Every Gov has a duty To protect its borders irrespective how badly they were drawn or how it came in possession of an area thousands miles away from the mother country. I will bring you back to king George of England who waged a bloody war with its own cousins the 13th colonials who rebelled against the England. Wanting independence, becoming United States , so hopefully this will settle the madness pak gov had to do to keep the country together.

I am not saying what the Pakistani government should have done. There was no military solution that was going to work given India's determination to fish in troubled waters. The only honorable choice was a political settlement. Your friends in Washington and Beijing advised the generals in charge to seek one. Of course they refused

 

[Signalian]

Even today India can break East Pakistan out of Pakistan in a full blown revolt. Anti-tank missiles, shoulder fired anti-aircraft missiles and anti-ship missiles can neutralize conventional forces you send to East Pakistan.

Look may be there are tactical things to be learnt. There is nothing strategic that has changed about East Pakistan. It is indefensible against Indian attack.

You had 100,000 troops in 1971 in East Pakistan. Today maybe you send 300,000. It is still too small a force to defend the country

The nuke was late in 1971,so no, not today.

Maybe FMBs in countries bordering India, like Myanmmar for example.

 

[delta2]

Yes all over the social media




It more how punjabis badly treated them almost the same way Hindus treated Muslims and continue mistreat Muslims..

My God these creautes are worse than anything that walks or crawls on this planet!

West Pakistan didn't treat the Eastern wing equally and respectfully; look no further than Ayub Khan's book to see how he and others viewed Bangladeshi people. They also won fairly against Bhutto, and we didn't give them the right to rule. Even worse, read the accounts of Western Pakistan-origin military officers to learn how even their Bengali soldiers and officers were treated while stationed in Eastern Pakistan.

They did what they had to do and moved on ahead.

They blamed the centrol govt for the lack of response after the massive floods that drowned Bangladesh. They didn't understand that the Pakistani ruling class sees the public as not worthy!

Even today the Pakistani ruling class has almost entirely abandoned the public.