Bhutto, India and the 1971 Surrender in Bangladesh

[somebozo]

DO NOT TROLL.
Debate history with civility.

 

[FarazUSA]

^^
Dude are you really a Pakistani?
Can't believe one would post these videos.

 

[veekysingh]

nice video's buddy.

^^
Dude are you really a Pakistani?
Can't believe one would post these videos.

well buddy this videos are telling the truth aren't they?

 

[somebozo]

^^
Dude are you really a Pakistani?
Can't believe one would post these videos.

I posted them for historical review and the opinion of leaders on both side not for the purpose of trolling.
One should not take sides when reading history because that leads to indoctrination.

One should not be shy of facts and not bury their head under sand.

1971 Surrender and defeat is a solid fact and the future generations should learn a lesson from it. Let this become a historical fact that Islamic brotherhood and ummah fervor could not hold Pakistan together and linguistic national triumphed over ideological socialism!

Contanary to popular belief the rage of our Ummah Brothers to hack 93,000 POW into pieces was high enough to even concern our arch enemy India into protecting Pakistani's and ex-East Pakistani service men. This is not something I said, the BBC reporter in the documentary said.

 

[Infinity]

I posted them for historical review and the opinion of leaders on both side not for the purpose of trolling.
One should not take sides when reading history because that leads to indoctrination.

One should not be shy of facts and not bury their head under sand.

1971 Surrender and defeat is a solid fact and the future generations should learn a lesson from it. Let this become a historical fact that Islamic brotherhood and ummah fervor could not hold Pakistan together and linguistic national triumphed over ideological socialism!

Contanary to popular belief the rage of our Ummah Brothers to hack 93,000 POW into pieces was high enough to even concern our arch enemy India into protecting Pakistani's and ex-East Pakistani service men. This is not something I said, the BBC reporter in the documentary said.

That is a sensible post from you......................

 

[Ayush]

Nice videos.

I posted them for historical review and the opinion of leaders on both side not for the purpose of trolling.
One should not take sides when reading history because that leads to indoctrination.

One should not be shy of facts and not bury their head under sand.

1971 Surrender and defeat is a solid fact and the future generations should learn a lesson from it. Let this become a historical fact that Islamic brotherhood and ummah fervor could not hold Pakistan together and linguistic national triumphed over ideological socialism!

Contanary to popular belief the rage of our Ummah Brothers to hack 93,000 POW into pieces was high enough to even concern our arch enemy India into protecting Pakistani's and ex-East Pakistani service men. This is not something I said, the BBC reporter in the documentary said.

Respect sir.

 

[airmarshal]

1971 Surrender and defeat is a solid fact and the future generations should learn a lesson from it. Let this become a historical fact that Islamic brotherhood and ummah fervor could not hold Pakistan together and linguistic national triumphed over ideological socialism!

You must also realize and history is the evidence of it, that when we seek unity amongst ourselves overlooking all differences of color or language, we have become more strong and prosperous. When we sought refuge in our language, region and culture we had become more weak, disunited and prey to our enemies as is the case now. Even in current Pakistan, where we pride ourselves in being a Punjabi or Sindhi, the divisions are becoming endless.

One more interesting point and that too comes from history in the context of 1971 events. All three leaders - Bhutto, Mujib and Indira, didnt die natural death, all were killed, in fact two of them brutally and violently killed. A lesson in history too that those who conspired against Pakistan inside and out, were not spared. Their names might live, but in the way they died, left an impression for insightful to observe. May be you might not agree.

 

[illusion8]

@somebozo, referring to the last video during the course of the war when did the military take over from the civilian government in West Pakistan and two what was Bhutto referring to when he said that Britain supplied arms and missiles to India?

 

[Capt.Popeye]

I posted them for historical review and the opinion of leaders on both side not for the purpose of trolling.
One should not take sides when reading history because that leads to indoctrination.

One should not be shy of facts and not bury their head under sand.

1971 Surrender and defeat is a solid fact and the future generations should learn a lesson from it. Let this become a historical fact that Islamic brotherhood and ummah fervor could not hold Pakistan together and linguistic national triumphed over ideological socialism!

Contanary to popular belief the rage of our Ummah Brothers to hack 93,000 POW into pieces was high enough to even concern our arch enemy India into protecting Pakistani's and ex-East Pakistani service men. This is not something I said, the BBC reporter in the documentary said.

@somebozo; 1971 was a tragic phase in Pakistan's history. And sadly enough, it happened inevitably. The leadership of Pakistan carries the blame for it, NOT the ordinary citizens of Pakistan.

THere are some points that need to be understood. As you have mentioned, the feeling for "blood-lust" was running high in Bangla Desh, and for understandable reasons. Which is why both Indira Gandhi and Gen. Maneckshaw (as well as the IA leadership) decided to shift all the POWS to India in a progressive manner. India also then refused to transfer PA soldiers to Bangla Desh to face War Crime Trials. For this, Indira Gandhi had to face vehement criticism from some quarters in India. But she did not relent, and the Indian Army steadfastly supported her stand.

The fact of the matter is that Indira Gandhi was a great supporter of the Democratic process in Pakistan; and to that extent she supported Bhutto whom she saw as a symbol of the democratic process. She again demonstrated that at Shimla; where she agreed to not only repatriate the POWs unconditionally but also did not drive home some points to restructure the border in Jammu and Kashmir which as a victorious power she could have or even use them (the POWs of the PA) as a quid quo pro. Please read Tariq Ali (the Pakistani journalist) about these matters. He has written exhaustively about these matters after numerous meetings with both Indira Gandhi and Z A Bhutto (to whom he had unfettered access). That is the reason why even Benazir and Rajiv had rather cordial relations later. All these actions by Indira Gandhi infact helped Bhutto to assert his primacy over GHQ. Of course, GHQ (and the PA) remained smarting over the turn of affairs (and the debacle) of 1971. Only later was Zia ul Haq able to get even with Bhutto.
But that is another chapter.

 

[livingdead]

I think we managed to transfer >50k pow and others to pakistan without any serious incident, that in itself is a big success.
On the war itself, its clear that IG wanted it, from body language in the interview you can see it.

 

[somebozo]

You must also realize and history is the evidence of it, that when we seek unity amongst ourselves overlooking all differences of color or language, we have become more strong and prosperous. When we sought refuge in our language, region and culture we had become more weak, disunited and prey to our enemies as is the case now. Even in current Pakistan, where we pride ourselves in being a Punjabi or Sindhi, the divisions are becoming endless.

Through the course of 64 years the incompetent leaders have not been able to forge a national identity therefore the question of unity has become very obscure. Some take it to heart with a rigid enforcement of fundamental Islamist principles the other's oppose wanting to keep preserve their indigenious heritage while being united with Pakistani nation. Then is the so called fifth column supported by foreign force with each camp violently competing with another to pull us closer to Persia or Arabia.

One more interesting point and that too comes from history in the context of 1971 events. All three leaders - Bhutto, Mujib and Indira, didnt die natural death, all were killed, in fact two of them brutally and violently killed. A lesson in history too that those who conspired against Pakistan inside and out, were not spared. Their names might live, but in the way they died, left an impression for insightful to observe. May be you might not agree.

It will not be false to argue that all of these leaders exploited differences to propel their own agenda forward but Bhutto would still fare as the worst traitor in the entire fiasco. 1971 occurred because years of appeasement to hardliner faction led to disintegration of "unity in diversity" principles which created power classes among the society and fragmented the intra-communal harmony which would eventually explode in hate. Jinnah appeasement policies to the Islamist factions sowed the seeds of disintegration long before the country could even stand on its feet.

 

[Capt.Popeye]

It will not be false to argue that all of these leaders exploited differences to propel their own agenda forward but Bhutto would still fare as the worst traitor in the entire fiasco. 1971 occurred because years of appeasement to hardliner faction led to disintegration of "unity in diversity" principles which created power classes among the society and fragmented the intra-communal harmony which would eventually explode in hate. Jinnah appeasement policies to the Islamist factions sowed the seeds of disintegration long before the country could even stand on its feet.

@somebozo,
Bhutto's role just cannot be overlooked in any way. However the last sentence that you have written intrigues me. There was a person in India; a leading legal luminary of his time, a great admirer of the Qaid and who had served as a junior lawyer in his practice, who was from the same region and community and faith as the Qaid; but who opted for India--- said pretty much the same thing, and said that was the only reason why he fell out with his 'Hero' whom he admired unrelentingly otherwise. In his opinion, that was the only mistake that MAJ made; and seemingly out of a sudden bout of insecurity or desperation.
But he also added that MAJ understood that later and rued it. But it was too late. But in some form of penitence; he made that famous speech at the Constituent Assembly where he said the new State was for all its citizens.

 

[Silverblaze]

One of my relatives did not surrender and hid himself in somone's house and fled to Burma. When he came back he told many saddening things and he also told that the army could have fought for many days.

But the point is not to blame Yayha or Bhuto only, the public in general discriminated against Bangalis. Why was there ever the need to send the army in? This was not a disputed territory. Most of the problems can be solved politically and with policing.

Pakistan is a multi ethnic state and people especially in Punjab should accept it.

 

[Sugarcane]

One of my relatives did not surrender and hid himself in somone's house and fled to Burma. When he came back he told many saddening things and he also told that the army could have fought for many days.

But the point is not to blame Yayha or Bhuto only, the public in general discriminated against Bangalis. Why was there ever the need to send the army in? This was not a disputed territory. Most of the problems can be solved politically and with policing.

Pakistan is a multi ethnic state and people especially in Punjab should accept it.

LOL!!! Yes, all problems are because of evil Punjabies

 

[somebozo]

@somebozo,
Bhutto's role just cannot be overlooked in any way. However the last sentence that you have written intrigues me. There was a person in India; a leading legal luminary of his time, a great admirer of the Qaid and who had served as a junior lawyer in his practice, who was from the same region and community and faith as the Qaid; but who opted for India--- said pretty much the same thing, and said that was the only reason why he fell out with his 'Hero' whom he admired unrelentingly otherwise. In his opinion, that was the only mistake that MAJ made; and seemingly out of a sudden bout of insecurity or desperation.
But he also added that MAJ understood that later and rued it. But it was too late. But in some form of penitence; he made that famous speech at the Constituent Assembly where he said the new State was for all its citizens.

Jinnah authoritarianism was the biggest flaw of his personality. In the last few years of Pakistan movement, his health was in questionable state which must have made a negative impact on his decision making abilities yet his authoritarianism prevented any viable transition of power to a successor. This also lead to catastrophic vacuum of leadership upon his sudden death and is responsible for much of the mess in Pakistan today. Rather than picking our mistakes and correcting the course our leaders are content by propagating that sudden death of Jinnah was part of a wide anti-Pakistan conspiracy! You can cheat a hangman but not death!

The most disgusting thing I find in that video is Bhutto's landlord'ish (wadera) attitude towards the reporter. In contrast the Indra's attitude is very much leader like even though covertly aggressive!

One of my relatives did not surrender and hid himself in somone's house and fled to Burma. When he came back he told many saddening things and he also told that the army could have fought for many days.

But the point is not to blame Yayha or Bhuto only, the public in general discriminated against Bangalis. Why was there ever the need to send the army in? This was not a disputed territory. Most of the problems can be solved politically and with policing.

Pakistan is a multi ethnic state and people especially in Punjab should accept it.

It would have been a losing battle because the Bengalis and the IA outgunned and out-numbered PA. If you can hear the surrender announcement, they were surrounded by all sides on many fronts and had to make the choice between surrender or total annihilation. Wars are fought with planning not blind emotionalism and the general would not be worth his salt for taking him men into certain death unless off-course it was WW2 and the belligerents had no respect for Geneva Convention. Overall the IA treated the surrendered soldiers very well.

Pointing fingers to Punjab is not going to help, remember 54% of Pakistan landmass and ironically also the No-go province for any Pakistani is Baluchistan not Punjab. It would be orderly to sort our own home first before pointing fingers at others.