General Niazi: Traitor or Hero?

[livingdead]

I think armies should keep fighting till the last man.. They are there to die, not surrender. And if the army is whipped out, then it becomes the job of civilians to defend themselves, for that they need training, which unfortunately, we don't have here in Pakistan.
Pakistan army and defence seems to need reforms, with the rest of the institution.

PS: when ever Pakistan army goes to its secret adventures, the Indian army moves towards Lahore. Does the Pak army think for once to take people of Lahore in confidence first? Since we have a lot at stake here. I think this is a dysfunctional nature of Pak army as it is not in synchronization with the rest of the country. Something needs to be done about it.

army will fight to last man, if they have support of people and are not completely demoralized. That was not the case in east pakistan when they surrendered.

 

[RescueRanger]

Sir aap sirf isss liye keh raheii hain because Niazi aaap kii baradariii ka thaaa !

Aaap bhiii Punjabi Pukhtoon aur woh bhi Punjabi Pukhtoon !

But Imran Khan - Lahori Pukhtoon !

Yara Mein Na apne ap ko punjabi Na pakhtoon manta hoon. Proud Pakistani here, regarding punjabi, my grandfather and father were all born and raise on te frontier... So go figure?

But I am not defending him evade he was a Niazi, I am stating the obvious as some people have chosen to mock his distinguished service in Burma and compare it with his failure in Bangladesh. Such petty attacks should be best avoided, the British never gave gallantry awards to soldiers just because they had lift skin or spoke well...

Also yes I agree he should have led his ground...

 

[livingdead]

Yara Mein Na apne ap ko punjabi Na pakhtoon manta hoon. Proud Pakistani here, regarding punjabi, my grandfather and father were all born and raise on te frontier... So go figure?

But I am not defending him evade he was a Niazi, I am stating the obvious as some people have chosen to mock his distinguished service in Burma and compare it with his failure in Bangladesh. Such petty attacks should be best avoided, the British never gave gallantry awards to soldiers just because they had lift skin or spoke well...

Also yes I agree he should have led his ground...

some say he was good lower rank officer but could not mature to a general...

 

[Armstrong]

Yara Mein Na apne ap ko punjabi Na pakhtoon manta hoon. Proud Pakistani here, regarding punjabi, my grandfather and father were all born and raise on te frontier... So go figure?

But I am not defending him evade he was a Niazi, I am stating the obvious as some people have chosen to mock his distinguished service in Burma and compare it with his failure in Bangladesh. Such petty attacks should be best avoided, the British never gave gallantry awards to soldiers just because they had lift skin or spoke well...

Also yes I agree he should have led his ground...

I was trolling you !

Itnaa serious nahin leinaa thaaa....sir jee !

 

[RescueRanger]

some say he was good lower rank officer but could not mature to a general...

Yes I would agree with that assessment.

I was trolling you !

Itnaa serious nahin leinaa thaaa....sir jee !

Nahi mara no tension, not serious

Anyway mitti pawo!

 

[Solomon2]

They should have fought it out. Even if it came down to hiding in jungles and waging guerrilla warfare.

When are you going to acknowledge the terrible crimes the Pakistani Army committed, under orders, in East Pakistan? The Pakistani Army had forfeited all support from the populace due to its rape-and-kill campaign. Had the Pakistani Army attempted a guerilla campaign without materiel or popular support, its soldiers would have starved or been hunted down as vermin.

Rather, the question should be: did General Niazi surrender soon enough? The destruction of East Pakistan - the majority of Pakistan, terrorized by the Western minority - had to stop: the Army's actions constituted unforgivable war crimes. Niazi became a traitor to the Pakistani people from the moment he assumed command and failed to order his troops to stand down.

I note that Niazi pulled one last trick at the end: instead of handing his personal weapon to the Indians as part of the surrender, he used someone else's. So he could say, if he wished, that his surrender was a trick, and he never really surrendered at all.

 

[REHAN NIAZI FALCON]

well he is neither a hero , no a traitor ....
he was a scapegoat and a loser of fate ....

 

[third eye]

I think armies should keep fighting till the last man.. They are there to die, not surrender. And if the army is whipped out, then it becomes the job of civilians to defend themselves, for that they need training, which unfortunately, we don't have here in Pakistan.
Pakistan army and defence seems to need reforms, with the rest of the institution.

PS: when ever Pakistan army goes to its secret adventures, the Indian army moves towards Lahore. Does the Pak army think for once to take people of Lahore in confidence first? Since we have a lot at stake here. I think this is a dysfunctional nature of Pak army as it is not in synchronization with the rest of the country. Something needs to be done about it.

This is a very interesting remark.

Are soldiers meant to die or does does the threat of loss of life & limb come with his job?

No one Sir, in this world is meant to die - not even the bakra you slaughter at Eid. For that matter not even a mercenary. We are all meant to live and lead a happy life , see our children &Grand Children after them grow &lead happy lives.

A soldier takes it upon himself to put himself in harms way for his nation.

Just because he is paid a salary does not give the leverage to anyone to assume that he is there to die.

His is a great deal more fearless than the rest - that's all.

This may seem strange to you but no soldier will accept your remark. Having spent years in Olive Green neither can I.

 

[MastanKhan]

When are you going to acknowledge the terrible crimes the Pakistani Army committed, under orders, in East Pakistan? The Pakistani Army had forfeited all support from the populace due to its rape-and-kill campaign. Had the Pakistani Army attempted a guerilla campaign without materiel or popular support, its soldiers would have starved or been hunted down as vermin.

Rather, the question should be: did General Niazi surrender soon enough? The destruction of East Pakistan - the majority of Pakistan, terrorized by the Western minority - had to stop: the Army's actions constituted unforgivable war crimes. Niazi became a traitor to the Pakistani people from the moment he assumed command and failed to order his troops to stand down.

I note that Niazi pulled one last trick at the end: instead of handing his personal weapon to the Indians as part of the surrender, he used someone else's. So he could say, if he wished, that his surrender was a trick, and he never really surrendered at all.

Hi,

When you admit the terrible crimes the jews have committed against the palestinians we will talk.

When militaries invade---rapes happen---guess why the rapes have increased against women in u s military----. Because the us militarymen don't have any more oppurtunities to rape helpless iraqi and afghan women----so as they do have to rape----they rape more of their own now---which are already available to them in the trenches.

As for Niazi---he did the right thing---it was useless to fight----and fight for who and for what---.

The biggest criminal in this case was Bhutto---he he walked away scott free---.

 

[Solomon2]

Hi, When you admit the terrible crimes the jews have committed against the palestinians we will talk.

First you'd have to be open-minded and dedicated to the truth enough to acknowledge that allegations of "terrible crimes the jews have committed against the palestinians" are falsehoods; there is absolutely NO moral basis, therefore, for seeking the destruction of the Jews of the Middle East in their refuge of the State of Israel.

When militaries invade---rapes happen---guess why the rapes have increased against women in u s military----. Because the us militarymen don't have any more oppurtunities to rape helpless iraqi and afghan women----so as they do have to rape----they rape more of their own now---which are already available to them in the trenches.

I see you try to defend yourself against one crime by citing another. The implication is, "if they can get away with it, why shouldn't I?"

Of course, in the U.S. case it isn't that simple. Rapes happen and do get prosecuted; unfortunately, the situation of female combat support troops alone by themselves among men is relatively new, and it can be difficult to balance justice vs. career in such cases. New techniques, practices, and orders are being developed to deal with the situation. At least the U.S. is trying to deal with these matters, rather than your approach of trying to avoid Pakistani moral responsibility, yes?

The biggest criminal in this case was Bhutto---he he walked away scott free---.

Certainly he had a big role, but it was Pakistan's own soldiers consent to commit war crimes - not just the officers, but the rank-and-file - that was most criminal. They could and should have refused to obey what had been established in international law decades before as illegal orders.

 

[MastanKhan]

Solomon,

Just like the u s military's atrocities in iraq against the iraqis---how many u s servicemen have been imprisoned for the rapes of countless thousand of iraqi girls boys and women.

When you 'HANG' by your rope first---let me know---.

At first it was millions of bengalis shot by pak military---. The truth is that pak military did not even have enough bullets to kill a million people----. To kill a million people it would take thousands of machine guns firing day and night for months in at crowds standing still----actually to read history----it states that the germans started using machine guns to kill the jews---and found out that this process the most wasteful and least effecftive---and then the story goes that they started using the furnace which was more effective----well that is another debate.

 

[Coltsfan]

@RazPaK

They did fight with vigor and honor. Unfortunately,unlike PDF where countries are nuked,wars are waged,proxies are funded on the internet using a keyboard,the real warfare is totally different.


Real wars are fought with resources,supply lines,strategy,political will,actionable intel,air support and most importantly the public support.

We had none of that,there was only one PAF Squadron in E.Pakistan,which fought against overwhelming odds,including 40% of their staff just wasn't present. Half of them were shot down,they raided Indian installations and fought until complete obliteration.

There was a naval blockade,Ghazi sank,no supply route and we faced a popular uprising from our own citizens whom we had treated with prejudice. It was a lost cause and gurreila warfare too is fought with resources and objectives,none of whom were present.

@420canada Whats your opinion?

Why is it always the losing side that comes up with lame excuses!

Indians come up with similar excuses for the 1962 debacle with China...... at some point its time to face the reality, our side lost and time to move on!

 

[Solomon2]

Solomon,

Just like the u s military's atrocities in iraq against the iraqis---how many u s servicemen have been imprisoned for the rapes of countless thousand of iraqi girls boys and women.

I can think of five. You know, I suppose, that most of the stories of "rapes by u s servicemen of iraqi girls boys and women" are mere inventions.

At first it was millions of bengalis shot by pak military--

You're forgetting who you're talking to. My neighbors in 1971 were Pakistani diplomats. They knew what the orders were. They knew the deaths of unarmed non-aggressive civilians numbered in the tens of thousands at the very least.

 

[Kompromat]

Why is it always the losing side that comes up with lame excuses!

Indians come up with similar excuses for the 1962 debacle with China...... at some point its time to face the reality, our side lost and time to move on!

What are the "lame" excuses above?

 

[Coltsfan]

What are the "lame" excuses above?

Everything that you stated.... what that post is just excuses disguised as facts (debatable ones) as to why the otherwise almight Pak Army lost the war to India.