General Niazi: Traitor or Hero?

[Android]

We all know what happened to those soldiers after surrender.

They were treated strictly as per what Geneva Convention states on dealing with POW if that what you meant

 

[PlanetWarrior]

the figures are from Hammodur rehman report.... and the rest is true as well. being rude does not make you right...

as for "fighting to the end"..what were they to fight for? its wasnt east paksitan that left pakistan ..it was west pakistan's politcals [zulfiqar in the lead and the drunken military junta in the lead] that destroyed it..if this hurt your sensilibities too bad...as for niazis reason I stand by my opinion...your "research" is based on what? printed or internet reports? or the odd collonel and major retired or "laid off" from the times? I know directly from general level what happened...



the war crimes were primarily committed by muktis and indian army [and BSF] masquerading as mutkis...pakaistan was responsible for maybe 10-20% of the incidents....

I can only quote from commission reports and from historical narratives of all parties since my creation wasn't even thought of when this war occurred. It seems that Bengali civilians and the commissions of enquiry hold an opposite view to yours. They are supported by the fact that the Pakistani army became an "occupation force" which was there to suppress demands for independence once the political relationship between east and west Pakistan broke down completely. In all fairness to Gen Niazi, his obeying commands from his political and military leadership would obviously have resulted in atrocities being committed by his troops under his command to suppress the calls for independence. Hence I cannot judge him too harshly as a soldier. But that doesn't remove the fact that atrocities were committed against civilians and that somebody should be accountable. As for his surrender, I hold the view that only a commander of an armed force can decide whether the odds warrant fighting on or surrendering. The treatment of this General after his surrender, by his country was harsh. For his country to have labeled him a "traitor" was unfair to him. If he decided to fight on and if this resulted in the destruction of his army and huge civilian losses, history would have judged him to be a fool.

 

[Marwat Khan Lodhi]

Well, we all know the negative side of the story in 1971 war and how cowardly Niazi was to surrender to the Indians.

During the WWII Americans,Brits,Germans,Italians,Polish,Russians and others did surrender at times,with hundreds of thousands of men,to save their lives when the mission was lost. General Niazi was outnumbered by 1-25 both Mukti Bahinis and the Indian military.

Was his decision to surrender after the cause was lost correct which saved 90000 lives, and if or not he deserves credit for it?

Please participate in the poll.

Best regards.

They should have fought till the last man even if the defeat was imminent....
General niazi was a disgrace, he should have shot himself for the failture.
The question arises how many of those faujis were praying nimaz 5 times and were asking for allah's help in their dua?

 

[Markus]

They should have fought till the last man even if the defeat was imminent....
General niazi was a disgrace, he should have shot himself for the failture.
The question arises how many of those faujis were praying nimaz 5 times and were asking for allah's help in their dua?

I agree with you.

They did not adhere to Pak army motto which says "surrender is no option".

 

[OrionHunter]

The Army teaches: LAST MAN, LAST ROUND!

Niazi was a known womanizer but had no balls when it came to war! He indulged in all kinds of nefarious activities instead of motivating his troops and setting a personal example in leadership.

Here are some extracts from the Hamoodur Rehman Commission Report on the debacle which few here may have read. The link is below:

> Maj. Gen. Farman Ali has gone to the extent of stating that "Gen Niazi was annoyed with
me because I had not helped him in Pan business." Acording to Major S.S. Haider (Witness NO. 259) and Brig Atta Mohammed (Witness No. 257) even Brig Baqir Siddiqui, Chief of Staff, Eastern Command, was a partner of Gen Niazi in the export of Pan.

> From the mass of evidence coming before the Commission from witnesses, both civil and military, there is little doubt that Gen. Niazi unfortunately came to acquire a bad reputation in sex matters, and this reputation has been consistent during his postings in Sialkot, Lahore and East Pakistan. The remarks made by this last witness Col. Aziz Ahmad Khan (Witness No. 276) are highly significant: "The troops used to say that when the Commander (Lt. Gen. Niazi) was himself a raper, how could they be stopped. Gen Niazi enjoyed the same reputation at Sialkot and Lahore."

There are several more such instances of debauchery in the report. With a commander such as Niazi and his cohorts at the helm, what did one expect? The result was that the morale of the troops he commanded hit rock bottom. And one of the reasons for failure on the battlefront.

Here's the report for those who are interested. Makes for compulsive reading...

http://www.pppusa.org/Acrobat/Hamoodur Rahman Commission Report.pdf

Now, would anyone want to call Niazi a 'Hero'??

 

[Contrarian]

I think he did the right thing.
Giving his own life away is one thing.

However Niazi was responsible for the lives of 89,999 other people and their families back in West Pakistan.
I dont think it would have been right to condemn them all to death after the cause was lost.

Not the least to condemn them all to death so that the weird sense of honour among blood lusty Pakistanis be fulfilled here on PDF.

He got his men to safety and made sure they lived once he realized that the war is lost. I think that is honourable.

 

[RazPaK]

Niazi was a coward.

 

[420canada]

To my point of view and my military past... and i say this strongly surrender is not an option. what the general looked at was his troops and himself l. we cannot be certain if the general did it to save his @ss but what we do know was that Pakistan went down as surrendering itself to a well known aggressor. but if you want my blunt answer the general chickened out.

@Aeronaut

 

[rubyjackass]

Well, we all know the negative side of the story in 1971 war and how cowardly Niazi was to surrender to the Indians.

During the WWII Americans,Brits,Germans,Italians,Polish,Russians and others did surrender at times,with hundreds of thousands of men,to save their lives when the mission was lost. General Niazi was outnumbered by 1-25 both Mukti Bahinis and the Indian military.

Was his decision to surrender after the cause was lost correct which saved 90000 lives, and if or not he deserves credit for it?

Please participate in the poll.

Best regards.

He was not a heor, but he saved a lot of lives. I would call that astuteness and having common sense something which neither Yahya not Bhutto had. There is no option for that among yours.

 

[Beerbal]

They should have fought till the last man even if the defeat was imminent....
General niazi was a disgrace, he should have shot himself for the failture.
The question arises how many of those faujis were praying nimaz 5 times and were asking for allah's help in their dua?

I wish they could, our Bengali brothers would have taken revenge of atrocities by Pakistani blood.....

Stupid idea... During adverse condition it is advisable to save as much as one can.. Non-surrender would have resulted into death of 90,000 Pakistani in BD and Lakhs and Lakhs of death on western front...

Same Pakistani did in 1999, once they start loosing area gain, they ran away.. (They had option to run away, unkile BD where they were surrounded from all side..)

Niazi was a coward.

and Musharraf?

 

[RazPaK]

Niazi trained by the British was a coward.

We should have fought to the last man. Even if it required our men going into hiding.

Niazi was a coward general.


We should have phucked India any way we could.


Even after we surrendered, our forces were murdered.


Better to fight and die.

 

[Beerbal]

Niazi trained by the British was a coward.

We should have fought to the last man. Even if it required our men going into hiding.

Niazi was a coward general.


We should have phucked India any way we could.


Even after we surrendered, our forces were murdered.


Better to fight and die.

Moderators,

Can you please educate this kid??

 

[rubyjackass]

there were no "90,000"soldiers to surrender..the army component was some 55,000; the indians included civilians in their totals see the detailed breakdown...thus 57,400 regulars only, 16,500 militia=74,000 approx.

55,692 were Army, 16,354 Paramilitary, 5,296 Police, 1000 Navy and 800 PAF.[72] The remaining prisoners were civilians – either family members of the military personnel or collaborators (razakars). The Hamoodur Rahman Commission report instituted by Pakistan lists the Pakistani POWs as follows: Apart from soldiers, it was estimated that 15,000 Bengali civilians were also made prisoners of war.[73]
Branch Number of captured Pakistani POWs
Army 54,154
Navy 1,381
Air Force 833
Paramilitary including police 22,000
Civilian personnel 12,000
Total: 90,368

Indo-Pakistani War of 1971 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Niazi was more incompetent than treacherous...


the main reason for the surrender was that the Indians had threatened to turn the muktis [and the indian soldiers masquerading as muktis] on the east pakistani civilians....[razakars their families, biharis and other unarmed muslims who might be loyal to pakistan or had stayed neutral]...the subsequent pak govt of zulfiqar deliberately buried this fact in order to humiliate the defence forces further and in order to permit him to sell pakistan's interests in Simla "agreement" [more like capitulation] ...he had already amde sure that any hope of retaining east paksitan was lost [idhar hum udhar tum] may he been cursed forever....

Well the records always say 90000 POWs, not soldiers. And among them almost 80000 were fighting men either military or paramilitary, as you point out. What does 80,000 represent that 90,000 does not?

The bolded part is BS. 'East Pakistani civilians' were already butchering Pakistani soldiers and police. It was the surrender which saved their lives. There is no other instance of such Geneva convention POW handling at such a large scale. Btw, the surrender orders did not come from top. Niazi was the commanding officer and he was the one who chose to surrender. He saved a lot of bad blood between our countries. Not just India and Pakistan. Also between Pakistan and Bangladesh. Like someone said, Bangladeshis owe India not their freedom but the circumstances under which they got it. They would have kicked out the Pakistani army anyway(because they had their own professional soldiers. Zia was leading them). But the bloodshed that would have followed would have lasted forever. And the so called Razakars in BD would not have survived. Bangladesh and Pakistan could not have patched up so easily. Ironically, today, the Islamists in BD blame India for intervening.

All these guys who are sad that the 90000 soldiers did not die fighting, think about it; May be you would not be born had they not returned home safely.

 

[RazPaK]

Moderators,

Can you please educate this kid??

Educate kid. I am your father's age, so call me daddy.

I know what I am talking about.

 

[Star Wars]

There is no point in fighting to the death when the battle is already lost.... This "fighting to the death" when it is better to retreat is rather and save lives is stupid.. (of course there are exceptions to the rule)