Had Operation Chengiz Khan not happened,could Bangladesh been created?

[janon]

The theory has been tested in 1998, Kargil and again in 2001. You could not cross the IB on any of those occasions. But ofcourse, we were not at war with our other half during any of those periods which explains the conditions of '71 rather explicitly.





Strategic victory that has failed to achieve desired results even today??? Despite it costing billions of dollars and costing hundreds of lives at your end?? What about Mumbai attacks???? Seriously dude!!

Only the groups that are black listed by the US are banned in Pakistan, have we ever cared what you want? You could not even carry out a single 'surgical strike' mission despite several wet dreams of the same and with almost a million strong military at our border!

That is your reality, that is your limitation and that is the fact that you have to learn to live with.

If you read carefully, you would notice that I mentioned the mumbai massacre in my post, and the fact that the terrorists had to take the sea route, since infiltration through the border was no longer feasible as it was in the 90s.

It did achieve the results. Infiltration went down considerably since pakistan found it difficult to support the terror groups overtly.

The reality that you may want to live with is that Indian kashmir is now well and truly India's; pakistan learned not to wage overt war anymore since 1971, and even covert war like Kargil was not going to get you what you want. So fighting was outsourced to terror groups like LeT and JeM who used to openly recruit men and money on the streets in the late 90s. With op parakram pak realized that even that can have consequences, and had to ban both these groups.

Sure, there is still some infiltration every now and then, but nothing like the 90s. Indian kashmir is not going to pakistan, whether by overt war or covert means like lashkars and mujahideens. Pak has learnt that lesson.

 

[Contrarian]

Apparently it doesn't. However a Border is internationally recognized while LoC is not.

Makes no difference on the ground.
Apparently it matters a lot to Pakistani's.
For them in 1965, what Pakistan did - sending forces to kashmir was considered acceptable, but India's retaliation near Lahore was not. And consequently paint India as an aggressor in 1965.
I find that uncommonly weird. Or maybe the regular victim mentality that Pakistan establishment has nurtured in the general population of Pakistan.

The theory has been tested in 1998, Kargil and again in 2001. You could not cross the IB on any of those occasions. But ofcourse, we were not at war with our other half during any of those periods which explains the conditions of '71 rather explicitly.

The LoC/IB was not breached in 1998 intentionally. It had less to do with military ability and all to do with the aim of the Indian Government.
War is an extension of Government Will/Politics, Government Will is not an extension of War.
The Indian Military wanted to cross the LoC the first instant, however GoI wanted to achieve other aims.

The result was while earlier in International circles, the LoC was not considered sacrosanct as the Indo-Pak border, but something that can be changed by force. However after the Kargil episode, where India did not cross the LoC despite being militarily capable of doing so, it cemented the position of LoC as IB in all international circles.

This is the reason that today Pakistan trying to cross the LoC would be looked at as clear aggression on a sovereign State.

In 2002, the stand off was a result of Indian military failure. The reason the LoC/IB was not crossed was because of inadequate military superiority and far too long deployement period.

 

[Rajput_Pakistani]

Yesterday read an article related to history books of class 10 students( in both Bangladesh & Pakistaam) about 1971 war. In history books of Bangladesh, its clearly written about the causes of struggle to liberate bangladesh from west pakistani forces. It is as per international standerd.
The mass killing of 3 million bengali population as a response to BNP winning general elections, raps commited by Pakistani forces etc were cleary brought into the chapters.
On the contrary, In history books of Pakistan, class 10 students are taught that bengalis of east Pakistan went to war with west Pakistan because Hindu teachers polluted their mind to do so, Pakistani army never took any action against any bengali, It was all done by evil Indian who wanted to destroy the muslim unity etc etc.
At the end of the article, the author who was a well known journalist from Dawn, stated that no country can progress with harmony unless the youth of that country are educated with true history. It is needed so that lessons that are learned from past can be used for better future. By teaching hoax and lies to upcoming citizens of Pakistan, the nation is heading for doom.
I couldn't post the link as am operating from a celphone, so please any member who have time please google and post the link by searching "history lessons taught to bangladeshi and pakistani school students about 1971" war. The time period of article was around 2010.
Link is
dawn.com/news/591514/
journalist were Huma Imtiaz from karachi & Misha hussain from dhaka.

Yes unfortunately in Pakistan, we have many such paid journalists who distort history and facts themselves. Never heard about any of these ladies, whom article you have quoted.
Now 3 million figures and rape of millions by Super human PA is never proved anywhere except in indian or bangladeshi text books. Should i tell you to read the book of Arundithi Roy?

Oh no because she is a traitor in case of India?

Ok go through the Bangladesh defence section of PDF. Read what many Bangladeshis members post there. Even read about your countrymen books about how you planned and interfere in East Pakistan well before 1970 elections? Ever read about Agartala Conspiracy?
If thats not enough check the facts when Indira Gandhi ordered IA to attack East Pakistan? Any justification? Any?? UNO resolution? Security council authorization to interfere in neighboring country?

Can you tell me a single international norm which India follow then?

Its you who need lessons on history not us.

 

[Mav3rick]

If you read carefully, you would notice that I mentioned the mumbai massacre in my post, and the fact that the terrorists had to take the sea route, since infiltration through the border was no longer feasible as it was in the 90s.

That was not the point you had brought forward, fact of the matter is that another serious attack did take place and India did squat! Having learnt the lessons from previous such threats and engagements, India did not mobilise the military this time, she rather got whatever she did through diplomatic means, if anything at all.

It did achieve the results. Infiltration went down considerably since pakistan found it difficult to support the terror groups overtly.

Not really, if you go through history you will realize that infiltration ceased as soon as Musharraf assumed power. He was genuine in his attempts to find a solution through dialogue and had ceased support to Kashmiri Mujahideen. Even the war in Afghanistan could have been a factor......we will find out in the next two years if Kashmir freedom struggle suddenly gains momentum after the US forces leave Afghanistan.

The reality that you may want to live with is that Indian kashmir is now well and truly India's; pakistan learned not to wage overt war anymore since 1971, and even covert war like Kargil was not going to get you what you want. So fighting was outsourced to terror groups like LeT and JeM who used to openly recruit men and money on the streets in the late 90s. With op parakram pak realized that even that can have consequences, and had to ban both these groups.

Sure, there is still some infiltration every now and then, but nothing like the 90s. Indian kashmir is not going to pakistan, whether by overt war or covert means like lashkars and mujahideens. Pak has learnt that lesson.

Answer given above on infiltration. However, Kashmir issue will remain there unless both countries find a solution. Unilateral decisions are unacceptable on either end I believe. It may eventually mean another war......especially if India continues to wage the water war on Pakistan in Kashmir.

Makes no difference on the ground.
Apparently it matters a lot to Pakistani's.
For them in 1965, what Pakistan did - sending forces to kashmir was considered acceptable, but India's retaliation near Lahore was not. And consequently paint India as an aggressor in 1965.

You are correct.

Pakistan had indeed assumed that the engagement will be limited to Kashmir only. However India crossed international border....perhaps because of the beating they were getting in Kashmir and the only viable solution was to engage Pakistan on several fronts simultaneously. No wonder Indian Army came close to Lahore before they were pushed back out.

I find that uncommonly weird. Or maybe the regular victim mentality that Pakistan establishment has nurtured in the general population of Pakistan.

The LoC/IB was not breached in 1998 intentionally. It had less to do with military ability and all to do with the aim of the Indian Government.
War is an extension of Government Will/Politics, Government Will is not an extension of War.
The Indian Military wanted to cross the LoC the first instant, however GoI wanted to achieve other aims.

The result was while earlier in International circles, the LoC was not considered sacrosanct as the Indo-Pak border, but something that can be changed by force. However after the Kargil episode, where India did not cross the LoC despite being militarily capable of doing so, it cemented the position of LoC as IB in all international circles.

This is the reason that today Pakistan trying to cross the LoC would be looked at as clear aggression on a sovereign State.

You are incorrect. The version and status of Kashmir will change accordingly with the shift in power of each country. Today, India holds considerable diplomatic influence over many countries due to which she is internationally strong and is supported more then Pakistan. Pakistan was in a stronger position in the 80's during Afghan war when the whole world was supporting Pakistan.

The shift in paradigm is paramount in such circumstances and any such pressure on India in 1971 could have resulted in a different outcome. Similarly, India got all the support she wanted in Kargil......and more.

In 2002, the stand off was a result of Indian military failure. The reason the LoC/IB was not crossed was because of inadequate military superiority and far too long deployement period.

And you believe that to be the only reason? The consequence of waging a war with another Nuclear country on your economy was not of any consideration? Do you seriously mean that India can afford to go to war with Pakistan, like ever?

Not that Pakistan can afford to do so either. However in such an engagement, Pakistan is set to lose less then India.....it is because we are already in bad shape while India is progressing and would like to continue doing so.

 

[kenyannoobie]

I've always gotten the impression Pakistan for some reason needs Indian hostility and goes about seeking it much like a paranoid schizo in his loop of self reinforcing behaviour. This thread indirectly confirms it. It explains the disastrous series of failed military adventures that would be comical if the human cost weren't so high. The mindset behind partition,the 65 war,1971 and the sorry Siachen episode are quite clear-India isn't at fault. Its time Pakistan invested in another less expensive hobby other than Hindu hating and chest thumping.

 

[The_Sidewinder]

Yes unfortunately in Pakistan, we have many such paid journalists who distort history and facts themselves. Never heard about any of these ladies, whom article you have quoted.
Now 3 million figures and rape of millions by Super human PA is never proved anywhere except in indian or bangladeshi text books. Should i tell you to read the book of Arundithi Roy?

Oh no because she is a traitor in case of India?

Ok go through the Bangladesh defence section of PDF. Read what many Bangladeshis members post there. Even read about your countrymen books about how you planned and interfere in East Pakistan well before 1970 elections? Ever read about Agartala Conspiracy?
If thats not enough check the facts when Indira Gandhi ordered IA to attack East Pakistan? Any justification? Any?? UNO resolution? Security council authorization to interfere in neighboring country?

Can you tell me a single international norm which India follow then?

Its you who need lessons on history not us.

Wouldn't it be better if you just follow your own text book. Arundhati Roy is a traitor, she only wakes up when some terrorist given death penalty by court, & her human rights mode activates. But when own country men gets killed, Miss AR Just enjoys cup of tea peacefully at home.
About other parts, am a old member of PDF. Went through everything you pointed out. Even I do believe some of that stuff.
But never seen a dillisioned personal like you.

 

[Hulk]

That would have been a fine theory, except for what happened in '71.

Anyway, India got what it wanted with operation parakram in 2001. It was not done to invade or occupy pakistan, but to signal our will to escalate matters should pakistan not take action against terror groups on its soil. As you may know, it was a response to LeT and JeM terrorists attacking our parliament. We gave a clear message that unless this nonsense of "bleeding" India with non state actors was not stopped, we are prepared to use our state actors.

And pakistan got the message. JeM an LeT were banned by Musharaff, and several training camps were shut down. That would never have happened if we had simply sent dossiers, with no military mobilization. With the way things panned out, Mushy had no choice but to accept India's demands to shut down these terror groups, or have India shut them down for him.

The result was there for all to see. Both those terror groups were outlawed, funding became difficult for them, they had to operate underground, state support for terror groups became scarce. A ceasefire was declared between India and pak on the LoC, making India's long standing demand of making the LoC the defacto border accepted in practice, though not admitted.

The terror groups previously patronized by the pakistani state turned againt Mushy for "betraying the kashmir cause", and turned against him. Strategic assets like Ilyas Kashmiri who previously used to behead and mutilate Indian soldiers, started assasination attempts on Musharaff instead. Infiltration into Indian kashmir slowed into a trickle, and Indian kashmir became much more peaceful than the 90s, when pakistan used to funnel punjabi and Uzbek and afghan terrorists to die there.

Operation parakram was a strategic victory for India. After that, in the next ten years, the only audacious attack by pakistani terrorists was the mumbai massacre, for which they had to travel by sea, because land based infiltration was too dangerous. Attacks like the Kashmir assembly attack or the parliament attack never happened again. Make no mistake, we got all our demands accepted by pakistan by that show of force, although pakistanis would not like to admit that.

Many thanks for the reply, Pakistani government at times works behind the scenes or under the table. So for common people it looks like India managed to get nothing. However if anyone tries to go deeper they will see what happened. Not everything done can be displayed as trophies. Even after 26/11 Pakistan did few things which people do not see. If India did not went for attack they got something in return, it might not 100% of what we wanted. We Indians believe in getting work done, it is better to look weak but get thework done then look strong and spoil everything. Not everytime you have a problem with someone you have to fight, there are other things that can be done. Also threatning a war has its own place. I am surprised military people do not know what it means.

 

[Thirdfront]

Apparently it doesn't. However a Border is internationally recognized while LoC is not. 

wow. What an ignorant comment. Borders are agreement between countries sharing them. No other country can and will recognize other country's border. What UN says is "none" of the disputes should be tried to be settled through war/force. In fact, pak forces were the first to enter kashmir, not India.

 

[Mav3rick]

wow. What an ignorant comment. Borders are agreement between countries sharing them. No other country can and will recognize other country's border. What UN says is "none" of the disputes should be tried to be settled through war/force. In fact, pak forces were the first to enter kashmir, not India.

Is the above suppose to be anything worth a read? Perhaps you should go and read the meaning of 'border' and then meaning of 'Line of Control'!

 

[Mav3rick]

I've always gotten the impression Pakistan for some reason needs Indian hostility and goes about seeking it much like a paranoid schizo in his loop of self reinforcing behaviour. This thread indirectly confirms it. It explains the disastrous series of failed military adventures that would be comical if the human cost weren't so high. The mindset behind partition,the 65 war,1971 and the sorry Siachen episode are quite clear-India isn't at fault. Its time Pakistan invested in another less expensive hobby other than Hindu hating and chest thumping.

Then perhaps they are also right in throwing out your sorry asses.....or those of your brothers!

 

[bloo]

Then perhaps they are also right in throwing out your sorry asses.....or those of your brothers!

1 rare event doesn't ruin decades of good relations regardless of what you think.

Indian-origin man offered himself as hostage in Kenya mall to save children, killed: report | NDTV.com

 

[Mav3rick]

1 rare event doesn't ruin decades of good relations regardless of what you think.

Indian-origin man offered himself as hostage in Kenya mall to save children, killed: report | NDTV.com

I was rather talking about the Indian move to expel your countrymen.

 

[ExtraOdinary]

I was rather talking about the Indian move to expel your countrymen.

Which move would that be, any links to support that claim?

 

[Mav3rick]

Which move would that be, any links to support that claim?

Don't you have internet in Kenya?

 

[ExtraOdinary]

Don't you have internet in Kenya?

Means you don't have the link to support this claim. Thanks