How to beat the "1971Civil War " Psychological Syndrome !

[SpaceMan18]

Every intel agency keep tabs on their neighbours. Especially one like Bangladesh who have a loose border with India while North Eastern states have issues relating to militancy. The political instability in Bangladesh is not caused by India rather, your own people's greed for power, Islamists are the ones wanting power grab.

When was the last time India dictated any policy change in Bangladesh? Don't act like everything wrong with Bangladesh is India's fault.

I didn't say all of Bangladesh's faults are cause of India , I specifically mentioned the governments ties with India and them being a bunch of slaves for India

 

[peagle]

Nope, totally wrong story. Ayub khan was fearing against Chinese aggression. The same reason, he did not support to Chinese. And also, Chinese didnt take over AP and ladakh... False information.

Pakistan was put under military sanctions by its principal supplier USA, from 1965 to 1982, but after the war..... Till now had already supplied advanced military tanks, aircrafts etc...

Between September and November 1971, Indira Gandhi visited every major European country,

Yes, because more then 10 millions refugees crossed the border and entered into India. Situation was too bad and she wanted to convey message and take help from as she can.

But Pakistan was darling of US and west, and the finally we needed to sign a treaty with Soviet. Not sure, what is wrong ¿

Did you even read your BS before posting it, every single thing you have said is so incorrect, I am forced to conclude you are deliberately lying, either that, or you live in cloud cuckoo land.

Have some decency, have some shame.
Does truth mean nothing to you guys?

 

[Baibars_1260]

Thanks for appreciating my posts.
I read your posts intently as well, and these are a delightful.

Perhaps the post touched on issues that hold no traction among the majority of Pakistanis, which is why it came across a bit differently.

The post was intended as a catharsis point for a section of our PDF members who usually bring up the subject of the Civil War in unrelated threads, much like our Indian guests. The subject doesn't seem to go away. Here is an example of 1971 being injected into a non-related thread.

PAF victories against Israeli Air Force, kept secret for 25 years - Air Commodore (r) Khalid Chishti

Still serves my point bro, those wars were small in scale and achievements. Neither side hasn't really had a decisive victory. Military scholars have noted that in every Indo-Pak war both sides are known to make so many mistakes that it was laughable... thats really how bad both forces were in...

defence.pk

We are a nation of around 232 million and counting, I am sure there are few individuals who are still traumatised, especially those who experienced those times first hand. But, that's not to say it is the predominant feeling among the population, or, it exists among a large minority.

Agree...Of course the common man in the street Pakistani couldn't care less what happened back in 1971. I was referring to the PDF members who are obsessed with the topic.

I think we need to be careful in presenting the feelings of a few individuals, or a tiny minority as something that exists more than it does.

Agree, all I am saying is to those still traumatized:
"Get over it. We have come through, and survived , We are far better today than we were before.

 

[Raj-Hindustani]

Did you even read your BS before posting it, every single thing you have said is so incorrect, I am forced to conclude you are deliberately lying, either that, or you live in cloud cuckoo land.

Have some decency, have some shame.
Does truth mean nothing to you guys?

It is a open fact but if you get time to rip off from Pakistani sources then please read from natural sources once.

https://www.unhcr.org/3ebf9bab0.pdf

Indra Ghandi asked to Westren countries for Help to resolve the issues but since Pakistan was darling of West. no one was caring!

This is a famous interview before the WAR.

Bradley, Megan. “FMO Research Guide: Return of Forced Migrants.” Forced Migration Online. 2006. http://www.forcedmigration.org/research-resources/expert-guides/return-of-forced-migrants/fmo042.pdf.

Chimni, B.S. “The Legal Condition of Refugees in India.” Journal of Refugee Studies, 1994.

Durdins, Tillman. “Bengalis in Dacca Coping with Problems.” The New York Times, 3 February 1972.

Hathaway, James C. “The Meaning of Repatriation.” International Journal of Refugee Law, 1997: 551-558.

Jahan, Rounaq. Pakistan: Failure in National Integration. University Press Limited, 1995.

Luthra, P. N. “Problem of Refugees from East Bengal.” Economic and Political Weekly, December 11, 1971: 2467-2472.

Mukherji, Partha N. “The Great Migration of 1971: II: Reception.” Economic and Political Weekly, March 9, 1974: 399-408.

Rahman, Hasan Hafizur, and Government of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh Ministry of Information. History of Bangladesh War of Independence Volume 12. Dhaka: Bangladesh Government Press, 1982.

Rangan, Kasturi. “Hindu Refugee Returns, Finds Ruins in East Pakistan.” The New York Times, 29 December 1971.

Rangan, Kasturi. “Refugees to be Returned.” The Statesman, 23 December 1971.

Rangan, Kasturi. “India Begins Returning Bengal Refugees.” The New York Times, 2 January 1972.

Rangan, Kasturi. “Return of Bengali Refugees is Gaining Momentume.” The New York Times, 8 January 1972.

Samaddar, Ranabir. “Refugees and Dynamics of Hospitality: The Indian Story.” In Immigration Worldwide Policies, Practices, and Trends, by Uma A Segal, Doreen Elliott and Nazneen S Mayadas. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010.

Schanberg, Sydney. “South Asia: The Approach of Tragedy.” The New York Times, 17 June 1971.

The Statesman. “Evacuees Will Not Be Pushed Back.” The Statesman, 31 August 1971.

The Statesman. “Refugee Dispersal in Big Way From Tomorrow.” The Statesman, 31 December 1971.

The Statesman. “214,000 Refugees Have Come to W. Bengal So Far.” The Statesman, 21 April 1971.

The Statesman. “Mrs. Gandhi Says… I am Determined to Send Them Back.” The Statesman, 18 June 1971.

The Statesman. “Evacuees Not To Be Sent To Other States – Khadilkar.” The Statesman , 24 May 1971.

The Statesman. “Editorial: Yet Another Exodus.” The Statesman , 22 April 1971.

Toffler, Alvin. “The Ravaged People of East Pakistan.” The New York Times, 5 August 1971.

UNHCR. “The State of The World’s Refugees 2000: Fifty Years of Humanitarian Action.” Geneva, 2000.

Zieck, Marjoleine. UNHCR and Voluntary Repatriation of Refugees: A Legal Analysis. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 1997.


[1] For a legal analysis of UNHCR and the voluntary repatriation of refugees, consult Zieck (1997). For a critical perspective from the Global South on UNHCR and the voluntary repatriation of refugees, consult Chimni (2004).

[2] Article 13(2): “Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country” (United Nations 1948)

[3] Article 33: (Prohibition of Expulsion or Return) 1. No Contracting State shall expel or return (“refouler”) a refugee in any manner whatsoever to the frontiers of territories where his life or freedom would be threatened on account of his race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion. 2. The benefit of the present provision may not, however, be claimed by a refugee whom there are reasonable grounds for regarding as a danger to the security of the country in which he is, or who, having been convicted by a final judgment of a particularly serious crime, constitutes a danger to the community of that country” (UNHCR 1951).

 

[Raj-Hindustani]

Ok here are some questions related:

1. Why did India hold the Simla Summit just 7 months after the war ?

2. Why is there no mention of " Bangladesh " in the agreement?

3. Why is there no mention of the famous December 16, Surrender?

Refer to the link:

Text of the Simla Agreement:
( Does this look like a victory document? Compare it to other Armistice documents such as signed by Germany at Versailles.)

SIMLA AGREEMENT:
02, July 1972

The Government of India and the Government of Pakistanare resolved that the two countries put an end to the conflict and confrontation that have hitherto marred their relations and work for the promotion of a friendly and harmonious relationship and the establishment of durable peace in the subcontinent so that both countries may henceforth devote their resources and energies to the pressing task of advancing the welfare of their people.
In order to achieve this objective, the Government of India and the Government of Pakistan have agreed as follows:
(i) That the principles and purposes of the Charter of the United Nations shall govern the relations between the two countries.
(ii) That the two countries are resolved to settle their differences by peaceful means through bilateral negotiations or by any other peaceful means mutually agreed upon between them. Pending the final settlement of any of the problems between the two countries, neither side shall unilaterally alter the situation and both shall prevent the organization, assistance or encouragement of any acts detrimental to the maintenance of peace and harmonious relations.
(iii) That the prerequisite for reconciliation, good neighborliness and durable peace between them is a commitment by both the countries to peaceful coexistence respect for each others territorial integrity and sovereignty and noninterference in each others internal affairs, on the basis of equality and mutual benefit. That the basic issues and causes of conflict which have bedeviled the relations between the two countries for the last 25 years shall be resolved by peaceful means.

(iv) That they shall always respect each others national unity, territorial integrity, political independence and sovereign equality.

(v) That in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, they will refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of each other.
Both governments will take all steps within their power to prevent hostile propaganda directed against each other. Both countries will encourage the dissemination of such information as would promote the development of friendly relations between them.
In order progressively to restore and normalize relations between the two countries step by step, it was agreed that:
(i) Steps shall be taken to resume communications, postal, telegraphic, sea, land, including border posts, and air links, including over flights.
(ii) Appropriate steps shall be taken to promote travel facilities for the nationals of the other country.

(iii) Trade and cooperation in economic and other agreed fields will be resumed as far as possible.
(iv) Exchange in the fields of science and culture will be promoted.

In this connection delegations from the two countries will meet from time to time to work out the necessary details.

In order to initiate the process of the establishment of durable peace, both the governments agree that:

(i) Indian and Pakistani forces shall be withdrawn to their side of the international border.

(ii) In Jammu and Kashmir, the line of control resulting from the ceasefire of 17 December 1971, shall be respected by both sides without prejudice to the recognized position of either side. Neither side shall seek to alter it unilaterally, irrespective of mutual differences and legal interpretations. Both sides further undertake to refrain from the threat or the use of force in violation of this line.

(iii) The withdrawals shall commence upon entry into force of this agreement and shall be completed within a period of 30 days thereof.

This agreement will be subject to ratification by both countries in accordance with their respective constitutional procedures, and will come into force with effect from the date on which the instruments of ratification are exchanged.
Both governments agree that their respective heads will meet again at a mutually convenient time in the future and that in the meanwhile the representatives of the two sides will meet to discuss further the modalities and arrangements for the establishment of durable peace and normalization of relations, including the questions of repatriation of prisoners of war and civilian internees, a final settlement of Jammu and Kashmir and the resumption of diplomatic relations.

Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto
President
Islamic Republic of Pakistan

Indira Gandhi
Prime Minister
Republic of India

1. Why did India hold the Simla Summit just 7 months after the war ?

The real question is that "why could not take advantage by India after winning the WAR"? Pakistan was under presser after the war and wanted back their solders from EAST Pakistan.

It was a good tactics of Indian government against UN resolution on Kashmir.


2. Why is there no mention of " Bangladesh " in the agreement?

Bangladesh was liberated already. Now, it was time to take benefits of the war.... read the history, winners always take some advantages. Nothing wrong!


3. Why is there no mention of the famous December 16, Surrender?

There must be diplomacy talks between Indian and Pakistani governments. Agreement can't be decide by only one party.... Shimla agreement was a gift for India, India had also compromised on some points...

 

[PakistaniAtBahrain]

Nice poem, and I have heard this before.
Just to let you know there is no ( to my knowledge) any matching poem in Bengali lamenting the break up. In fact any poems you search and find are best left untranslated.
Unless you would like to know what our former brethren really think of us.

i am not interested in knowing what the generation of 1971 has to think. current and future generations of Pakistanis and Bangladeshis shouldnt be held hostage to the past. a lot of why 1971 happened was due to jahalat, miscommunication, miscalculation, lack of trust, greed, choti soch, etc. on both sides. that ghazal described it well.

 

[Chhatrapati]

I didn't say all of Bangladesh's faults are cause of India , I specifically mentioned the governments ties with India and them being a bunch of slaves for India

But you specifically said India is keeping you down. Even you don't know how exactly it is. How is your government a slave of the Indian government? Did India force any domestic policy change in BD? Every crap happening in your country is not micromanaged by India. 99% of the time, it is your own issues that needs a fix not our policy.

 

[Baibars_1260]

1. Why did India hold the Simla Summit just 7 months after the war ?

The real question is that "why could not take advantage by India after winning the WAR"? Pakistan was under presser after the war and wanted back their solders from EAST Pakistan.

Weren't there Indian POWs in Pakistan? See link .
Any nation that WINS a war first gets its OWN prisoners of war released. The Simla Agreement makes no demand on Pakistan ( the "loser" ) to immediately release prisoners. It only states that repatriation of civilians and military prisoners will be discussed and resolved at an early date. By contrast the Armistice agreement signed by Germany in 1918 was a one way demand where Germany would release all prisoners of war ( it already had ) and the Allies would hold the German prisoners indefinitely. Pakistan never released 55-83 Indian officers captured during covert operations in East Pakistan because the agreement with India for prisoners swap only covered those captured in uniform between December 02 and 17th December. AP has released footage of these officers and men being captured (now on Youtube) . These officers POWs ( not covered by the Geneva Convention) were never released and are likely dead by now. There are numerous interviews by their relatives and family appealing for their release. Shouldn't India as a winner of the war got its fighting men released?

It was a good tactics of Indian government against UN resolution on Kashmir.

The UN office UNMOGIP remained in Kashmir to monitor the LOC and the UN has since discussed Kashmir twice. The UN has never revoked its resolutions. Pakistan, the loosing party in the war retained occupation of Azad Kashmir. When Germany lost the war in 1918 it had to give up its coalfields ( Saar) , Alscace and Lorraine and pay war reparations for twenty years and reduce its armed forces to under 100,000 and abolish its air force and much of its navy. Why didn't India as the winner of the 1971 war put the same conditions on Pakistan?

2. Why is there no mention of " Bangladesh " in the agreement?

Bangladesh was liberated already. Now, it was time to take benefits of the war.... read the history, winners always take some advantages. Nothing wrong!

Bangladesh was a party to the war and co-victor.
Any agreement imposed on a defeated nation is done by allies jointly. Britain, France, and the USA jointly imposed the terms of the Armistice and later the Treaty of Versailles on Germany. Bangladesh wanted Pakistani soldiers and officers handed over for war crimes trials which India did not do .Why ?

3. Why is there no mention of the famous December 16, Surrender?

There must be diplomacy talks between Indian and Pakistani governments. Agreement can't be decide by only one party.... Shimla agreement was a gift for India, India had also compromised on some points...

As a winner in the war why would India compromise or use diplomacy
in dealing with a defeated enemy.
Why didn't the surrender document in Bangladesh include an overall surrender of ALL Pakistani forces both in Kashmir, and West Pakistan and Islamabad. In 1918 when Germany was defeated on the Western Front and signed a surrender , Allied troops entered Germany to occupy and administer the country. There were simultaneous surrender ceremonies both in the theaters of war as well as inside Germany itself.
Germany handed over its entire air force, including the then cutting edge Fokker DVII aircraft to the Allies for destruction.
Germany handed over all its navy (including its cutting edge technology submarines) for destruction by the Britain.

On 16th December why didn't India demand a surrender ceremony in Islamabad also ?

Could you list what India gained militarily from the 1971 war ?

Why didn't India demand war reparations from Pakistan and the surrender of its military equipment?

 

[Juggernaut_Flat_Plane_V8]

One thing I would like to point out..Pakistanis grumble about Indian exaggeration of 1971 as some sort of revenge for 1,000 year rule.

1. First of all, if such boastfulness does exist its only an internet phenomenon of the last 15 years.
2. Secondly such unfortunate mudslinging would not have come about had Pakistani posters not used the fact of Islamic rule in India as some sort of detail with which they insult Indian posters...
3. What's with all these chauvinistic triumphalism regarding religion? Donot Pakistani posters themselves realize that they besmirch the image of Islamic peace and non-violence, by forcefully tying medieval tyrants with a pristine religion? Islam can stand on its own in the marketplace of ideas, why should Pakistani posters try to reinforce the strength of Islam by using the bloody record of medieval rulers?
4. There is the small issue of historical distortion...Initial Muslim rule in the subcontinent was established in Sindh around 712 AD....Islamic rule in modern day North India was not even established till 1192 AD as the ruling clans there gave quite a resistance for nearly 500 years...(that's seven times the length of Republic of India or Pakistan)..So by that calculation Sindh has been under 1300 years+ Muslim rule with 100 years interlude of British rule
5. by mid to late 1700s most of modern-day India was under the sway of non-Muslim indigenous rulers..Some parts of India like the North-East/Far-North never ever came under the ambit of Islamic rulers as the indigenous rulers defeated every invasion of the neighbouring Muslim empires
6. So modern day India was roughly under 500-550 years of Islamic rule...and that too not all of it
7. Coming to Punjab and NWFP...even there native non-Islamic kings of the Turk/Hindu Shahis repulsed Muslim invasion from roughly middle 600s till 1026 AD...We are talking at least 350 years
8. Are we really going to ignore huge chunks of history that span hundreds of years so that we can conveniently stick to some established narrative?
9. Below are a compendium of Afghan and subcontinental dynasties who mounted the most fearsome defence of their homelands
10. What makes them any less glorious than Arab and/or Islamic rulers,invaders that followed?
11. Were these sons of the soil also not Pashtuns,Punjabis/Gandharans etc?

 

[Raj-Hindustani]

Weren't there Indian POWs in Pakistan? See link .
Any nation that WINS a war first gets its OWN prisoners of war released. The Simla Agreement makes no demand on Pakistan ( the "loser" ) to immediately release prisoners. It only states that repatriation of civilians and military prisoners will be discussed and resolved at an early date. By contrast the Armistice agreement signed by Germany in 1918 was a one way demand where Germany would release all prisoners of war ( it already had ) and the Allies would hold the German prisoners indefinitely. Pakistan never released 55-83 Indian officers captured during covert operations in East Pakistan because the agreement with India for prisoners swap only covered those captured in uniform between December 02 and 17th December. AP has released footage of these officers and men being captured (now on Youtube) . These officers POWs ( not covered by the Geneva Convention) were never released and are likely dead by now. There are numerous interviews by their relatives and family appealing for their release. Shouldn't India as a winner of the war got its fighting men released?

=>>>

Mistakes happens! Indira Gandhi faced widespread criticism for signing Simla Agreement without sorting out Kashmir issue and others with Pakistan after winning the WAR.

Example:
Both countries agreed to exchange all Prisoners of War, respect the line of control (LOC) in Jammu and Kashmir and refrain from the use of threat or force.

The then PM of Pakistan, Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto gave a solemn verbal undertaking to accept LOC as the de facto border.

India released all Pak PoWs in good faith.

Pakistan, on the other hand, released only 617 Indian PoWs while holding back 54 PoWs who are still languishing in Pakistani jails.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The UN office UNMOGIP remained in Kashmir to monitor the LOC and the UN has since discussed Kashmir twice. The UN has never revoked its resolutions. Pakistan, the loosing party in the war retained occupation of Azad Kashmir. When Germany lost the war in 1918 it had to give up its coalfields ( Saar) , Alscace and Lorraine and pay war reparations for twenty years and reduce its armed forces to under 100,000 and abolish its air force and much of its navy. Why didn't India as the winner of the 1971 war put the same conditions on Pakistan?

=>>>
Pease read below lines very carefully. Because of Shimla Agreement.... UN resolution is dead..

That the two countries are resolved to settle their differences by peaceful means through bilateral negotiations or by any other peaceful means mutually agreed upon between them. Pending the final settlement of any of the problems between the two countries, neither side shall unilaterally alter the situation and both shall prevent the organization, assistance or encouragement of any acts detrimental to the maintenance of peaceful and harmonious relations;

And,

6. Both Governments agree that their respective Heads will meet again at a mutually convenient time in the future and that, in the meanwhile, the representatives of the two sides will meet to discuss further the modalities and arrangements for the establishment of durable peace and normalization of relations, including the questions of repatriation of prisoners of war and civilian internees, a final settlement of Jammu and Kashmir and the resumption of diplomatic relations.

https://peacemaker.un.org/sites/peacemaker.un.org/files/IN%20PK_720702_Simla%20Agreement.pdf

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bangladesh was a party to the war and co-victor.
Any agreement imposed on a defeated nation is done by allies jointly. Britain, France, and the USA jointly imposed the terms of the Armistice and later the Treaty of Versailles on Germany. Bangladesh wanted Pakistani soldiers and officers handed over for war crimes trials which India did not do .Why ?

=>>>

We just wanted to liberate EAST Pakistan. but people always do criticism of Indira Ghandhi and say that we won the WAR but lost at the table.

The Puzzle of the 1972 Shimla Summit, Or Why India Did Not Impose Its Will

The Wire: The Wire News India, Latest News,News from India, Politics, External Affairs, Science, Economics, Gender and Culture

thewire.in

A lost opportunity in 1971: where Indira Gandhi erred

Indira Gandhi failed to convert India’s victory in the 1971 war into a durable peace with Pakistan

www.thehindu.com

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As a winner in the war why would India compromise or use diplomacy
in dealing with a defeated enemy.
Why didn't the surrender document in Bangladesh include an overall surrender of ALL Pakistani forces both in Kashmir, and West Pakistan and Islamabad. In 1918 when Germany was defeated on the Western Front and signed a surrender , Allied troops entered Germany to occupy and administer the country. There were simultaneous surrender ceremonies both in the theaters of war as well as inside Germany itself.
Germany handed over its entire air force, including the then cutting edge Fokker DVII aircraft to the Allies for destruction.
Germany handed over all its navy (including its cutting edge technology submarines) for destruction by the Britain.

On 16th December why didn't India demand a surrender ceremony in Islamabad also ?
=>>>

Same above words.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Could you list what India gained militarily from the 1971 war ?

=>>>
Only one - UN resolution became null..... now it is a dead..... Still only on paper but nothing will gonna to happen.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Why didn't India demand war reparations from Pakistan and the surrender of its military equipment?

=>>>

Same above words.

 

[Baibars_1260]

We just wanted to liberate EAST Pakistan. but people always do criticism of Indira Ghandhi and say that we won the WAR but lost at the table.

Amusing...
Diplomats on the "table" will only negotiate what the nations armed forces cannot deliver on the battlefield.
Example:
Russia negotiates nothing with Ukraine and Georgia. Turkey does not negotiate East Cyprus with Greece.

Why blame Indira Gandhi?
She and her cabinet at a meeting on December 17th 1971 had cleared the defense ministry to continue operations on the West Pakistan front. COAS Sam Manekshaw's estimates were Indian Army 250,000 dead in the first few weeks of fighting, with a uncertain date when the Pakistan armed forces would finally collapse (with no Dhaka style surrender). Manekshaw also estimated at least a decade long armed resistance to the Indian occupation. Pakistani civilian and military casualties were estimated at 2-5 million at least, discounting the resistance. At that time Pakistan had no means of retaliation against India to inflict similar casualties on India, so India's casualties would have been military only.
Sam Manekshaw refused or rather "chickened out" .

Which is why much before the Simla summit in early 1972 Manekshaw went to Lahore to discuss disengagement of forces and maintaining a ceasefire with his counterpart Tikka Khan.

Sam Manekshaw was not the stuff of Marshal Zhukov, Douglas MacArthur , or Rommel who didn't care about casualties as long as they delivered the results.
Manekshaw was more concerned about the brilliantine he put on his mustache.

Why blame Indira Gandhi?
Blame that tin pot general of yours who refused to continue operations and agreed to a unilateral ceasefire.

Question again:
Why didn't India get its 55 officers back from Pakistan as a winner in the war?

 

[Raj-Hindustani]

Amusing...
Diplomats on the "table" will only negotiate what the nations armed forces cannot deliver on the battlefield.
Example:
Russia negotiates nothing with Ukraine and Georgia. Turkey does not negotiate East Cyprus with Greece.

Why blame Indira Gandhi?
She and her cabinet at a meeting on December 17th 1971 had cleared the defense ministry to continue operations on the West Pakistan front. COAS Sam Manekshaw's estimates were Indian Army 250,000 dead in the first few weeks of fighting, with a uncertain date when the Pakistan armed forces would finally collapse (with no Dhaka style surrender). Manekshaw also estimated at least a decade long armed resistance to the Indian occupation. Pakistani civilian and military casualties were estimated at 2-5 million at least, discounting the resistance. At that time Pakistan had no means of retaliation against India to inflict similar casualties on India, so India's casualties would have been military only.
Sam Manekshaw refused or rather "chickened out" .

Which is why much before the Simla summit in early 1972 Manekshaw went to Lahore to discuss disengagement of forces and maintaining a ceasefire with his counterpart Tikka Khan.

Sam Manekshaw was not the stuff of Marshal Zhukov, Douglas MacArthur , or Rommel who didn't care about casualties as long as they delivered the results.
Manekshaw was more concerned about the brilliantine he put on his mustache.

Why blame Indira Gandhi?
Blame that tin pot general of yours who refused to continue operations and agreed to a unilateral ceasefire.

Question again:
Why didn't India get its 55 officers back from Pakistan as a winner in the war?

Can you please back-up with legitimate source as well (Bold parts)?

Otherwise, argument will not going to reach anywhere!

 

[Baibars_1260]

That the two countries are resolved to settle their differences by peaceful means through bilateral negotiations or by any other peaceful means mutually agreed upon between them. Pending the final settlement of any of the problems between the two countries, neither side shall unilaterally alter the situation and both shall prevent the organization, assistance or encouragement of any acts detrimental to the maintenance of peaceful and harmonious relations

Hilarious!
So a victorious army limits its own capabilities for shelving a non-enforceable UN resolution by agreeing to "peace terms" then claiming "We got the UN out of the picture "
Who cares for the UN ?
Russia , Israel, China , USA, Britain, France ?
India also theoretically put a limitation on its own options to undertake operations to recover Azad Kashmir. A more powerful army and a truly victorious nation never does that .

Example; Armenia never agreed to abide by any UN resolution on Nagorno Karabakh and ultimately Azerbaijan is dealing with it on the battlefield.

Why does a victorious nation sign such a document on "peaceful bi-lateral negotiations" and no "unilateral alteration of the status quo". Any powerful nation will do what is needed to restore its territorial integrity with boots on the ground. Let Mexico take an inch of US territory and see the results. The USA carved Mexico up in the war in 1848 .

Why this injured innocence about Bhutto not releasing all the Indian POWs? Like Germany Pakistan should have been compelled to release all prisoners immediately on the surrender and ceasefire fire with no quid pro quo.
It didn't matter that prisoners taken during covert ops out of uniform are not covered by the Geneva conventions ( which is why Commander Jadhav is not going home ). India was the winner, right?

 

[peagle]

Thanks for appreciating my posts.
I read your posts intently as well, and these are a delightful.



The post was intended as a catharsis point for a section of our PDF members who usually bring up the subject of the Civil War in unrelated threads, much like our Indian guests. The subject doesn't seem to go away. Here is an example of 1971 being injected into a non-related thread.

PAF victories against Israeli Air Force, kept secret for 25 years - Air Commodore (r) Khalid Chishti

Still serves my point bro, those wars were small in scale and achievements. Neither side hasn't really had a decisive victory. Military scholars have noted that in every Indo-Pak war both sides are known to make so many mistakes that it was laughable... thats really how bad both forces were in...

defence.pk

Agree...Of course the common man in the street Pakistani couldn't care less what happened back in 1971. I was referring to the PDF members who are obsessed with the topic.


Agree, all I am saying is to those still traumatized:
"Get over it. We have come through, and survived , We are far better today than we were before.

Nice clarification.
But, I will add a little food for thought.

1971, 71, East Pakistan, call it whatever, it is a historical fact,
so referencing it, does not bother me at all, nor should it anyone. because now, we know better.

As you previously mentioned, a lot of information and facts have come forward. At least the old story that it's all Pakistan's fault no longer holds water, everyone was to blame, including Bengalis and Indians.

And how India had to beg for blessings from world powers, and think a million times before daring to attack Pakistan, speaks volumes of our strengths. let them remind, as much as they want, now we have a new story, to which they have no answers, except parroting their fantasies.

 

[Vapnope]

Nope, totally wrong story. Ayub khan was fearing against Chinese aggression. The same reason, he did not support to Chinese

Incorrect.
Back in 1947, a journalist asked Jinnah that what kind of relations Pakistan will have with India?
Jinnah said Pakistan will have brotherly relations with India.
Upon asking if a third country attacks India what would be Pakistan's reaction?
Jinnah replied that we will not side with the third country.
Back in 1962 when Chinese asked Ayub to side with China, Ayub didn't side with China citing the promise of Jinnah.
(Source: Scoop by Kuldip Nayyar)