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

[SpaceMan18]

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.

I know we have micro issue within the nation but since India constantly keeps controlling our government we can't fix our dam issues.

India literally gave a Kilo class Sub to Myanmar while saying the same fk BS that they love Bangladesh , they turned a blind eye and didn't want to to help Bangladesh solve the Royhinga crisis.

We don't have Chinese spies in Bangladesh , all we have are Indian slaves and Indian spies

Cause Bangladesh's is India's last hope since India is surrounded on all sides

 

[Vapnope]

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.

Again incorrect information. You might wanna read american secret papers from 1969 to 1974 (Also quoted in Conflict and diplomacy by Maj Gen SP Bhatia and Jaswant Singh). Richard Nixon and Henry Kissenger called Indians pathological liars (Just stating their statement) because the number of refugees was exaggerated by Indians as a pretext to carry out their subversive activities against Pakistan. Also US sided more with India than Pakistan in 1971, a fact which can be proved by American secret cables between American ambassador to Pakistan and India.

 

[peagle]

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

View attachment 718598

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).

Seriously, are you retarded? you are supposed to make a contradictory claim to an argument already given. What are you 10 years old?
Argue the point don't hide behind stupid empty statements with no meaning.

You were replying to my original statement quoted below, how the heck is your reply above related to my statement in any shame or form, you fool.

Stop being a troll, get a brain, and stop wasting my time. If you are unable to concentrate on the topic at hand, then I suggest, you leave this forum and stick with your own lots. Because we do not tolerate fantasies and BS.

">>>Better this, better that,
do you people ever get out of your fantasies?
Why don't you try and look at the whole picture,
rather than what has been forced fed to you by your government, and your lying military.

India had a constant supply of modern weapons, whilst Pakistan was put under military sanctions by its principal supplier USA, from 1965 to 1982, European countries joined America in restricting or stopping military supplies to Pakistan.
Pakistan had to fight with hands tied behind their back. Fight an opponent 10 times larger.

You still had to sign a defence treaty with the Soviet Union, and get the blessings from major powers, before you had the guts to attack East Pakistan, in West Pakistan, you couldn't do jacksh.t

Between September and November 1971, Indira Gandhi visited every major European country, plus America to get their blessing. No Indian leader has had such a condensed travel schedule, the only purpose was to get the asirwad, and do some bootlicking.

Don't talk BS, talk facts. <<<"


">>>China did take over Arunachal Pradesh and Ladakh in 1962,
then gave it back as a charity to you beggars. After you went begging to America and the rest of the world, you even begged Pakistan, Nehru wrote a sickening letter to Ayub Khan, so shameful.

At that time China and India had similar levels of development. Please stop your BS. <<<"

 

[Raj-Hindustani]

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?

you are saying whatever is fit for present scenario. but during the 1971, India was not powerful enough to ignore UN.

now no one cares.. UN can't do anything now even if they take decision against us then we will never follow.

Again incorrect information. You might wanna read american secret papers from 1969 to 1974 (Also quoted in Conflict and diplomacy by Maj Gen SP Bhatia and Jaswant Singh). Richard Nixon and Henry Kissenger called Indians pathological liars (Just stating their statement) because the number of refugees was exaggerated by Indians as a pretext to carry out their subversive activities against Pakistan. Also US sided more with India than Pakistan in 1971, a fact which can be proved by American secret cables between American ambassador to Pakistan and India.

means even UN website is lying ¿

 

[Raj-Hindustani]

Seriously, are you retarded? you are supposed to make a contradictory claim to an argument already given. What are you 10 years old?
Argue the point don't hide behind stupid empty statements with no meaning.

You were replying to my original statement quoted below, how the heck is your reply above related to my statement in any shame or form, you fool.

Stop being a troll, get a brain, and stop wasting my time. If you are unable to concentrate on the topic at hand, then I suggest, you leave this forum and stick with your own lots. Because we do not tolerate fantasies and BS.

">>>Better this, better that,
do you people ever get out of your fantasies?
Why don't you try and look at the whole picture,
rather than what has been forced fed to you by your government, and your lying military.

India had a constant supply of modern weapons, whilst Pakistan was put under military sanctions by its principal supplier USA, from 1965 to 1982, European countries joined America in restricting or stopping military supplies to Pakistan.
Pakistan had to fight with hands tied behind their back. Fight an opponent 10 times larger.

You still had to sign a defence treaty with the Soviet Union, and get the blessings from major powers, before you had the guts to attack East Pakistan, in West Pakistan, you couldn't do jacksh.t

Between September and November 1971, Indira Gandhi visited every major European country, plus America to get their blessing. No Indian leader has had such a condensed travel schedule, the only purpose was to get the asirwad, and do some bootlicking.

Don't talk BS, talk facts. <<<"


">>>China did take over Arunachal Pradesh and Ladakh in 1962,
then gave it back as a charity to you beggars. After you went begging to America and the rest of the world, you even begged Pakistan, Nehru wrote a sickening letter to Ayub Khan, so shameful.

At that time China and India had similar levels of development. Please stop your BS. <<<"

come back with legitimate source as i did then claim anything. (natural source)

Again incorrect information. You might wanna read american secret papers from 1969 to 1974 (Also quoted in Conflict and diplomacy by Maj Gen SP Bhatia and Jaswant Singh). Richard Nixon and Henry Kissenger called Indians pathological liars (Just stating their statement) because the number of refugees was exaggerated by Indians as a pretext to carry out their subversive activities against Pakistan. Also US sided more with India than Pakistan in 1971, a fact which can be proved by American secret cables between American ambassador to Pakistan and India.

Read the history properly. thank you..
suggest to just go thru international sources.

most funny part you are saying that US was supporting to Soviet ally during the cold war. isn't that funny?

also, ypu customized the hole story by saying that the conversation of Richard Nixon and Henry Kissenger was related to refugees.... it is just a good custom story from your side.

i provided the source of UN website... now even people are saying that it is wrong. thats great... means only Pakistani source are reliable for you.. enjoy...

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

 

[Chhatrapati]

I know we have micro issue within the nation but since India constantly keeps controlling our government we can't fix our dam issues.

India literally gave a Kilo class Sub to Myanmar while saying the same fk BS that they love Bangladesh , they turned a blind eye and didn't want to to help Bangladesh solve the Royhinga crisis.

We don't have Chinese spies in Bangladesh , all we have are Indian slaves and Indian spies

Cause Bangladesh's is India's last hope since India is surrounded on all sides

You make claims without showing much facts. What is their to control in Bangladesh? Oil, Mines, any rare gems that come out of BD that India wants? I don't understand why would India control a government in a country like BD. They are mostly corrupt, and as seen from recent events, even your army is neck deep in corruption, and your Army generals don't come to India for safe haven, they leave to East Asia or Middle East.

Myanmar is as much as an important neighbour as Bangladesh. Myanmar requested the subs, we sold them Kilo. Most of the weapons for Myanmar comes from China, both China and Russia helped Myanmar from getting sanctioned on Rohingya issue at UNSC. But Bangladeshi blame India. We simply stayed out of the whole Rohingya mess.

Why should we help Bangladesh or Myanmar? By helping any one country, it means siding against the other and as I said before, we have a volatile situation in NE which we don't want to mess up by acting against anyone be it BD or MM.

Bangladesh is a country surrounded by India from almost all three sides and a hostile neighbor to the east. When India prosper the benefit of it will be to all of its friendly neighbours.

Your allegations of India interfering in politics is mostly overblown.

 

[SpaceMan18]

You make claims without showing much facts. What is their to control in Bangladesh? Oil, Mines, any rare gems that come out of BD that India wants? I don't understand why would India control a government in a country like BD. They are mostly corrupt, and as seen from recent events, even your army is neck deep in corruption, and your Army generals don't come to India for safe haven, they leave to East Asia or Middle East.

Myanmar is as much as an important neighbour as Bangladesh. Myanmar requested the subs, we sold them Kilo. Most of the weapons for Myanmar comes from China, both China and Russia helped Myanmar from getting sanctioned on Rohingya issue at UNSC. But Bangladeshi blame India. We simply stayed out of the whole Rohingya mess.

Why should we help Bangladesh or Myanmar? By helping any one country, it means siding against the other and as I said before, we have a volatile situation in NE which we don't want to mess up by acting against anyone be it BD or MM.

Bangladesh is a country surrounded by India from almost all three sides and a hostile neighbor to the east. When India prosper the benefit of it will be to all of its friendly neighbours.

Your allegations of India interfering in politics is mostly overblown.

No it's not , I don't to provide evidence all the evidence is shown by how BJP sees Bangladesh. India has no allies but itself.

The reason India wants to control Bangladesh it's cause it doesn't want it to become another Chinese puppet like Myanmar that's all.

India knows if it loses Bangladesh it ain't gonna look pretty , also India is very divided due to multiple ethnic groups so good luck on that.

multiple states even want to leave but of course India won't let em

 

[PakistaniAtBahrain]

Back in 1962 when Chinese asked Ayub to side with China, Ayub didn't side with China citing the promise of Jinnah.

that is a blunder and a half. could have had all of Kashmir had we accepted that offer. but the record shows that Pakistan has never sought war with India. we always want peace, as long as India is ready to do justice and live to their end of the bargain.

 

[Baibars_1260]

you are saying whatever is fit for present scenario. but during the 1971, India was not powerful enough to ignore UN.

Another Hilarious comment:
Why were you "strong enough" to
resist THIS UN resolution in 1971?

U.N.'S CALL FOR TRUCE IS REJECTED (Published 1971)

Indian UN delegates deride UN Gen Assembly cease-fire resolution, saying they will neither cease fighting nor withdraw troops; Pakistani delegates say it is up to India to stop fighting; Amb Shahi, referring to resolution's call for refugee return, says Pakistan refuses to negotiate with Bengali...

www.nytimes.com

"UNITED NATIONS, N. Y., Dec. 8—
Indian delegates today derided the General Assembly's call for a cease‐fire in the war with Pakistan and indicated India would not obey it. The Pakistani delegation expressed strong reservations about its terms.

One Indian delegate, N. P. Jain, called it “much too vague” and another, Narendra Singh, asked whether India would stop fighting and pull her troops back, said:

“Certiiinly not; we are not foolish.”

now no one cares.. UN can't do anything now even if they take decision against us then we will never follow.

Just 13 days later you followed the UN resolution on a ceasefire when the US Task Force 74 was threatening your rear, and you got a drubbing in the Chamb Jhaurian Sector and there was no hope of a breakthrough on the Western Front.
So what changed?
Did Sam Bahadur forget to comb his mustache that day ?
Or is it because you respect the danda ?
You fight only the weak and bend over when faced with odds.

ODS HOME PAGE

Multilingual interface of the UN Official Documents System

documents-dds-ny.un.org

United Nations Security Council Resolution 307 - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Who cares what the UN does?. China was not even a member of the UN in 1962 and beat the stuffing out of you.
Your UN is not going to get your Kashmir back or provide you protection in a nuclear war ( no ceasefire there).
You have two permanent enemies on your border that Sam Bahadur has no answer to ( God rest his soul ).
So what DID you get out of your "victory " in 1971 ?

 

[Old School]

The most obsessed people with 1971 are in fact, Bengali Hindus from West Bengal (India) followed by secular Bengalis from Bangladesh. Very few Pakistanis or even Non Bengali Indians talk about 1971 these days. I have working relationships with government/non-governmental Indians (inside and outside India) for the last 30 years and the most difficult Indians I have ever come across are the 'Bengali Indians' from West Bengal. Even other Indians find them to be bizzare.

 

[Baibars_1260]

India's document of shame !

Security Council resolution 307 (1971)

unmogip.unmissions.org

India actually accepted this UN resolution.( Resolution 307 dated 21 December 1971. )

PDF document:

https://unmogip.unmissions.org/file/2254/download?token=Cpvz3zVJ

1. Demands that a durable cease-fire and cessation of all hostilities in all areas of conflict be strictly observed and remain in effect until withdrawals take place, as soon as practicable, of all armed forces to their respective territories and to positions which fully respect the cease-fire line in Jammu and Kashmir supervised by the United Nations Military Observer Group in India and Pakistan;

2. Calls upon all Member States to refrain from any continent or endanger international peace;

 

[Baibars_1260]

@Raj-Hindustani

If 50 years later the 1971 "victory " resulted in this situation then we need to redefine victory :

Nuclear War? How Kashmir Could Still Cause an Indo-Pakistan War in 2020

A conflict best avoided.

nationalinterest.org

 

[peagle]

come back with legitimate source as i did then claim anything. (natural source)

Source? are you out of your mind?

You reply to my statement,
then create your own argument, that has nothing to do with the discussion, and have not justified why what you said is relevant, or important.

And yet, you expect me to follow your fantasies. You need help.

Get a life, and get a brain, then come back and have discussion,
i've come across some BSh.ters, but you top them all.

 

[peagle]

that is a blunder and a half. could have had all of Kashmir had we accepted that offer. but the record shows that Pakistan has never sought war with India. we always want peace, as long as India is ready to do justice and live to their end of the bargain.

@Vapnope

That statement is actually not true,

America and UK put enormous pressure on Pakistan, not to do anything, to a point they made it clear they will side with India.
They saved their Indian baby.

It needs to be remembered, that America delivered nearly 1 billion dollars worth of weapons to India, within weeks, and delivered it to the front lines, where it was needed.

Let's get out of the habit of putting all the blame on ourselves, we have been backstabbed too many times, and we keep forgetting. No country, let alone Pakistan, can stand up to American pressure, especially back in 1962.

 

[Baibars_1260]

@Raj-Hindustani

The aftermath:
Refer to interview in this Link

"In the interview, the former COAS also said how he had to face severe problems back in the country following his visit to Pakistan. He added that the bureaucrats, ministers complained against him stating that he treated Pakistani soldiers just like he treated his sons-in-law.
Even, the then Prime Minister Indira Gandhi had called for a cabinet meeting to the issue.
Wow !

Field Marshal Manekshaw said that he explained to Mrs Gandhi, stating that they were soldiers, who ‘fought and fought extremely well and lost’.

Question for you:

1. Does a "victorious" army praise its enemy?
2. Why didn't Manekshaw praise his allied fighting men from Bangladesh the same way ?