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

[Paul2]

Question to Pakistanis.

How is 1971 taught in your secondary schools?

 

[Baibars_1260]

When army chief blamed Bangladeshi people for being killed by BSF? Show me any proof instaed of spinning lie. Our BGB chief once said that, smugglers have to stop violating international border if they don't want to get killed. What's wrong with this statement? BGB always protest when BSF kill any unarmed civilian inside Bangladesh. Our govt. is trying to solve this problem peacefully through dialogue with Indian counterpart.

Jail killing happened as coup ledership thought the national four leaders who were very close to recently slain Sheikh Mujib are too dangerous to be alive. As they were dedicated Awami League leaders and could form resistance to their rules, so they eliminated the potential rivals. Why do you think, Bolsheviks killed the family of Czar? They could have only get rid of Czar himself while sparing the lives of his minor son and daughters. But they did not. The motif of jail killing was the same.

Join me here:
Comment on the report below:

U.S. feared India would intervene in Bangladesh after coup

Soon after the 1975 coup in Bangladesh when President Sheikh Mujibur Rehman was assassinated , the United States believed that India would make a militarily intervention. Fresh evidence of the U.S.’ c

www.thehindu.com

"During conversation at a reception January 3, an officer of Bangladesh deputy high commission told me, in response to my question about how relations are going between Bangladesh and India, that Indians are harboring and training Bangladesh opposition personalities and force,” said a cable from the American consulate in Calcutta"

 

[peagle]

Officially India has hushed it up. There is no official acknowledgment regret or mention of this carnage carried out by the puppet Maharaja's militia.
There are some neutral committed journalists and historians still around in India ( but not for long) who continue to expose the truth at the risk of their lives.
India's revisionist history is so effective that few people in India believe the massacre of Jammu Muslims ( or Muslims in Haryana, Bihar and Punjab ) ever took place . The eye witnesses are dead, and all that remains are declassified British intelligence files in London's India House for foreign historians to study ( Example : British MI6 officer Captain A. Martin's account of the massacre of Muslims in Bihar in 1946.) Even these documents will soon be gone as India demands possession of these from U.K. after declassification.
India's official narrative is that Hindus were the only victims of the partition violence. As India redefines itself into its fascist mold it perceives itself as the victor to re-write history.


Pakistan doesn't credit irregulars for taking Kashmir, but its own regular armed forces that saved the situation. The irregulars only beat the daylights out of the Maharaja's tinpot army ( scum fighting scum). Instead of concentrating on a tactical consolidation of the gains as any professional army would have done the irregulars started plunder and massacres of the minority population. The irregulars got thrashed by the Indian army, until the regular Pakistan army intervened. Pakistan sent the irregular forces back to where they came from, and beat off the Indian army's attempts to regain territory it lost.
We already agreed that Pakistan should have prevented the irregulars from carrying out atrocities, and punished those responsible.



Read what I wrote again. Pakistan should have been apologetic about atrocities committed by irregulars . Few nations actually take responsibility for the actions of irregular allied forces. In Bangladesh, India has never been apologetic about a hundred thousand Pakistani's of Indian origin being killed by its ally Mukti Bahini irregulars either, even though the Mukti Bahini was under its command.

There is a reason why Pakistan used irregulars in the first place, when Pakistan could in theory have it's regular forces, more easily.
As with India the Pakistan's armed forces were then still commanded by a British general ( General Douglas Gracey) , and still staffed by a significant number of senior British officers. Pakistan's COAS General Douglas Gracey refused the demand of his own government to militarily intervene in Kashmir citing the presence of British officers who would end up fighting their colleagues still serving in the Indian army were India to intervene militarily also. General Gracey in fact had already been in touch with his counter part in India General Claude Auchinleck. Since August 1947 the Pakistan Army had been heavily involved trying to restore law and order in Punjab as well as in East Pakistan suppressing communal riots, and in September was still dispersed, and under equipped since the bulk of its equipment had been commandeered by India and left behind after Partition. Additionally a significant section of the Pakistan Army was stranded in East Pakistan with no way of redeployment to the west. Pakistan had no navy , or even a civilian Merchant Marine to move assets from east to west. There was no air connection either as there were no transport aircraft with a virtually non-existent air force comprised of 3 ramshackle Dakota aircraft short of spares and fuel.

Since the Maharaja's tin pot army was only good for butchering his own civilians, sending in irregulars seemed to be an only option. Scum fighting scum !

Not that Indian COAS Auchinleck's own relations with his government were any better.
Sending a report to British Government on 28 September 1947 Auchinleck wrote: "I have no hesitation, whatever, in affirming that the present Indian Cabinet are implacably determined to do all in their power to prevent the establishment of the Dominion of Pakistan on firm basis." He stated in the second, political part of his assessment, "Since 15th August, the situation has steadily deteriorated and the Indian leaders, cabinet ministers, civil officials and others have persistently tried to obstruct the work of partition of the armed forces."

Following severe disagreements with India's defence minister by November 1947 Auchinleck had resigned his command to General Roy Bucher. Almost all his British officers went home.
Meanwile Pakistani COAS General Gracey was reconstructing the Pakistan Army under his command, and removed the British officers still serving. By May 1948 he was ready to face his counter part Indian General Roy Bucher and troops in Kashmir commanded by General Cariappa. Nice war game !
Two British Generals commanding Indian and Pakistani troops fighting each other. General Douglas Gracey was one of the most brilliant British commanders and even with limited forces under his command with no airpower he held a far superior Indian army to a stalemate that sent India running to the UN. If Pakistan holds Azad Kashmir today it is because of General Douglas Gracey who was respected and honored by the men he commanded. As Roy Bucher would have said
" Jolly Good Show old chap ! ".


There were many second rate Indian Army officers serving with the Maharaja's tinpot army. They were fired by their religious fervor preferring the communal savagery of the environment in Kashmir to the secular professionalism of the still British commanded Indian army.
I already linked you the instance of Rajinder Singh in Muzaffarabad who came a cropper trying to defend his positions.Even with these British trained officers leading the Maharaja's forces were no match for the Afridi tribesmen.


Yes, the Indian political setup fired up a communal environment whuch caused a degradation of the secular mindset amongst mid and junior level Indian Army officers, many of whom deserted to fight on behalf of Hari Singh and his savages. The Indian Army was still commanded by senior British officers who have mentioned the break down of discipline. In November 1947, Indian COAS Claude Auchinleck resigned because of political interference in the armed forces affairs.



Read again what I wrote. The Indian Army could not have intervened in Kashmir without a directive from India's political establishment. India's political establishment was keen to let Maharaja Hari Singh "finish the job" of cleansing Muslims out of Jammu and reducing the population.
Those renegade officers like "Lt.Gen." Katoch who served in Hari Singh's murderous outfit were never punished and today are lauded as heroes for their war crimes.
Once again to end your confusion:
Neither the Indian Army nor the Pakistan Army committed war crimes against civilians in Kashmir during operations from 1947-1949. British officers serving on both sides would have reported these events to British intelligence and recorded them in their memoirs.


Of course ! The Sikh tinpot Raja's who butchered their Muslim subjects in the states of Patiala, Kapurthala, Jind, were to be forgiven too. Their "scores" were much lower in the few thousands.



Sure, and so it is always justified as what aboutery the massacre of Muslims in Hyderabad under General Chaudhary was justified also.
You kill my dog, I kill your cat. That is how a "rising superpower" revises history.



Oh it is always political compulsions isn't it ? Demolishing a "disputed structure", declaring it sacred on the basis of belief by the Apex court, letting those who perpetrated the crimes go scot free, honoring lynchers. When were political compulsions not there ? Similarly Pakistan has "political compulsions " too in not punishing those irregulars who committed atrocities. Hum sab nangey hain.



Of course . So Hindu tyrant massacring Muslims must be given leeway to gently accede to India, and a Muslim tyrant massacring Hindu subjects must be dealt with militarily .
India has a religion, Hindutva .

As they say here in America...
"Its a Hindu Muslim issue stupid ! "



India stepped in to gain territory not to "stop the madness ". India could have stopped the "madness " much earlier. India did nothing to call for the return of 7 million Jammu refugees because it was comfortable with the level of bloodshed that had happened already and the reduction of Muslims in Jammu.
India went to the UN after General Gracey's brilliant campaign halted India's advance northwards.




Blame it on the terrain. . With armor and airpower India could have penetrated into Sialkot and attacked Azad Kashmir from the rear.
It didn't because India feared an all out war with a depleted foot soldier Pakistan Army paid rations by barter and salary on rubber stamped currency not worth the paper it was printed on. Says volumes for your courage.




Glad you acknowledge the atrocities on both sides. In your earlier posts it was always Pakistan that is "bad".




Reminder :
No country becomes a super-power with a threat on its borders that it can't neutralize. The USA would never have been a superpower if it had not subdued Mexico in the 19th century and compromised with Canada later. Economic power alone doesn't guarantee superpower status. Japan and Germany are powerful economies in Asia and Europe but having lost their military power in the World War 2 are not superpowers.
India with a number 94 ranking on the global hunger index and overpopulated with the world's largest population of illiterates, blind, and lepers will not be either a military or economic superpower in the foreseeable future.
In Pakistan we have our rubber stamps handy.
@peagle @PakistaniAtBahrain

You write exceedingly well,
are you sure you have not written any books?


p.s.
I hadn't received the notification, only saw you tagged me while I was reading.

 

[peagle]

@magra @peagle
Would like to have your take on Karan Singh's interview to Print on Kashmir.

Interesting angle on the Dogra Kashmiri relationship .
Even more interesting is Karan Singh's views on Indian Prime Minister Indira Gandhi's advisors and their handling of the aftermath of the 1971 war,
All five advisors were Kashmiri Pundits.

I watched it, the same day it was shown, though I'll listen for 5 minutes and ended up watching the whole thing.

No views, it was interesting, some new tidbits of information, but nothing to get my brain cells active. There are too many polished statements among Indians, everything is in shades of grays or total lies. Still, one always learns something, even from lies.

I have to say again, you are far too gentle in your interpretation of history. It's a disease among Pakistanis, that even I suffer from, but to a lesser degree with the advancing years.

 

[peagle]

This thread is about the aftermath of the Pakistan India war in 1971 . Basically we are discussing the events from December 16, 1971 onwards. The war continued on the western front till December 21, 1971, when the UN ceasefire was unilaterally accepted by India. We agree on the background of the Civil War, but it is out of the context of this thread.

The Kashmir issue is being discussed because the 1971 war left that unresolved. The Simla Accord was a way forward but was not implemented. Pakistan's Civil War is not an issue between India and Pakistan and became irrelevant after Pakistan lost the war in the east .

The Simla Accord just 7 months later doesn't even mention East Pakistan, or Bangladesh, or the "victory ". It only mentions further discussions to exchange prisoners of war. Bangladesh as a nation has nothing to do with bi-lateral relations between Pakistan and India. After the trilateral accords in Delhi in 1973, and 1974 for repatriation and exchange of prisoners (which the parliaments and national assemblies in both India and Pakistan ratified ) there was nothing left to discuss so far as Bangladesh is concerned. Bangladesh never ratified the accords but that is no concern of either Pakistan or India.

Since 1971 both India and Pakistan have developed nuclear weapons.
The issue between India and Pakistan is no longer the territory of Kashmir or "defeat" or "victory" in past wars.
There is a religion based hatred by the regime in India against both its own minority and by extension against Pakistan and it's people. India sees its religious minority, and the population of Pakistan as one enemy. For the regime in India an attack on Pakistan is just another version of a pogrom that is frequently unleashed against its own minority.
The hatred is based off a narrative of revenge for perceived wrongs that happened 1000 years back. So my nation must be nuked in revenge for a 1000 year old event .In the latter part of the video linked in my previous post Dr. Karan Singh is discussing just that .Going forward we must either accept the positions of our respective countries as it stands and drop the desire for revenge or face mutual destruction.

You've mentioned the issue is not about the territory of Kashmir any longer previously and I've disputed your claim. It is a very dangerous and unrealistic statement, contrary to the facts on hand. While you may be justified in saying it is no longer "only" about that, not correct but justified, or in saying it has become a wider dispute and a civilizational dispute, but to say it is no longer about Kashmir is extremely simplistic and you'd be guilty of reaching for lazy conclusions.

Kashmir has been, still is, and will always be central to Pakistan India relations until there is a mutual 3-way resolution, now one could say 4-way because China is right there, it's not going anywhere

 

[peagle]

Question to Pakistanis.

How is 1971 taught in your secondary schools?

Sorry, unable to help, I was relocated at a young age. Although I am not aware with regards to your question. But among the wider public, there are various views. At the basic level, people blame themselves as Pakistanis for not getting things right, but also the Bengalis for being disloyal. And India for taking advantage of a domestic situation and spreading poison and terrorism.

The above feelings tend to defer from person to person, depending on their personal knowledge, religiosity, and political beliefs. Increasingly more information is coming out and there is a greater amount of anger towards India. Pakistan had not attacked India in 1962 when China beat India to death, rather than being thankful, India spread terrorism and fuelled local fires.

 

[magra]

Sorry, unable to help, I was relocated at a young age. Although I am not aware with regards to your question. But among the wider public, there are various views. At the basic level, people blame themselves as Pakistanis for not getting things right, but also the Bengalis for being disloyal. And India for taking advantage of a domestic situation and spreading poison and terrorism.

The above feelings tend to defer from person to person, depending on their personal knowledge, religiosity, and political beliefs. Increasingly more information is coming out and there is a greater amount of anger towards India. Pakistan had not attacked India in 1962 when China beat India to death, rather than being thankful, India spread terrorism and fuelled local fires.

If tomorrow, lets say millions of Indians from Gujarat, Rajasthan Punjab, J&K start flooding Pakistan for refuge, will Pak take no action but would just keep on feeding refugees till eternity?

 

[Baibars_1260]

If tomorrow, lets say millions of Indians from Gujarat, Rajasthan Punjab, J&K start flooding Pakistan for refuge, will Pak take no action but would just keep on feeding refugees till eternity?

This might happen...

We accommodated 4 million refugees from Afghanistan when your Soviet ally pushed them over with a loud applause from Delhi (in case you missed that) .

( Link )
"Forty years ago, Afghans began fleeing the violence in their country and seeking refuge across nearby borders. More than 400,000 people fled the violence of the Communist-led Taraki and Amin government, crossing over into Pakistan. The numbers progressively swelled after the Soviet invasion on Christmas Eve in 1979. By the end of 1980, there were more than four million Afghan refugees in Pakistan. Over the next four years, that number grew further still, with more than five million refugees in Pakistan and Iran."

 

[magra]

This might happen...

We accommodated 4 million refugees from Afghanistan when your Soviet ally pushed them over with a loud applause from Delhi (in case you missed that) .

( Link )
"Forty years ago, Afghans began fleeing the violence in their country and seeking refuge across nearby borders. More than 400,000 people fled the violence of the Communist-led Taraki and Amin government, crossing over into Pakistan. The numbers progressively swelled after the Soviet invasion on Christmas Eve in 1979. By the end of 1980, there were more than four million Afghan refugees in Pakistan. Over the next four years, that number grew further still, with more than five million refugees in Pakistan and Iran."

You did not sit silently. You did enter Afghanistan (through irregulars pumped with CIA money) and fought Soviets. Soviets left Afghanistan 3 decades ago, why are the Afghan refugees still in Pak?

 

[peagle]

If tomorrow, lets say millions of Indians from Gujarat, Rajasthan Punjab, J&K start flooding Pakistan for refuge, will Pak take no action but would just keep on feeding refugees till eternity?

Honestly, this refugee story is getting a bit old,
there are two aspects to this storyline.

It is simply ridiculous to believe that India attacked because refugees were pouring in, there is so much evidence that proves India had been trying to destabilize Pakistan since independence, it eventually got the chance in East Pakistan it fueled the fires long before attacking in 1971.

Whether you choose to believe it or not is your choice, no one can force you to believe in facts.
There are people who deny the Jewish holocaust happened,
there is a flat earth society, people still believe the earth is flat,
anything can be denied and repeated, but the evidence so nakedly suggests otherwise.


Secondly, the figure of 10 million refugees is stupid beyond measure, and I'll tell you why. 10 million amounts to nothing, if you want you can make 1 million looks like 10 million, it's easy, how do you think political rallies become successful, by claiming inflated figures, this in the age of information and cameras on flying drones, still political parties are able to claim inflated numbers and get away with it.

In 1971, there was total control over information, taking people and allowing limited access to a certain number of spots, get your spin right and you can claim 100 million refugees.

West to east
Population
Year Ratio% west-Pak bangla hindu%
1951 81 34 42 22
1961 86 43 50 18.4
1974 95.8 68 71 13.5
1981 96.5 84 87 12.1

Above are population figures for both wings and the ratio of the west Pakistani population to the East and the percentage of Hindus. There is an almost uniform similarity between the ratio of the west and east Pakistan population share, with predicted growth, except the 1974 figures, it shows the numbers do not make sense, the ratio between the two wings is gradually reducing because most immigration happened in the West and the resultant population growth.

It points towards some wizardry in numbers in the 1970's. Plus there has been a constant decline of Hindu population, who obviously went to India, that decline has been a reduction not related to the civil war, that's an extra number of people to show as refugees.

Plus all studies show, that once people become refugees it is very hard to get them back to their homeland, even after a conflict has been resolved, there is trauma and fear, lack of uncertainty, and other factors, if they were in India they would not have gone back so quickly, look around the world, countries with large refugee populations end up stuck with them for a long time.

Looking at the numbers they look fishy. because there has been no independent study other than media reports under heavy Indian control, the figures do not make sense and are unbelievable.
That's the refugee story, it does not make sense.

But you still cannot connect that as a reason for Indias terror activities and attack on East Pakistan. Because of all the other evidence, India has been hiding behind lies because no one asked any questions. Just by repeating it, does not make it true.


p.s.
I posted before by mistake, doing other things while writing this, and trying to ensure my figures are correct.

 

[magra]

It is simply ridiculous to believe that India attacked because refugees were pouring in, there is so much evidence that proves India had been trying to destabilize Pakistan since independence, it eventually got the chance in East Pakistan it fueled the fires long before attacking in 1971.

I do not know if India did work to destabilize Pakistan before refugee crises. Even if it did, it is a fair game to weaken your adversary. Ultimately, Pak's own troubles aided India. If there were no fissures already, India could not take any benefit.

Secondly, the figure of 10 million refugees is stupid beyond measure, and I 'l tell you why.

I dont want to debate on the actual number of refugees. If even the number was 1 million as you say, why should we continue to host 1 million refugees and not do something if we can?

 

[peagle]

I do not know if India did work to destabilize Pakistan before refugee crises. Even if it did, it is a fair game to weaken your adversary. Ultimately, Pak's own troubles aided India. If there were no fissures already, India could not take any benefit.

I agree, but that's not the issue, the issue is Indians, yourself included so far, except just now, have refused to accept it unless making empty statements, it happened, accept it and the associated implications, and move on.

But, it needs to be remembered that Pakistan did not do this in 1962, Pakistan was requested, and Pakistan agreed not to attack. If we are going to talk about peace and wish for peace in the future, the blame game has to stop, everyone needs to accept their part and move on towards a fair future, that doesn't mean accepting the status quo, but a negotiated peace.

I dont want to debate on the actual number of refugees. If even the number was 1 million as you say, why should we continue to host 1 million refugees and not do something if we can?

I already said this, you bought up the refugee figure many times before, I said it holds no meaning for me because it means nothing. and the refugees were not the cause of any conflict, it's all the other reasons.

I provided a structured answer with facts to provide my reasons. Talking like hamsters on a wheel has gotten us nowhere, it's time for our nations to move forward, sit down and talk for peace. Otherwise, we have few hundred years of headache ahead of us. I prefer peace.

 

[magra]

I agree, but that's not the issue, the issue is Indians, yourself included so far, except just now, have refused to accept it unless making empty statements, it happened, accept it and the associated implications, and move on.

I am not accepting that India actually did instigate any issues. I am saying that I do not know, but it would be fine and acceptable even if India did instigate issues.

But, it needs to be remembered that Pakistan did not do this in 1962, Pakistan was requested, and Pakistan agreed not to attack. If we are going to talk about peace and wish for peace in the future, the blame game has to stop, everyone needs to accept their part and move on towards a fair future, that doesn't mean accepting the status quo, but a negotiated peace.

Pakistan did its own calculation in 1962 and decided on the balance not to attack. It was not due to any favor to India. US had warned Pak not to enter the dispute and Pak till then was not a friend of China.
Remember China was claiming Shaksgam valley from Pak and that surrender happened only in 1963.

And then Pak did attack India in 1965, so cant claim deceit by India even if India did instigate issues.

the refugees were not the cause of any conflict, it's all the other reasons.

If not the initial cause, refugees were definitely one of the most visible and unavoidable cause. We could not have left the refugee issue linger for long.

I prefer peace.

We prefer peace too, but we do not prefer surrendering our land for it. We believe that it is a fair solution that LOC be converted to IB.

 

[peagle]

Pakistan did its own calculation in 1962 and decided on the balance not to attack. It was not due to any favor to India. US had warned Pak not to enter the dispute and Pak till then was not a friend of China.
Remember China was claiming Shaksgam valley from Pak and that surrender happened only in 1963.
And then Pak did attack India in 1965, so cant claim deceit by India even if India did instigate issues.

Whatever the reasons, if someone does a decent thing for you, it needs to be appreciated. Nehru sent a direct letter to Ayub, America and UK pressured Pakistan, effectively saving India, but in return for serious negotiations for settlement of the Kashmir dispute.
It was because the negotiations were not serious, they failed, that built up frustration and pressure on Pakistani leadership, which resulted in the 1965 war.
That's the plain truth.

If not the initial cause, refugees were definitely one of the most visible and unavoidable cause. We could not have left the refugee issue linger for long.

To linger something is to talk in terms of years, the refugees as a result of the civil war had only been there for a few months, that's not much of a timeframe.

We prefer peace too, but we do not prefer surrendering our land for it. We believe that it is a fair solution that LOC be converted to IB.

That might well be the solution, but to assume it so is to make wild assumptions. A solution is something mutually agreed, not something imposed or acceptance of the status quo, which never delivers peace. A one-sided solution will result in an endless war.

 

[Baibars_1260]

You did not sit silently. You did enter Afghanistan (through irregulars pumped with CIA money) and fought Soviets. Soviets left Afghanistan 3 decades ago, why are the Afghan refugees still in Pak?

Smart thing to do.
Those who went over to fight your ally (who once threatened to nuke us ) , were not "irregulars" but Afghan resistance immortalized in the James Bond movie "The Living Daylights".
We got F-16s to fight the Soviet Air Force and their puppet Afghan Air Force. We also got a breather to develop nuclear weapons.

We shot down Soviet planes, captured their Air Force Commander Alexander Rutskoi.
Along with our US ally and the support of other nations we defeated your ally the mighty Soviet Union . The operations are immortalized in the book by Major General Hamid Gul " The Bears Tears" .
Not bad for a country one sixth India's size. Oh wait I will say it for you :
"Don't forget 1971 ..."
We are discussing what happened after 1971. The clocks didn't stop then.