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

[N.Siddiqui]

Still could not get what the fuss about Bangladesh getting separated from west Pakistan.

-In 14th August when the areas which was Muslim dominated got separated from British India(not India as a country) the east Bengal that formed East Pakistan was geographically, linguistically, culturally, ethnically a separate land and area about 2200 kms away from west Pakistan, just calling it east Pakistan doesn't made it anything closer to Pakistan.

-And the idea of Pakistan was about creating a homeland(or homelands) for Muslims in area where they have the dominant numbers, so Bangladesh is still a Muslim country as the ides of freedom still hold true.

-So the two nation theory is still relevant today, Bangladesh didn't merged with India.

Call it Bangladesh or East Pakistan, the idea was about freedom for Muslim dominated areas....still holds true. It could have have been a separate country in 47 too.

 

[PAKISTANFOREVER]

Please comment on the discussion below:

https://defence.pk/pdf/goto/post?id=12973063

I would have agreed with you if the declassified documents 50 years later had not been revealed. India lost the civilizational battle against Muslims in 1947. ( Note, I used the word Muslims not Pakistan).
East Pakistan or Bangladesh as it is now known is still majority Muslim.
India was inimical to the existence of Pakistan for the first few years after independence and had hoped Pakistan would collapse on its own.
Once the carnage of Partition was over India tried to adopt a secular political structure, and its enmity to Pakistan ( at that time) was not so much religious, but an admission of the failure of a secular character of an anti-colonial struggle. India was loathe to be seen as a sectarian communal state in the aftermath of World War 2 that had seen the most horrific excesses of religious persecution.
Once India realized that Pakistan would survive it concentrated on recovering the rest of Kashmir, or at least threaten Pakistan on the IB so that Pakistan gives up its claims on the rest of Kashmir. The 1965 war was a stark reality check exposing the limits of India's military power.

An even bigger reality check was the aftermath of the 1971 war. India, having a multilingual structure itself was loathe to encourage parochial linguistic chauvinism which could erupt back home ( and it did ! ). Pakistan could no longer be held hostage by its Eastern Wing. The Indian armed forces had failed to deliver a victory in the West and capture Azad Kashmir .
Pakistan would survive to retain Azad Kashmir, and rearm, rebuild and resist India for the foreseeable future. With its "1000 year victory" India had got more than it bargained for. Which is why India went for a disengagement and territory swap just a few weeks after the ceasefire in February 1972 and just seven month later initiated peace talks.

There is a difference between the secular centrist left leaning government in power in India back in 1971, and the fascist regime ruling India today.

What gangu fanatics need to realize is that their dream of a "united india" or "akhand bhrat" is dead and dusted forever. Funny how indians never complain or mention anything about reclaiming Myanmar even though it was a part of a "united india" under the British raj.

 

[Raj-Hindustani]

Reminder : Topic of the thread : The aftermath of 1971

Questions :
1. Why didn't India take back the 35% Kashmir ( held by Pakistan) in 1971 ?

2.Why didn't India take back the 35% Kashmir ( held by Pakistan) in 1986 ( Siachen Conflict) ?

3. Why didn't India take back the 35% Kashmir ( held by Pakistan) in 1999 during the Kargil war ?

4. Why didn't India take back the 35% Kashmir ( held by Pakistan) in 2019 ( post-Phulwama attack ) ?

5. When is it forecast that India will take back 35% of Kashmir held by Pakistan?

1971 war was not happened due to J& K...... It was happened due to issues in Bangladesh. it is very straight and simple...

India never tried to get back PAK kashmir and GB by force. After 1947-48, Pakistan tried once in 1965 but ending with saving the Lahore.

Futher, there is no physical war happened for kashmir...... only siachen war 1984 (Won by India) and a blunder by PAK in Kargil 1999.

Firstly, there is no cross referencing or source confirmation in the above article and secondly there is no specific mention of india having annexed 65% of Kashmir in 1947. There is a brief mention of China having annexed 38,000 square kms of indian territory. Thus this article is not credible.

do the simple mathematics, Man...... if india lost to china 38,000 square kms in 1962 then it also means that India was controlling present + 38,000 square kms (J&K) after 1947 war against Pakistan. And, I believed that PAK source will be only reliable& credible for you!

 

[Markandeya]

The record needs to be set straight:

There were no more than 55,000 soldiers in East Pakistan, facing a combined force of nearly 9 times that amount. The figure of 93,000 surrendered is absolutely rubbish. In fact, the kill:death ratio of the army in East Pakistan is actually the best out of any conflict.

Another rubbish figure is 3,000,000 killed and 400,000 raped, which not even Bangladesh could prove. In fact, half of the genocide victims were Biharis and Pro Pakistani Bengalis.

Pakistan did not surrender to India. The Instrument of Surrender is to Bangladesh. If Pakistan surrendered to India then India would be in control of Kashmir, West Pakistan, and East Pakistan.

Pakistan was not defeated on the western front. India wasted time occupying miles of empty desert sand, while Pakistan captured land in the fertile lands of Punjab. In Kashmir, Pakistan liberated Chamb which can be used to attack Akhnoor and Jammu, while India occupied a few barren, cold, hills in Baltistan which are of no use.

9,000 Pak army soldiers died from MARCH to DECEMBER. The amount which died from the point when India intervened is far less.

The PAF suffered less casualties than the IAF.

Pakistan itself published STAMP with 90 K POW to seek help in getting them released. Can you imagine what it communicated to the world.

Avertissement de redirection

images.app.goo.gl

 

[Baibars_1260]

1971 war was not happened due to J& K...... It was happened due to issues in Bangladesh. it is very straight and simple...

India never tried to get back PAK kashmir and GB by force. After 1947-48, Pakistan tried once in 1965 but ending with saving the Lahore.

Futher, there is no war physical happened for kashmir...... only siachen war 1984 (Won by India) and a blunder by PAK in Kargil 1999.


do the simple mathematics, Man...... if india lost to china 38,000 square kms in 1962 then it means that India was controlling present + 38,000 square kms after 1947 war against Pakistan.

Wasn't there fighting in J & K in 1971 ?

So has India given up on the territory controlled by Pakistan?

Why does India show Pakistan held Kashmir as Indian territory ?

How does India intend to get it's territory back ?

 

[PAKISTANFOREVER]

1971 war was not happened due to J& K...... It was happened due to issues in Bangladesh. it is very straight and simple...

India never tried to get back PAK kashmir and GB by force. After 1947-48, Pakistan tried once in 1965 but ending with saving the Lahore.

Futher, there is no war physical happened for kashmir...... only siachen war 1984 (Won by India) and a blunder by PAK in Kargil 1999.


do the simple mathematics, Man...... if india lost to china 38,000 square kms in 1962 then it also means that India was controlling present + 38,000 square kms (J&K) after 1947 war against Pakistan. And, I believed that PAK source will be only reliable& credible for you!

Again, you are throwing out meaningless conjectures WITHOUT any factual basis or CREDIBLE evidence whatsoever. You are seriously deviating from your ACTUAL claims. As per your initial claims, provide GENUINE, CREDIBLE & IRREFUATBLE evidence that india annexed 65% of Kashmir in 1948. WHERE is it?

 

[Raj-Hindustani]

Again, you are throwing out meaningless conjectures WITHOUT any factual basis or CREDIBLE evidence whatsoever. You are seriously deviating from your ACTUAL claims. As per your initial claims, provide GENUINE, CREDIBLE & IRREFUATBLE evidence that india annexed 65% of Kashmir in 1948. WHERE is it?

I already provided but you will not trust even if I will provide many international sources. you just want and believe on Pakistan sources. So sorry, you won... please trust on your pakistani sources whatever they say.

Wasn't there fighting in J & K in 1971 ?

So has India given up on the territory controlled by Pakistan?

Why does India show Pakistan held Kashmir as Indian territory ?

How does India intend to get it's territory back ?

Wasn't there fighting in J & K in 1971 ?

So has India given up on the territory controlled by Pakistan?

Why does India show Pakistan held Kashmir as Indian territory ?

How does India intend to get it's territory back ?

Unlike other people, I am not a fancy man to believe on Akhand bharat, gajwa a hind or khalistan.

Pakistan will always talk about Indian held kashmir and politicians will never allow to accept that it is a dead case now.

Same goes to India and Indian politicians, They will always talk about Pak held kashmir and GB for political benefits.

But, at the ground...... NO one will do anything to get back...

 

[Indus Pakistan]

India got 65% of jammu and kashmir in 1947.

You need to answer these questions -

• who did Maharajah of Kashmir give his state to?
• what % did he give to India?

The answer to the first is India and the answer to the second is 100%. Please refer to the Instrument of Accession it does not state 65%. So you now need to ask is why despite being far larger than Pakistan and having had wars Indian Army has failed to get the 100% of Kashmir. Instead the number is 65% and stuck there?

Listen to this Indian analyst at 14:55 and 15:30

 

[PAKISTANFOREVER]

I already provided but you will not trust even I can provide many international sources because you just want and believe on Pakistan sources. So sorry, you won... please trust on your pakistani sources whatever they say.





Unlike other people, I am not a fancy man to believe on Akhand bharat, gajwa a hind or khalistan.

Pakistan will always talk about Indian held kashmir and politicians will never allow to accept that it is a dead case now.

Same goes to India and Indian politicians, They will always talk about Pak held kashmir and GB for political benefits.

But, at the ground...... NO one will do anything to get back...

In other words, there is NO CREDIBLE, GENUINE & IRREFUATABLE EVIDENCE that india annexed 65% of Kashmir in 1947/48......................................................if you are going to lie then at least TRY to make it plausible................................................

You need to answer these questions -

• who did Maharajah of Kashmir give his state to?
• what % did he give to India?

The answer to the first is India and the answer to the second is 100%. Please refer to the Instrument of Accession it does not state 65%. So you now need to ask is why despite being far larger than Pakistan and having had wars Indian Army has failed to get the 100% of Kashmir. Instead the number is 65% and stuck there?

Listen to this Indian analyst at 14:55 and 15:30

Bro, I have already exposed this troll. He can't provide ANY credible and genuine evidence for his claims....................

 

[Raj-Hindustani]

In other words, there is NO CREDIBLE, GENUINE & IRREFUATABLE EVIDENCE that india annexed 65% of Kashmir in 1947/48......................................................if you are going to lie then at least TRY to make it plausible................................................

Sorry, as per your dictionary. Pakistan sources are only reliable and trusted.

So, I have already accepted that You are correct, please believe on Pakistani sources whatever they say.

I will not waste my time by even providing international sources (natural) because you will not accept.

 

[arjunk]

Pakistan itself published STAMP with 90 K POW to seek help in getting them released. Can you imagine what it communicated to the world.

Avertissement de redirection

images.app.goo.gl

When did I say 90K PoWs were not taken? Of the 90k, at most 55,000 were Pak Army. The rest are civillians. Even I personally know a few of these civillian PoWs.

 

[Baibars_1260]

Unlike other people, I am not a fancy man to believe on Akhand bharat, gajwa a hind or khalistan.
Pakistan will always talk about Indian held kashmir and politicians will never allow to accept that it is a dead case now.

Same goes to India and Indian politicians, They will always talk about Pak held kashmir and GB for political benefits.

You didn't answer my question as to whether the theater of conflict in the 1971 war included J & K. ?

So I will answer it for you. Yes, India did attempt to take over Azad Kashmir in 1971 but had very limited success. India did not try to takeover Lahore in 1971 either, because based on its earlier experience it lacked the capability to do so.

With reference to the current regime in power in India only ; it is not because India does not want to takeover Kashmir or Pakistan but it can't.
Declassified documents of 50 years back show that powerful Indian foreign policy advisors and policy makers ( far more powerful than India's foreign minister himself), D.P. Dhar, and P.N. Haksar had already chartered a course for Indian Pakistani relations beyond 1971 and Bangladesh was already a non-issue.
India gained nothing from its victory Bangladesh, other than more population displacement of Hindus, Chakma Buddhists, and is now facing even more displaced population movement due to an environmental disaster wrought by climate change.

But, at the ground...... NO one will do anything to get back...

Wasn't the Simla Agreement supposed to kickstart an acknowledgment of the realities on the ground? Who derailed the agreement?

Was it worth creating an additional nuclear threat to your nation?

 

[PAKISTANFOREVER]

Sorry, as per your dictionary. Pakistan sources are only reliable and trusted.

So, I have already accepted that You are correct, please believe on Pakistani sources whatever they say.

I will not waste my time by even providing international sources (natural) because you will not accept.

Don't use Pakistani sources. DEFINITELY do not use indian BIGGEST FAKE NEWS & PROPAGANDA factory in the world, sources. Find CREDIBLE, GENUINE & IRREFUTABLE evidence from INDEPENDENT sources to confirm that india annexed 65% of Kashmir in 1947/48 as per your initial claims.

 

[Baibars_1260]

But, at the ground...... NO one will do anything to get back...

Why didn't India hold East Pakistan in 1971, and offer to exchange it for Azad Kashmir?

Wouldn't that have been a real victory? Isn't that what your Cold Start doctrine is all about?

 

[SpaceMan18]

4 Years into Liberation, 1975 Bangladeshis killed Sheikh Mujib. That year alone had 3 coups.
1982 Another military coup in Bangladesh
2007 a military coup following a political crisis

You had more coups than Pakistan, and you say India is keeping BD down. It is because of the political instability, who would want to invest in such a place? When you have stability now, you have investments and development.

I wasn't talking about investments , I was talking about the Indian governments BS intelligence agency not wanting us to grow on the military side and economic side , it's not political stability it's your countries dam influence in the first place

Don't act like India doesn't dictate Bangladesh , why do we have so many Indian government slaves here then ? Exactly