India pressuring Bangladesh to sign defense treaty

[Nilgiri]

1.If only things were that easy for occupation force than Algeria would never gained independence against France.Algeria was not a colony but constituent part of mainland France and French deployed 400,000 troops to crush the rebellion of 10 million Algerian with NATO backing.But Algerian fought for 12 years,a lot of people were died,but gained independence.In 1971,our determination for independence was no less than Algerian or Vietnamese.

France did not have a hostile nation several times larger between it and Algeria that Algeria could ask help from.

France also was not under a military dictatorship that could essentially indefinitely continue the war if it so desired.

France blinked first because at the end of 12 years they had nothing to show for all they put in....and democracy took its course.

That's a very different scenario to a hypothetical 1971 with a neutral/friendly/uninvolved India and massively armed Pakistan with a military dictatorship....that controlled East Pakistan waters and foreign merchant shipping as well.

You literally would have had to scrounge and steal in a small piece of turf with few places to hide. Sorry, any neutral analysis would put Pakistan as remaining the occupying force as long as it really wanted to.

2.Many Indian have a habit of comparing East Pakistan with Balochistan.East Pakistan was 55 percent of entire Pakistan while Balochistan was 2 percent.Balochi even don't have majority in their own province,only a few tribe want independence,have a long border with rest of Pakistan.It is not difficult to understand that Pakistan will crush Balochistan rebellion with relatively easy.Same case with rebellion in Indian north-east,rebels are too small and vast majority of north-eastern people don't support them.

W. Pakistan would easily crush and quell E. Pakistan if India was neutral or friendly to W. Pakistan. You simply have no source of arms and ammunition that can sustain you against a professional military backed crucially by a military dictatorship and W. Pakistan political elite. The 9 months they were there already have you claiming they killed 3 million of you. Now imagine many years of that...you simply would have given up....vast majority of you are not born warriors or suicidal fanatics or something. They would have had full arms supply, you would have run to a small trickle and eventually that would have doomed you if no one from the outside backed you.

3.If you read the international newspaper of that time,it is clearly evident that Pakistan was suffering a lot economically due to turmoil in East Pakistan.Their economy became desperate as early as June-July.There was a growing desperation on part of Pakistan to find a political solution and a 'withdrawal with dignity'.That's why they made a Bengali Nurul Amin as the PM of Pakistan during the war and even thinking about negotiation with Awami League.There was no way Pakistan could support a military operation in East Pakistan year after year without ruining themselves.

Thats all precisely because of Indian assisstance to MB forces. Without that, the strain on Pakistan's logistics would have been minimal, and it would be a case of keeping a restive province under military control....and liquidating any rebels as they prop up. Without major organisation, funding, supply and training (in a country outside immediate conflict zone with enough strategic depth and international contacts to sustain it), MB would simply not be a fighting force like it was....and would have been dealt with by Pakistan relatively easily.

Don't forget how much your own local economy would have been sapped (to a much higher degree) than Pakistan's in a one on one extended conflict given a civil war would have polarised East Pakistan extensively over time. You definitely would have blinked first. If you don't believe that, thats fine.

4.By the October-November Mukti Bahini guerrilla attack increases so much that Pakistani army became fearful about defeat.But they were too ashamed to acknowledge this and decided to turn it into another Indo-Pak war to save their dignity from loosing against a guerrilla force.Their was also concern about treatment of beleaguered Pakistani troops at the hands of Mukti Bahini.At least Indian will follow Geneva convention.So they decided to be defeated under superior Indian forces.That's why they attacked western Indian airfield in 3rd December to turn it into another Indo-Pak war.So Pakistan got the opportunity to a mass surrender in East Pakistan and gave minimam resistance in the western front knowing that this war is a lost cause.Mukti Bahini didn't asked Indian force to directly involve in Eastern war theatre.Indian jumped in that war to claim the last moment glory.

A BAL propagandist couldn't have said it better. Ever wonder why both India and Pakistan dont give you propagandists any honour or respect regarding 1971? Its because you didn't earn any....only MB did earn respect from many Indians...but that does not mean they did not rely on India heavily.

Again the MB "guerilla attacks" could only sustain their level of activity because of Indian support. They would have essentially been wiped out (or made into low level insurgency like in Balochistan) months ago before December if it weren't the case. Trying to steal supplies, arms and ammo from the Pak military would only go so far. You got armed, trained and sheltered big time by India (thats the real heavy lifting in 1971), no shame in accepting that.

5.Indian assistance, although substantial,was not the only decisive factor.Even with neutral India, Bangladesh would still have emerged as an independent country,with considerable longer time requirement.But India could not go this opportunity of a life time so easily.So we got the independence in only 9 months and Indian got the opportunity to brag against Bangladesh and Pakistan.

No need to brag once people aren't trolling. If Pakistan and India's roles were perfectly reversed, the exact same result would have happened....with BD still relying heavily on support from its immediate neighbour (without which it would have been crushed).

This is simply a case of the level of logistics, arms and training available to one side for commiting to a war effort.

The defending side doesn't have much defenders advantage given the population is polarised, and the enemy forces are already deeply entrenched in your land.

Why do you think Israel completely dominates Palestine to this day and will essentially only leave completely on its own terms? It has access to much greater resources, logistics, weaponry, training....and the Palestinians are nowhere near the level of polarised that East Pakistan was and Bangladesh still is to this day.

So no you would have not been anywhere near to independent even today if India was neutral or pro-Pakistan to this conflict and severely restricted or prevented support to MB. Whats left of you would just be a far worse basket case, and you would be under the Pakistan flag....and most people probably would have already forgotten the uprising and have learned Urdu if they went to school. It would be a police state essentially....but you have that now anyway given your polarisation almost exactly down the middle. Why would you think that BD civilians could sustain anything indefinitely once they face insurmountable losses? You gave away your land and right to rule for far far less against all "invaders" before.....precisely because no one big was there right next door to shoulder your burden and provide most of the war buffer. When this option isn't there, you simply give up and acquiesce after any initial resistance. Thats how it goes....no point denying it.

The only thing worse than bragging beyond reason is staking fake glory and honour.

 

[salarsikander]

Um yeah you did. You basically asked for help....so we armed and provided refuge, training and artillery/mortar cover for your MB forces....while taking in, feeding and sheltering your refugees (many of whom stayed in India past the war).

Without this your resistance fighters would have been wiped out and a few scattered to the underground, it would have ended up being another Balochistan basically (though a more densely populated version of it, depending on how many survived the civil war period). If India did not support MB forces + deny Pakistan overflight and overland supply...and make sea supply difficult by virtue of size, Bangladesh would not exist today.

This was all stuff you had to ask for (you have to appeal to umpire to have the batsman be given out), it wasn't just given to you....but of course it was given without much reluctance (just like a plumb lbw appeal) given India's lingering problem with Pakistan.

I am only talking about before the December intervention (which you say started in the west) as well.

Another Baluchistan ??? Certainly new don't block UN inspector to come there nor we see Baluchi's waving Hindu flag. Hardly any curfews that we see in Kashmir are here. What are you on about ?

 

[Nilgiri]

Another Baluchistan ??? Certainly new don't block UN inspector to come there nor we see Baluchi's waving Hindu flag. Hardly any curfews that we see in Kashmir are here. What are you on about ?

I'm saying without extensive help from India, East Pakistan will easily remain under Pakistan today. MB would have been a low level insurgency (like Balochistan).....you had plenty of pro-Pakistan people in BD as well.

Key difference is that Balochistan has no land connection to India, whereas India surrounded E.Pakistan/BD from 3 sides and BD of course had much more people so insurgency containment would have been more difficult but nowhere near impossible for Pakistan in 1971 (if India hypothetically ignored it and was not involved etc.)

Same exact scenario if East Pakistan was not a wing at all and was attached to rest of Pakistan...then India + MB has no chance at all pretty much.

Specifics of Balochistan is of course different, I am not going into all that detail....just referencing it as far as logistical scenario of a conflict.

 

[salarsikander]

I'm saying without extensive help from India, East Pakistan will easily remain under Pakistan today. MB would have been a low level insurgency (like Balochistan).....you had plenty of pro-Pakistan people in BD as well.

Key difference is that Balochistan has no land connection to India, whereas India surrounded E.Pakistan/BD from 3 sides and BD of course had much more people so insurgency containment would have been more difficult but nowhere near impossible for Pakistan in 1971 (if India hypothetically ignored it and was not involved etc.)

Bangladesh got what it wanted thanks to power hungry leader likemZAB I really have n beef against poor bengalis. Their demands were legtimate and the guy won fair and square. Oh yes India did support back then a sovereign part of Pakistan to collapse

 

[Nilgiri]

Bangladesh got what it wanted thanks to power hungry leader likemZAB I really have n beef against poor bengalis. Their demands were legtimate and the guy won fair and square. Oh yes India did support back then a sovereign part of Pakistan to collapse

Im not talking about moral/ethical side of it....purely the logistics side of it.

I am a supporter of Israel, but I recognise the plight of common Palestinian people too and that there are very dicey ethical and moral questions.

None of this changes the logistical analysis of the situation that Israel holds over the Pal. territories. I segregate all such analysis as much as possible from my personal feelings/emotions/bias as much as I can.

Sorry if I did not make this clear to you when bringing up Balochistan.

Actually I would like to ask @Signalian what he thinks how the 1971 civil war would have gone if India and Pakistan were neutral/friendly to each other (say Kashmir conflict never arose for whatever reason and partition was cleaner and much less bloody etc)....and thus if India did not arm and support the MB. Just a hypothetical exercise.

 

[Homo Sapiens]

France did not have a hostile nation several times larger between it and Algeria that Algeria could ask help from.

Not having hostile nation wasn't a plus for French?Still they have to vacate Algeria.Pakistan had much much worse logistic than France even if India was neutral.
Who could have supported Algerian freedom fighters?Libya or Morocco? Truth is if there is a will and determination of a people,acquiring arms is not very difficult given the vast illegal arms trade in the world.Pakistani force had very minimal control over most of the countryside of East Pakistan.In many areas,Mukti Bahini conducted their activities with impunity.There was no way Pakistan winning that war 2000 km away with or without Indian intervention.

That's a very different scenario to a hypothetical 1971 with a neutral/friendly/uninvolved India and massively armed Pakistan with a military dictatorship....that controlled East Pakistan waters and foreign merchant shipping as well.

Only a fool would say,that Pakistani army was massively armed.They were slightly better than any guerrilla force.They have no Tank force,Minimal air force,no heavy equipment in East Pakistan.

Without major organisation, funding, supply and training (in a country outside immediate conflict zone with enough strategic depth and international contacts to sustain it), MB would simply not be a fighting force like it was....and would have been dealt with by Pakistan relatively easily.

Don't forget how much your own local economy would have been sapped (to a much higher degree) than Pakistan's in a one on one extended conflict given a civil war would have polarised East Pakistan extensively over time. You definitely would have blinked first. If you don't believe that, thats fine.

That is the case with every guerrilla warfare.Still guerrilla force manage to win if there is enough populous support.Every guerrilla force initially remain disorganised,then they found a way to become organized and secure source of materials.

And for polarization,every conflict is polarized.Even in Algerian war.there were local 'pied noirs' who helped French army.Can you name one single conflict where there was no polarization? 95 percent people in Bangladesh was determined to get independence.Few stray rajakar or bihari could not have changed the outcome of war in any ways

y do you think Israel completely dominates Palestine to this day and will essentially only leave completely on its own terms? It has access to much greater resources, logistics, weaponry, training....and the Palestinians are nowhere near the level of polarised that East Pakistan was and Bangladesh still is to this day.

Palestanian conflict is different,Their conflict is not about separation from Israel,rather they want to return in the land under Israeli settlement,a lot of disagreement is about status of Jerusalem and right of return of Palestanian refugee.This things can only be settled through negotiation.

So no you would have not been anywhere near to independent even today if India was neutral or pro-Pakistan to this conflict and severely restricted or prevented support to MB. Whats left of you would just be a far worse basket case, and you would be under the Pakistan flag....and most people probably would have already forgotten the uprising and have learned Urdu if they went to school. It would be a police state essentially....but you have that now anyway given your polarisation almost exactly down the middle. Why would you think that BD civilians could sustain anything indefinitely once they face insurmountable losses? You gave away your land and right to rule for far far less against all "invaders" before.....precisely because no one big was there right next door to shoulder your burden and provide most of the war buffer. When this option isn't there, you simply give up and acquiesce after any initial resistance. Thats how it goes....no point denying it.

You can brag as much as about bharat gave independence to Bangladesh,but it count nothing to us.You will always be regarded by us as an opportunist who jumped on the winning horse to claim victory. Even after entering the near clear field in East Pakistan bharati force managed to loose 3000 troops,and needed 13 day to reach Dhaka.Can any force get any more clumsier than this when enemy were on its knee?

 

[Nilgiri]

Not having hostile nation wasn't a plus for French?

Im saying the time would have been much much reduced if there was. Which is exactly what happened with BD.

If France had a military dictatorship, it would have continued on much past 12 years too.

Pakistan had much much worse logistic than France even if India was neutral.

Way better armed and trained than any rag tag resistance force BD would have had for a few months before they ran out of ammo and all got lined up and shot.

When you exclusively rely on an occupier for your weapons and ammo, you simply will not win if you have nothing else going for you (like say control of munition factories, strategic depth, foreign diaspora money, foreign supply chains).

Nothing would have got through to help (which you would severely need past a few months)...and it would have just ended in a low level insurgency over time....mid level at best. Armies only really get put under pressure by high level insurgency, BD resistance simply could not put up this level for any decent amount of time....and where you gonna put it? There wasn't even any valuable things to hold, the whole place is pretty tiny and has not even an ammunition factory.

Only a fool would say,that Pakistani army was massively armed.They were slightly better than any guerrilla force.They have no Tank force,Minimal air force,no heavy equipment in East Pakistan.

So? They had the people with the guns, the organisation and training all in higher levels than any rag tag resistance you could concoct in an insulated environment.

Over time they could replenish this way better than you ever could too. It would have been a quite unfair fight in the long term....and it ends with you lot being crushed. Sure you might keep the embers flaring here and there, but without anyone giving you any buffer, sanctuary, money and arms from outside....you are done. You are effectively thousands of fish squeezed into a barrel with a couple piranha here and there, it is a very non-ideal situation to try surmount any resistance against an occupier willing to do whatever necessary to achieve objectives. Lots of fishies die from saturated shotgun blast, and eventually over time they figure out the piranha have to go for them to even live. Sorry you are not some special superhuman viking-gurkha hybrid fanatic people. Can continue a low level insurgency past the original failed struggle for sure....but I judge Pakistan to deal with that long term. They acquired nuclear weapons now didnt they? The level of military saturation in their society/GDP is high, this would only help them to deal with anything you continue long term in this hypothetical scenario.

That is the case with every guerrilla warfare.Still guerrilla force manage to win if there is enough populous support.Every guerrilla force initially remain disorganised,then they found a way to become organized and secure source of materials.

Not if they don't have the basic means and environment to continue something no matter how it may or may not be perceived by what in hindsight is thought to be the "majority".

Ever wonder why we only really know about the guerillas that eventually "won"? Want me to list all the times such failed...often terribly? Why no one really knows about them?...especially how they outnumber the wins by a huge magnitude.

We all like a good story to feel better about ourselves....where the underdog surmounts all odds and beats Goliath. It has an effect on historicity more than you can imagine. Unfortunately in real life, it is nowhere near 100% clear cut trend.

And for polarization,every conflict is polarized.Even in Algerian war.there were local 'pied noirs' who helped French army.Can you name one single conflict where there was no polarization? 95 percent people in Bangladesh was determined to get independence.Few stray rajakar or bihari could not change the outcome in any ways

You say a "few stragglers"....but many other BD members here dispute that to this day.....that they were sizeable and even the majority. Who to believe in reality? We got some genuine neutral source regarding this? Oh right, we dont. History written by the victors etc etc.

Palestanian conflict is different,Their conflict is not about separation from Israel,rather they want to return in the land under Israeli settlement,a lot of disagreement is about status of Jerusalem and right of return of Palestanian refugee.This things can only sattle through negotiation.

Not talking about the details of why theres a conflict there. Just providing you a living example of what sustained logistics and superior resources do over much time.

Same case with Northern Ireland. Did the IRA get their way even with much popular support and a strong backer right next door...and a huge diaspora in a superpower that funded them?

Logistics + resources are 99% of a conflict (whatever length, whatever intensity).

BD by itself simply did not have it in 1971 to beat W. Pakistan army completely alone over any period of time....short or long.

You can brag as much as about bharat gave independence to Bangladesh,but it count nothing to us.

It not counting to you, doesn't matter at all to us or Pakistan...and beyond those two no one really knows Bangladesh anyway much less its formation story.

Anyone truly neutral with half a brain that does seek out the facts of that formation will plainly realise it came to fruition because of India. You don't cook a biryani with no rice and call it a biryani still

You will always be regarded by us as an opportunist who jumped on the winning horse to claim victory.

Again no one cares, especially about one sole opinion claiming to represent a whole country (esp given the myriad of other opinions on this very subforum from other BD people...which you frequently cry are not real BD people).

No one cares even if it were true...thats how insignificant you are and always will be.

Even after entering the near clear field in East Pakistan bharati force managed to loose 3000 troops,and needed 13 day to reach Dhaka.Can any force get any more clumsier than this when opposition were on its knee?

Don't know. Maybe put a poll out there to ask this forum about it (there are some good members with extensive knowledge of the matter) if you have the izzat for it. Of course you dont and wont. You obviously were born with 0, which again explains why 1971 even happened in the first place after 1947. That is the fate of your people....lackeys, foot stools and target practice.

@django Enjoy

 

[Homo Sapiens]

If France had a military dictatorship, it would have continued on much past 12 years too.

Pakistani would not not allowed military dictatorship ruling 12 years with worsening economic,military condition.Drunkard Yahya khan was despised by both East and West Pakistani.There was no way to Pakistan to continue military deployment 2000 km away in the vast countryside of East Pakistan with 75 million hostile inhabitants.Sooner or later they had to accept defeat and withdrawal.Best Pakistan could achieved was political settlement in a form of loose federation or confederation comprising East and west Pakistan which would lead to eventual separation few years later anyway.Pakistan sealed its fate in East Pakistan on the night of 25th March by conducting operation searchlight.After that no political settlement could satisfied Bengali except Independence.

Rest of your post is usual bharati blabbering which I am not inclined to waste my time replying.I have already conveyed my message clearly.

 

[Michael Corleone]

Yes you did, you asked for it. You even had your Mukti Bahini trained in India. The main reason we engage in war is because a lot of Bangladeshi refugees started to rain down into our land (A lot of them are staying). At the time, we were not able to feed our own population. Then we got the spark from west. Rest is history.
Please quote the 'stupid' remarks.

Explain to me why did it take more than 8 months to enter the war in the east?

 

[livingdead]

east pakistan would not have got independence without backing of one of the big guys.. like china or russia... because pakistan was politically backed by USA...
we think east pakistan was a colony of west but to the world (and legally speaking) it was their land.. its vastly different from a foreign colonizing force occupying the land, pakistanis had far more moral right to remain there, especially when a part of population supported them.
More likely it would have led to more bloodshed before pak authorities agreeing on a loose federation, to which most bengali leaders would have agreed.
The arms and ammunition would have come from somewhere else, may be russia... may be it would have become another vietnam/afganistan.

 

[bluesky]

Sir @idune, please ask the BD PM to take you to Delhi and beg her not to sign a slavery treaty with India. A non-signing will bring great benefit to you and BD. Last time the 20-year friendship treaty was abrogated unilaterally by BD in the next 6 years. This time you should stop it in the ZERO hour. Do your best.

 

[Gandh brandi]

Pakistani would not not allowed military dictatorship ruling 12 years with worsening economic,military condition.Drunkard Yahya khan was despised by both East and West Pakistani.There was no way to Pakistan to continue military deployment 2000 km away in the vast countryside of East Pakistan with 75 million hostile inhabitants.Sooner or later they had to accept defeat and withdrawal.Best Pakistan could achieved was political settlement in a form of loose federation or confederation comprising East and west Pakistan which would lead to eventual separation few years later anyway.Pakistan sealed its fate in East Pakistan on the night of 25th March by conducting operation searchlight.After that no political settlement could satisfied Bengali except Independence.

Rest of your post is usual bharati blabbering which I am not inclined to waste my time replying.I have already conveyed my message clearly.

Don't bother now. He's now at his jingo mode where rational argument will lead to nothing. Bangladesh would exist with or without India. I admit India greatly helped our cause in global political field but saying we wouldn't have won without them is simply jingoism. A pyrrhic victory on us maybe but a victory nonetheless. Hell, would've been even better for India itself if they refrained from the war. Two large Muslim neighbors battling out to the death.

 

[Homo Sapiens]

we think east pakistan was a colony of west but to the world (and legally speaking) it was their land.. its vastly different from a foreign colonizing force occupying the land, pakistanis had far more moral right to remain there, especially when a part of population supported them.

I have to disagree.Pakistan was a multi ethnic state.And world body doesn't mind if multi ethnic state break down to form Independent states.It was the case with Yugoslavia,USSR and other countries.And Pakistan lost all its moral standing by refusing to handover power to democratically elected party to govern, by launching brutal operation searchlight,creating a huge refugee crisis and suffering.Entire free world's media was against Pakistani conduct.George Harrison made the first charity concert in history in New York for Bangladesh.There was tremendous sympathy for the cause of Bangladesh in the western world and democratic countries as well as in the communist block.Charle de Gaulle wanted to sent troops to help Bangladesh's liberation.US and China knew very well that East Pakistan was a lost cause.They gave no support to Pakistani junta other than occasional lip service.And they would continue to do so if conflict were getting longer.Sending 7th flotilla by US was to intimidate India not to over run West Pakistan not to fight against mukti bahini..US had no intention to help pak force to fight against Mukti Bahini.US public and media were highly critical of Pakistani conduct in East Pakistan and american govt. had no stomach to go against public opinion for a pathetic pakistani junta.I urge you to read at least the 1971 copy of Time magazine to understand the affairs going around that time.

London Sunday times exposing Pakistani brutality.

 

[livingdead]

I have to disagree.Pakistan was a multi ethnic state.And world body doesn't mind if multi ethnic state break down to form Independent states.It was the case with Yugoslavia,USSR and other countries.And Pakistan lost all its moral standing by refusing to handover power to democratically elected party to govern, by launching brutal operation searchlight,creating a huge refugee crisis and suffering.Entire free world's media was against Pakistani conduct.George Harrison made the first charity concert in history in New York for Bangladesh.There was tremendous sympathy for the cause of Bangladesh in the western world and democratic countries as well as in the communist block.Charle de Gaulle wanted to sent troops to help Bangladesh's liberation.US and China knew very well that East Pakistan was lost cause.They gave no support to Pakistani junta other than occasional lip service.And they would continue to do so if conflict were getting longer.Sending 7th flotilla by US was to intimidate India not to over run West Pakistan not to fight against mukti bahini..US had no intention to help pak force to fight against Mukti Bahini.US public and media were highly critical of Pakistani conduct in East Pakistan and american govt. have no stomach to go against public opinion for a pathetic pakistani junta.I urge you to read at least the 1971 copy of Time magazine to understand the affairs going around that time.

London Sunday times exposing Pakistani brutality.

I doubt either US or france would have supported either side materially... however US would have supported pakistan politically in UN, which would have meant pressure both parties to talk. I am not sure bengali leadership would have struck to independence line... and not some other deal like devolution.
The western world did not give a damn about kurds under Saddam's regime why would they care about another 3rd world country when they got friendly leaders of pakistan who is even helping to fight bigger cause like communism... you seriously think east pakistan would have mattered much? how long the hippies been talking about palestine?

 

[idune]

MODS, please delete irrelevant posts by nilgiri and doyalbaba, who are derailing the thread.