Would the Mukti and any self-determined Bangladeshi be sitting there doing nothing in that case?
Could that situation have lasted beyond a few years - especially given the Indians' cowardly proclivities and given what we just did to the Pakistani Army, supposedly the hallowed vaunted force defending your country?
We aren't afraid of spilling some blood. At any time.
See how many different cowardly collections of subservient Indian ethnicities there are in India?
You see any of them with their own sovereign country?
What do you think?
Although it's just speculation which way it would've gone...but I'm just stating what I think would've happened, taking into account the ground realities of that time.
I have set aside things like blind nationalism/jingoism and my opinion is based on the following facts...
- Pak forces in east Pakistan were cut off from west Pakistan at the time so they couldn't be reinforced or supplied with materials. Moreover they were being sabotaged by Mukti Bahini and other groups in rebellion in east Pakistan further keeping them from fully utilizing what they did have available in east Pakistan.
- Pak lacked a giant navy that could defeat IN and secure a sea route to east wing to supply troops...the same could be said about PAF. Pak would've needed a huge advantage over either IAF or IN in order to dominate and secure a route either through the air or by sea. If this was the case then Pak forces in the east wing could've held on in defensive positions for a while with the hope of that happening...but that wasn't the case.
These two key factors exacerbated by the civil war/rebellion is what gave India a clear edge on the eastern front...
As for Mukti Bahini and other such groups preventing annexation...
- MB and other groups lacked an effective air and naval arm and would've been more or less powerless against IAF and IN blockade at sea.
- The groups like MB were too fragmented and wouldn't have been as effective if they operated independently. Intelligence from RAW and Indian support helped them to coordinate and be more effective. Naturally if Indian forces decided to annex BD that support would've stopped causing at least some initial hurdles.
What kept India from annexing BD...
- They had built their whole narrative as liberators
- They just wanted to eliminate a second front against them
BD liberation took care of the second part and annexation would've destroyed their narrative in front of the whole world including BD ppl(which would've caused problems later on)...
But most importantly...US was a staunch ally of Pak at that time and there was a huge risk/pressure on India from US and China...so India wouldn't have been able to annex BD without immense(and potentially devastating) consequences. Moreover there would've been an active resistance probably greater in scale than the one that happened in Kashmir...if India was to annex BD.
So in conclusion as far as military capability goes(and ONLY based on that), India could technically annex BD at the time...
...but whether or not it was worth it or whether it could keep BD(taking into account other key factors mentioned above)...most likely not.
In any case what ACTUALLY happened, happened and these kind of stupid statements from this guy can't change a thing. This along with other actions/statements that happen every now and then in India against Bengalis/Bangladeshi/Muslims should rather be an eye opener for BD. There are some Bangladeshi ppl here that are convinced that India is an ally and that they helped liberate BD etc. They should realize that India did it out of its own interests and not bcuz of any alliance or brotherhood. If the circumstances changed and it became in India's interest to oppose BD, they would do so. BD must empower itself in order to be able to secure its own interests with or without a friendly India.
