India's role in making of Mukti Bahini, the forgotten terrorists

[Hakikat ve Hikmet]

Thanks to Mujib for he killed 40,000 of the most diehard Mukti terrorists during his rule from 1972 to 75!! After the creation of BD the ex-Mukti terrorists challenged Mujib’s dictatorial rule. And, Mujib returned the favor with a brutal force without any trials....

 

[TheGreatMaratha]

The main point of conflict between Pakistan and India was Kashmir, that coupled with tensions between Afghanistan kept an overwhelming majority of our military in West Pakistan. There was a mutual understanding that both sides would not escalate any Kashmir-related conflicted to Bengal; this is highlighted in the 1947 and 1965 wars of which East Pakistan was relatively untouched from.


There was a some troop influx, but it was too little and too late. You must understand the logistical cost and time needed to transport a large amount of troops, here is a map just for a perspective.

View attachment 587372

In order to properly fight India conventionally in East Pakistan, heavy assets such as artillery, tanks, fighter jets and others had to be transported along this route; which would have been an extremely difficult, risky and costly task. When war broke out, Pakistan only had one squadron in East Pakistan and very little heavy weaponry; Pakistan had absolutely no chance as brilliantly summarized by the Indian Commander of the 1971 war:

Isn't that still a bias against East Pakistan though? Why do you have to transport all the tanks and artillery to East Pakistan. Why not keep some weapons before 1971 in East Pakistan itself. If you are having to transport weapons, then this clearly means that you have armed West Pakistan strongly but have left East Pakistan weak. That's a clear tactical error. I mean why to even assume that India won't attack East Pakistan? Your response hasn't answered why there were so less people from East Pakistan in the army. The wars in 1947 and 1965 didn't spill over to East Pakistan as I think the civil war was not that strong enough there at that time. Sure, Pakistan will have done a good job defending with limited resources but it still doesn't hide the big mistakes in strategies in the first place.

 

[Jackdaws]

All of them are terrorists. However, India set the tone and forced Pakistan to use such tools. Don't complain when we do the same in Kashmir. Right now the Kashmiri movement is all based on only locals. Once it becomes policy to go all out. India will be in flames.

Nope, you set the precedent in the 1960s by arming Mizo rebels.

 

[KhanBaba2]

This thread will only create bad blood between Pakistani and Bangladeshi posters. Request you to close it.

You can't just start closing threads for that reason.

 

[Meliodas]

It's a well known fact that Indians supported mukti bahini but india's support alone couldn't have created Bangladesh unless those thankless bangalese didn't wanted to. It was more or less a writing on the wall that they will deceive us since we got independence and we wouldn't be able to stop them. But what we could have done is that exploit the situation we should have had a plan what to do if we lose east Pakistan. India had made her hands dirty by indulging in this act and repurcusions were bound to come, some of which we see in the ne states and Bengal where ordinary Indians are paying for it but yet we could have made it worse for them.

 

[KhanBaba2]

There is a universally accepted definition of Terrorism. And Indian chest thump on the fact that they won that war but would never call it terrorism. Same goes with their support of LTTE.


It was 42,000 till August and rose to 55,000 later on.

We supported both Mukti and LTTE. We don't consider Mukti as terrorist as they were from refugees. If West Pakistan had not been violent against the East, there would have been no refugees and no need for Mukti.

LTTE were however terrorists and we did finally go against them. Indian action was critical in finishing off the LTTE.

 

[Vapnope]

If West Pakistan had not been violent against the East, there would have been no refugees and no need for Mukti.

Another textbook nonsense. I don't even have to remind you about the books by your own authors.

LTTE were however terrorists and we did finally go against them. Indian action was critical in finishing off the LTTE.

Yeah when Chinese and Pakistani help was doing the job on ground already. Nice change of heart when Sri Lankan govt exposed your design really well.

 

[KhanBaba2]

Another textbook nonsense. I don't even have to remind you about the books by your own authors.

The existence of refugees is a well documented fact. Are you denying it or do you have a reason for refugees other than atrocities committed on them.

 

[Aryan0395]

However, India set the tone and forced Pakistan to use such tools

Yes, it was India which invaded Kashmir after independence....

Right now the Kashmiri movement is all based on only locals

Oh cut the crap.

Once it becomes policy to go all out. India will be in flames.

Well, why hasn't it become a policy to go all out then.
Fact is that Pak cant afford to go all out and ur govt and the sane people in your country know it.

 

[Vapnope]

The existence of refugees is a well documented fact. Are you denying it or do you have a reason for refugees other than atrocities committed on them.

The issue was exaggerated as quoted by Nixon and Kissinger. There was a reason why they ended up saying Indians are habitual liars.

 

[Basel]

Aah, the mukti bahini are terrorists but LeT, JeM and HM are breeding patriots and freedom fighters.

Yes they are, because Kashmir is disputed area, East Pakistan was not disputed area, India is a terrorist country since its birth.

India's role? We openly accepted it, we trained Mukti Bahini from the refugees who came here, gave them weapons at times too.

Those days of supporting armed freedom fighters are long gone. Post 9/11 world...

Then why cry foul play when Pakistan support Kashmiris a true disputed area compared to East Pakistan???

 

[Hamza913]

People are so fixated over 1971. Pakistan managed to rule over the Bengal for more than 20 years, and even when we had to leave we inflicted wounds so deep they're still crying almost 50 years later about it.

Nations lose all the time. Britain, Germany, Rome, Persia, Greece, etc. All great nations, and all suffered setbacks. Why would ours be any different? Relish in the good and learn from the bad, so we can secure an even better tomorrow.

 

[TNT]

So we will make india taste its own medicine now. India will just whine and cry.

 

[Indus Pakistan]

This thread will only create bad blood between Pakistani and Bangladeshi posters. Request you to close it.

What sort of pathetic request is this. These are facts. What you want PDF to be thought police and rewrite history or make up history. Good or bad this is what happened. Let people be educated by it and as adults make their own conclusions.

On topic not only did India support and 'export' terrorism to Pakistan but it was also involved in Sri Lanka by supporting Tamil Tiger terrorists. Rajiv Gandi was blown away by a suicide bomber as a result of this.

For all the Pakistani's who will cry on about how the world ignores India's deviousness but points fingers to Pakistan. The reason is obvious. Indians supported terrorists that always had local agendas and only targeted Asians. Be it Mukhti, or Tamil Tigers. They never posed any threat to westerners or planned to wage war against the west or ally with groups in Middle East that are at war with Israel or USA.

The groups Pakistan nurtured, allied or was apologetic to inevitably also targeted the west and got sucked into the wider Islamic jihad against USA, Israel in the Middle East. The moment that happened Washington, London, Paris etc took note and we became famous as terroristan. Of course incidents lile OBL and half a million Arab terrorists hiding in Pakistan merely reinforced this idea and gave India perfect ammunition to screw us. It did not help that all too often terrorist incidents in London, New York either had a Pakistani involved or there was some connection to Pakistan.

 

[TheGreatMaratha]

What sort of pathetic request is this. These are facts. What you want PDF to be thought police and rewrite history or make up history. Good or bad this is what happened. Let people be educated by it and as adults make their own conclusions.

On topic not only did India support and 'export' terrorism to Pakistan but it was also involved in Sri Lanka by supporting Tamil Tiger terrorists. Rajiv Gandi was blown away by a suicide bomber as a result of this.

For all the Pakistani's who will cry on about how the world ignores India's deviousness but points fingers to Pakistan. The reason is obvious. Indians supported terrorists that always had local agendas and only targeted Asians. Be it Mukhti, or Tamil Tigers. They never posed any threat to westerners or planned to wage war against the west or ally with groups in Middle East that are at war with Israel or USA.

The groups Pakistan nurtured, allied or was apologetic to inevitably also targeted the west and got sucked into the wider Islamic jihad against USA, Israel in the Middle East. The moment that happened Washington, London, Paris etc took note and we became famous as terroristan. Of course incidents lile OBL and half a million Arab terrorists hiding in Pakistan merely reinforced this idea and gave India perfect ammunition to screw us. It did not help that all too often terrorist incidents in London, New York either had a Pakistani involved or there was some connection to Pakistan.

Just to correct you, Rajiv Gandhi was killed by a Tamil Tigers suicide bomber. Why would Tamil Tigers kill Rajiv Gandhi if India is actually helping them? Again, feel free to correct me as I don't know too much about the Sri Lankan Civil War.
The rest of the points are spot on though. India was the leader of the Non-Aligned Movement in the post Word War 2 era while Pakistan was in the US camp. I think here again Pakistan should have just minded its own business instead of getting sucked into conflicts in Afghanistan. That was a wrong move.