Myths of 1971–Time for Redemption

[TheSolution]

Pakistan has not learned a single thing since 1971 because they are still on that same power trip since then but with new players

 

[White privilege]

What about scores who weren’t lecherous? You forgot to mention score of others who finally defeated all these you mentioned. Finally, this women thing might have caught up with them.

What was the war situation? No one was aware that war is coming? No intel? Please read the report by the commision. He brings out clearly, what was wrong in Niaz’s plan.
Niazi and his team sucked at each and every aspect of war effort. Planning as well execution. Had they not, the world wouldn't have been so harsh on them. And the vices you have quoted would have been termed as an asset. It is possible that he was simply an incompetent officer. That got aggravated by his lust for everything else but his professional pride.

Since you don’t seem to have any interest in reading the commission’s report and multitude of other accounts on Niazi, let me reproduce a part of the Hamoodur Rahman Commission Report-

“(1) Lt. Gen. A.A.K. Niazi, Commander, Eastern Command
(i) That he willfully failed to appreciate the imminence of all-out war with India, in spite of all indications to the contrary, namely the declarations of the Indian Prime Minister and other important Government leaders, the signing of the Indo-Soviet treaty in August, 1971, the amassing of eight divisions of the Indian Army, eleven squadrons of the Indian Air Force, and a large task force of the Indian Navy in and around East Pakistan , and the clear warning given to him by the GHQ on the basis of reliable intelligence regarding Indian plans of invasion of East Pakistan, with the consequence that he continued to deploy his troops in a forward posture although that deployment had become entirely unsuited for defence against open Indian aggression;
(ii) That he displayed utter lack of professional competence, initiative and foresight, expected of an Army Commander of his rank, seniority and experience, in not realising that the parts of his mission concerning anti- insurgency operations and ensuring that "no chunk of territory" was to be allowed to be taken over by the rebels for establishing Bangladesh, had become irrelevant in the context of the imminence of all-out attack by India on or about the 21st of November ,1971, and that the mast important part of his mission from that juncture onwards was to "defend East Pakistan against external aggression"' and "keep the Corps in being and ensure the entity of East Pakistan"' with the result that he failed to concentrate his forces in time , which failure later led to fatal results;
(iii) That he displayed culpable negligence in adopting the concept of fortresses and strong points without fully understanding its technical implications as regards their ability to lend mutual support, availability of the necessary reserves to strike at the enemy in the event of his by passing any of the fortresses or overwhelming them with superior numbers , and the existence of a non-hostile population, with the disastrous consequence that was forced to surrender even though several of the fortresses and strong points were still intact on the 16th of December, 1971;”



Logic? What’s your logic? That wine, women and corruption to the bones had nothing to do with this defeat? The what was?

Really....so it is now about the 'amount' of lechery, rather than its outright presence or absence, which dulls competence, or the 'number' of lecherous vs non lecherous commanders, who would make the difference. Ever heard of the Mongols??? Could even one of them be called a model soldier/commander ?? They fucked and killed everything in their path, so how did they manage?? Bring out the hidden 'upright commanders' to fight a real enemy, and switched to the lecherous ones while pillaging through harmless cities?? Get real man....

Whatever Hamood report, has to say about the details of the Niazi plan, it does not trump the fact that Army over there was, outnumbered and cut off. There was no way to break out or a counter attack from outside that could relieve the whole command. When Dhaka fell,Niazi was firmly told by the Indians, that his command would be thrown to the awaiting Muktis if he did not surrender. That is a threat of a war crime and genocide under the umbrella of Indian Army. Given what had happened already to stragglers, or PAF airmen who were caught, Niazi did not have much of an choice. He wasn't reaching Pindi any sooner. He could have surrendered today, with his troops, or sometime latter, with body bags.

 

[Mentee]

Humood-u-Rehmam commsion report may settle the speculations once and for all . @Signalian why we didnt make it available for the public yet ?

 

[newb3e]

Humood-u-Rehmam commsion report may settle the speculations once and for all . @Signalian why we didnt make it available for the public yet ?

khanzeer e wattun dont like the truth and dont want public to know the truth!

they fear it truth comes out in public,people will strip them and take away their luxuries (the golf coruses and dha) and these farmi khanzeer have adapted to living the live of luxury and wont survive the wild!

 

[VkdIndian]

They fucked and killed everything in their path, so how did they manage??

You have a point here.
For Mongol Warriors, sex came as a prize after conquests. Not other way around. They didn’t fight for sex. Sex and loot came as a nice by-product of win for them.
In Niazi’s case, he was well ensconced in a comfortable and corrupt life. A war would have changed that status quo of lecherous life.

it does not trump the fact that Army over there was, outnumbered and cut off. There was no way to break out or a counter attack from outside that could relieve the whole command.

Yes. There was a way. But that should have happened long back when intel was available about an imminent war which was ignored by Niazi. He ignored every shred of intel and directions from GHQ. GHQ failed in providing adequate troops. But, all this started way back in 1947, when Pakistan decided that they are the primary and mainland of Paksiatn. Bangladesh is far away located tertiary colony. You see the folly here?

He could have surrendered today, with his troops, or sometime latter, with body bags.

With that logic, he should have surrendered on the day one of the war. Was there any possibility of a win or hold off with asymmetry created by Indian Commanders?
There have been tales of smaller armies fighting off against odds and doing wonders. That has happened under commanders who led from the front. Rommel and many more quoted by you were such commanders. They had vices but those weren’t the means or end for them. War fighting was the passion for them. Can’t be said about Niazi and his cohort of advisors.

India used tactics of Psychological warfare very effectively. If enemy capitulates, then it is not India’s fault.

 

[White privilege]

You have a point here.
For Mongol Warriors, sex came as a prize after conquests. Not other way around. They didn’t fight for sex. Sex and loot came as a nice by-product of win for them.
In Niazi’s case, he was well ensconced in a comfortable and corrupt life. A war would have changed that status quo of lecherous life.


Yes. There was a way. But that should have happened long back when intel was available about an imminent war which was ignored by Niazi. He ignored every shred of intel and directions from GHQ. GHQ failed in providing adequate troops. But, all this started way back in 1947, when Pakistan decided that they are the primary and mainland of Paksiatn. Bangladesh is far away located tertiary colony. You see the folly here?

With that logic, he should have surrendered on the day one of the war. Was there any possibility of a win or hold off with asymmetry created by Indian Commanders?
There have been tales of smaller armies fighting off against odds and doing wonders. That has happened under commanders who led from the front. Rommel and many more quoted by you were such commanders. They had vices but those weren’t the means or end for them. War fighting was the passion for them. Can’t be said about Niazi and his cohort of advisors.

India used tactics of Psychological warfare very effectively. If enemy capitulates, then it is not India’s fault.

Wow, u really do not want to let go of the lechery argument. Well perhaps u may also write a book on Mongol ethics and discipline, I am sure it would be labelled 'historically accurate'. But that somersault on Mongol order of doing lechery brings back a point. How did Japanese eventually loose?? Did they loose because they kept comfort women before going to combat, or may be the atomic bombs had something to do with it?? Seriously...

As much u want to pin this on GHQ incompetence, it does not erase the blockade and intimate Mukti subversion ,well before and throughout the war itself.It was not like Pindi had abundant resources lying around waiting to be shipped to Dacca, as war also threatened the western part. When there was no fighting retreat to a friendly fortress, and no intervention from allies, may be China or US , Eastern command was doomed. U put those small armies in a cage, w/o possibility of support, then see how long they last. Today we say that it was Hitler's mistake to fight on both sides, bit still Germans did, it took them 5 years to realise they were wrong.Niazi may have thought he had time so he kept fighting, up untill Dhaka fell. As I have said he could have kept fighting, at great cost in men and material, but ultimately it was all in vain. That offer of security as a POW would certainly have vanished if he chose to resist. Mukti/Indians would then have made a point by nailing him to a wall.

 

[VkdIndian]

Wow, u really do not want to let go of the lechery argument. Well perhaps u may also write a book on Mongol ethics and discipline, I am sure it would be labelled 'historically accurate'. But that somersault on Mongol order of doing lechery brings back a point. How did Japanese eventually loose?? Did they loose because they kept comfort women before going to combat, or may be the atomic bombs had something to do with it?? Seriously...

I didn’t bring lechery. Your commision did. I just quoted from that report.

Military planning and execution is the foremost thing to win a conflict. Which doesn’t appear to be the storing point of Niazi.
Since he failed so badly, there was bound to be an analysis of the reasons.
And lechery happened to be one of those. Was it the only reason? Not really. Read the report. It has it all. Just that lechery thing sounds worst of it all. Dishonourable actually. Plain loosing would have been better.

Sadly, history is never on the sides of those who loose. Had Niazi won, same traits would have been hailed as true mark of real men.

Pindi didn’t have endless resources to send to the East. They did have the option of making western border so hot that India would have had a second thought. Don’t tell me now that Pindi was surprised by Indian attack. What were they doing all the time India was building up the forces on the Eastern front? Planning to surrender? Sending telegrams to Niazi to prepare? You fight and we will watch from here.

1971 wasn’t a war that showed your army in good light in any which way. Generals and politicians failed to react over a long time to prepare an adequate response. They resigned to the fate, while citizens like you are trying to redeem. I wish they had put even a fraction of effort put in by members here.

 

[Trango Towers]

The 1971 victory propaganda usually involves glorifying tactical actions so the overall disadvantage faced by Pakistani forces in East Pakistan is not realized by the target audience. The intimate help the Indians received from Mukti bahini, and the fact that Indians actively subverted Pakistan's hold well before the war through them is also under reported.

I as a Pakistani do not blame the mukti bani or the Indians. If our house was in order this would not have happened. Harami bhutto foe his personal gain created a problem. The Bengalis had as much rights as any Pakistani. Mujeeb won the election and he was tye PM.
The Pakistan army knew what was happening. Its should have prepared better and shot bhutto before it got to the state where our brothers in the east had to rise.
So again the fault should be realised if we are to progress.

Today same shit is happening in Pakistan. Same families and military. I hope its nit the same result

 

[White privilege]

I didn’t bring lechery. Your commision did. I just quoted from that report.

Military planning and execution is the foremost thing to win a conflict. Which doesn’t appear to be the storing point of Niazi.
Since he failed so badly, there was bound to be an analysis of the reasons.
And lechery happened to be one of those. Was it the only reason? Not really. Read the report. It has it all. Just that lechery thing sounds worst of it all. Dishonourable actually. Plain loosing would have been better.

Sadly, history is never on the sides of those who loose. Had Niazi won, same traits would have been hailed as true mark of real men.

Pindi didn’t have endless resources to send to the East. They did have the option of making western border so hot that India would have had a second thought. Don’t tell me now that Pindi was surprised by Indian attack. What were they doing all the time India was building up the forces on the Eastern front? Planning to surrender? Sending telegrams to Niazi to prepare? You fight and we will watch from here.

1971 wasn’t a war that showed your army in good light in any which way. Generals and politicians failed to react over a long time to prepare an adequate response. They resigned to the fate I guess while citizens like you are trying to redeem some of it which they didn’t put any effort to.

Stop shifting goalposts. A couple of posts ago, "lechery" was the make or break reason, now it is "one of the reasons". Make up your mind. You can't have the cake and eat it too. First you talk in absolute about shitty planning by Niazi, then you say history is written by the winners, however they win, hook or crook.

What Pindi did in west, and what available resources they had, can be explained by learned members here, however , I believe no amount of operations in the west could have relieved the eastern front, since Indians were not sitting around in the west either. As I said, short of US/Chinese intervention, East was doomed. When Paulus surrendered, Hitler scorned him and made him into a German villlain. However now we acknowledge that he had no chance. That is what Manekshaw says as well, "They fought gallantly" may be argued to be just for soldiers, but "no chance because they were 1000 miles away from base (west Pak)" also includes the higher ups....

 

[VkdIndian]

Stop shifting goalposts. A couple of posts ago, "lechery" was the make or break reason, now it is "one of the reasons". Make up your mind. You can't have the cake and eat it too. First you talk in absolute about shitty planning by Niazi, then you say history is written by the winners, however they win, hook or crook.

I don’t need to shift the goal posts. They are so wide that even a novice can score a lot of goals.

Can you mark the post in which I have said lechery was the ONLY reason? I have quoted the commissions report on the war and posted some of the comments form there to bring out various aspects. Lechery was quoted to bring out the extent of degeneration in the military officers. I have also said in almost every post that Commission’s report has brought out all the aspects clearly including failure in military planning and execution.

I believe no amount of operations in the west could have relieved the eastern front, since Indians were not sitting around in the west either.

Indians weren’t sitting around because they had factored quite a lot of things and planned well while Pindi was sleeping. If the stake was integrity of the nation, those responsible should have done everything in their power to stop the disintegration. Did they do it?

1971 wasn’t about bravery of your soldiers. It was about failure of your Generals.

 

[White privilege]

I don’t need to shift the goal posts. They are so wide that even a novice can score a lot of goals.

Can you mark the post in which I have said lechery was the ONLY reason? I have quoted the commissions report on the war and posted some of the comments form there to bring out various aspects. Lechery was quoted to bring out the extent of degeneration in the military officers. I have also said in almost every post that Commission’s report has brought out all the aspects clearly including failure in military planning and execution.

Indians weren’t sitting around because they had factored quite a lot of things and planned well while Pindi was sleeping. If the stake was integrity of the nation, those responsible should have done everything in their power to stop the disintegration. Did they do it?

1971 wasn’t about bravery of your soldiers. It was about failure of your Generals.

You may choose to keep running around in circles. Whatever details are available in Hamood report, the smuggling, the lechery, degeneracy, it has all been witnessed worldwide among bigger armies having fought greater wars. Nowhere they have been the prime reasons for defeat or victory. It always comes down to the overall strategic situation and available resources. Likewise in case of East Pakistan, even if the commander had impeccable reputation, or had superior knowledge, in the absence of relief or breakout,East Pakistan was still doomed. Tactical successes would not have trumped the heavy strategic disadvantages. Truth is in the details. Indians did win, but not the supa dupa way their establishment wants the world to believe.

 

[VkdIndian]

People want to go to any extent and justify worst moral misconduct and poor military acumen to justify the loss rather than accept it gracefully. Some folks have even questioned the Commission’s report. Heights of blindness.

Vietnam didn’t give up against much bigger army.
Afghanistan didn’t give up against anyone.
Smaller nations should give up against bigger nations? What logic is this?

Pakistan had the opportunity to create a decision dilemma for Indian commanders. It only needed critical thinking, foresight and planning. Which was lacking as the war clouds gathered.
Defeatist attitude, right from the beginning. No wonder any body of enquiry would have only unkind words for these military commanders.

Pain of loss is very aptly captured in the commission’s report -

“34. Even more painful than the military failures of lt. Gen Niazi is the story of the abject manner in which he agreed to sign the surrender document laying down arms to the so-called joint-command of India and Mukti Bahini, to be present at the Airport to receive the victorious Indian General Aurora, to present a guard of honour to the Indian General, and then to participate in the public surrender ceremony at the Race Course, to the everlasting shame of Pakistan and its Armed forces. Even if he had been obliged to surrender, by force of circumstances, it was not necessary for him to behave in this shameful manner at every step of the process of surrender. The detailed accounts which have been given before the commission by those who had the misfortune of witnessing these events, leave no doubt that Lt. Gen. Niazi had suffered a complete moral collapse during the closing phases of the war.”

This para captures the essence of this defeat precipitated by those who were supposed to fight for the dignity of the nation.

 

[Signalian]

Humood-u-Rehmam commsion report may settle the speculations once and for all . @Signalian why we didnt make it available for the public yet ?

What have you done practically about it ?
Have you sent a request to the Court of law ? Have you started a case on this in the court of law ?

Oh but you don’t believe in doing all that then why are you running after the report, it must be rigged too.

Talk some sense.

 

[White privilege]

People want to go to any extent and justify worst moral misconduct and poor military acumen to justify the loss rather than accept it gracefully. Some folks have even questioned the Commission’s report. Heights of blindness.

Vietnam didn’t give up against much bigger army.
Afghanistan didn’t give up against anyone.
Smaller nations should give up against bigger nations? What logic is this?

Pakistan had the opportunity to create a decision dilemma for Indian commanders. It only needed critical thinking, foresight and planning. Which was lacking as the war clouds gathered.
Defeatist attitude, right from the beginning. No wonder any body of enquiry would have only unkind words for these military commanders.

Pain of loss is very aptly captured in the commission’s report -

“34. Even more painful than the military failures of lt. Gen Niazi is the story of the abject manner in which he agreed to sign the surrender document laying down arms to the so-called joint-command of India and Mukti Bahini, to be present at the Airport to receive the victorious Indian General Aurora, to present a guard of honour to the Indian General, and then to participate in the public surrender ceremony at the Race Course, to the everlasting shame of Pakistan and its Armed forces. Even if he had been obliged to surrender, by force of circumstances, it was not necessary for him to behave in this shameful manner at every step of the process of surrender. The detailed accounts which have been given before the commission by those who had the misfortune of witnessing these events, leave no doubt that Lt. Gen. Niazi had suffered a complete moral collapse during the closing phases of the war.”

This para captures the essence of this defeat precipitated by those who were supposed to fight for the dignity of the nation.

Haha... that feeble shaming tactic has been in use for fifty years, whenever a debate about 71 ensues, Indians/their like minded ones try to do this, not anymore.

Vietnam and Afghanistan situations are complete opposite of East Pakistan situation. Defenders in both those wars were not cut off, and had allies who matched their enemies' war effort.

If Pakistan had defeatist attitude, and lacked critical military thinking, then please quote any military evaluation of 71 war, where some accomplished military analyst has concluded that there was even a thin chance for Pakistan, to hold and fight for East Pakistan for a considerable period, and stop the Indian onslaught.

Again, I have to say, stop changing goalposts. First your assertion was Pakistan could have fought back, that there was a military solution in the midst, and surrender was not needed. Now you are appreciating its need. And arguing about the mannerism, the bells and whistle. By that definition, Abhinandan should have started shouting and cussing, when he was captured, and should not have been 'friendly' like he was. He was posing at the cameras pointed at him and smiling. And you guys promoted him afterwards. So, again, please, make up your mind.....

 

[VkdIndian]

Vietnam and Afghanistan situations are complete opposite of East Pakistan situation. Defenders in both those wars were not cut off, and had allies who matched their enemies' war effort.

Every war is different from the other ones. You want the exact one? Sorry can’t give. Allies are created and made when a nations integrity is hanging by a thread. WILL, Desire, capability etc are required for that.

First your assertion was Pakistan could have fought back, that there was a military solution in the midst, and surrender was not needed. Now you are appreciating its need.

There wasn’t just one aspect to that war. I have referred to varied issues in each post, based on the discussion at hand. Not to shift from one reason to the other.

In any war both the sides make good and bad decisions in planning and execution. At the end, the winners gambles turn into good ones while looser’s become bad. Mostly, not all.

So, there is no attempt to shift the goal posts.

In 1967, Israel displayed a unique way of fighting war and rewrote the doctrines. Would experts have thought of that kind of war till then. There are multiple examples in the history including WW II where commanders rewrote the tactics that no one had thought about. I am sure you have read it all since you quoted Rommel and likes.

Paksiatn, had a chance to do the same. When the war clouds started gathering, what did Paksiatn do? Did it consider something radical? India prepared over more than an year. Paksiatn slept. When war started, there was obviously capability mismatch because your leaders were sleeping before that.

Why were they sleeping? Lechery and corruption was ONE of the reasons. Fine wine, women and ill gotten money probably made status quo the best thing for them. Unlike Rommel, for whom women was just a side kick and not the end of all means. For these lecherous men women was probably the end.

As I said earlier, the goal post is very wide and no one’s needs to shift it.
More one digs, more dirt will come out.