What's new

Revisiting the tragedy of December 1971

Status
Not open for further replies.
.
Again, not my words, Air Chief Marshal Nur Khan's words.




Genuine, honest evidence please........otherwise everything you say is more indian propaganda and lies.

No need to call me an idiot you idiot. You are not always right. You are the one stuck in the past. I said why are we discussing 1971, Whats done is done.

If you don't agree with me fine, but don't call me an idiot, you idiot.


You are detached from Pakistan as well.

Just because you are a Think Tank consultant, and not quite sure how you became one doesn't mean you are always right or I have to agree with you.

Guess we disagree on this one.


And why not? Why shouldn't East Pakistan be part of West Pakistan. It could worked out with proper governance.


bangladesh should NEVER have been a part of Pakistan. It doesn't make ANY sense whatsoever. 3000 kms away from us. Different race and culture to us. Different heritage and history to us. There is NOTHING to unite us with them. In fact bengalis have FAR MORE in common with indians than they do with us.
 
.
Genuine, honest evidence please........otherwise everything you say is more indian propaganda and lies.




bangladesh should NEVER have been a part of Pakistan. It doesn't make ANY sense whatsoever. 3000 kms away from us. Different race and culture to us. Different heritage and history to us. There is NOTHING to unite us with them. In fact bengalis have FAR MORE in common with indians than they do with us.
You may be correct that Bangladeshis having more in common with Indians than with Pakistanis culturally and in language. But had we given them provincial autonomy it could have worked out.

Anyways bhai, whats done is done. Bangladesh is a separate nation, everyone has accepted it.

No need for hypothetical scenarios.

True but East Pakistan should never have been part of Pakistan in the first place. East Pakistan is not envisaged in Allama Iqbal's vision for a Muslim State. It was just that Bangali Muslims could not get a separate homeland from the get go as the British would never have allowed "two Pakistans" hence Quaid e Azaam reluctantly accepted East Bengal to be part of Pakistan.
Whether East Pakistan should have been part of West Pakistan is another matter.

Yes it is true, that according to Allama Iqbal's vision East Pakistan was never meant to be part of Pakistan.
But had East and West Pakistan been united, we should have been a stronger force.


Anyways whats done is done. And good riddance as well. There were some plus points for getting rid of Bangladesh.
We have less in common with Republic of India by losing Bangladesh province.

So it was not a complete loss.

Yes we lost land technically and another front that we could fight against India in some wars.

but the Chinese front made up for that. China has fought a war against India in 1962.

Also India has two territorial disputes with China on Aksai Chin and South Tibet.
 
.
https://dailytimes.com.pk/329368/revisiting-the-tragedy-of-december-1971/

Rao-Farman-Ali-3.jpg


A man entered the commanding general’s chamber and handed him a chit: It read, “My Dear Abdullah, we have got you surrounded…Maj.-Gen. Gandharv Nagra.” The commanding general recognised the name. The two had been class mates at the Indian Military Academy. But how had the Indian forces broken through the security perimeter around Dhaka so quickly?

Lt.-Gen. A. A. K. Niazi was no longer his jovial self. When the situation had turned dire, Niazi had broken down in the company of other officers. He had let out a loud scream and begun sobbing like a baby.

This tale of woe is recounted in the memoirs of Maj.-Gen. Rao Farman Ali Khan, advisor to the governor on civil-military relations, How Pakistan Got Divided.

On December 16, 1971, East Pakistan broke away, making Pakistan the first major country that gained independence after the Second World War to break up into two.

The East had been simmering with a civil war since March when General Yahya Khan, the military ruler of Pakistan, refused to convene the National Assembly in Dhaka, preventing the Awami League led by Shaikh Mujib from forming a democratic government even though it had an absolute majority in parliament. Fighting intensified as the months progressed. Pakistan flew in two additional divisions to assist the sole division that was posted in the East. But they came without the usual complement of armor and artillery.

As the violence progressed, refugees began to stream into Indian Bengal and sometime in November Indian forces began to unleash an artillery barrage into East Pakistan. Pakistan upped the ante on the December 3 in the West when it sent its fighter bombers to raid Indian airfields in the West. The attack was anticipated and did not cause much harm to the IAF. Instead, it backfired, by giving India the excuse to unleash its full fury on the Pakistani army in the East.

In less than two weeks, the Eastern Garrison surrendered unconditionally. Its troops were fatigued by months of fighting an insurgency and badly outnumbered vis-à-vis India. The results were a foregone conclusion.

Rao Farman enumerates the reasons for the breakup. First, there was the result of the national elections of 1970. East Pakistanis accounted for 55 percent of the population but felt that the West, where the military and civil of the country resided, treated them like a colony of the West. They contributed a large share of the export earnings but their per capita income was significantly lower. Thus, the Awami League, won all but 2 seats in East Pakistan and that gave them 160 seats, an absolute majority in the National Assembly.

Second, General Yahya Khan, the military ruler, cancelled the session of the national assembly in Dhaka in March. He did this on the urging of Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, the chairman of the Pakistan People’s Party which was based entirely in the West. Bhutto connived with senior generals in the army to put pressure on Yahya to not convene the assembly because it would guarantee the transfer of power to the east, an unimaginable catastrophe for the generals and top bureaucrats in the West.

Third, when the situation deteriorated, he was advised by the governor, Vice Admiral Ahsan, and the military commander in the east, Maj.-Gen. Sahabzada Yaqub, to come and visit Shaikh Mujib, the head of the Awami League, in order to resolve the impasse. Yahya refused and would never again visit the East. Both the admiral and the general resigned their posts. Replacements were named, including Lt.-Gen. Tikka Khan and later Lt.-Gen. Niazi.

Fourth, a civil war broke out in the East when the army resorted to military action to establish the “writ of the state.” Members of the Awami League were termed “miscreants” and arrested, jailed or shot dead. By the end of March, the authority of the Pakistan government had ceased to exist. All governmental departments were reporting to Mujib.

Fifth, the army’s 45,000 troops were unable to quell the open rebellion that had broken out among the 75 million people of East Pakistan. Hindu refugees were spilling over into India, making the situation untenable. War with India was imminent.

Rao-Farman-Ali-2.jpg


Sixth, the generals were deluded into thinking that they had the situation under control and that should India attack in the East, they would open a second front in the West and neutralise the Indian operation. They appeared to be believing in a fool’s paradise. He had done his best to present an accurate assessment of the situation to them. But the hawks in the West dismissed him for being a dove, as they had dismissed Ahsan and Yaqub.

Seventh, once military operations began, India neutralised the single PAF squadron in the East by blasting the runways. Only six helicopters remained in flying condition. The artillery equipment was obsolete with a limited range.

And, eighth, to compound matters, Niazi choose to deploy the troops in “penny packets” around the long border with India, a point also noted by Captain (later brigadier) Siddiq Salik in his memoir, Witness to Surrender.

When the day of reckoning arrived, and the two generals met, Niazi began by reciting Urdu couplets to impress Nagra. When Nagra replied that he had a master’s degree in Persian from Government College, Lahore, Niazi switched to Punjabi.

After the surrender, he retreated to the tents to party with the Indian generals. The shame of surrender was no longer on his shoulders and he began to exchange ribald jokes with his former classmates. Rao Farman says he lost whatever little respect he had for Niazi at that time.

With pathos, Rao Farman concludes, “The [Army’s] Higher Command … lacked sense of direction, political sagacity and sound military judgment…Though it took another nine months to take shape, the breakup of the country was the direct …consequence of two major political decisions: first, to postpone the National Assembly session and second, to launch military action.”

The general, who was later the minister of petroleum in General Zia’s government, does not blame India for the breakup of Pakistan, unlike Yahya Khan (and many others) who blamed it “on the treachery of the Indians.” Nor does he put the blame squarely on Bhutto. After all, the country was under military rule.

The book is a must-read, not because it’s a scholarly work replete with footnotes and sources, but because it’s written by a general officer of the Pakistani army who was on the ground during the war and who saw history in the making.

Published in Daily Times, December 4th 2018.
good
 
.
Post reported.

@waz @The Eagle please send this guy to his place, as this so called Eisenstein thinks he knows everything about East Pakistan and creation of BD. He is just defaming Pakistan and that is his agenda.


Dear Basel.

Post a rebuttal of the force structure as outlined by me early on. I challenged you to refute the outlined force structure (posted with formation Numbers). Otherwise, stop trying to support an uncouth by playing the victim card. Another member, Indus Pakistan, also posted revised figures. Did you see my response to him?

Good for you that you consider the ability to stick to facts and collate data available in public domain to present forward desired arguments to be something of an Einstein. I can understand why you feel that way. :)

As for the bold, did not get why you posted that. Perhaps to win the argument where you have no rebuttal or merely because of your inability to comprehend and process what is being said?

Either ways, be assured, that the same in not required to be done by me. By antics of re-inventing facts, conjuring stories, mainstreaming fiction and photoshopping 'evidence' to boost self egos, and getting caught at it, the aim is being achieved by your fellow country members.

Cheers and have a great day.

@hellfire You can move on but such wording is not allowed.

A bit of relaxation or comfort to any member, shouldn't be taken as granted.

Regards,


Dear @The Eagle

I understand. Apologies for the bit of trolling, which I conceded in my own post earlier. I prefer to remain civil in my initial contact with a member. But unfortunately, the tendency to quickly degenerate the quality of discussion by certain Pakistani members (in my case), does tend to make one lash out.

Anyways, the bold? Chill. I neither seek, now want any relaxation or comfort. Instead, I am all for using the rules as they stand, without prejudice.

As always.

Regards
 
.
Dear Basel.

Post a rebuttal of the force structure as outlined by me early on. I challenged you to refute the outlined force structure (posted with formation Numbers). Otherwise, stop trying to support an uncouth by playing the victim card. Another member, Indus Pakistan, also posted revised figures. Did you see my response to him?

Good for you that you consider the ability to stick to facts and collate data available in public domain to present forward desired arguments to be something of an Einstein. I can understand why you feel that way. :)

As for the bold, did not get why you posted that. Perhaps to win the argument where you have no rebuttal or merely because of your inability to comprehend and process what is being said?

Either ways, be assured, that the same in not required to be done by me. By antics of re-inventing facts, conjuring stories, mainstreaming fiction and photoshopping 'evidence' to boost self egos, and getting caught at it, the aim is being achieved by your fellow country members.

Cheers and have a great day.




Dear @The Eagle

I understand. Apologies for the bit of trolling, which I conceded in my own post earlier. I prefer to remain civil in my initial contact with a member. But unfortunately, the tendency to quickly degenerate the quality of discussion by certain Pakistani members (in my case), does tend to make one lash out.

Anyways, the bold? Chill. I neither seek, now want any relaxation or comfort. Instead, I am all for using the rules as they stand, without prejudice.

As always.

Regards
Winter is coming so enjoy while it last. I tend to lash out too but then i figured why should i give powers to other hurting me emotionally.

Take this forum as a learning domain it doesn't matter if information is garbage or gold as both are useful.

Also yes i do feel the connection with Punjab and Sindh region as that is part of my history and hence the curiosity.
 
.
Defeat it was but look on the bright side. It took 15 Indians to take down one Pakistani. Yes the the Indians and this is coming out of the mouth of the Indian commander had -

15:1 advantage in Bangla '71


What happened on the western front where you had the advantage?How did you despite having numbers and armour get crushed at basantar and longewala?
 
.
You may be correct that Bangladeshis having more in common with Indians than with Pakistanis culturally and in language. But had we given them provincial autonomy it could have worked out.

Anyways bhai, whats done is done. Bangladesh is a separate nation, everyone has accepted it.

No need for hypothetical scenarios.


Whether East Pakistan should have been part of West Pakistan is another matter.

Yes it is true, that according to Allama Iqbal's vision East Pakistan was never meant to be part of Pakistan.
But had East and West Pakistan been united, we should have been a stronger force.


Anyways whats done is done. And good riddance as well. There were some plus points for getting rid of Bangladesh.
We have less in common with Republic of India by losing Bangladesh province.

So it was not a complete loss.

Yes we lost land technically and another front that we could fight against India in some wars.

but the Chinese front made up for that. China has fought a war against India in 1962.

Also India has two territorial disputes with China on Aksai Chin and South Tibet.
I am not suggesting that West Pakistan did no wrongs but be realistic East Pakistan would have gone separate slowly but surely. It would have been nicer to have this via peaceful ways. They did not want to accept Urdu, a neutral language back in 1947. They are a ethnically and linguistic proud people more so than Kashmiris, Punjabis, Pukhtoons etc etc and they are 1600km away. We might as well asked Yemen to join Pakistan. There were reasons why Allama Iqbal and Quaid e Azaam did not want Bengal to be part of a consolidated North West India block for Muslims.

"They are the friends of our enemies" - Jinnah at the Dacca University in 1948 seeing the intransigence of the students at the behest of their Hindu masters on the question of Urdu, the ultimate expression of the Muslim history/dominance/significance in the sub-continent, being the state language of Pak created on the basis of the Two-Nation Theory (TNT)

The East Pak folks had no problem to get rid of the Permanent Settlement of the perpetual subjugation to the worst socio-economic conditions under Hindu upper classes, who owned 99% of the lands in current BD as feudal lords, on the basis of TNT. The condition was so bad and physically/mentally abusive that many a Muslim male folk couldn't have even a circumcision after the birth or a Jenaze after the death!!! However, when it came to the question of the practical implementation of TNT they were the first to back stab!!!! They wanted to get it all!!!! However, Destiny had a different plan!!! Now, they are termed and treated like the termites by their very same Hindu overlords they have been trying so hard to please....
Why do you say they are treated so bad? They have their own country. The Muslims of Bharat maybe treated bad.
 
.
When armies are unleashed things happen. I can cite multiple reports that paint the same picture of US Army in Iraq, Afghanistan, Vietnam going back to WW2.
I'm sure if you could you would have done so.
 
.
ether East Pakistan should have been part of West Pakistan is another matter.
I'm sure if you could you would have done so.
fu/ck off you Zionist creep. USA did much more worse in WW2 against Japan with nuclear weapons, Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan wars.

USA did much more worse things than Pakistan could ever do! :lol:

I am not suggesting that West Pakistan did no wrongs but be realistic East Pakistan would have gone separate slowly but surely. It would have been nicer to have this via peaceful ways. They did not want to accept Urdu, a neutral language back in 1947. They are a ethnically and linguistic proud people more so than Kashmiris, Punjabis, Pukhtoons etc etc and they are 1600km away. We might as well asked Yemen to join Pakistan. There were reasons why Allama Iqbal and Quaid e Azaam did not want Bengal to be part of a consolidated North West India block for Muslims.


Why do you say they are treated so bad? They have their own country. The Muslims of Bharat maybe treated bad.
Maybe you are right, but to solve the 1971 problem, East Pakistan should have been given provincial autonomy.

Anyways who cares now, Bangladesh is a separate country. There were many Muslim Bengalis in Muslim League who were fighting for a separate Pakistan like A K Fazlul Haq dude. I think that is why Bangladesh became East Pakistan.

Anyways, look Bangladesh is a separate country, and everyone has accepted it. Its time to move on.

1971 was almost half a century ago.
 
. .
What happened on the western front where you had the advantage?How did you despite having numbers and armour get crushed at basantar and longewala?




For a start, where are the genuine, reliable, honest and irrefutable facts to support your claims? Please provide a link otherwise you are just like all the other indians who do nothing but always lie.
 
.
How did we have advantage? Please enlighten. And those defeats are tactical.

The whole strategy of PA revolved around attacking in the west,taking territory to exchange for territory in the east and force india to pull back troops from there.Failed in all objectives.India had 9 infantry divisions and several armoured brigades withdrawn to the eastern front-plus several on china border,which gave PA superiority in armour in the west and near parity in infantry.Any attempt to take territory was destroyed at longewala.At sakargarh bulge instead got attacked and lost dozens of tanks at basantr.So yes, we didn't need 15:1 ratio to win.PA failed both tactically and strategically.(lost half country meh,and the defence plan to take territory in west to compensate was foiled)
 
.
The more brighter side, 90000 odd Pakistani soldiers decided to surrender and become POWs in order to avoid all that Indian Bloodshed. Mighty nice of them :enjoy:
Only 23000 soldiers rest were civilians and Govt officers.

@Indus Pakistan @Joe Shearer

I personally thanked Mrs. Indira and Field Marshal Sam because they made us fearless since 1947 we have fear of losing Bangladesh, How can you defend a country which is roughly 1500 miles away with no land contact to main land.....As per Field Marshal Sam in that situation he is able to defeat even US forces when asked what if he joined Pakistani forces back in 1947 and have to defend Dhaka in 1971? He replied even he can't save....Problem is not forces but blockade from main land.....

For Pakistani army Bangladesh was a loose item and even before India there were thoughts of liberating it.

Cont....
 
Last edited:
.
Only 23000 soldiers rest were civilians and Govt officers.

@Indus Pakistan @Joe Shearer

I personally thanked Mrs. Indira and Field Marshal Sam because they made us fearless since 1947 we have fear of losing Bangladesh, How can you defend a country which is roughly 1500 miles away with no land contact to main land.....As per Field Marshal Sam in that situation he is able to defeat even US forces when asked what if he joined Pakistani forces back in 1947 and have to defend Dhaka in 1947? He replied even he can't save....Problem is not forces but blockade from main land.....

For Pakistani army Bangladesh was a loose item and even before India there were thoughts of liberating it.

Cont....

You're forgetting the fact that the land is seperate by a extremely hostile country.
It would have taken too much resources to keep up the contact due to indian interferences.
 
.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom