The atrocities in the 1971 civil war

[leonblack08]

Why does it have to be 'around 300,000 to 1 million'?

Are we just inventing numbers that we 'feel good about'?

Assuming 300,000 killed, does that include the hundred thousand plus West Pakistanis and Biharis massacred by Bengali terrorists before Op. Searchlight?

We are not inventing numbers.

Let me tell you a funny thing,in our part of the world people confuse themselves with "millions" and "lacs".

When Sheikh Mujib was first asked he said 3 million,but some scholars thinks he meant 3 lacs.
However,later on when asked again,he said 1 million.

That's why I put an estimate,considering the number of mass graves found.Also the fact that many were killed and dumped in rivers,whose bodies were not found later.Probably eaten by fish.

There are accounts of eyewitnesses that 100s of people were rounded up and then killed and then bodies dumped in rivers.
These accounts are too frequent from first hand eye witnesses and sometimes fortunate survivors.

All of that data could have been validated, by either the Bangladeshi government or the UN. The presence of mass graves alone does not indicate innocents were killed. For example in Swat the military buried militants it killed in large numbers in mass graves. The militants themselves did the same after air strikes on their compounds with the PA advancing on them and not enough time to do individual burials.

There were children amongst them ... since the Taliban brainwashed children to fight their war and carry out suicide bombings.

So you see why establishing 'genocide' or even 'non combatant deaths' merely from mass graves is not exactly the easiest thing to do.
I am pointing out the atrocities committed by Bengali militants before operation searchlight. We here lies after lies of 'millions killed' from Bangladeshis and Indians, yet this fact that Bengali militants massacred upwards of a hundred thousand West Pakistani and Bihari innocent men, women and children is conveniently ignored since it exposes the barbarism of the Separatists preceding Op. Searchlight.
Could there haven been such an individual? Perhaps I can't say either way, but atrocities were committed buy both sides.

Killing of bengalis were also going on before Operation searchlight,which also fueled the movement.

And I do not deny that atrocities were committed by both sides,but number of civilians killed by W Pakistani forces and their collaborators was very high comparing to the number of Biharis killed.
Reason is simple,there were too many Bengalis available to kill.

They were collaborators, and hence traitors - the punishment for treason is death.

Yes,that is why W Pakistani Generals sent in irregular Al-Badar,Al-shams and rajakars to do the dirty work for them.Why were they killed just before Pakistan surrendered?

According to your statement, these people sould have been executed during the so-called "Peace full period".

Instead they were killed just 2 days before surrender,by dragging them from their homes at night and then killing them and dumping them.

That shows that they were killed indiscriminately and in a real hurry to make the new born country brainless.If you are an intellect you are to be killed.A desperate attempt of a losing general to salvage something for future perhaps.


Even during Operation search light university students,prefessors were targeted.Certainly a wonderful(?) way of showing bravery.

The whole episode could have been solved by dialogue,but the "Intelligent" ruler of Unified Pakistan at that time thought "showing bravery" was a better option.The so called "Martial race" theory.


I think we are again drifting away from topic,which is about "military control".So I am not posting anything on this further.
Because we will be talking in circles and none of us would eventually reach conclusion.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

After the massacres started, it would have been impossible to maintain political unity unless under the writ of the military. However this would have only delayed the inevitable. Historically speaking such enforced unfications do not last long.

The awami league supported by almost everyone in E Pakistan had declared independence, what possible compromise could they have made with West Pakistan that would have been acceptable to the people? You may call it speculation but outside of independence there was no viable alternative available after the killings began.

First, I disagree that there were 'massacres' to the extent that reconciliation was impossible (and massacres were committed by both sides, lets not forget the hundred plus thousand killed by the Bengali separatists in the run-up to Op. Searchlight).

Second, this hypothetical exercise of reconciliation in the aftermath of crushing the violent insurgency is based on India not supporting the insurgency and intervening covertly and overtly - the absence of that intervention would have also allowed the situation to not get as inflamed in the first place and easier to pacify in the second, so even the casualties that did occur would be far lower.

If one takes out Indian support for terrorism in EP in 1971 and its military intervention, reconciliation and the continuation of a united Pakistan in some form is in fact a feasible proposition.

The problem, in terms of an inability for you and some others to comprehend such an outcome, arises from the fact that you impose historical distortions such as 'genocide and millions killed' on the situation as well as the environment at the end of 1971 which owed a lot to Indian intervention.

Take out the myths of genocide and the effect of Indian intervention and the environment for the continuation of a United Pakistan does not appear unfeasible at all.

 

[k_n]

First, I disagree that there were 'massacres' to the extent that reconciliation was impossible (and massacres were committed by both sides, lets not forget the hundred plus thousand killed by the Bengali separatists in the run-up to Op. Searchlight).

First you have to prove your rejection by defining as to WHAT EXTENT OF LOSS OF HUMAN LIFE IN SUPPRESSION OF A POLITICAL UPRISING can be deemed to fall within the limits beyond which 'RECONCILIATION' is impossible ?
The scenorio is a just slight different from what you've posted .
Looting , arson and breaking law and order and killing of law enforcement personnel took place after Mujib was denied to form a government and the proposal for "TWO PRIME MINISTERS " for the two seperate wings introduced by Z A Bhutto . It just didnt end here , Mujib had been spearheading the six point movement for a proportional share of political power and economic benefits within Pakistan since 1966 . The movement gained mileage under him and was the prime reason behind Awami League sweeping the 1970 general elections in erst. East Pakistan . Z A Bhutto instead of engaging the Awami League on negotiations bluntly refused to accept the six points , which were :
1. The constitution should provide for a Federation of Pakistan in its true sense based on the Lahore Resolution and the parliamentary form of government with supremacy of a Legislature directly elected on the basis of universal adult franchise.
2. The federal government should deal with only two subjects: Defence and Foreign Affairs, and all other residual subjects should be vested in the federating states.
3. Two separate, but freely convertible currencies for two wings should be introduced; or if this is not feasible, there should be one currency for the whole country, but effective constitutional provisions should be introduced to stop the flight of capital from East to West Pakistan. Furthermore, a separate Banking Reserve should be established and separate fiscal and monetary policy be adopted for East Pakistan.
4. The power of taxation and revenue collection should be vested in the federating units and the federal centre would have no such power. The federation would be entitled to a share in the state taxes to meet its expenditures.
5. There should be two separate accounts for the foreign exchange earnings of the two wings; the foreign exchange requirements of the federal government should be met by the two wings equally or in a ratio to be fixed; indigenous products should move free of duty between the two wings, and the constitution should empower the units to establish trade links with foreign countries.
6. East Pakistan should have a separate militia or paramilitary force

On a lighter note , beside the more EXPLICIT Hindu-Muslim divide between the Congrees and Muslim League the more implicit and crucial difference was the opposition to imposition of a strong central control over the semi-autonomous federation of states/provinces by the League .
Now , when you go ahead with nation building with such 'ETHOS' there is always a chance of disadvantaged groups within the country represented by a SINGLE political party coming up with the kind of demands which Awami League under Mujib sought .

Second , you are expected to prove that post 7th march and prior to 25th March hundred plus thausands west pakistanis , biharis , govt servants and members of security forces were killed by sepeartist bengalis . Now , all those hundred thausand killings were to take place within a period of 18 days . Please forward the proof of your claims and as is the practise here , NO pakisatni source is supposed to be considered valid .

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Nice attempt at yet another argument by re-definition. First you tried to re-define what would constitute genocide in the context of Bangladesh. When got called on that, you quickly re-defined what would constitute 'political group'. No, separatists didn't form the 'political group', but leadership, workers, cadres and supporters of Awami League formed the 'political group'. The separatists were a part of that group. Putting down armed rebellion is one thing, but going door to door, marked with chalk by the lackeys of PA, and gunning the residents down, or burning down village after village, simply on a suspicion that they were Awami supporters, only reveals a sinister plan to 'clean the political stable'. India has never done anything like that.

Lots more BS. The definition posted was open source, not contrived by me. When you are so disingenuous as to blatantly lie about your nations record of atrocities, no wonder you continue to propagate the mythology of 'genocide' and 'millions killed'.

India in Indian Punjab:

In its counterinsurgency operations in Punjab from 1984 to 1995, Indian security forces committed serious human rights abuses against tens of thousands of Sikhs. None of the key architects of this counterinsurgency strategy who bear substantial responsibility for these atrocities have been brought to justice.

“Impunity in India has been rampant in Punjab, where security forces committed large-scale human rights violations without any accountability,” said Brad Adams, Asia director at Human Rights Watch. “No one disputes that the militants were guilty of numerous human rights abuses, but the government should have acted within the law instead of sanctioning the killing, ‘disappearance,’ and torture of individuals accused of supporting the militants.”

A key case discussed in detail in the report is the Punjab “mass cremations case,” in which the security services are implicated in thousands of killings and secret cremations throughout Punjab to hide the evidence of wrongdoing.
India: Time to Deliver Justice for Atrocities in Punjab | Human Rights Watch

And that is from HRW, what the Sikhs say about Indian atrocities is far more graphic, as you no doubt know.

And no, I am not revising the definition of genocide, you are distorting the definition to support your fallacious case. The separatists massacred over a hundred thousand innocent men, women and children in less than a month leading to Op. Searchlight. This was more than a law and order situation, a state of war in fact given that a hostile external entity was supporting these people and mass murders and terrorism was being committed by them, and the GoP was absolutely correct in enforcing the writ of the State and its integrity by eliminating those who actively committed those atrocities and those who supported them. In the eyes of the Pakistani State (and any State for that matter) those who committed the atrocities, and those who supported them, were terrorists, barbarians and traitors being sponsored by an external entity.

But then, what about the extermination of Hindus? If deliberately seeking them out, often by checking at random if men were circumcised or not - an obsession still very much alive within PA - and killing them without remorse do not qualify as genocide, nothing ever will. As R.J.Rummel notes:

'In 1971 the self-appointed President of Pakistan and Commander-in-Chief of the Army, General Agha Mohammed Yahya Khan and his top generals prepared a careful and systematic military, economic, and political operation in East Pakistan (now Bangladesh). They also planned to murder its Bengali intellectual, cultural, and political elite. They also planned to indiscriminately murder hundreds of thousands of its Hindus and drive the rest into India. And they planned to destroy its economic base to insure that it would be subordinate to West Pakistan for at least a generation to come. This despicable and cutthroat plan was outright genocide.'

And RJ Rummel's source for making the above assertions? Are there any documents or recorded conversations amongst the Pakistani generals in the Pakistani archives that support the allegations he has made? Or is this just his 'opinion' reflecting popular bias and mythology?

Rummel's figures and work are nothing but statistical cherry picking. He has done no original work or research. If you have actually bothered to read through the chapter on Pakistan, all he does is take figures from various (often Indian or Bangladeshi) sources and complies a 'mean' as his result. In his own words:

"Beneath the consolidated overall toll I show my calculation from the partial estimates (line 81). These are rather close. Consolidating both ranges, I give a final estimate of Pakistan's democide to be 300,000 to 3,000,000, or a prudent 1,500,000 (line 82). "

His 'research' involves taking an average of the wildly contradictory figures estimated by various authors to come up with a 'prudent' estimate. The reported figures vary from 28,000 t0 3 million. Why should I not accept the HRC report and its conclusions on how many were killed given that its conclusions were far more researched than anything else I have seen.

Poppycock is what it is. He has no idea and the wildly differing figures form the various sources he uses indicate that very few others do either. Hence my argument that without an independent and neutral commission to properly investigate these deaths these assertions are nothing but BS thrown out to support one particular view point.

You ever planning to provide evidence, other than Supplementary HRC report, of massacre and rape of 'over a hundred thousand women and children in the run-up to operation Searchlight'. There were indeed massacre of Biharis post-25 March. There were indeed stray incidents of murders in the rural East Pakistan 'in the run-up to operation Searchlight'. But so far I have never come across any independent research that says 'over a hundred thousand women and children in the run-up to operation Searchlight' were massacred and raped. You also planning to back up that figure of '100,000+', or will it continue hanging in the air?

The figure has been backed up through the HRC report. Read the quoted portion again:

5. However, recently, a renowned journalist of high-standing, Mr. Qutubuddin Aziz, has taken pains to marshal the evidence in a publication called "Blood and Tears." The book contains the harrowing tales of inhuman crimes committed on the helpless Biharis, West Pakistanis and patriotic Bengalis living in East Pakistan during that period. According to various estimates mentioned by Mr. Qutubuddin Aziz, between 100,000 and 500,000 persons were slaughtered during this period by the Awami League militants.

6. As far as we can judge, Mr Qutubuddin Aziz has made use of authentic personal accounts furnished by the repatriates whose families, have actually suffered at the hands of the Awami League militants. He has also extensively referred to the contemporary accounts of foreign correspondents then stationed in East Pakistan. The plight of the non-Bengali elements still living in Bangladesh and the insistence of that Government on their large-scale repatriation to Pakistan, are factors which appear to confirm the correctness of the allegations made against the Awami League in this behalf.

That is far more thorough an investigation and analysis of events than what RJ Rummel has done.

500,000 massacred at the high end (by the way, the 150,000 massacred by Bengali militants is also referenced by RJ Rummel in that chapter on Pakistan).

And the HRC has also been a damning indictment of the military and has recorded atrocities committed by some in the military. I am not contesting that atrocities were committed, but there remains no evidence that they were on the scale alleged, and the 28,000 - 50,000 dead is a plausible number barring an independent and neutral investigation.

It is also disingenuous to continuously tone down the horrendous acts of PA as 'some mistakes' and tying these down with the mythical '100,000+ deaths and massacres prior to crack down' to give an impression that PA only reacted and not acted, thereby reducing the degree of culpability of PA.

Please, your lies, denial and dishonesty are getting tiresome, especially when your own source refers to the '150,000 non-Bengalis massacred by Bengalis'.

"I can now put together the various estimates of the Bengali--Awami League--democide (lines 162 to 166). Consolidating these, I get a range of 50,000 to 500,000 killed, more likely 150,000. "

Happy now? This is your own Rummel using his statistical skulduggery to come up with the numbers of non-Bengalis killed, which incidentally matches the figures of the HRC report.

Throw all these numbers out if you wish, but the fact remains that there is no credible analysis or study of how many were killed on both sides, and to ascribe 'genocide' to the PA based on widely differing and contradictory claims is completely dishonest.

And the PA did react, it reacted to terrorism on the scale that even the Taliban have not managed to perpetrate yet. Terrorism supported and encouraged by India.

The manner of identifying homes of Awami supporters reveals plan. The manner of murdering the intellectuals, so that the Bangladeshis are left with no credible leadership, reveals plan. The manner of seeking out Hindus reveals plan. The manner of identifying non-Bengalis, so that they can be spared, reveals plan. Gutting down village after village, for miles, reveals plan. Operating death camps reveals plans. These are by no means 'stray incidents' but very much a concerted effort. Yahya's desire for 'military solution according to plan' or 'clean the political stable' or declaration, 'Kill three million of them and the rest will eat out of our hands' (refer Massacre by Robert Payne. Incidentally, this comment is attributed to the figure of '3 million' deaths.) or Tikka khan's boastful 'I want the land not the people' or the general consensus among PA that 'a whiff of gunpowder would overawe the meek Bengalis' (refer The Idea of Pakistan by Stephen. P. Cohen), reveal a 'systematic policy'.

Identifying the homes of supporters of terrorists who massacred 150,000 innocent men, women and children does reveal plan - a plan to take those murderers to task.

The manner of killing collaborators (just because they were academics and intellectuals does not mean they should not have faced the firing squad for treason) suggests plan - a plan to punish traitors and supporters of terrorism.

As for 'death camps' your use of inaccurate inflammatory rhetoric such as 'death camps' indicates the degree of your dishonesty and the degree to which you are willing to lie and distort history to serve your malicious agenda.

Yahya's comment was reported by one journalist and more than likely was nothing more than rhetoric. A passing comment in an interview (that may or may not be accurately reported) does not establish intent to actually kill, and the controversy has been covered in other works that dismiss it. Keep clinging onto such tripe though, if it helps sustain your xenophobic hatred of West Pakistanis.

You are fooling no one except for yourself and members of your tribe.

On the contrary, it has been made amply clear that your allegations of genocide and 'millions killed' and the rest of it are nothing but lies sir. Indeed it is true that history is written by the victors, in this case a pack of lies propagated by India and others. Dig even a little deep as has been done on this thread and those lies are exposed for what they are.

Guess which country backed out from UN investigation on the plea of 'internal issue'.

Nothing stopping Bangladesh from determining the truth, or do they still consider themselves part of Pakistan and hence abide by 'Pakistan's internal issue'? The fact is that the Bangladeshis themselves don't want this 'popular mythology' exposed and their history overturned when the lies of 'millions killed and genocide' are exposed.

On the Pakistani side, given that atrocities did occur (even though not sustematically planned) an investigation does open the door for war crimes trials of its officers, and even though the numbers of those killed is not as high as claimed by some, war crimes trials would still be a huge smudge on the PA.

Both sides have there reasons therefore for not pursuing an independent inquiry, but until such an inquiry takes place, there is no way to substantiate the allegation of genocide or the numbers killed.

Yes, it was that much incredible that human being can be so much barbaric.

Incredible to the extent that it did not happen. Your author claims as a 'credible source' a letter by someone in a Newspaper! What nonsense. Where is the impartial investigation of these accounts? Why, as Blain pointed out, did nowhere close to the number alleged to be killed and raped come forward to the Bangladeshi government in the aftermath? Because the numbers alleged to be killed was a gross distortion and a pack of lies.

And yet you are more than willing to swallow the Supplementary HRC Report, which, by their own account, had examined a mere 213 witnesses. I understand, denial can keep a person warm and dry. But this is hilarious.

The HRC methodology for its conclusions involves more research and proper evidence than one chapter of Rummel's statistical skulduggery.

If any first hand eyewitness to the barbarity of PA is a mere ‘anecdote’ and hence can’t be relied on, then one wonders, what would an investigation into any massacre or genocide entail? What will then be accepted as evidence? Accounting for each and every dead body? Documents ordering massacre, signed, sealed and authenticated by the goons? Images of atrocities being committed? Then again you also reject photographic evidence of piles of dead bodies. What else do you need?

A letter in a newspaper is not an 'eyewitness'.

Yes, accounting for 'most' of the dead bodies, accounts from multiple sources such as the villagers (there are surely more than one) who witnessed these acts, the coming forward of victims and relatives of victims and others (which resulted in extremely low numbers). All you have done is provide isolated anecdotal accounts which, even if all true, do not in any way add up to the numbers dead that are being claimed.

Then again, who cares what you need. The world at large is convinced.

Logical fallacy - just because the world at large may believe a lie does not make it any truer. Your allegations of millions killed and genocide have no evidence to support them and are lies and propaganda devised to justify Indian intervention and Bangladeshi independence.

That’s bulls!t. blain2 had made an assertion that Bangladesh could have been avoided, merely by subjugating the Bengalis, militarily. My question was meant to look into the political aspect of integrating an entire region of disenchanted population after that atrocious military subjugation, particularly, when the same population, before their ‘treason’, was convinced that they were consistently denied of their rights. Your good friend could have carried on with the debate with a simple rejoinder, but instead he, and now you, made the peripheral issue as primary one. Do note how he quickly forgets to explain how an administration completely devoid of Bengali representation, could at all be viable for East Pakistan or if it could be trusted by the Bengalis. The question, in the context of the thread, is not if the deaths were really that many or the massacres can be called ‘genocide’. The question is if a population which has been brandied as ‘traitors’ could still be held back from eventually breaking away. That remains unanswered even now.

Now stop giving it an unnecessary spin. Although I must give credit where it is due. You have successfully turned this into the question of if PA engineered massacres qualify as genocide. To the world at large it does. No amount of wishful denial is going to change that.

How can you lie and distort so blatnatly when the evidence is right there? Though I suppose I shouldn't be surprised given your ranting lies about 'genocide and millions killed' This is what Blain said and what you responded to:

"Had Indians not invaded, the East Pakistanis could not have come up with a favourable situation on the ground."

Blain claimed nothing tangential to the thread topic. Controlling the insurgency militarily by definition implies that the country would have continued to function as a united entity. Your response was to dredge up 'genocide' and all the other nonsense about 'whether Pakistan would ever be able to politically re-integrate the Bengali population'.

Whether or not Pakistan would be able to enact political reforms and re-integrate the East Pakistanis is tangential to the issue of whether the insurgency itself was being controlled and would have been controlled was it no for Indian military intervention.

Anyway, I love the way you, from time to time, hoist that victory pennant. You never get tired of stroking your ego. Do you now?

Thanks - love debunking Indian lies and propaganda.

 

[notsuperstitious]

Put in trains? Where?

And as for checking for Hindus, given Indian support for the insurgency, it was a legitimate concern in terms of checking the individual further. But that does not prove that every Hindu found was killed.

As for numbers killed, whether Hindus were or were not the majority of those killed, that can only be determined through an impartial commission that investigates these events, since history has so obviously been clouded with lies of genocide and 'millions killed'.

Impartial inquiry? The US state department sources are impartial and authentic enough for me as they were staunch supporters of pakistan then and YET their records clealy show what i've said.

While asking for impartial inquiry you yourself have been throwing that 100000 biharis killed number that comes out of hamidur report?

 

[gromell]

 

[leonblack08]

^^^^

Good video Grommell .Did you upload it just now?Are there more reports like these?

The BBC reporter also mentions that casualities were likely to be higher because of continuous firing for hours and the fact that lots of unarmed civilians living in the area.

These are very important documents.

 

[toxic_pus]

Too much BS to wade through. Picking some up while letting rest of the poop to float.

Lots more BS. The definition posted was open source, not contrived by me.

That’s why it is called re-definition. You first posted ‘definition’ of genocide and then re-defined it how it should be applicable in case of Bangladesh viz. ethnic cleansing. The truth is that the definition encompasses other factors, and massacres by PA fall in those categories, viz. extermination of political class and minority Hindus.

The separatists massacred over a hundred thousand innocent men, women and children in less than a month leading to Op. Searchlight. This was more than a law and order situation, a state of war in fact given that a hostile external entity was supporting these people and mass murders and terrorism was being committed by them, and the GoP was absolutely correct in enforcing the writ of the State and its integrity by eliminating those who actively committed those atrocities and those who supported them. In the eyes of the Pakistani State (and any State for that matter) those who committed the atrocities, and those who supported them, were terrorists, barbarians and traitors being sponsored by an external entity.

We are still waiting for evidence of massacre of ‘over a hundred thousand innocent men, women and children in less than a month leading to Op. Searchlight’. The Supplementary HRC report only mentions of deaths during the entire period till December. So does, R.L.Rummel. Meanwhile, a casual look at the White Paper issued by Pakistan reveals something else.

Below I have put together a small list of death toll from 1 March to 25 March, as claimed by GoP in its White Paper, together with the place of tragedy. If dates are missing it means that no death was reported on that day. Also, (+) indicates separate incident.

1 March, 1971 => 6 killed; Dhaka, Mob attack on Army (+) 1 killed; Army trying to defend a local TV station

3 March, 1971 => 5 killed, 62 wounded; Dhaka (+) 1 killed, 9 injured; Jessore. Guards opened fire on mob to protect Telephone Exchange

4 March, 1971 => 300 killed; Wireless Colony, Chittagong

5 March, 1971 => 57 killed; Khulna

6 March, 1971 => 7 Killed; Dhaka. Police opened fire on escaping prisoners (+) 1 killed, 7 injured; Khulna. Shopkeepers opened fire on looters.

12 March, 1971 => 2 killed, 18 injured. Police opened fire on escaping prisoners.

19 March, 1971 => 2 killed, 5 injured. Troops opened fire.

25 March, 1971 => 3 killed, 17 injured; Saidpur (+) 1 killed, 1 injured; Saidpur.

So from 1st March to 25th March total number of deaths, according to GoP, was 384. If deaths due to police firing is excluded, then the number of deaths amounts to 367. Excluding the Chittagong incident, total death amounts to 67. The death tolls include East Bengalis as well. No rape figures given, although reported only on 4rth.

Another puzzle that you may want to explain is, why did PA withdraw to barracks on 3rd March, 1971 and stayed there till the midnight of 25th March, 1971 when, if you are to be believed, the situation was as grave as ‘100,000 massacres and rapes of non-Bengalis’ would suggest?

And RJ Rummel's source for making the above assertions? Are there any documents or recorded conversations amongst the Pakistani generals in the Pakistani archives that support the allegations he has made? Or is this just his 'opinion' reflecting popular bias and mythology?

Recorded comments of key players not only in press but also in their memoirs, Newspaper reports of the times, research work done by numerous historians and journalists.

He gives a long list of references at the end of each chapter.

Rummel's figures and work are nothing but statistical cherry picking. He has done no original work or research. If you have actually bothered to read through the chapter on Pakistan, all he does is take figures from various (often Indian or Bangladeshi) sources and complies a 'mean' as his result. In his own words:

"Beneath the consolidated overall toll I show my calculation from the partial estimates (line 81). These are rather close. Consolidating both ranges, I give a final estimate of Pakistan's democide to be 300,000 to 3,000,000, or a prudent 1,500,000 (line 82). "

His 'research' involves taking an average of the wildly contradictory figures estimated by various authors to come up with a 'prudent' estimate. The reported figures vary from 28,000 t0 3 million. Why should I not accept the HRC report and its conclusions on how many were killed given that its conclusions were far more researched than anything else I have seen.

Poppycock is what it is. He has no idea and the wildly differing figures form the various sources he uses indicate that very few others do either. Hence my argument that without an independent and neutral commission to properly investigate these deaths these assertions are nothing but BS thrown out to support one particular view point.

Au contraire , R.J.Rummel does an excellent job. Instead of relying on one source, like your HRC did with Qutubuddin Aziz, he has collated a wide range of research work by reputed and reliable scholars. Among others, it includes extensive research work by Richard Sisson, Leo E. Rose, Anthony Mascarenhas, Robert Payne, Nicole Ball, Milton Leitenberg etc and more importantly GoP’s White Paper.

The figure has been backed up through the HRC report. Read the quoted portion again:

5. However, recently, a renowned journalist of high-standing, Mr. Qutubuddin Aziz, has taken pains to marshal the evidence in a publication called "Blood and Tears." The book contains the harrowing tales of inhuman crimes committed on the helpless Biharis, West Pakistanis and patriotic Bengalis living in East Pakistan during that period. According to various estimates mentioned by Mr. Qutubuddin Aziz, between 100,000 and 500,000 persons were slaughtered during this period by the Awami League militants.

6. As far as we can judge, Mr Qutubuddin Aziz has made use of authentic personal accounts furnished by the repatriates whose families, have actually suffered at the hands of the Awami League militants. He has also extensively referred to the contemporary accounts of foreign correspondents then stationed in East Pakistan. The plight of the non-Bengali elements still living in Bangladesh and the insistence of that Government on their large-scale repatriation to Pakistan, are factors which appear to confirm the correctness of the allegations made against the Awami League in this behalf.

That is far more thorough an investigation and analysis of events than what RJ Rummel has done.

500,000 massacred at the high end (by the way, the 150,000 massacred by Bengali militants is also referenced by RJ Rummel in that chapter on Pakistan).

And the HRC has also been a damning indictment of the military and has recorded atrocities committed by some in the military. I am not contesting that atrocities were committed, but there remains no evidence that they were on the scale alleged, and the 28,000 - 50,000 dead is a plausible number barring an independent and neutral investigation.

[...]

The HRC methodology for its conclusions involves more research and proper evidence than one chapter of Rummel's statistical skulduggery.

Relying on a single book by a Pakistani author, whose objectivity and authenticity of work remains unverified, doesn’t make ‘investigation and analysis of events’ in any way ‘thorough’. Far, far from it. It only reveals the utmost callousness and the severe lack of sincerity on the part of HRC. It only makes HRC report a farce which is not even worth the paper it is typed on.

In any case the figure of 100,000 to 500,000 relates to the entire period of conflict and includes casualties of war in December.

As with the figure of 28,000 to 50,000 Bengali deaths, well, the first few days of crackdown saw death to the tune of, conservatively speaking, 15,000; Hariharpur death camp alone is estimated at 20,000 lives. Anyway, keep telling that fairy-tale to yourself.

Also, you don’t have qualms in accepting Pakistani witnesses, and authors, as truth and unbiased while rejecting all other witnesses as either ‘anecdotal’ or ‘propaganda’.

On another note, that thing that you are peddling as HRC Report, is actually Supplementary HRC Report, and only Bhutto and HR know how much of it contains the true contents of the original Report. The authenticity of that Supplementary HRC Report is very much a suspect.

Please, your lies, denial and dishonesty are getting tiresome, especially when your own source refers to the '150,000 non-Bengalis massacred by Bengalis'.

"I can now put together the various estimates of the Bengali--Awami League--democide (lines 162 to 166). Consolidating these, I get a range of 50,000 to 500,000 killed, more likely 150,000. "

Happy now? This is your own Rummel using his statistical skulduggery to come up with the numbers of non-Bengalis killed, which incidentally matches the figures of the HRC report.

I am more than happy with R.J.Rummel’s work. Thank you very much.

And the PA did react, it reacted to terrorism on the scale that even the Taliban have not managed to perpetrate yet. Terrorism supported and encouraged by India.


Identifying the homes of supporters of terrorists who massacred 150,000 innocent men, women and children does reveal plan - a plan to take those murderers to task.

The manner of killing collaborators (just because they were academics and intellectuals does not mean they should not have faced the firing squad for treason) suggests plan - a plan to punish traitors and supporters of terrorism.

Apparently summary killings without trial, without giving the accused an opportunity to defend are acceptable.

Anyway, your entire rebuttal, or shall we say justification for PA’s genocide, rests on very thin ice of ‘150,000+ innocents killed in the run up to the crack down’. Till you provide concrete evidence, preferably from independent neutral sources, your ‘poppycock’ continues to be what it is – ‘poppycock’.

As for 'death camps' your use of inaccurate inflammatory rhetoric such as 'death camps' indicates the degree of your dishonesty and the degree to which you are willing to lie and distort history to serve your malicious agenda.

What would Hariharpur qualify as, where, men and women were brought in trucks from as far as 8 miles, then kept imprisoned in a building, and then shot dead, and then their bodies allowed to float away with tide.

Yahya's comment was reported by one journalist and more than likely was nothing more than rhetoric. A passing comment in an interview (that may or may not be accurately reported) does not establish intent to actually kill, and the controversy has been covered in other works that dismiss it. Keep clinging onto such tripe though, if it helps sustain your xenophobic hatred of West Pakistanis.

First, prove that it was 'inaccurate' reporting or a mere 'passing comment'. Till then it stands.

Second, Yahya, and Bhutto, had made some more comments that will embarrass you even more. Lets not get there.

Yes, accounting for 'most' of the dead bodies, accounts from multiple sources such as the villagers (there are surely more than one) who witnessed these acts, the coming forward of victims and relatives of victims and others (which resulted in extremely low numbers). All you have done is provide isolated anecdotal accounts which, even if all true, do not in any way add up to the numbers dead that are being claimed.

‘Most’ dead bodies couldn’t possibly be accounted for because ‘most’ of them were dumped in rivers so that the bodies would be carried away into the sea and thus completely lost, or result in quick decay while the rest were buried in secret mass graves, which are being discovered even 20-30 years after the incidents. ‘Majority’ of the bodies which couldn’t be disposed off quickly, was indeed discovered and they do point to the overwhelming number of deaths. These atrocious acts of genocide are corroborated by numerous eyewitnesses, some of whom were Europeans and Americans either on vacation or in employment, and not just one or two letters to the editor – although there were some. These Europeans and American eyewitnesses also gave deposition to International Commission of Jurists, who due to unfortunate circumstances couldn’t come down to Bangladesh and examine Bangladeshi witnesses and complete their investigations. (Pakistan had already disassociated itself from any such investigation.)

Then there are eyewitness accounts of number of foreign press reporters. Before the crack down of 25th March, these reporters were ‘forcibly confined’ to a hotel. But a couple of intrepid journalists managed to escape and one of them was Simon Dring of The Daily Telegraph. He roamed the city during the first few days of mayhem and later reported from Bangkok, on 30th March, 1971. It made front page news. An excerpt.

‘In the name of "God and a united Pakistan", Dacca is today a crushed and frightened city. After 24 hours of ruthless, cold-blooded shelling by the Pakistan Army, as many as 7,000 people are dead, large areas have been leveled and East Pakistan's fight for independence has been brutally put to an end. [...] Even so people are still being shot at the slightest provocation, and buildings are still being indiscriminately destroyed. [...] It is impossible accurately to assess what all this has so far cost in terms of innocent human lives. But reports beginning to filter in from the outlying areas, Chittagong, Comilla and Jessore put the figure, including Dacca, in the region of 15,000 dead. Only the horror of the military action can be properly gauged - the students dead in their beds, the butchers in the markets killed behind their stalls, the women and children roasted alive in their houses, the Pakistanis of Hindu religion taken out and shot en masse, the bazaars and shopping areas razed by fire and the Pakistani flag that now flies over every building in capital.’

Questioning the number of victims coming forward to claim compensation, the usual cheep shot by the genocide deniers, is just another attempt at deflection. The number of rape victims that claimed compensation is low because of social reasons. Dr Geoffrey Davis, an Australian doctor, visited Bangladesh 1972 to rehabilitate these sexually molested women. He helped not only in abortion but treated numerous cases of venereal diseases, contracted primarily while attempting traditional methods of abortion. He quotes a mind boggling figure of, and I even hesitate to type, 400,000 sexual molestation cases.

Thanks - love debunking Indian lies and propaganda by manufacturing my own lies and propaganda.

There, completed it for you.

 

[Windjammer]

YouTube - 26th March 1971: Bangladesh Genocide

Who was the lesser of two evils.......................???



Videos - Stranded Pakistanis, Biharis, Stateless in Bangladesh and Pakistan

 

[leonblack08]

^^^^^^^^^^


Why didn't the Pakistani Govt. take them back after independence?It was their duty to do so.We brought back the Bangladeshis who wanted to live in Bangladesh,after independence.

In a country where its own people are deprived of basic right,how can one expect better rights for refugees?

Do you think Bangladesh is UK or what?

I mean what the hell are you trying to prove here?Just want to derail the thread I believe,as you have no other argument left to counter it.

You are comparing murdering of unarmed civilians with this?
How pathetic and cheap attempt.

BTW,for your information,all these Bihari people have been given Bangladeshi citizenship 2 years ago.And they even voted in last election.They even have their own representing them.The new generation are slowly moving towards development.

You don't need to shed tears for them,because you did not do it when it was needed.Still some elderly Biharis wants to go back to Pakistan.They did not want Bangladeshi citizenship when offered.But the question is does their country wants them?

 

[k_n]

Who was the lesser of two evils.......................???



Videos - Stranded Pakistanis, Biharis, Stateless in Bangladesh and Pakistan

Why doesnt Pakistan accepts them as its citizens ?
Again , due to 'Ethnic Differences' rehabilitation of stranded Biharis has been done away with , although many Biharis manged to leave Erst. East Pak and came to West Pakistan in the immediate aftermath of the conflict ( Biharis were trickling into West Pak throughout 1971 ) but a hundred thausand are still stranded !
If Bengalis are mistreating the Biharis then let them be evil but why doesnt Pakistan allows them to move into their country . Bihari muslims , in my opinion suffered more than Punjabis during partition , all because they were promised a muslim welfare state Pakistan . Its moral duty of GoP to grant them pakistani citizenship .

 

[Windjammer]

^^^^^^^^^^


Why didn't the Pakistani Govt. take them back after independence?It was their duty to do so.

In a country where its own people are deprived of basic right,how can one expect better rights for refugees?

I mean what the hell are you trying to prove here?Just want to derail the thread I believe.

You are comparing murdering of unarmed civilians with this?
How pathetic and cheap attempt.

BTW,for your information,all these Bihari people have been given Bangladeshi citizenship 2 years ago.And they even voted in last election.They even have their own representing them.The new generation are slowly moving towards development.

You don't need to shed tears for them,because you did not do it when it was needed.Still some elderly Biharis wants to go back to Pakistan.They did not want Bangladeshi citizenship when offered.But the question is does their country wants them?

And what the hell are yous trying to prove by posting videos of an even earlier period.?
The Biharis were also common civilians at the time, what makes one more vulnerable than the other.
Those were testing times for all and what happened 40 odd years earlier can't be reversed but there are characters who still glorify over these sad events.

 

[leonblack08]

According to Agnostic Muslim,

the Bengali intellects were collaborators and traitors.That's why they were massacred on 14th August.

So the same theory applies here too.
These people were collaborators and traitors in bangladesh's point of view.

Not justifying any brutality,but I should point out that these Biharis indulged in killing during liberation war.And as the Pakistani forces surrendered,they faced the wrath of the former victims.

But how does this compare with the unprovoked killing of civilians by the military of their own country??

 

[leonblack08]

And what the hell are yous trying to prove by posting videos of an even earlier period.?
The Biharis were also common civilians at the time, what makes one more vulnerable than the other.
Those were testing times for all and what happened 40 odd years earlier can't be reversed but there are characters who still glorify over these sad events.

Which video are you talking about?

I only posted one video in this thread,which completely goes with the thread's topic,"Insurgency was controlled militarily",while I was replying to Agnostic Muslim.


What makes one more vulnerable than other?

I gave you the reply on the previous post.

 

[Windjammer]

^^^^^^^^^^

Most of us weren't even around during that eventful period, and we like to read and believe our version of history hence it feels like chewing on "Kala Naga". The Army was sent in to quash Indian backed insurgency, just as it's conducting now in FATA areas of Pakistan. By your theory one can argue that even now it's killing it's own citizens, but isn't that like saying, you can shoot but i won't fire back. What happened in the heat of the battle was regrettable yet unavoidable, however in the aftermath there were figures with vested interests who incited others to bare down on the subjects.