The truth of 1971 by Sheikh Haseena Wajid

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Agnostic,

a. To say that movement by ANC for rights of indigenous Africans was only peaceful is completely inaccurate. There was a lot of violence especially after the Sharpeville massacre. Mandela himself co-founded the armed wing of the ANC - "Spear of the Nation" (there is a specific African term - I forget) - so while I admire the man deeply - he was hardly MLK or the Dalai Lama.

This is going off on somewhat of a tangent - whether Mandela was a complete pacifist does not negate the point I am making, that the violence against non-combatants by the East Pakistani insurgents was unjustifiable and inexcusable.

On the subject of Mandela, some quick quotes from Wiki:

Fellow ANC member Wolfie Kadesh explains the bombing campaign led by Mandela: "When we knew that we [sic] going to start on 16 December 1961, to blast the symbolic places of apartheid, like pass offices, native magistrates courts, and things like that ... post offices and ... the government offices. But we were to do it in such a way that nobody would be hurt, nobody would get killed."[34] Mandela said of Wolfie: "His knowledge of warfare and his first hand battle experience were extremely helpful to me."[10]

Mandela described the move to armed struggle as a last resort; years of increasing repression and violence from the state convinced him that many years of non-violent protest against apartheid had not and could not achieve any progress.[10][35]

Later, mostly in the 1980s, MK waged a guerrilla war against the apartheid regime in which many civilians became casualties.[33] Mandela later admitted that the ANC, in its struggle against apartheid, also violated human rights, sharply criticising those in his own party who attempted to remove statements supporting this fact from the reports of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission.[36]

The above would indicate that while Mandela was not a complete pacifist, he did not envision killing non-combatants either, and was critical of the violence that did occur. The link I gave you however clearly shows that not only did the East Pakistani separatists seek to kill people, they deliberately sought out West Pakistani and Bihari non-combatants, women and children included, and butchered them in cold blood, before any major PA ops.

b. We will never reconcile to the terrorist/separatist/freedom fighter kaleidoscopic view. I am trying to look at it from your perspective - and I see your point but I can't concur.

Its simple - the insurgents butchered non-combatants in pursuit of a political cause - that is terrorism, whether the LeT does it in Mumbai, or the EP separatists did it in East Pakistan, or the Taliban do it in FATA.

c. There is no smoke without fire. Are you suggesting the erstwhile East Pakistanis woke up one day, twirled their mustaches collectively and said, "Let's commit atrocities against the West Pakistanis" - if you are correct - what actually led to such behavior?

No doubt there was alienation, discrimination and unequal treatment, especially in the matter of resource distribution, but the fact of the matter is that it never got anywhere close to the levels we saw in other nations such as South Africa, British India, or the US. And while the political system was a sham given military rule, political rights were suspended for all Pakistanis, not just East Pakistan, and East Pakistanis continued to have the right to participate in the political process. Rigging elections or usurping power by sidelining the winning candidate did not happen in Pakistan in 1971 alone, these things have happened and will continue to happen in the world. The response by the separatists on the other hand was completely barbaric an inexcusable - going on a butchering spree against West Pakistanis, instigating rebellion and creating a general state of chaos and mayhem was the wrong path to take and in many cases the actions equated to terrorism.

d.

They are terrorists just like the East Pakistani separatists who engaged in violence against non-combatants were terrorists. [\QUOTE]
Nope. By that logic - all Armies are terrorists - the Indian one in Kashmir/Sri Lanka, the Pakistani one in Bangladesh/NWFP/Balochistan, the Americans just about everywhere. We all know that non-combatants are often referred to as "collateral damage". We must look at the cause that these entities support. That would be the differentiation.

Intent matters - If an army/police force deliberately targets and kills non-combatants then I agree that it has engaged in terrorism, just as that label would, IMO, apply to a non-state actor doing so.

 

[vandemataram]

The same can be said of Pakistani Citizens, majority of them are not only oblivious of ISI but also have no idea about India's premier spy agency, but perhaps you can shed some light as why the ISI is a house hold name in India, those who portray the ISI as the culprit for India's woes are the cream of your society and spear head your frivlious media, and they are deemed snow white credible, last word in honesty and professionalism, but flick the coin over and it's all fake and forged.



Why my preacher suddenly becomes your poacher.??!!

The above is incorrect. ISI and R&AW are completely different objects, albeit both are responsible for their respective countries' external spying and intelligence gathering.

And as regards your point that same is the case in Pakistan, I am afraid it is incorrect. ISI as the name suggests is a tripartite arrangement between the country's forces; the army, the navy and the airforce. Of course we all know that it is the Army that calls the shots in ISI, hence the name Inter Services Intelligence.

You would be aware that ISI and its funtioning is known at least to your country's defence forces, after all they are the owners of the security agency. And thanks to the western media and of late the Indian media as well ISI has become a house-hold name. But again you cannot single out India as being the country where is it well known, I would say it is very well known to the western media as well, particularly the Americans, as they have a history of dealing with ISI often double-timing from both ends.

Cut back to India:

It is a parliamentary democracy and R&AW is nowhere related to Defense forces. The budget for RAW are from the Central funds and there is separate budget for it. It is NOT a part of the defense budget.

Secondly the reins of RAW were/are/would never be in the hands of the military. There have been many instances where such moves have been made from the defense establishment, but sanity has prevailed. A case in point is the Aviation Research Center (ARC) the aviation wing of RAW. There have been attempts in making it a part of the IAF but it hasnt happened.

Thirdly, RAW chief is answerable and responsible to only one man in India - the Primie Minister. There is no parliamentary oversight nor is its budget, working, org structure meant for public consumption.

Fourthly, unlike the ISI the head of RAW is always a civilian, can be from the Indian Police Service and the intelligence bureau. He is never a military person. Yes there are armed forces guys working on deputation, but cannot become RAW chiefs.

Fifthly, unlike the ISI the ranks are between assistant secretary and chief secretary. You cannot make out the difference from a Cabinet Secretary rank as to his department and ministry.

In a nutshell ISI and the GHQ are never far from the other. Whenever there is a talk of the Army the ISI is omnipresent there. Two sides of the same coin. Thus it is more widely known. Simple.


An example lt Gen. Ahmed Shuja Pasha..right ? He is the guy ?? I know this very easily without looking for him in google.

The same cannot be said about RAW. As you read this you are googling as well...to know who is RAW chief.

You will not find a proper profile as others would find of Lt Gen Pasha

 

[vandemataram]

In several of your post you relentlessly trying to say that BD economy gone bad with the breaking away or w. pakistan was supporting E. Pakistan or W. Pakistan is better off now without East.
Let me clear some of the clouds here.
1) BD economy is in far better state than what it was before 1971. I should say it is doing great. We had a slow start in 1970's, took care of the flood problem in 1980's and early 1990's and created a young enormous enterprenour class which is driving force of our economy. Just think of BD with no cotton exports textiles more than any country after China in the whole world and opting to catch china in near future. We export as much as Pakistan and import half of Pakistan. We earn 30% more in remittance than Pakistan. We got the worlds biggest footware and textile factory now in Bangladesh. We will start exporting our cars in Europe by 2012. These are few things should give you a hint where we are heading while pondering about Cultural, Social and Intellectual excellence that we attained through independence.

2) We had two option in hand, either to have equal and just share of power in center while having economic autonomy in the east or to have a independent country. People were on the street, protest were in place and it was you who started the War. You lost your patience and opted for a quick solution not us.

3) India factor came out of blue. When war started, there was only one objective and that was to win the war. It was not that we trusted India but we used India. Again its Bengali Brain....... You guys must be missing it now.

Bharat Bangla Oikya Zindabad...banglar mati, banglar jol banglar manush

 

[vandemataram]

Wow you have sold your sole to Indians too. I pray Hindus take place of Punjabis and be your masters for ever. out of the pan into the fire.
Its funny nations which look down on Punjabi's don't mind to be salve of Indians.

Instead of forcing us to read your rant can you talk about bringing the head of that man in green..down to you knees?

Fight him out...fight the institution he heads...then we have a game on...

 

[vandemataram]

Instead of forcing us to read your rant can you talk about bringing the head of that man in green..down to you knees?

Fight him out...fight the institution he heads...then we have a game on...

Mods; this may be a bit off-topic but I cant stop expressing myself here. Please pardon me for the unilateral freedom taken...

From an Indian perspective, I think the last BD elections were a turning point. Of course it has not been very long since Mrs Wajed came to power, but I am sure, with a good dose of tactical diplomacy and long term strategic thinking, Indo-Bangla relations are slated to reach its zenith.

India and B'desh both are making the right choices and right moves, particularly the GoI s fight against the ULFA. It is heartening for an Indian like me to say the least. India must also accomodate B'desh'x concerns and allay its fears. That the is the key over here.

I am sure a lot of B'deshis over here hate Gen Moeen Ahmed, but he has high regards here in Inida. India has made the right noises and invited him here and now Gen Mubeen. It is very strategic in nature as far as I am concerned. Simply, the Armed Forces in B'desh is very powerful. We have had a history of it. Dont take it negatively but B'desh is more militarized than India and armed forces have considerable powers. So if India can remain pally with B'desh armed forces including the BDR then it provides strong mileage.

Secondly I am really concerned of how long can Awami governement can sustain the pressure. I am very sceptical about her life..it is plain and simple. Any untoward incident can put the recent bonhomie between the two countries in a back burner. She must not fall into the hands of assasins - Period..be it politically motivated, militarily (coup) or a covert action ala "Operation Wrath of God"

 

[toxic_pus]

So the same horsemanure of 'genocide in response to genocide' is being peddled here as well. Well, the other thread was locked so that the so called 'evidences' couldn't be rebutted. And now that thread and those very 'evidences' are being cited as incontrovertible proof of how PA was 'forced' to 'act' in the face of 'wanton and barbaric violence' by the Bengalis of East Pakistan. And amusingly the very author who was practically rejected with a hand wave is now being selectively quoted - not in this thread though - to make a case.

Well, I guess all is fair in love, war and debate.

Anyway, while reading about this attempt to draw a parallel between Mujib and MLK/NM, and in the process between the civil society and political establishment of Pakistan and US/South America, I just remembered one Ho Chi Minh quip about Gandhi and his non-violence. It went something like this.

'If Gandhi had been fighting the French, he would have given up non-violence in a week.'

ALL IZZZ WELLLL.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

So the same horsemanure of 'genocide in response to genocide' is being peddled here as well. Well, the other thread was locked so that the so called 'evidences' couldn't be rebutted. And now that thread and those very 'evidences' are being cited as incontrovertible proof of how PA was 'forced' to 'act' in the face of 'wanton and barbaric violence' by the Bengalis of East Pakistan. And amusingly the very author who was practically rejected with a hand wave is now being selectively quoted - not in this thread though - to make a case.

Well, I guess all is fair in love, war and debate.

Anyway, while reading about this attempt to draw a parallel between Mujib and MLK/NM, and in the process between the civil society and political establishment of Pakistan and US/South America, I just remembered one Ho Chi Minh quip about Gandhi and his non-violence. It went something like this.

'If Gandhi had been fighting the French, he would have given up non-violence in a week.'

ALL IZZZ WELLLL.

The only horse manure here is your attempt to hijack the thread. The argument I have been making is that discrimination and inequality in distribution of resources between East and West Pakistan did not justify the violence and barbarism committed by some East Pakistani separatists - to counter which the argument was made that the violence was a response to the PA Operation, which necessitated a clarification about the time-lines and clarification about the fact that separatist violence preceded the Army operation.

 

[toxic_pus]

The only horse manure here is your attempt to hijack the thread. The argument I have been making is that discrimination and inequality in distribution of resources between East and West Pakistan did not justify the violence and barbarism committed by some East Pakistani separatists - to counter which the argument was made that the violence was a response to the PA Operation, which necessitated a clarification about the time-lines and clarification about the fact that separatist violence preceded the Army operation.

The highlighted portion is the horsemanure. Other than that, I have no intention to derail the thread.

So carry on.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

The highlighted portion is the horsemanure. Other than that, I have no intention to derail the thread.

So carry on.

Your willingness to distort history out of your prejudice and hatred for West Pakistanis never ceases to amaze. Thank you for sparing us.

 

[toxic_pus]

Your willingness to distort history out of your prejudice and hatred for West Pakistanis never ceases to amaze. Thank you for sparing us.

There you go again. On one hand you will accuse me of 'distorting history' - just like before - and then on the other you will expect me not to respond. And if I respond, you will call it derailment. Or you will just lock the thread.

I am not sparing you. I am sparing myself.

 

[kalu_miah]

Very informative thread.