Talk:Indo-Pakistani war of 1971/Archive 1

Reason for reverting edits by 133.11.222.202
I'll try to save some of the edits by 133.11.222.202 --Ankur 06:46, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * The edits broke continuity
 * Undermined India's involvement
 * Confused duration of conflict with that of war

Is there neutrality here
Wasn't 1971 - Bangladesh Liberation War a "Decisive Indian Victory" in-contrast to terming it as an "Indian Victory". Since how many times we have seen modern armed forces Surrendering with full military honors to their rivals, about whom they teach their citizens of being "Hindus" and not Humans? This 1971 Surrender by Pakistan army was one historic event, where even delusional Pakistani citizenry brainwashed to the core by their army and security agencies through means such as Army-sponsored-media and school books, in regards to their false victories can hardly put forward a case for victory or cite any valid sources nor can fathom a defeat for 1971 debacle. Neutrality of the article gets into question when editors start agreeing to the baseless rants and conspiracy theories put forward by madrasa educated pakistani kids who are taught stories of fake grandeur in their schools especially in compulsory subjects such as "Pakistan Studies" and "Islamiyat". Kindly, change the result of the war to Decisive Indian Victor and lets maintain neutrality of the article. Tutu1234 (talk) 14:04, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

I haven't edited the article because I lack the proper sources to reference, but I find this article is extremely biased in favor of the Indian side in this conflict. The references to genocide and Pakistani brutality, as well as the protrayal of America as the nefarious abettor to the scoundrels in Islamabad while the USSR supported the side of truth and justice seems shaky to me, especially without any references to any sources. I have heard that the Indian Air Force bombed a Pakistani orphanage during this conflict, killing nearly 300 children. Considering this, is it very possible that other Indian atrocities occured against Pakistanis, and I believe this helps support the claim that the tone taken in this article is Indian biased, perhaps very much so. I think this reflects a biased tone taken in the discussion page of the Sino-Indian War article which I think should be combatted. Oldkinderhook 03:36, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The bombing of the Pakistani orphanage was performed by the Pakistani Army, using a four-engined seaplane. I observed the aircraft take off from the Dacca International airport at dusk and it circled over the city for about 30 minutes. I heard several bombs fall and felt the explosions as I was living about 1000 meters from the orphanage. The aircraft landed shortly thereafter. The following morning, I visited the bombed-out orphanage and observed an unexploded bomb with Chinese markings. The number of deaths were about 50 people including the orphanage children. An improvised bomb carrier, made of plywood, was found at the CARE office in Dacca. The device was apparently affixed between the fuselage and the wing float. There were no aerial attacks on the Pakistani Military Cantonment in Dacca that evening by the Indian Air Force. [Bourquein 03 July 2006] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.124.189.224 (talk • contribs)


 * So what's your idea of neutrality? Deliberately introducing text that does not add to the article - just so that India gets a bad image. Even if Indian Air Force bombed a Pakistani orphanage it was obviously an accident - what tactical advantage did India gain by doing that. If we start introducing what I have heard kind of text; I have heard Indira Gandhi offered Pakistan the option to either take back Pakistani POW or give POK to India. Pakistan let India have the POWs. And talking about facts - Indira Gandhi went on a tour of every influential western power to gain support for India. Every country favoured Indian views - that Pakistan was the reason behind the problem which can only be solved by Pakistan. US of A was the only country that did not see this clearly, thanks to the SOB Henry Kissinger who went against the State Department's advice to declare India as the aggressor. Talking about US role - what the article does not mention is the fact that on 10 of December Nixon ordered USS Enterprise Air Craft carrier and nine warships into the Bay of Bengal without consulting the Executive Branch. This is the reason why India (an otherwise non-aligned nation - something that Eisenhower supported cheerfully) had to take side with USSR (though I must admit there had always been problems within US with respect to India's non-alignment and Indian defense minister Krishna Menon did not help the case by being pro USSR). It was now an international crisis, with possible involvement of India, Pakistan, USA, USSR and China. Kissinger&#8217;s anti India policies not only created a strong resentment towards US in India but also led India to re-open its Nuclear Bomb Program. Three years later Indira Gandhi carried out subterranean nuclear tests in 1974 only to prove India's strength to the US. India's nuclear program was born out of US policies. Talking about Neutrality - the same SOB Kissinger is a Nobel Peace Prize winner. Thanks to his policies India and US had embittered relationship for three decades. US is the reason behind Indo-Pak arms race since it kept on supplying Pakistan with military equipment (for use against USSR). Talking about technology - US was Pakistan's biggest provider of Arms. Even though in 1959 US had committed to India that Pakistan will not be allowed to use US military equipment against India. Pakistan did use them, and back in 1971 Pakistan had better (American) fighters, radars, bombers, air-to-air missiles (sidewinders) in its Air force than IAF. Talking about reference - Perkovich, George. India's Nuclear Bomb. University of California Press, 1999 is one. . --Ankur 17:11, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Correct. Such irrelevant information is propaganda. Oldkinderhook is a victim of all this nonsense, which has been circulated by CENTO(or SEATO) biased individuals after the war. He only looks at one side of the coin rather than the other side.The US move of sending an aircraft carrier into the Bay of Bengal is indeed an open sign of collaboration. The reason for such a maneuver was done to fight the 'puppet'( which I beleive, they wrongly thought about of India) of the USSR to protect their own puppet(Pakistan). It must be remembered that the US pampered Pakistan after is independance because of its strategic closeness to the Central Asian republics Of the USSR. This maneuver led India to tilt towards the REDS because Pakistanis were more interested in getting Kashmir, rather than serving their paymasters ( the people of Pakistan never knew who actually helped them), due to which it launched (with great confidence) the 1965 war.Its defeat was misintepreted by the Great CIA(and other parts of the  that India was not non alligned, but a secondary partner of the Soviet Union ( thus making us a secondary threat to the US led anti communist bloc).So they always eyed India with supicion until they finally knew about the Pandora's box they had made out of  capitalising on Islamic Pakistan's fanatism against the Soviets. I am not telling that the US should not be forgiven for its mistakes nor am I intending to hamper Indo-Pakistani-American  relations ( which are healthily improving curteousy Mr Musharaff and the Prime Ministers of India). I am only trying to say that he should not always read about any yarn spun from one side.

Exact date and nomenclature conflict
First thanks to whoever started and contributed to this article for his/her work! The article seems to have one crucial flaw. It confuses Bangladesh Liberation War with Indo-Pak War of 1971. To check this suspicion I have checked several sites, including official websites of army of all three countries involved. Any ideas on this?
 * What is called Indo-Pak War started on December 03, with Indian retaliation of Pakistani airstrike.
 * Indian Army seems to explicitly use the term Indo-Pak War only to refer to the was on India's Western frontier.
 * The War on Bangladeshi territory, strictly speaking, was not between India and Pakistan but between the Mitro Bahini (Allied Forces consisting of Bangladesh Army and Indian Army) and Pakistan. Indian Army website seems to acknowledge that too. (Note that Bangladesh was officially independent on March 26 and the territory was no longer East Pakistan. Indian army was not on Bangladeshi land until December 03.)
 * Bangladesh Government sources call the War "The Liberation War of Bangladesh". Hence for the sake of being politically correct, it seems to me it would be best to describe only the Western Front War here and to put a link to the Bangladesh Liberation War for detailed background information.


 * The Bangladesh Liberation War unquestionably deserves its own article, but I do think the summary provided here is useful for understanding the origins of the 1971 Indo-Pakistani conflict. Most of the sources I checked consider the Indian involvement in Bangladesh to be part of both the Liberation War and the Indo-Pakistani War.  I think that this article and the future one on the Liberation War should both cover that part of the conflict, but from different perspectives. - SimonP 20:52, Jan 21, 2005 (UTC)


 * I totally agree with you. I just rechecked the Indian Army's official website. From the way Indian Army lays it out and the Bangladesh Government lays it out, the period between 26 March and 3 December inclusive were NOT the Indo-Pak War (there is NO ambiguity on this based on official sources). Indo-Pak war clearly refers to the War on India's Western Front starting 3 December. On the Eastern Front there is no clear indication of what India calls the War on, what they acknowledge as, "Bangladeshi" soil. Bangladesh Government clearly continues to call it the Liberation War of Bangladesh.
 * What I think really needs to be done is addition of details on the Western Front. This article seems to lack material on the Western Front War (which is clearly the Indo-Pak War of 1971 based on all sources) and I haven't done much research on it.
 * As for including the information on Liberation War of Bangladesh, I have been doing quite a bit of research to complete that article and remove superfluous repeated information from here and from Bangladesh. I have not yet had the time to do it. The article is complicated and three countries' political egos have to be paid attention to. It will take a while, but it's part of the Wikipedia Bangladesh Project. In the meantime, my personal request to all contributors to this article to include more information on the War on Western Front. Urnonav 23:47, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Note to SimonP : About the removal of "On the brink of defeat some accuse the Pakistani Army and its local collaborators of systematically killing a large number of Bengali doctors, teachers and intellectuals on December 14", the date is remembered officially by the Government of Bangladesh as Martyred Intellectuals day. Here is a link to the news paper article detailing the event this year. Daily Star. So I think this covers your need for citation. I can give you official links from Bangladesh Govt Archives too, if you need so.

--Ragib 06:40, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * I did not remove the section. I moved it to later in the article with a general discussion of the genocide. I also added a "some accuse" as the facts are still controversial. - SimonP 21:13, Jan 22, 2005 (UTC)


 * As a note can the Daily Star really be considered a reliable source? It is a gutter tabloid publication known for making up stories wholecloth, such as photoshopping a London double decker bus onto an image of a glacier and running a story about it being found in Antarctica. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.111.231.2 (talk • contribs)


 * Actually, we were talking about a different Daily Star ... i.e. the well-respected newspaper from Bangladesh. --Ragib 17:36, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Disputes..
Hiye,

I need independant sources to verify:

1: The truth of the stamp, it could simply be a photoshop effect. The Stamp should be deleted if it cannot be proven wether it is official or not.

Also You are editing things according to "Indian" prospective, this is unacceptable. Pakistani prospective will be added and fought for with edit wars if needs arise. This is not your one-sided BR forums.


 * I uploaded the stamp image and i can assure u that even I'm not that idle to photoshop a silly stamp. Also I don't understand what a BR forum is and unfortunately this was a war won by the allied forces of India and Mukti Bahini, so there is no "perspective" here. Also I believe that the "army rape" issue which u have raised below has already been thrashed out and a look at the Bangladesh Liberation War will indicate its existence in the external links. Tx. Idleguy 17:28, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Can you prove it that the stamp was published by Pakistani Government? Perhaps your source of the stamp that could indicate that?


 * A simple google came up with this page Tintin 09:40, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

That does not prove if it was published by Pakistani Government...


 * Lol. I believe you have been thorughly brainwashed by ur military rulers. :) Idleguy 08:16, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

So I take it as you have no verification whatesoever about the stamp. It will be deleted, until you can verify.

New Facts emerging
I Will make necessary adjustments taking this article into mind.

http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=story_30-6-2005_pg1_2


 * This belongs to Bangladesh Liberation War but it has already been discussed before. The link that you supplied is in the external links as well. Please bring up the issue in the talk-page there. Tintin 09:46, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

It must be remembered that overall, this conflict should still be called the Indo-Pakistan war as this conflict also took place along the western border of India. The Bangladeshi war of liberation is like that of the Peninsular war of the Napoleonic wars.It should be only  be given importance when someone wants to see a detailed analysis of the struggle before 1971 till  the independance of Bangladesh.

Sinking of Kukri by Pakistani Submarine: December 9th 1971
I would like to add that the sinking of the Kukri which I have added several times has been removed by certain individuals, I find this totally unacceptable as it was a verified kill of an Indian naval frigate by Pakistan submarine, It seems that certain individuals are not wanting others to know of the sinking of the Indian vessel which resulted in the death of 211 Indian sailors. This is significant not only in the 1971 war but also in naval history as the sinking of the Kukri Indian frigate by Pakistani submarine Hangor was the first sinking of a ship by submarine since WWII.

To be a fair and partial it is absolutely necessary to have a section on the sinking of the Kukri. December 9 1971 Pakistani submarine Hangor sinks Indian frigate Kukri(first submarine sinking since World War II)

For more information on the sinking of the Kukri by Pakistani submarine hangor: please visit the following links

http://anoca.org/fleet/british/list_of_naval_battles.html http://www.aeronautics.ru/archive/vif2_project/indo_pak_war_1971.htm

Each time I add information politcally motivated people desperate to hide the sinking of Indian frigate immediately delete it. &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.131.118.150 (talk • contribs).


 * If the article were to include the downing of each and every naval vessel/aircrafts etc. it would become an article with the list of losses in the war rather than focussing on the war per se and its outcome. If anything the Indian Navy had accounted for atleast a dozen of Pakistan Navy's vessels. Adding these would only bloat this article and so I saw it fit to remove those isolated incidents. Just because it is unique doesn't mean it is important enough in the course of the war or should be included as such.


 * For instance the sinking of PNS ghazi was unique in the fact that it was the first sub sunk in south asia. the operation trident has been included for the way it enabled a near blockade of karachi port thus allowing greater movement of Indian naval vessels and not merely for the "firsts" it brought to the war (See article on trident for the "firsts") Other unique aspects of the naval conflicts included the use of aircraft carrier to attack naval installations in east pakistan which was a first in the subcontinent. And there is the first time air clash between Pakistan Air Force jet and Indian Navy plane in which the latter was lost to a Starfighter. These are all still unique and the FIRSTS but can't be included for the sake of its uniqueness. Hope you can understand. Idleguy 08:14, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Wonderful India-biased articles
You just gotta love these wonderful India-biased articles on Wikipedia. But i guess it's not really their fault. They get fed this information in school and from Bollywood constantly ;) It's quite sad though.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.238.16.90 (talk • contribs)


 * It would help if you would point out exactly which sections you find biased. Thanks. --Ragib 03:06, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

In my opinion, your thought that this stuff is from Bollywood is from your own fantasy machine. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chad786 (talk • contribs)

for all the admins. i think the above statement (in capital letters), is religious and malicious and should be deleted from the talk page. what are your views on it. nids 05:54, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

And it is spam too. This person has posted it in all the India-Pakistan war talk pages. (Saraths 14:20, 26 July 2006 (UTC))

I agree it should be deleted as it is not the debate about religious superiority or aims. This is a simple collection about the facts. I request Wikipedia team to avoid such posts in talk page and let people to discuss things in peace. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.34.161.11 (talk) 22:20, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

I have deleted the spam in capital letters. No trash needed on Wikipedia. ~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.22.43.2 (talk) 14:20, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Whats with pakistani kids and calling facts-Propaganda. I very well know to cover their fallacies, wrong-doings and losses pakistanis very conveniently blame others for their own mistakes and failures, never realizing its them who have failed themselves not anyone else!Hitman009 (talk) 07:25, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

The Stamp
The stamp that is shown in this article(issued by the Paksitanis)depicts Pakistani POWs in a type of prison camp which looks more like a concentration camp than a POW camp. This sort of stamp is pure propaganda, issued by the Islamic dictatorships to extract sympathy.In my opinion, this stamp should be fully deleted. It gives a bad impression on the Indian armed forces.(P.G.K)


 * The article is not about creating impressions for or against anyone but merely to show what happenned aided by appropriate images. Thus the stamp stays. Idleguy 11:07, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

The releasing of the Stamp by Pakistani Govt. was an Historical event, therefore pleading the world community for release of its POW, a great Strategy adopted by Z.A Bhutto! I think it was an ingenious strategy on part of pakistanis and should stay in the article. Tutu1234 (talk) 21:02, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Merge template
Hi, there is a merge template in the beginning of the article... From the discussion page, it seems the discussion on this last till around Jan 2006. Can this template be removed now? Lost 13:51, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Neutrality
The entire page seems heavily biased towards India. I am not familiar with the subject matter, but I've tried to tone down the hyperbole. Isopropyl 05:24, 14 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm quite familiar with the topic, and have done a lot of research on this issue for Bangladesh Liberation War, a closely related article. So, if you could explain which sections seem biased, it would help the other editors a lot. Thanks. --Ragib 05:26, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Useless, unsigned and exaggerated howl removed! Tutu1234 (talk) 13:39, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

More information from the U.S. State Department
I'm not good at writing this sort of articles. Somebody please if you can read these pages about the 1971 war. on this link

Foreign Relations, 1969-1976, Volume E-7, Documents on South Asia, 1969-1972

Telegram 959 From the Consulate General in Dacca to the Department of State, March 28, 1971

Telegram 986 From the Consulate General in Dacca to the Department of State, March 30, 1971

Hope this helps in knowing as to what really happened in Bangladesh.

Pro-Indian Bias, no action so far to fix it
Has any Pakistani been charged for genocide? What about the current relations between Pakistan and Bangladesh? The relations between Pakistan and Bangladesh are very friendly. If someone accuses Pakistan for genocide then why Bangladesh is so friendly with Pakistan, while no one has charged any Pakistani for genocide.

Has Bangladesh given up its allegation of genocide against Pakistan? If not then, why they are so friendly with Pakistan? Why Bangladesh does not want to chase its allegations of genocide against Pakistan?

The reason is that there was no genocide. It is Indian propaganda. —Preceding unsigned comment added by maakhter (talk • contribs)


 * Contrary to your imagination, there have been documented events of genocide. The current relation between Bangladesh and Pakistan is irrelevant here. Enough citations have been provided to show the number of killings to be between several hundred thousand to 3 million. Please read some history books, and refrain from making ludicrous claims. You can deny genocide, but you can't hide the bones of the millions of dead people. As I suggested, follow the references and citations provided on the number of deaths before making claims of no genocide. Since I don't see any solid claims here as to why this would be disputed, I'm removing the tag. In future, be specific in arguments before adding such tags. Thank you. --Ragib 22:50, 28 July 2006 (UTC)


 * The article itself is not biased, whenever there is a war, the media of that country is biased and portrays and shows that their country came out to be victorious... This creates a problem of what some people consider the truth to be, and what it really is... 96.52.193.72 (talk) 19:31, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Hello frnds to both parties...i m fresher but quite interested in dis topic....as u rightly said it is always hard to judge who won or loose, esspecially whn we belong frm sam countrie, but i was just referring to a link uploaded uphere of United states...n wht i found was a DECISIVE INDIAN VICTORY(1971).....4 ur reference to make ur search easy check in FOREIGN RELATIONS-Bilateral and Regional Relations http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/3454.htm#people —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.245.120.51 (talk) 09:53, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the source friend, there are n-number of valid sources emphasizing on India's emphatic Victory in this war. Tutu1234 (talk) 13:42, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Merge this page
This page should be merged with Indo-Pakistani Wars.

There are several reasons to merge this page:

1- Indo-Pakistani Wars and this page are supposed to be showing exactly the same subject.

2- These pages have a large overlap. —Preceding unsigned comment added by maakhter (talk • contribs)


 * What exactly do you want to merge it with? Each of the wars have their own pages, and wikipedia's policy says articles should be written in summary style with large sections going to their own article. The 3 wars are different events (47/48, 65, and 71) and there is no overlap between the wars as you suggest!! So, there is no reason as to why this article would need to be merged. Thanks. --Ragib 22:47, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

WP:RFC
Neutral Point of View (NPOV) is a fundamental Wikipedia principle which states that all articles must be written from a neutral point of view, that is, they must represent views fairly and without bias. This includes maps, reader-facing templates, categories and portals. According to Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales, NPOV is "absolute and non-negotiable."

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Maakhter (talk • contribs) 23:56, 28 July 2006 (UTC)


 * What exactly is your point? If you have specific concerns, mention them in specific terms. You have been tagging this talk page and various other talk pages/articles without being specific. If you feel this article has NPOV issues, feel free to mention them in specific terms. Saying this article is biased without examples pinpointing why is not really helpful. Thank you. --Ragib 00:07, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Has any Pakistani been charged for genocide? What about the current relations between Pakistan and Bangladesh? The relations between Pakistan and Bangladesh are very friendly. If someone accuses Pakistan for genocide then why Bangladesh is so friendly with Pakistan, while no one has charged any Pakistani for genocide.

Has Bangladesh given up its allegation of genocide against Pakistan? If not then, why they are so friendly with Pakistan? Why Bangladesh does not want to chase its allegations of genocide against Pakistan?

Do you mean that United Nations and everyone else in the world kept quite at this alleged genocide? Who gave you the figure of three million people dieing in the conflict?

Therefore, its not just Pakistani who are denying it, the rest of the world by not asking for investigations, actually supported the Pakistani point of view. The allegations were not worth a formal investigation.

The reason is that there was no genocide. It is Indian propaganda.

Maakhter 01:24, 29 July 2006 (UTC)


 * First of all, thanks for coming to this talk page rather than going to the deepest depth of wikipedia's processes to find a "dispute". Now, back to your questions:
 * Germany and Japan has good relations with the USA. Does that mean they didn't fight each other in WW2? Similarly, the current relation between the Pakistan and Bangladesh governments is irrelevant here.
 * Please check out the Blood telegram sent by the US Consul at East Pakistan, Archer Blood. The telegram says:


 * 1. Here in Decca we are mute and horrified witnesses to a reign of terror by the Pak[istani] Military. Evidence continues to mount that the MLA authorities have list of AWAMI League supporters whom they are systematically eliminating by seeking them out in their homes and shooting them down
 * 2. Among those marked for extinction in addition to the A.L. hierarchy are student leaders and university faculty. In this second category we have reports that Fazlur Rahman head of the philosophy department and a Hindu, M. Abedin, head of the department of history, have been killed. Razzak of the political science department is rumored dead. Also on the list are the bulk of MNA's elect and number of MPA'a.
 * 3. Moreover, with the support of the Pak[istani] Military. non-Bengali Muslims are systematically attacking poor people's quarters and murdering Bengalis and Hindus.
 * (U.S. Consulate (Dacca) Cable, Selective genocide, March 27, 1971 SELECTIVE GENOCIDE (PDF) March 27, 1971)


 * Also, check out Telegram 986 From the Consulate General in Dacca to the Department of State, March 30, 1971 which describes the atrocities/massacres of Pakistan Army in Dhaka.


 * There are countless other references, including R.J. Rummel's research on the massacre "Statistics of Democide: Genocide and Mass Murder Since 1900", ISBN 3825840107, Chapter 8, table 8.1.


 * It is nice to be patriotic, but established sources have discussed the killing of civilians in East Pakistan in the hand of Pakistan Army. I've provided the references here. If you need further references, I can also comply with that request. Thank you. --Ragib 01:33, 29 July 2006 (UTC)


 * As for various figures of the total death toll, see, which list a lot of sources. Most of the sources tend to agree that the death toll is 1 to 1.5 million, with higher estimates reaching up to 3 million. (Compton's Encyclopedia, P 30 Dec. 2000; Agence France Presse 3 Oct. 2000, Century of Genocide: Eyewitness Accounts and Critical Views, Samuel Totten, ed., (1997), Encyclopedia Americana (2003)) etc. Thank you. --Ragib 01:53, 29 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I strongly criticize the blatant denial of a genocide as a statement to make in discussing this article's contents - (1) WP is not the place for this debate, (2) denial of genocide is a very, very serious matter to raise like this, especially when you don't have good references or proper data. Such a statement regarding the Nazi holocaust would result in arrest in Austria and Germany. Maakhter has not raised this issue in an encyclopedic context, but in a blatantly political one. I strongly, strongly condemn his making of such a statement like this, in a manner and intention totally irrelevant to WP. Rama's arrow - this Fire burns always   04:32, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Just few telegrams from US diplomat cannot prove that 3 million people were killed. In case of Japan and Germany, war crimes were properly investigated and people who were responsible were punished.

There was no such war crime tribunal in case of fake allegations of genocide in 1971.

Are you trying to say that India and Bangladesh ignored such genocide by not perusing the matter?

Maakhter 10:04, 29 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I won't reply to your rant anymore, until you READ the references provided. I mentioned Archer Blood's telegrams as an example of a first hand account of the incident. These are not "just a few telegrams", rather historical documents from an ally of the Pakistan govt. There have been a lot of sources about casualties, I've already provided that. READ!! Doesn't hurt to do that. Don't rant until you've done that. Thank you. --Ragib 17:10, 29 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Where are your sources, maakhter? You told the same thing again and again, but failed to utter even a single source to back your comment. You didnot mention any source that even can disagree with others point of view. Mr. Ragib provided enough links. But all you do is to point out to current relation between these countries or to not helding a criminal tribunal. Well, prove with necessary link and verifiable facts that there was no genocide. If you do not have facts to support your day dreams, why do you keep telling us your imagination? this wikipedia is for verified facts, not for tales or daydreams. Thanks Auyon 11:07, 30 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Makhter - The number of three million comes from the Bangladesh government. If Pakistan did not prosecute war criminals, that cannot be considered a proof of crimes being fabricated. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.182.54.195 (talk) 09:35, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

USS enterprise
this page mentions about the movement of USS enterprise in bay of bengal around 1970-71. i have checked the link and the whole timeline of USS. it was stationed in North korea and vietnam only. it was never sent to bay of bengal. either site proper references or i shall be deleting it in a few days.

nids 00:50, 29 July 2006 (UTC)


 * A google search provides this link to NBC Evening news on Dec 14, 1971, the blurb says "USS Enterprise heads to Bay of Bengal for evacuation of Americans in E. Pakistan. Indian ambassador in Washington, DC seeks United States denial with regard to Enterprise mission; State Department refuses. Demonstrators in India charge United States with gunboat diplomacy. ". Thank you. --Ragib 00:59, 29 July 2006 (UTC)


 * And here is another reference, from a research report by a Commander of US Navy, from the Federation of American Scientists website, which says:


 * In mid-December 1971, a United States naval task force, led by the nuclear-powered aircraft carrier USS Enterprise, entered the Bay of Bengal, ostensibly to evacuate Americans from war-torn East Pakistan. The carrier’s deployment, at the height of the third Indo-Pakistani War, also coincided with the presence of several (additional) Soviet warships in the Indian Ocean. Although the initial State Department public release declared the intent of the mission to be “a show of force by the United States for the benefit of both India and the Soviet Union,” President Nixon later clarified the event to be a gesture of support for Pakistan and China in light of the increased Soviet naval presence, in addition to the more obvious evacuation efforts. Both India and the Soviet Union lashed out at the American presence, the Soviets labeling it “gunboat diplomacy and gross blackmail against India.”.


 * This paper in turn refers to Marcus B. Zinger, “The Development of Indian Naval Strategy Since 1971,” Contemporary South Asia 2, no. 3 (July 1993): 339..


 * Thanks. --Ragib 01:06, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

actually i didnt meant that enterprise wasnt sent to bay of bengal. what i said that in the link linking to USS enterprise, it has its whole timeline listed there. and it nowhere mentions about its movement to and from Bay of bengal. may be it can be corrected. or u can provide these links(that u gave in the talk page) in the main article. thank u.

--nids 10:36, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

There is a pakistani bloke posting crap like

People like him needs to look at India from an international perspective..our economy is growing faster than we could imagine and pakistan still is stuck with no democracy but with an American RagDoll who is the only reason why America still gives a Damn about Pakistan. The day Gen.mush leaves power There is going to be chaos....A nuke war is highly likely with religious extremists in pakistan seizing power and using the Pakistani military's awesome nuke weaponry against israel and mainly India...Something which will send Pakistan back to the stone age.I really hope with all my heart that pakistan prays to Allah sincerly for the sake of peace and its own existence.i really hope they pray that Gen.Mush stays in power. Remus

People who talk about looking at india from an international perspective should take care of their own biases first.They should know that this article is not about the present day politics of Pakistan or its chances of getting into a nuclear war.This is how anyone can come to know that how biased Indians are. They cannot keep their personal biases out of an Encyclopedia, which is meant to be a source of information for people that donot know about a certain issue.An encyclopedia is not to explain their perspective! Hammad —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.15.197.246 (talk) 01:23, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Blanking by User:cripipper
Please do not blank cited information. I don't see why information well referenced from various sources qualifies as Original research. If you feel something is wrong, please mention it here first. Thanks. --Ragib 17:15, 16 September 2006 (UTC)


 * To add to the point, if you feel something is original research, please mention it here so we can work on it. Removing citation from reliable sources claiming original research is not acceptable. Thank you. --Ragib 17:22, 16 September 2006 (UTC)


 * See Talk:Banglandesh Liberation War

It is clear that Pakistan suffered a humiliating loss to India in 1971 war of Indian intervention in east Pakistan; India's brilliant pincer movements against the east Pakistan northern push into India, the Indian Air Force's successful counter-attack to the Pakistan Air Force's pre-emptive strike (from east Pakistan), the Indian army's successful blunting and counter-attacks into Pakistani territory on the western front, and the taking of Kargil in Kashmir.

However, the articles on Wikipedia talk of the Indian Air Force 'achieveing air superiority' during the war. In his book 'Every Man A Tiger' Chuck Yeager states that 'They whipped...their (Indian Air force's) asses in the sky but it was the other way round on the ground'. He has given the following independent statistics of all aircraft losses: PAF-34, IAF- 102 (or a ratio of 3:1 in fvaour of the PAF).

This is intriguing because 1. it comes from an independent source, 2. it suggests that acheieving air superiority is not always decisive and 3. given the PAF's successful counter-operations during the 1965 war, where even independent analysts have given a ration of at least 2:1 in PAF's favour, it would be inconceivable that the IAF managed to subdue the PAF (with ofcourse the exception of east Pakistan as the only air force base - Dhaka - was detroyed) and turned around their abysmal performance only 6 years earlier (even today IAF lacks an advanced jet-trainer and suffers high attrition rates).


 * Chuck yeager as an independent source? He is biased FOR pakistan as he was a special advisor to the PAF during the 71 war. why would he admit that his boys got a pasting? ofcourse he will come up with all stories to justify india lost the war. Who among pakistan disputes that the PAF was grounded by day 2 of the war? And if the PAF had total air superiorty wouldnt the situation on the ground in the west be more favourable to pakistan? how did events like karachi naval base attack and longewala happen if the PAF had such total air superiority? It is time for people go grow beyond the war time propaganda and do a disspassionate analysis instead of resorting to stale propaganda jaiiaf 23:48, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

# of POW
I have read in a few sources that the # of POW was 91,000 and not 93,000. Which is the correct number? Also, some Pakistanis have told me during our - ahem - discussions, that most POW were non-combatants - is there any truth to this? (Jvalant 00:57, 25 October 2006 (UTC))


 * The figures are already given in the article "79,676 of these prisoners were uniformed personnel, of which 55,692 were Army, 16,354 Paramilitary, 5,296 Police, 1000 Navy and 800 PAF. [4]. The remaining prisoners were civlians - either family members of the military personnel or bihari razarkars" jaiiaf 04:33, 25 October 2006 (UTC)


 * The second part is pure nonsense. The non-combatants were left stranded in Bangladesh, in refugee camps, and Pakistan Govt refused to expatriate them. The 91 or 93k number is from the number of West Pakistani Soldiers posted to East Pakistan. --Ragib 01:15, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Soviet Involvement
I had read in a book in my univ that during the war, the Chinese moved quite a few of their troops along the Indian border to make India spread her resources thin by bulking up the Indo-China border. This was done at Pakistan's request. India responded by requesting the Soviets to move troops along their border with China which China did. I no longer have the source at my disposal. Does anyone else? (Jvalant 18:59, 25 October 2006 (UTC))

INDIAN PROPANGANDA
This article is clearly written by Indian propangandists trying to underscore Pakistan’s military successes. NOT A SINGLE PAKISTANI WAR PICTURE.

YES, VERY NEUTRAL. LOL. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.117.92.54 (talk • contribs)


 * Do you have one? If so, please give us the name of the image, so we can include it in appropriate places. Thanks. --Ragib 16:27, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

it's totally neutral.--D-Boy 07:40, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I do see a Pakistani war picture - the stamp was released by the Govt. of Pakiland. (Jvalant 11:59, 20 December 2006 (UTC))

Why are Pakistani enthusiastic kids not giving valid neutral sources to prove their claims? As we can see usual rants ABOUT Propaganda and conspiracy theories being spewed from Pakistani sides, denying all miss-deeds and defeats, without realizing the facts and odds against such delusional conspiracy theories!! Tutu1234 (talk) 13:31, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Incredibly Biased
This article is incredibly biased in Indian POV. Why is wikipedia going to hell? I appologize that I can not contribute by cleaning it up myslf as I do not have enough knowledge on the subject nor enough time to do all the research. But I am listing show some glaring bias/omissions/mistakes in hope that others will fix it. And if not that atleast classify the article as a a 'b-article'

1. Use of biased language such as: "At sea, the Indian Navy proved its superiority by the success of Operation Trident," "The Soviet Union had sympathized with the Bangladeshis" "The Simla Agreement created the following year, also saw most of Pakistani territory (more than 13,000 km²) being given back to Pakistan to create "lasting peace" between the two nations" Including that cartoon by an indian cartoonish in a wikipedia article!!

2. No mention of the fact that Mukti Bahini would today be categorized as a terrorist organization. And the fact that this organization was supported by India both politically and materially, which is strictly forbidden by the UN charter.

3. The death toll mentioned is never really backed up by any credible references. The articles quotes R.J. Rummel as estimating it b/w 1 & 3 million. This is again wrong as he estimates it as being between 300,000 & 3 million on his website(and here it should be kept in mind that even he has been accused of inflating his statistics to support his views prodemocracy views).

4. But most importantly, the article constantly and consistently presenting Indian & Bangladesh point of view. It portrays India as this peace loving nation that had to come and help the stricken Bangaldeshis, which is just not true. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.101.3.36 (talk • contribs)


 * I suggest you read up on history outside Pakistani textbooks. Thanks. Idleguy 13:19, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Idleguy, if you look carefully, at no point did I mention any pakistani sources. Either respond to my objections raised above or do something to fix them. There is no point in stooping down to inane mudslinging that pak-india people always do. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.101.3.36 (talk) 16:52, 31 December 2006 (UTC).


 * I'm merely pointing dryly that the sources used in here come from neutral ones. I'm not responding in detail to each and every one because I don't wish to waste my time in educating others in the talk page. See the article and cite any unreferenced lines here. For now, all those so called POV lines are fully sourced, with the exception of this line : "The Soviet Union had sympathized with the Bangladeshis" If I don't find a source for that line, it has to go. Others, however are fully referenced from third party and/or credible sources. Thanks Idleguy 18:12, 31 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Let me repeat once more, I merely pointed out mistakes in the article. Some were simply wrong citations, some crucial omissions & others were POV comments. So unless you want to fix them, stop posting non-sense and completely pointless messages here on the talk page.
 * PS: those POV statements are NOT referenced. And even if they were, it would have been an indication of the poor/biased resources being consulted and undermined the credibility of the rest of the article as well. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.101.3.36 (talk) 10:20, 5 January 2007 (UTC).


 * You are being uncivil and bordering on personal attacks by stating "nonsense" etc... See WP:CIVIL. Idleguy 14:09, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

The first comment in this section is quite confusing. The person claims that the article is factually biased but also claims that he does not possess the facts to correct the article. If he does not have the knowledge then how did he figure out that it is factually incorrect? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.243.122.156 (talk) 06:37, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I have studied alot on this topic. As far as Indian involvment in the seperation of East Pakistan is concerned, I can say that one can refer the book "RAW AND INDIA" written by ZAIN UL ABIDIN who himself was a Mukti Bani gurella and in his book he told that they got ammunations from India and that the masterplan for the division of East Pakistan was designed by RAW. . . . —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sanabil Mirza (talk • contribs)


 * In your dreams!! :). Sarcasm aside, that is a crackpot conspiracy theory not accepted by mainstream scholars in the area. --Ragib (talk) 16:37, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Indian POWs of 1971 war
The families of 54 missing Indian defence personnel are still waiting to meet their loved ones, who for the past 33 years are believed to be in Pakistani jails as prisoner of war (POW) Daily Times learnt on Monday.

Seventy-year-old Nirmal Kore, the wife of Assa Singh, is still waiting for her husband to return from a war that took place 34 years back. Assa Singh, a Subedar in the 5-Sikh regiment, is believed to be in Pakistan as a POW since 1971.

Assa Singh’s son, Harcharan Singh, is convinced that his father is still alive. Harcharan Singh said that Bhogal Ram, another soldier, was released from Pakistan in 2000 and had seen Assa Singh alive at the Kot Lakhpat jail. Harcharan was five when his father left for war and the growing up was hard. He said, “My mother had to undergo a lot of suffering. The landlord snatched away our land and the government provided no financial aid, job or land.” He added, “My mother is suffering from health problems. The government has done nothing to ensure the release of my father. But what happened has happened I have lost my childhood, my family has undergone pain and agony; now my only wish is to meet my father and embrace him.”

Sixty-year-old Kanta Devi echoes such a story of waiting, longing and desperation. Her husband Subedar Kali Das has not been seen since the 1971 but, after the war, she heard on Pakistan Radio that he was caught alive. Kanta is confident that her husband will return one day. She said, “I will offer a heavy gold ring at the Kali temple, go to Vaishno Devi and take a dip in the river Ganges with my family upon his return”.

“Raising four sons and two daughters was not easy. I got my children educated and married from the Rs 300 pension that I received. There was no other support from the government,” said Kanti.

That Rs 300 has been increased to Rs 5,000 but that is little consolation to Kanti’s family of two widowed daughters and two unemployed sons. “It is ironical that the country for which my husband fought has no time to listen to us,” she said. Her son, Ramesh Kumar, 39, remembers the days without a father. “I used to work in shops overtime so that I could pay my school and college fees. The Kargil heroes were given millions in addition to other benefits like lands and jobs but what about the heroes of the 1971 war?” he asked.

Bansi Lal, the son-in-law of Jagdish Lal of the 2nd Mahar regiment, showed a letter from the Mahar regiment written in 1972 to prove how insensitive the government has been. The letter reads: “Application for grant from the disabled army personnel widows and orphan fund was placed before the welfare committee but regrettably because of lack of funds, your case has been rejected.”

An official of the Missing Defence Personnel Relatives Association (MDPRA) said, “After the war 2,238 Indian defence personnel were missing. After the Simla Agreement of 1972, India returned all the 93,000 Pakistani POWs. However, only 617 Indian POWs were returned by Pakistan.”

He said that the treatment of Indian POWs was the ‘biggest violation of international human rights by Pakistan’. MK Paul, the vice president of MDPRA, has filed a petition for their release with the International Red Cross in Geneva and with Human Rights Watch in New York.

Rajesh, a relative of an Indian POW, said that in September 1996, the then minister of External Affairs IK Gujral had said 54 missing Indian defence personnel are believed to be in Pakistan. He added that Defence Minister Pranab Mukherjee noted in the Sainik Samachar journal of September 2004: It is estimated that 17 army officers, two junior commissioned officers and 19 other ranks (ORs) are currently in Pakistan jails. [] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Xp0z3d (talk • contribs) 11:38, 11 April 2007 (UTC).

Bias
The article has been claimed by various persons to be Indian biased. I find it to be Bangladesh biased. The article understates the indian military accomplishment in the capture of East Pakistan. The general article reads as if the campaign was fought primarily by Mukti Bahini guerillas. This is incorrect. Liberation of Bangladesh came about due to comprehensive defeat of Pakistani forces in East Pakistan in a Lightning Campaign of 14 days by Indian armed forces which involved multiple thrusts, joint services ops and manouvre. The Indian army was aided in the operations by the Mukti Bahini which did fight well and hard for its country's liberation. No one denies their involvement or contribution. However, Mukti Bahini never reached the size and scale of operations which resulted in successful regular military engagement with Pakistani army. (Compare this with Battle of Dien Bien Phu between the Viet Minh and the French). They may have managed it if the insurgency were for a long period but events moved fast, fortunately for all, and Bangladesh was liberated in Dec 1971 within 6 months of formation of the Mukti Bahini.AshLin 16:31, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Casualty Figures
Where have the casualty figures for the Pakistan side come from? The figure of 20,000 in the infobox? If there is no source for this figure, which has been in the infobox for some time, I will remove it per Wikipedia WP:REF guidlines. Anyone can invent a casualty figure without a reliable source. Zaindy87 10:13, 18 August 2007 (UTC)/

Brave India?
In my opinion, In this war India was directly involved in the internal affairs of Pakistan.India has made it the Bangladesh Liberation War in terms of relationships with Pakistan.It was a civil war of Pakistan and could be handled quite well instead of separation.And, I thought that, the environment of war was built by India which shows its bitter behave with Pakistan.Further more, It was not a Kashmir War or according to your Wikipedia articles that in Indo-Pakistani Wars their was a Pakistani Operation involved to start.

Can you answer me why India helped East Pakistan to being separated? Have you heard that Muslims killed 1000 Hindus in Pakistani Punjab?

And the answer of these question shows the India attitude to Pakistan.I just want to say that India is 90% guilty in the Indo-Pakistan Wars proceedings.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Kashif Arshad Khan (talk)


 * This is an Encyclopedia and therfore "your opinions" has got nothing to with the facts. "India is 90% guilty in the Indo-Pakistan Wars proceedings" shows that you haven't read the article but is only interesed in vomiting your biased opinion. TX AR  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.113.201.127 (talk) 23:06, 29 December 2007 (UTC)


 * No one cares for your opinions unless you have sources behind them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.228.148.187 (talk) 16:20, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

The Pakistani school book or Madrasa facts which a fellow Pakistani has provided are not funny but preposterous, a country which has used mujahideen and jihad has a national policy to engage India in wars blames India for initiating the conflicts. Every war started by Pakistan was initiated by hiding behind the fact that mujahideen from Pakistani side have attacked India and pakistani army has nothing to do, even though these mujaheedens where pakistani army themselves?? This is hilarious be it 1947, 1965, 1999; later in each conflict we have seen pakistan's army's involvent. Even in 1971, Direct war was started by preemptive Air-strikes by PAF on Western Sector!The refugee problem, India being under attack from west, and genocide of innocent Bengalis (the reaction of Bengalis in India was sharp)- Had no choice to defend! Tutu1234 (talk) 03:45, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

POV Tag without comments
User:Waqas.usman has added a POV tag without giving a rationale. While I understand that he may feel badly about events, if he intends to place a POV tag, he is required to specifically state the points of dispute. As a wikipedian, he is free to add material, if suitably referenced. Just placing a POV tag and no corresponding message on the talk page is incorrect usage of the tag. If he does not give the rationale within 7 days, I propose to remove the tag.

AshLin (talk) 05:32, 3 January 2008 (UTC)


 * It's not about feeling bad for the events, it's just that the article seems to have been written by Indian officers, because it doesn't talk about the Indian role in igniting the civil war. Looks like the Indian officers captured the entire "wikipedia" ground before the Pakistani point of view got there, but you can't have it both ways; have an Indian version of story on all India-Pakistan related pages and still claim it to be NPOV. I will provide details within a few days, I just wanted to reply to the objection. User:Waqas.usman (Talk) 08:51, 3 January 2008 (UTC)


 * "Indian officers"?? :) Ha ha ha ... nice try. I'm removing the tag until you come up with specific comments. Thank you. --Ragib (talk) 18:37, 3 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I would like to refer to the following passage from the article.

"On the brink of defeat around December 14, the Pakistani Army and its local collaborators systematically killed a large number of Bengali doctors, teachers and intellectuals, part of a pogrom against the Hindu minorities who constituted the majority of urban educated intellectuals. Young men, who were seen as possible rebels, were also targeted, especially students." I could not find any verifiable sources for this claim in the references section of the article, in the absence of which the aforementioned text, and its reference in the "important dates" section is clearly gives a biased PoV against Pakistan

203.128.4.231 (talk) 13:21, 3 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Glad that you refer to one of the most disgusting part of the war ... the killing of intellectuals by Pakistan Army. The day is officially recognized by the Government of Bangladesh, and there is a state mausoleum commemorating the martyred intellectuals, in Dhaka. The intellectuals killed by Pakistan Army/Collaborators on this day include Munier Chowdhruy, Shahidullah Kaiser, Anwar Pasha, Selina Parvin and many others. This Banglapedia article by the Asiatic Society provides an overview of the killings. Truth is never a POV. --Ragib (talk) 18:37, 3 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I think one could do better than referring to some article that does not cite its sources, does not give the name of the author and contains nothing but weasal terms like "The armed cadres of al-badr, a para-military force, is alleged to have executed the brutal killing having been provided with arms and support by the Pakistan army." Now who has put this allegation, how has the author (mystry man) come up with the allegation, we dont know. So my friend, are you sure you are using this source for giving "truth" on an encyclopedia article? I think the POV tag should be put back in

203.128.4.231 (talk) 09:46, 4 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Banglapedia is a well-respected print encyclopedia from the Asiatic Society. The print version has detailed references to all the content. If you want, I can email you a scanned version of the print edition of this article . But I believe you haven't even bothered to look into the link properly ... :D, the name of the author "Muazzam Hussain Khan" is very hard to miss!! Too bad Pakistani Education System doesn't teach how its military killed millions of its own people with arms and bullets the Bengalis paid for. But anyway, I don't expect the Pakistani history books to admit to the massacre ... however, numerous sources can attest to the planned killing of hundreds of Intellectuals. Thank you. --Ragib (talk) 10:11, 4 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your needless attack on the Pakistani Education System (which I havnt gone through anyway). Due to the separate line in the end, Mr. Moazzam appeared to me as the source for the figures provided instead of being the writer of the article. The fact that people got killed does not automatically associate them with somene's plans or systems, unless of course verified by credible investigations. On that note, I do not know about the credibility of the source you provided and anything about its printed version; to me the content and the writing quality appeared just like a random blog entry, as compared to the article's solid sources (such as Rummel's book). I requested the POV tag because I found the judgements passed by the article (people getting killed declared "systematic massacre" etc) not up to the standards of an Encyclopedia entry because war articles on Encyclopediae always show points of view from both sides (refer to the Wikipedia article on the 1965 war). However your comments above clearly show that you are one of the people whose views will always be blinded by hatered. Truth is not a POV but an emotional POV always seems like the ultimate truth to the beholder. With that note, I leave you with YOUR article, I hope some day you will get mature enough to NARRATE historical events rather than CLAIMING them.203.128.4.231 (talk) 11:43, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Dear Waqas Usman, I am the last person to be blinded by any hatred against any national/racial group, but I do hate denial of documented genocide. You asked for references ... I provided not one but several. If you don't like encyclopedic entries published by the esteemed Asiatic Society, that's not really my problem. For your benefit, I will provide newspaper references from the New York Times (which by the way is not a "blog" or "written by Indian officers", ha ha).
 * Report title: "125 Slain in Dacca Area Believed Elite of Bengal"
 * Date: December 19, 1971, Page 1, 22
 * Newspaper: New York Times
 * Quote:"Dacca Pakistan Dec 18 - At least 125 persons, believed to be physicians, professors, writers and teachers were found murdered today in a field outside Dacca. All the victims' hands were tied behind their backs and they had been bayoneted, garroted or shot. They were among an estimated 300 Bengali intellectuals who had been seized by West Pakistani soldiers and locally recruited supporters."

According to General Amir Abdullah Khan Niazi, the Pakistani general who led the Pakistan Army in East Pakistan, a hit list of such intellectuals were prepared by General Rao Farmaan Ali. (ref: Interview of Gen. Niazi, as published in "The Vanquished Generals and the Liberation of Bangladesh", Muntasir Mamun, ISBN 9844582105, pp 166.). There goes the Pakistani POV :), as told by the top Pakistani General in EP at that time.

Thank you .. --Ragib (talk) 18:31, 4 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the references. While I'll try my best to get my hands on them and respond to you asap, I would just leave you with some food for thought. i.e. You might get proofs for a civilian mass murder having taken place, and then you might get proofs for lists of opposing civilian elites existing with the administrative agencies. In fact arrest of elites and civlian killings are facts that mark every separatist (read liberation) movement in every part of the world. In some cases such things are actually systematic and planned, and are established by independant investigations (such as the involvement of Serbian President in genocide in Bosnia). In other cases such corollaries are psycologically reached due to a general hatered against the other group. Uptil now your references have clearly established that Bengali intellectuals faced brutal deaths in acts of voilence. Then there is no harm in establishing that EP intelligence must have compiled lists of all leaders of the Mukti Bahini (that must include intellectuals). But at the same time the judgement passed in the article that such massacre was a planned activity by EP army is simply indigestible. For one, an army that is on the verge of surrender could not risk further angering the enemy by such an act (though it would've been thinkable if EP army was fleeing instead of surrendering). Secondly everyone was in Indian custody after the war and if there were proofs for a such a PLANNED or SYSTEMATIC crime, I see no reason (political or otherwise) for the Mitro Bahini for not having run a war crimes trial.
 * With that, I leave the stage to the inborn sense of responsiblity and impartiality of you wikipedians (I am not Waqas Usman, I just sought his help for putting the POV tag). Thanks
 * 203.101.178.60 (talk) 19:18, 5 January 2008 (UTC)


 * "But at the same time the judgement passed in the article that such massacre was a planned activity by EP army is simply indigestible" -- well, I don't really care if you can "digest" it or not. The references clearly show Pakistan Army and its collaborators creating a list of intellectuals, and rounding them up, and killing them, right at the verge of their defeat. That happened on 14 and 15th December, 1971, *before* Pakistan Army's surrender on 16 December. That you claim such a genocide "the usual thing" is reprehensible, but I won't comment on that attitude. As for your theories about Pakistan Army shouldn't have done it, or can't logically do it, I don't really care about the theories. All available (neutral, 3rd party too)references clearly show the complicity of Pakistan Army (read, "West Pakistan" army). When even General Niazi, the commander-in-Chief of Pakistan Army in East Pakistan acknowledges the killings in hand of his Army, planned by his generals, there is nothing more to say. If you still can't "digest" it, well, good luck to you!! --Ragib (talk) 07:17, 7 January 2008 (UTC)