Talk:Operation Searchlight

Scope
As far as I know, the Operation Searchlight was the crackdown initiated on March 25, 1971. It did not cover the whole war. For references, see Major Siddiq Salique's book "Witness to surrender". --Ragib 15:42, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Death toll
The main article on Bangladesh states: 'Rough estimates of those massacred range from several hundred thousand to 3 million', whereas only the figure 3 million is given here. I am not personally familiar with attempts to arrive at a definitive figure, so I'll leave it unchanged, but if someone with better knowledge could attend to it, that would be much appreciated. --Benwilson528 13:35, 27 February 2006 (UTC)


 * See here. There is no definitive number, but most estimates agree on a number between 1 million and 1.5 million. The 3 million number is an upper limit. Thanks. --Ragib 16:20, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me "most experts agree on a figure of 1 to 1.5 million" this is nonsense and most clearly a figure plucked out of the air. Please do not make emotive baseless statements and provide sources to back up such statements. Also in order to be more balanced the overall article needs to clearly mention how the mukhti bahini rebel fashion were ethnically cleansing loyal pakistanis in the east pakistan, and also the incidents were west pakistani military men had their wives raped bybengali east pakistani military officers and the said unfortunate women were forced to serve food to the bengali offices naked. This had been one of the incidents of mutiny which had appalled Tikka Khan into action. Also more needs to be made of the clear links between mujib and the indians. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.202.218.32 (talk) 21:24, 14 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, the conservative figure of 1 to 1.5 million has been supported by multiple independent sources (e.g., R.J. Rummel). Please refer to the references. As for your other claims, feel free to come up with references from reliable sources rather than handwaving. Thank you. --Ragib (talk) 16:28, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Sources and accounts investigated by Gerlach suggest a likely death toll of between 200,000 to less than one million. Gerlach also notes the highly politicized nature of the Bengali and Pakistani accounts of events and the corresponding numbers. Rummel's overall death counts as well as his use of sources has been disputed (see Harff's comments on his work), though not specifically in relation to Bangladesh. His whopping numbers in relation to the USSR are inflated and in any case not up to date, since the opening of USSR archives (see Snyder, Kotkin, Applebaum and many others, on the numbers of the Gulag and the famine/collectivisation and the Great Terror). Similar things apply to the numbers he uses with regard to Mao's China. Anyway, Harff (in "No Lessons Learned..", 2003) also gives numbers for "Pakistan" of 1,000,000 to 3,000,000. Easterly, Gatti, and Kurlat (2006) give 2,125,000. However, Ulfelder and Valentino (2008) give 650,000. In general, though, I find it wiser not to use numbers from compilation datasets (which all of the above are), whose purpose it is to study trends of mass killings rather than any specific case. It is preferable to use the numbers that arise from the specific studies of the specific killing campaign, which is the case with Gerlach who is also a newer source than any of the above datasets.

POV
To state that it was a Genocide in the first sentence is not a WP:NPOV.

This article does not cite its sources. Further as there have not been any trials (but see Raymond Faisal Solaiman v People's Republic of Bangladesh & Ors)it can only be an alleged genocide if a genocide at all. Please see the article Genocide, it is not at all clear that even if the top figure of three million were killed that it would qualify as a Genocide as the "in part" would not be reached. The only way that this could be considered a genocide is if those targeted were "emblematic of the overall group, or is essential to its survival", but that Bangladesh was created and has survived it would suggest that the group killed were not. --Philip Baird Shearer 14:19, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
 * So a death cannot be a murder until someone is prosecuted for it? Or the genocide in Serbia didnt exist because a large enough part of the various communities werent killed? Removing Neutrality tag, have fun and please post with something more than sophistry next time. Also see --89.100.1.161 18:07, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

See Prosecutor v. Radislav Krstic - Appeals Chamber - Judgment - IT-98-33 (2004) ICTY 7 (19 April 2004) the massacre of Muslim men was defined as a genocide by an international tribunal. The tribunal did define the Srebrenica massacre as a genocidal act. Genocide has a specific set of criteria defining it and it is not at all clear that this operation can be defined as an itent to commit genocide (see for example Genocide) the plan to kill 3 million -- which is an alledged number -- out of the total population of East Pakistan is not enough for it to be a planned genocide. I am aware of the Allegations of genocide in that article, because I spent several months working on the atrocities section of that article. Notice it says "allegations of gencide" not "genocide". --Philip Baird Shearer 20:12, 18 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Yet again you ignore the point, no where does it mention that anyone was convicted of genocide or that people were indicted on it, Genocide as a word and genocide as a crime are different, just as murder and many other terms that have both legal and common-use definitions are. Stop with the pointless sophistry and straw mans. --89.100.1.161 11:49, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

This is not a blog page it is an encyclopedia article. The word has to carry precise meaning if the encyclopedia is to remain credible. Your argument would carry more weight if the word "genocide" was not linked to the article genocide which states "Genocide is a term defined by Article 2 of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (CPPCG) as ...". Please read WP:NPOV because a first sentence in an article that stats "Operation Searchlight was a planned genocide carried out by the Pakistan Army to curb the Bengali nationalist movement in erstwhile East Pakistan in 1971." is in clear violation of that Wikipedia policy--Philip Baird Shearer 12:29, 21 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Article is riddled with WP:POV and WP:OR violations. Hardly any sources are provided and those statements that do cite sources, it seems the entire article is largely based on two books. Needs to be improved.Aaron Pris (talk) 05:43, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Operation Searchlight and Razakars
The Razakar, Al Badr groups were activated much after the launching of the operation (around June 1971), by which time Operation Searchlight ended. Their information should not be in the Operation Searchlight info box but in the Bangladesh Liberation War section.Maglorbd (talk) 02:55, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Article issues
This article was recent removed from Selected anniversaries/March 26 due to claims that this article is currently "heavily sourced to involved parties, not independent sources, and is unwikified in heaps of places" As such, I have tagged this article with article issues for now until such issues on this article itself have been resolved. Please see Wikipedia talk:Selected anniversaries/March 26 for more details on the objections. Cheers. Zzyzx11 (talk) 00:40, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Factual Errors
Mukti Bahini was created long before operation search light took place. 119.154.9.79 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:22, 21 March 2012 (UTC).

Darkness Shines POV-pushing
Darkness Shines, you know as well as I do that The British Medical Journal and The Guardian are WP:RS, and you have failed to even achieve consensus that Bose is fringe. Please stop your unjustified edit warring and mass deletions of content you disagree with.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 02:39, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually, a letter to the editor is not RS, Which this is] And certainly not for historical facts. Darkness Shines (talk) 13:11, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Operation Searchlight. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:
 * Attempted to fix sourcing for http://news.dawn.com/wps/wcm/connect/dawn-content-library/dawn/in-paper-magazine/books-and-authors/how-the-east-was-lost

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Link rot had set in before url was archived.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 13:52, 31 March 2016 (UTC)


 * That item is online here. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 18:04, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Independent research reverted
What is meant by independent research? Does it mean commentary that contradicts well established historical facts? Then what is an non-independent research? Where did Hiro Dilip run his "research"?

The first ref provided was an empty ref. The second one could not be verified. Both invalid. If your book-cite cannot be verified by clicking on the link, please, provide a direct quote in the ref. Use "quote" parameter. The "fact" you provide is divergent from established facts, and needs to handled with more care than the sloppiness I had to remove. Aditya (talk • contribs) 15:34, 15 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Here is another article that mentions it link.Saadkhan12345 (talk) 17:56, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Here is another. And, another. It all seems to stem from this. BBC keeps attributing its numbers to "independent researchers" without ever naming the research. May be this one could have helped, but the source requires subscription. So far I have been able to find only the British Medical Journal to cite a research, and not just vague attributions. I guess the particular place for this BBC viewpoint may be better dealt in the article on 1971 Bangladesh genocide. May a section on disputed numbers or something. That would be able to handle the divergent numbers with adhering to any particular bias. Aditya  (talk • contribs) 03:21, 16 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Are you saying the fact that independent researches have claimed is not true? Another point: If you look at this article Kargil War, along with many others, it shows claims from both side. No need to make a separate paragraph on 1 sentence or 3 words. Saadkhan12345 16:23, 16 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Not at all. Wikipedia is not about the truth. It is about verifiable facts. If BBC claims a number, then do write "BBC claims...". If the Bangladesh mainstream claims a number than you may write "In Bangladesh it is believed..." or something. And, so on. If someone says there is "independent research" and then does not cite the research, then do not write "independent research" as if you know what that means. You don't know, BBC does. And, if there are 2/3 different numbers to deal with then present none as facts, apart from the the one that has been more established, and write the rest of the numbers in a comprehensive manner, preferably in a section for the disputes. The 3 words you mention probably does not cover the "fact". There is no fact here, just different claims. Aditya  (talk • contribs) 03:32, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Third opinion
wants to offer a third opinion. To assist with the process, editors are requested to summarize the dispute in a short sentence below.

There are two different death tolls for Bangladesh Liberation War, one claimed by Bangladesh government, and another by BBC, who mentions "independent researchers" as their source. It is prudent, and meets WP:N and WP:V if we write something like - "Bangladesh government and majority of Bangladesh sources claim ... died. However, BBC claims, citing unnamed independent researchers, that it was ...". Thank you. Aditya mentions on Talk:Operation Searchlight I believe this is wrong here and we shouldn't write BBC claims here because BBC doesn't claim the figure 300,000 dead but Independent researchers do. I believe we don't have to cite the research and check whether the claim is true because we don't do this for reliable sources.
 * Viewpoint by (Aditya Kabir):Link
 * Viewpoint by (Saadkhan12345):I believe the lead becomes biased and non-neutral with one sided claim and therefore we should add independent figure claim.
 * 1. If BBC claims a number, then do write "BBC claims..."
 * 2. If someone says there is "independent research" and then does not cite the research, then do not write "independent research".
 * Third opinion by Kautilya3:
 * Aditya Kabir's proposed version seems fair, and I don't understand the objection to it. If you have reliable sources that have done an analysis of the death toll, please feel free to cite them. News sources are not particularly authoritative for these matters. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:28, 18 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Aditya you do reliaze that one of the source for this statement "as the death of up to 3,000,000 civilians" is from bbc and the second is from aljazeera. So its ok if I add bbc claim to it? Saadkhan12345 (talk) 12:00, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
 * "Up to..." should be able to cover it. Alternatively "a death toll assumed to be something between ... and ..." may also cover both views. Alternatively we can replace the BBC source for the first claim. Should not be difficult. Aditya  (talk • contribs) 12:58, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry. Are you trying to say we can give range that can cover both views? Like estimate range of 300k-3m? Saadkhan12345 (talk) 13:08, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Something like that. Yes. Aditya (talk • contribs) 21:31, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Good work. Aditya (talk • contribs) 08:27, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Talbot citation
This is the original text from the new citation "The crackdown code-named 'Operation Searchlight' which sealed the fate of national unity was launched at midnight on 25 March. Yahya later justified it by citing the threats to non-Bengali Muslims, the murders committed by the Awami League and its insults to the army." in Ian Talbot, India and Pakistan: Inventing the Nation (2000) Oxford University Press pp. 258

It is reasonably reflective of the sentence in the article which reads which the Pakistani state justified on the basis of anti-Bihari violence by Bengalis in early March.  Likewise, the Pakistani state claimed to justify starting Operation Searchlight on the basis of anti-Bihari violence by Bengalis in early March.  Perhaps you may like some modification to pull the existing sentence closer to the Talbot citation? TurboCop (talk) 12:21, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Supported by the usa?
In the infobox it says pakistan was supported by the usa, but where is the source for that? Control+F usa does not show any mention of the usa outside of the infobox. Sjobenrit (talk) 08:03, 4 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Hello I have removed the statement saying that PAKISTAN was supported by the UNITED STATES.
 * Thank you. Muhammad Mahd (talk) 12:21, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

Removing this sentence regarding 8 EBR
8 EBR units under Major Zia made a surprise attack on the barracks of the 20 Baluch regiment and killed 250 West Pakistani soldiers. This event would have been a major Bangladesh victory but it is not mentioned in sources from Bangladesh, including Bengali officers who had served with 8 EBR in Chittagong in March, (then) Captain S. Ali Bhuyan (Author Muktijuddhay Noi Mash.ISBN 984-11-0326-5), (then) Captain Oli Ahmed, (author of Rastrobiplob Samorik Bahinir Sadashsbindu Abong Bangladesher Muktizuddah), and (then) Major Mir Shawkat Ali or (then)Lt. Shamsher Mubin or then (Captain) Haroon, and by Major Rafiqu Islam ( author of A Tale of Millions ISBN 984-412-033-0) who could not get Major Zia to come to the city. Maj. Gen. K.M Safiullah ( Bangladesh at War, ISBN 984-401-322-4) also makes no no mention of any such incident.Maglorbd (talk) 04:48, 6 February 2024 (UTC)