Talk:Razakars (Pakistan)

Untitled
although the article seems sound, it does reveal the authors bias to a certain extent in the gratuitous use of adjectives for the violence and crimes perpetrated by the razakars, rather than providing facts and links to them and letting the reader decide..

there are also some grammatical errors.

Can someone please improve upon the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skandaprasadn (talk • contribs) 05:33, 13 October 2006

Change of title
The article requires disambiguation: There are 4 categories of razakars:
 * Razakars (Early Islamic era)
 * Razakars (Hyderabad)
 * 1971 Razakars
 * Police Qaumi Razakar — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.148.11.138 (talk) 04:49, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

I propose that the article should be titled Razakars (East Pakistan) as there are already Razakars in Pakistan. Besides its positive generic in Urdu, but a political slang in Bengali language.Messiaindarain (talk) 15:25, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

New content
Added a new content as Trial to describe the prosecutions of the razakars. --Kmzayeem (talk) 15:31, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Page title
Please stop moving the page, do a request move correctly. Darkness Shines (talk) 07:13, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
 * What correctly? There was no conflict between me and you regarding the name of the Article, you said that "do a requested move", you did not talk about any controversy.Faizan (talk) 11:39, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Page title requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: no consensus. Jenks24 (talk) 10:52, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Razakars (Pakistan) → Razakars (East Pakistan) – These Razakars were formed by Pakistan Army for support in the war of 1971, and they were dissolved with the creation of Bangladesh. Razakars were present in East Pakistan only, therefore the Aricle ought to be moved to Razakars (East Pakistan). Faizan (talk) 11:58, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Here are a few Google Books and News References, which support Razakar Backround to be East Pakistan: |Google Books(1), |Google Books(2), |The Daily Star. Faizan (talk) 12:03, 14 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Support - given that razakar is a generic Urdu word and is familiar also from the razakars of Hyderabad in 1948, the extra precision in the bracket looks helpful. In ictu oculi (talk) 16:43, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Agree with you In ictu oculi! Its should be moved for better precision. Faizan (talk) 17:35, 14 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose, drunk stuff rommrow. Darkness Shines (talk) 23:12, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
 * What is this ""rommrow""? From where you see this as drunk stuff? Do you have drunk stuff in support of your response? Faizan (talk) 05:17, 15 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Support as Razakars did not exist in Pakistan proper. They were formed in East Pakistan, which became Bangladesh, and the title should accordingly be precise in that manner.  Mar4d  ( talk ) 10:23, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Agree with your opinion Mar4d! They were not present in the whole of Pakistan, but only in the province of East Pakistan. Faizan (talk) 11:00, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Mar4d was canvassed, he has never edited this page before. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:46, 16 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose Razakar ordinance says to it's recrutement policy- "Any citizen of Pakistan who satisfies the prescribed conditions may be recruited as a Razakar in prescribed manner" . So it was not only an East Pakistan based militia group.-- FreemesM  (talk) 18:34, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Please excuse the previous drunken typos, my keyboard died, My oppose is based on the fact that this was a Pakstani miltia at he time that Bangladesh was a part of Pakistan. Darkness Shines (talk) 21:03, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes! Anyone could join Razakars, even Indians, West Pakistanis, East Pakistanis, or foreigners. But they were only East Pakistanis which actually were constituting Razakars. There was no link between the two provinces of Pakistan through which West Pakistanis could be sent for helping Razakars! Faizan (talk) 11:13, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
 * So anyone could join but they were still eastern? At the time they were Pakistani citizens, hence the current title is just fine. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:39, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Its not as fine as you think! They were Eastern only... They were Biharis. They references i have given up also support it. Razakars should be named after those brave East Pakistanis. Faizan (talk) 14:58, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I think Razakar ordinance is the most valuable reference than others. Read it carefully again "Any citizen of Pakistan who satisfies the prescribed conditions may be recruited as a Razakar in prescribed manner" . Do you understand it now?-- FreemesM  (talk) 16:18, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh yes! Thats a good point! But that is only for "Condition of Recruitment". Please have a look here. Even the name of the ordinance is "THE EAST PAKISTAN RAZAKARS ORDINANCE"! The Title proves my point of Razakars background to be East Pakistan Faizan (talk) 09:42, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Dear Faizan, this point is very simple. This ordinance says, Razakars could be recruited from anywhere in Pakistan, but should be employed in East Pakistan. So both east and west Pakistan was involved here. So the current title seems ok.-- FreemesM  (talk) 12:42, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Brother Freemesm! The point we are discussing is of employment! Many people could be recruited in Razakars, but it is a clear point that Razakars operated in East Pakistan, isn't it? Faizan (talk) 12:53, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
 * There is also an Article here about Razakars (Hyderabad), which operated in Hyderabad state, if your point was valid, then its name had been "Razakars (India)"! Faizan (talk) 13:08, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Don't bring reference of another Wikipedia article. It is not static and eternal. If you think Razakars (Hyderabad) should be renamed to Razakars (India), then go there and urge for it. The fact is the whole war between BD-Pak was carried out by Pakistan (West). All the orders were carried out from Pakistan (West), which is now known as Pakistan. So it is reasonable to name it Razakars (Pakistan).-- FreemesM  (talk) 15:03, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
 * It was carried out by the Biharis only, Bengalis were a part of Mukti Bahini, put the geographical entity in which both of them operated was of East Pakistan, and that's the point. Faizan (talk) 15:56, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Did you read East Pakistan Razakar ordinance? The geographical area determines the name of the Article. Vietnam War was carried out by the Americans, but its still Vietnam War! Faizan (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:58, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
 * It was carried out by the Biharis only. totally false info, Biharis were driven by west pak army. Listen, at the time of war the government was occupied by west Pak army and their chosen persons. There was no East Pakistan government. All the orders were issued from Karachi. See page no 159, it was signed by Tikka Khan. Do you know where was he from? google it.-- FreemesM  (talk) 20:45, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Alright even if they were Biharis, or were sent from West Pakistan, where did they operate? They just operated in East Pakistan, and that's the point! Gulf War took place in Iraq and Kuwait, but many countries participated in it, still its Gulf War, Iraq War took place in Iraq, but many countries also participated, instead they invaded Iraq, (As according to you West Pakistani Razakars invaded East Pakistan) but it's still Iraq War! Even if West Pakistanis were Razakars, still they operated in East Pakistan, and it will correspond to their operations mainly. Faizan (talk) 10:52, 19 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Please keep discussion here to arguments that relate to WP:AT and other relevant policies and guidelines. I note that Razakar, to which Razakars redirects, is currently a two-way DAB between this article and Razakars (Hyderabad). As such, the existing disambiguator is adequate, and should not be elaborated. Content belongs in the page, not the title. Andrewa (talk) 20:34, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

"Famous Razakars"
The Razakars were a security force, not a political ideology, please do not include all people opposed to the independence of Bangladesh. 119.148.3.14 (talk) 06:17, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Relevancy of Abdur Rahim's training
I have moved from the article to here the phrase "who was trained at the International Police Academy, an agency funded by USAID". It is sourced, and would be worth including in a biography of Abdur Rahim, but its relevance to this topic is unclear.

The International Police Academy (IPA) and broader Office of Public Safety trained over a million police officers worldwide. Journalist Lifschultz says Rahim was one of 113 middle and senior level Pakistani police executives who received "training in modern police administration and operations" at the IPA. That training could be relevant if it got Rahim the job or was an example of the IPA intentionally or unintentionally making "repressive regimes even more repressive" (one reason the program was shut down a few years later). Lifshultz says repression was problematic in Vietnam, Uruguay, and Central America, but doesn't say whether the training made Rahim, the Razakars, or Pakistan any more repressive during the Bangladesh Liberation War than they would have been without it.

Including the phrase here without broader context is innuendo that implies a degree of connection between the Razakars and the US that the source doesn't support. Samar Sen's review of Bangladesh: The Unfinished Revolution describes the material as vague and says, "Lifschultz's attempts at unraveling the truth have not been wholly fruitful". I agree, but have no objection to information about Rahim's training being re-introduced if a second source can be found to show relevance, and if the information is presented in context.

--Worldbruce (talk) 18:50, 13 August 2016 (UTC)