Balkan Tragedy: A Re-enactment of the 1971 Genocide in Bangladesh

ATTENTION Mr. JAMAL HASAN

I must ask you as to WHY you have included in your list of names of people who `fit the profile of war criminals` Brig Gen. Z.A Khan. Kindly include detailed reasons for why you or anyone else should consider this gentleman a person who `fits the profile of a war criminal`. I am only aware of his role in the capture of the ghaddar/traitor Sheikh Mujibur Rehman, and his escort of said ghaddar/traitor to West Pakistan. I hardly think that this act constitutes a war crime. Explain your irresponsible statements, or withdraw them immediately.

The issue of whether the Pakistan army committed

genocide in East Pakistan in 1971 is seperate from the issue of individual responsibility when you name particular individuals. Some of those individuals named are no doubt guilty of committing inhuman atrocities on the East Pakistani Bengalis at the time, but I seriously doubt you have an iota of proof against the Brigadier General (retd) Z.A.Khan. Incidently this gentleman has recently published a book about his experiences in the Pakistan army titled, `The Way it Was.` Exerpts of the book have been published on the internet in Pakistani Defence journals which are availble on the internet free of charge in back issues if you care to read about them.

As usual I am jumping in at the fag end of the discussion ..so I shall be brief

1...As was seen by Pakistan`s experience in 1965 with Kashmir pouring weapons into a region ..doesn`t trigger an insurrection not unless they are underlying causes .

2....There is a strong element of racial and ethnic chavunism ..similair in both cases of Kosovo and East Pakistan ..it wasn`t uncommon to hear West PAkistani soldiers being quoted as saying `` we`ll remove the fight out of them forever ``

`` We will wipe out tehir genes ``

3...Interestingly India is opposed to the intervention by Nato in the conflict ..as are countries like China and Russia ...most probably because ..once you allow such a precedent ..it can be applied elsewhere ( a useful lesson for any armed intervention in Pakistan as well )

4...The history behind the kosovo war is much more complex then the East Pakistan one ..it is 500 + years old...and the alnd historically was Serbian ..but due to war and migrations ..the Albanian community became a majority .

5...On the other hand their is an important similairity ..if the East Pakistan incident had occurred now ..it would most definitely have been considered Genocide ..and many pakistani leaders would have been caught .

In Pakistans defense ..that it hasn`t apologised for the War and hasn`t paid compensation ..all assets in East Pakistan were nationalised by the Mujib govt. ..something that played a role in the economic depression that overtook West Pakistan in the `70`s ..also it is said that Z.A Bhutto apologised in 1975 on his trip to Bangladesh ( I am however uncertain about this ) another point worth mentioning ..is that over 1.5 million Bengalis live in pakistan right now ..as illegeal immigrants ..they are employed ..and have taken over teh fishing industry in Karachi ..they have excacerbated the ethnic and social problems in that area ..and send their remittances back to Bangladesh ...another reference is that in Nawaz Sharifs trip to Bangladesh ( the first one after being re elected PM ) he did clearly state that the March 1970 crackdown was wrong and that the mandate of the people should have been respected .

Ras Siddiqui

``(if you guys don`t mind being related to Muslims).``

-- not at all. Hindus in India have been born with an umblical cord that connects them with the Muslims. Islam has done a world of good to a perverted, myopic , casteist religion that Hinduism was and still is.

``On Kashmir you are dead wrong. There are no UN resolutions on the disputed status of Sindh, Baluchistan, NWFP or Punjab. ``

-- Agreed, but UN resolutions alone do not constitute any legality whatsoever. The UN resolutions also say that Pakistan should withdraw its troops from its part of Kashmir before such a resolution is honoured. The UN resolution for a plebiscite does not recognize any control over kashmir by pakistan while it recognizes that India had an absolute authority over the kashmir territory in relation to the instrument of accession and this status can be altered by the plebiscite. So before the UN resolution can be even thought of , pakistan has to withdraw its forces. While Pakistan is crying hoarse over indian atrocities in Kashmir, i don`t understand why Pakistan does not utilize this opportunity and declare its part of Kashmir as an independant entity. That move alone shall do the kashmir movement a world of good.

``My government (United States) still recognizes

that all of Jammu and Kashmir is disputed territory. That is not the case with Assam or Tamil Nadu.``

-- From when has my governments (United States) recognition mattered to the politics of the subcontinent. My government while it has its virtues does not constitute a global protector nor a judge and jury to recognize or not recognize other nations. My government acts only in its own interest and todays economic and political interests of my country dictate that it not recognize kashmir as a part of either india or pakistan. Tomorrow, who knows ?

Bad argument, Ras...........

`` Anyway my point was that India has alienated the Muslim Kashmiris like the West Pakistanis alienated their Bengali population. ``

-- Yes, today the Muslim Kashmiris are indeed alienated. But your statement, that India has alienated them is what i contend with. There is a subtle semantic difference between what i accept and what you allege.

Pakistan alienated East bengalis, but India did not alienate the Muslim Kashmiris. Pray tell me, exactly what actions of the Indian union alienated the Kashmiris. Did india moved in non-kashmiris into kashmir and gave them authority over the kashmiris the way pakistan did with the Biharis/bengalis --- au contraire, india gave the kashmiris complete security. Cold blooded murder is being committed by the kashmir terrorists and not the Indian Government whoes actions are monitored by a douzen or so NGOs. India foots the bill for the entire state of Kashmir, unlike Bangladesh propping up the sagging Pakistani economy prior to 1971. Indians do not have any feelings whatsoever of cultural or political superiority towards the kashmiris (muslim or not ) the way the pakistanis did towards the bengalis (aryan dravidian nonsense). Au contraire even today, the kashmiri muslim is regarded on a culturally and ethnically higher strata than say some other ethnic people within india by the other indians. The kashmiri has his own government, and is being adequately and today powerfully represented in the center. He can make or break the central government if he chooses to today.

`` And you and I can discuss that here till kingdom come but please do not end up convincing yourself that a ``Proxy War`` is all that is going on in Kashmir. ``

-- You still have not answered my questions point by point. Yes, it is not a proxy war alone that is going on in Kashmir. What is going on in kashmir was started by a proxy war which can easily become a seperatist movement, given some money, a few disgruntled elements, and a religious card. ? You seem to be more interested in the current status and not in the origin or the raison d`etre of the kashmiri problem. It is like, lets start a problem with a family and address just the problem later on and not on the cause or reason of the problem.

``We West Pakistanis were fed the same Bull during the Bangladesh crisis that our soldiers were fighting Indians and not Muslim Bengalis. ``

-- You guys are still being fed a lot of bull about the freedom struggle, about yours and india`s religions, about our common heritage and history etc., Thankfully until today (with or without the fascist BJP) we Indians due to our pluralistic nature have been fed with less bull and more substance.

`` Kashmir is more like Kosovo then Bangladesh, that it has a population who has more in common with one country and a territory claimed by another.``

-- there you go again. now you have to compare kashmir with kosovo...and now you have to claim that the kashmiris have more in common with pakistan. That claim needs to be made by a kashmiri and not you and also remember that for every kashmiri who makes that claim there is another kashmiri who would make a contrary claim about being more in common with india and another who would claim that they have nothing in common with either. if only milosevic had treated kosovo as india did with kashmir (special status, autonomy, religious and cultural freedom etc), his country would not have been bombed today. Instead he tried to deal with Kosovo as Pakistan did with Bangladesh...............

``As far as your implied threat of India doing the same to Pakistan by working on Sindh, Baluchistan

and the NWFP, it appears that India is already active in both major groups in Sindh. ``

-- I am not implying any threat. I am just trying to point out that in economically regressive and societally plural societies like ours, dissensions and seperatist movements can be as easily created as lighting a fire. As long as a democratic setup is in existence in our countries and where the actions of everyone of us can be judged by the people, as long as we have an unbiased judiciary and a strong and independant press these seperatist movements are in existence only because of outside influenze or because of a few self centered persons fanning such movements for their own hidden agendas. And that is all that i was trying to point. Who am i to threaten anyone for that matter ?

`` But your security and political establishment appears to be mature enough to understand that the

undoing of Pakistan will mean the undoing of India``

-- Yes, thankfully the Indian government realizes that and that is the probably a reason Pakistan is not facing a kashmir within its borders.

``but that the ideological wave that has crept into Kashmir will become a Tsunami into India where 300 million Muslims will upset the Brahminic domination of Bharat.``

-- You know what, i hope that the Muslims of India start using the democratic process sensibly and do upset the Brahminic domination of Bharat. My only fear is that they might be used by the lalloos and mulayams of India for their vote bank politics.

``The only way out is a negotiated settlement of Kashmir and to bolster the rocky economy of Chai

drinking Pakistan.``

-- I don`t think there is a sensible way, excepting what the Chinese premier once said. Let us cease hostilities and improve our economy and our defense ( have as many missiles as each wants but keep the nukes in check ), stop interfering with the other country`s internal matters, maintain a status quo in terms of borders and hope that a future generation would be wiser than the one today to decide its course of action. Who knows what would happen in another 20-50 years of technological and economical advancement. ?

Rishi

Ras:

In the US we pray alongside each other in the same

mosques, we can talk about world problems and

during cricket matches they CHEER THE PAKISTANI

TEAM when India and Pakistan play. What else can I feel but ashamed today at the events of 1971?

Ras:

Please, for God`s sake Do not try to play the Islamic card again. We have been cheated againa and again.

Bangladeshis know how Pakistanis played the Islamic card in 1971 and got massacred and killed and raped.

And what makes you believe that Bangadeshis would

support a Pakistani team only in an India-Pakistan match. In fact when I was in Dhaka to see

India Pakistan finals (Independence Cup) there were far more Indian supporters. There are Pakistani supporters too but trust me they are far less than Indian supporters. Of course if there was an India-Bangladesh match they would support Bangladesh.

Bangladesh love cricket and would love to watch good cricket.

To D/o Z. A. Khan : I actually hope that you do take this court. Preferebly to the International Court (World Court). Where we may find once, and for all the war criminals, and review all the docummentary evidence. This this issue will be settled (as settled as it can be). Of-course, Pakistan, then must also aggree that any war criminals found guilty should be turned over to international authorities (the United Nations authorities perhaps) who would enforce whatever sentence the court passes. -Altaf

A common fallacy spread by the left leaning NY.Times in 1971 and by numerous pro-Indian authors is repeated in this article. The fallacy is that of 3 million dead Bangalis and the 10 million refugees.

The truth is that probably about 100,000-300,000 people died as a result of the civil war. As for refugees, perhaps upto 3 million were created by the crisis that India constantly fueled and instigated, including the those initially displaced by the infamous cyclone of 1970 before the balloting. How? The Indian run Bangla radio stations in W.Bengal constantly broadcast news of massacres that did not in fact occur and exaggerated the situation deliberately, telling all East Pakistani citizens of Bangla race that the Pakistan army intended to, and was killing them. The Indians sent in RAW agents and trained the Mukti Bahini to spread misinformation and terror and constantly urged the people to flee, thereby deliberately exacerbating the crisis, and providing the requisite excuse for armed intervention in East Pakistan in order to fulfill its strategic goals. This does not however negate the Pakistani army`s bloody deeds on the night of March 25, 1971, which did in fact occur, but one should study the context in which they occured to understand Yahya Khan & Co, to say nothing of the situation prevailing in East Pakistan prior to that night. Does not excuse it, but it explains the `why`.

When U.S Congressmen visited the refugee camps in West Bengal, they were naturally appalled at the conditions prevailing. The conditions of third world poverty were indeed horrifying to people who had never seen anything like this before in their lives and India played this card to the hilt. The truth is that conditions in the refugee camps in Indian West Bengal were actually better than in the Indian state itself, so much, that local residents of Indian West Bengal entered and flooded the camps as refugees, to take advantage of the guaranteed free meals to the refugees. When the U.N wanted to take a head count of refugees, India refused to permit it. India also refused to permit any of the refugees to return safely home, after all, they were now the hard won bargaining chips of the Indian government. Many had wanted to return by September 1971, under arrangements worked out by the U.N, U.S & the amnesty offer by the Govt of Pakistan which wanted them to return. All this is substantiated by my research of the newspapers of the time, particularly NY Times on microfilm,1971 and approximately 15 books on the creation of Bangladesh i read in my senior year in high school and later in college as an undergrad, when i did an independant study/15 page paper on the subject including U.S foreign policy. Both Kissinger and Nixon are especially harsh in their memoirs on Indira Gandhi and her ruthless ambition to destroy United Pakistan ... no matter what the cost. Some of their quotes make very interesting reading.

The Awami Leagues 6 point plan was basically nothing short of a demand for outright secession. It was therefore unacceptable to any sane patriotic Pakistani at the time. That is the real truth. If we had to do it over again, we probably would. But this time India would get nuked. By October-November Pakistan army had retaken control of much of the countryside and defeated the Indian proxy, the Mukti Bahini, and the Indian BSF and army engaged in cross border shelling and other provocations in order to escalate the crisis. Yahya said in 10 days we will be at war. He kept his word. The real war crime committed was by Gen. `Tiger` Niazi (of Mein Nai Hatyar Nahinh daalay autobiographical fame recently --- too phir kiss nai daalay you coward?)Dhaka should have been turned into a fortress and the Pakistan army should have retreated within the city limits and fought to the last man, city block by city block, street by bloody street. Tiger Sahib should have faced the firing squad on his return to West Pakistan from the Indian POW camp.

Incidently, i`d like to take the opportunity to debunk the myth of the 5 IAF planes in one mission that M.M Alam claimed to have shot down in the 1965 war as well (He did however shoot down 2 others in seperate engagements during the 1965 war). THERE WAS NO GUN CAMERA FOOTAGE, or WRECKAGE of any of these planes. IAF planes shot down in other engagements by other pilots were at different times were used by the PAF to bolster his lies. The truth is Pakistan needed to prove to its citizens that it `Won` this war, and it needed `a war hero` to do it. Enter M.M Alam. This infamous lie needs to be debunked so that the real PAF heroes of 1965 & 71 are recognized for their achievements as opposed to this charlatan M.M Alam.

And finally, Brigadier gen (retd) Z.A (SSG)/Commandos exemplifies the very best of Pakistan and its army. He is not guilty of any `atrocities` against civilians whatsoever in former East Pakistan, and i suggest that this author issue an immediate retraction to this effect, and delete any implication to this effect from the article immediately because the author seems illinformed, plus the author should issue a public apology to this valiant defender of both East & West Pakistan. Brig Z.A Khan has fought bravely for his country on the battlefield repeatedly, and the only `political` mission of his life was the arrest/capture of the ghaddar/traitor Sheikh Mujib-Ur-Rehman and the transfer of said ghaddar/traitor to West Pakistan in irons/fetters, I am led to believe. Any former citizen of East Pakistan should express gratitude for this well-nigh honorable service to their country.

I`d like to add my condlences to the Pakistani army officers who were massacred by the treasonous Benglalis under their command in East Pakistan rifles etc, and the other innocent and unfortunate victims of the war including those whom Bengali mobs tore to pieces and those who were innocent victims of the Razakars etc as well.

Ironic indeed that the Bangalis themselves devoured and killed their own `father of the Bangladesh nation`, though Pakistan spared him.

In summation, Yaha handled a flood rather badly, Bhutto preferred to rule over half a country rather than not rule at all, and Mujib should have been allowed to become P.M of United Pakistan, but was not, and then turned into a traitor, India took full advantage of the delicate political situation then prevailing, exploited Yahya`s crude handling of it, and thus we lost half of the country. Thats the story of how Bangladesh came into existence. But the truth is, they are probably much better off without West Pakistan. I note their literacy rate has crept up, and their bith rate has gone down significantly. One need only look at the situation today in (West)Pakistan to realize they have done better than West Pakistan. Good luck to them. Shame on Pakistan today for allowing a small vocal minority of mullahs to dictate the terms of our social development. Balochistan still has a 2% female literacy rate today. Shows where we are today.

Re: Omar1974

``. If we had to do it over again, we probably would. But this time India would get nuked ``

hmm, You really believe that don`t you. At the least your statement is gross stupidity and at the best just plain funny. I will take the later. Grow up will ya. rhetorics don`t help anyone at all

Mujib ... a traitor... c`mon

Rishi

I was talking to a Bangladeshi friend of mine about whether the crowd supports India or Pakistan during cricket matches, and he told me its usually fifty-fifty: half the people hate Pakisan more, and the other half hates India more!

...Talk about peace in the sub-continent!!

Re: Rishi and Omar

The difference between a patriot and traitor is only in the perception of the deed.

Re: Altaf

Just out of curiosity, what documentary proof are you refering to? I highly doubt that the Pakistani Army kept detailed records of its massacres against the people of Bangladesh and as to the remains of the victims, where will one find those? How are you planning on proving the complicity of the Pakistani generals?

Most of the evidence against the Pakistani generals is circumtancial and granted there is enough cause to issue an indictment against them, it is still a far cry from making the charges withstand the scrutiny of the international court. The problem with the IC is that it lacks the power to enforce its judgements and since international law, in relations between nations, relies on the principle of sovereign immunity, bringing war criminals to trial is mostly a diplomatic process and not a legal one.

Even if you get these generals in court, you have to establish beyond a doubt that the Pakistani generals directly and verbally ordered the genocide. You have to establish and then proof that there is a direct link between them and the genocide. You will need solid evidence, not mere allegations, to prove the causal link. The greatest enemy to war crimes prosecution is not the act, but time itself. With each year, it gets more difficult to proof the guilt.

Re: Omar1974

Sheikh Mujib might be traitor/gaddar to u but he is to us what Jinnah is to u...and pl remember ur neighbour also call mr. Jinnah something worse than traitor. Sheikh Mujib was killed by some elements in army who came to Bangladesh from Pakistan after 1971.....( Did u plant them?)

Zabed

Rishi:

I just wanted to support every word of your Reply #37. Good Job.

Rishi :

Mujib Ur Rehman was indeed a traitor. How do i define treason? Simple. Advocating and inciting others to take action to break up the state, while being a citizen subject to that state. That is precisely what the Awami League and Mujib were doing PRIOR to March 25th, 1971. And Mujib was a CITIZEN of UNITED PAKISTAN. The AWAMI LEAGUE wanted a `CONFEDERATION`, to use their word. This was the demand that preceeded the army action on March 25, 1971, in addition to widespread lawlessness, looting and forcible closure of businesses and government institutions plus burning of Pakistani flag in Dhaka and else where in East Pakistan, incited primarily by the Awami League and Mujib Ur Rehman. A confederation implies the right to secession. This is essentially the heart and soul of the Awami league`s 6 point agenda in early 1971. Mujib himself was never really intetrested in becoming P.M of United Pakistan, although i most certainly defend his right to do precisely that. However, he was interested since the 1960s in the secession of East Pakistan from the country. That does amount to TREASON under my working definition of the term. Can`t really call it anything else.

Regarding my comment of `if we had to do it over agin, we probably would.` Well, Some regional leaders in Pakistan today have called for what amounts to the breakup of the country. Since they are citizens of Pakistan today, that amounts to treason. Frankly had i been in Yahya`s shoes i don`t see too many other reasonable alternatives at the time, given my/his duty to protect the integrity of the country and to prevent rampant lawlessness, including the deliberate desecration of the flag by elements of the supporters of the Awami League.

This is the harsh truth. Deal with it. And if India tried the same thing with Sindh today for example, IF i were the person making the decisions, there would certainly come a `critical point` at which use of nuclear weapons in a first strike against India would become seriously tempting. If you drive a man to the wall, then he can reach a point where he has nothing to lose anymore. Pakistani leaders faced this situation in East Pakistan in 1971. There were few other viable alternatives. It backfired, but even with 20/20 hindsight, i can`t honestly say that i would have made different choices. That is the emotional truth of it, like it or not.

Rishi :

Mujib Ur Rehman was indeed a traitor. How do i define treason? Simple. Advocating and inciting others to take action to break up the state, while being a citizen subject to that state. That is precisely what the Awami League and Mujib were doing PRIOR to March 25th, 1971. And Mujib was a CITIZEN of UNITED PAKISTAN. The AWAMI LEAGUE wanted a `CONFEDERATION`, to use their word. This was the demand that preceded the army action on March 25, 1971, in addition to widespread lawlessness, looting and forcible closure of businesses and government institutions plus burning of Pakistani flag in Dhaka and else where in East Pakistan, incited primarily by the Awami League and Mujib Ur Rehman. A confederation implies the right to secession. This is essentially the heart and soul of the Awami league`s 6 point agenda in early 1971. Mujib himself was never really interested in becoming P.M of United Pakistan, although i most certainly defend his right to do precisely that. However, he was interested since the 1960s in the secession of East Pakistan from the country. That does amount to TREASON under my working definition of the term. Can`t really call it anything else.

Regarding my comment of `if we had to do it over again, we probably would.` Well, Some regional leaders in Pakistan today have called for what amounts to the breakup of the country. Since they are citizens of Pakistan today, that amounts to treason. Frankly had i been in Yahya`s shoes i don`t see too many other reasonable alternatives at the time, given my/his duty to protect the integrity of the country and to prevent rampant lawlessness, including the deliberate desecration of the flag by elements of the supporters of the Awami League.

This is the harsh truth. Deal with it. And if India tried the same thing with Sindh today for example, IF i were the person making the decisions, there would certainly come a `critical point` at which use of nuclear weapons in a first strike against India would become seriously tempting. If you drive a man to the wall, then he can reach a point where he has nothing to lose anymore. Pakistani leaders faced this situation in East Pakistan in 1971. There were few other viable alternatives. It backfired, but even with 20/20 hindsight, i can`t honestly say that i would have made different choices. That is the emotional truth of it, like it or not.

Ferozk : Point well taken. There is no absolute truth, nor can we ever really ‘know’ it. The closet we can get to a conception of ‘absolute truth’, is a reflection in the muddied waters of a pond. Hence, there are only VERSIONS of the truth, depending upon one’s vantage point and perspective. Still, judges don’t have this luxury, and they have to decide cases and practical problems on a daily basis on the basis of the information they possess. The process of justice is far from perfect, like all things human, but one can only make an attempt to learn the truth, one should not give up dispairingly.

Re: OMAR1974

Again Bad arguments Omar

``How do i define treason? Simple. Advocating and inciting others to take action to break up the state, while being a citizen subject to that state.``

-- Are all kashmiris fighting for their liberation traitors then ? Are the Kosovars traitors today ? You have a rather myopic and partial viewpoint over all things. And you seem to favor everything that suits yourself however contradictory that might make you. what goes around comes around ..

``Frankly had i been in Yahya`s shoes i don`t see too many other reasonable alternatives at the time, given my/his duty to protect the integrity of the country and to prevent rampant lawlessness, including the deliberate desecration of the flag by elements of the supporters of the Awami League.``

-- You could have started a saner process if you had been in Yahya`s shoes by respecting the democratic process and installing the Awami League as the ruling party of Pakistan and giving the Bengalis equal rights by making Bengali also a national language rather than Urdu alone. But then you won`t b`coz like Yahya you have to act immature and force things down to brawn with a mistaken belief on your own strength untill someone stronger brow beats you , would ya...

`` This is the harsh truth. Deal with it. And if India tried the same thing with Sindh today for example, IF i were the person making the decisions, there would certainly come a `critical point` at which use of nuclear weapons in a first strike against India would become seriously tempting.``

-- Yeah, would be seriously tempting . would`nt it ? Particularly when the country you want to nuke is probably much more powerful and has its own nukes and much more larger . It would never cross your mind that during your frenetic and bombastic frenzy in pressing the nuke buttons, that in a few seconds you would also vaporize along with all of your family and your country men not to mention a few innocent neighbours who would also suffer the after effects of the radiation carried over by the winds. You give yourself too much credit, you know.

`` If you drive a man to the wall, then he can reach a point where he has nothing to lose anymore.``

-- nothing to lose,,, if you had nothing to lose in 1971 what are you trying to protect today. Why do you need all these nukes and missiles if you have nothing to lose ?

``Pakistani leaders faced this situation in East Pakistan in 1971. There were few other viable alternatives. ``

-- A most viable alternative would have been to handle the situation as the Indians have been handling kashmir. Instead of forcing things into the open and pushing yourself against the wall so that you have to kick back and kill yourself in the process (which is what milosevic is doing today) , a more saner person would manoever around the corners and keep the fight at a low intensity level till the fighters tire themselves out and choose other easier and more comfortable options which are thrown open to them and retire gracefully from the fight (believe me, the indians did that with Punjab and won the fight We could have easily done a bangladesh in punjab by butchering all punjabi sikhs and not letting them enjoy the benefit of a judiciary, a human rights commission and a diplomatic and political process, but then we would have created a refugee crises and forced things into the open. instead the indians waited it out , not out of some great insight but because their democratic process does not provide any other alternative).

`` It backfired, but even with 20/20 hindsight, i can`t honestly say that i would have made different choices. That is the emotional truth of it, like it or not. ``

-- read my previous answer again whether you like it or not.

p.s: Your reply my friend, i am sorry to say is typical of the jingoistic nature in which pakistan is run today and is but an example of the political and judiciary and social process . For instance when India tests an Agni-II, There were no public hue and cry about it this time and people took it as a matter of fact. But on the other hand, pakistanis across the border seemed too agitated about it. I would think that all the Pakistanis need to do is to test their own missiles and feel confident about their security rather than link their actions with that of India`s. Just confirms my belief that politics in Pakistan seems to be more India centric than it should probably be. Thankfully things appear a little better across the border in India. Atleast the Indians don`t appear to get worked up about everything that Pakistan does.

Rishi:

Can you read my mind? Once again, I agree 100% with you (Reply #49).

In future, you can assume that you speak for at least two people - yourself and me! Dont misuse that authority!

Omar1974:

Dont mean to insult you but your musings about the unknownability of truth are perilously close to the Hindu concept of Maya wherein everything is considered a matter of perception and having no innate reality of its own.

And just to be clear, I`m not saying this concept is the exclusive domain of the Maya - I`m certain other religions and philosophies have their own concepts of the unknowability of truth,.

Re; Rishi #49

Again Bad arguments Omar

``How do i define treason? Simple. Advocating and inciting others to take action to break up the state, while being a citizen subject to that state.``

Are all kashmiris fighting for their liberation traitors then ? Are the Kosovars traitors today ? You have a rather myopic and partial viewpoint over all things. And you seem to favor everything that suits yourself however contradictory that might make you. what goes around comes around ..

O’s Reply: From India’s perspective, they are traitors are they not? India has been fighting a WAR in Kashmir, just like the Serbs Vs. The Kosovars in Kosovo.

``Frankly had i been in Yahya`s shoes i don`t see too many other reasonable alternatives at the time, given my/his duty to protect the integrity of the country and to prevent rampant lawlessness, including the deliberate desecration of the flag by elements of the supporters of the Awami League.``

-- You could have started a saner process if you had been in Yahya`s shoes by respecting the democratic process and installing the Awami League as the ruling party of Pakistan and giving the Bengalis equal rights by making Bengali also a national language rather than Urdu alone. But then you won`t b`coz like Yahya you have to act immature and force things down to brawn with a mistaken belief on your own strength untill someone stronger brow beats you , would ya...

O’s reply: I stated repeatedly that this indeed would have been better, for Mujib to become P.M of United Pakistan. Unfortunately, by mid-March 1971 he was no longer interested. I never said Yahya’s initial decision to postpone convening the newly election National assembly in Dhaka was a good one, which contributed to this mess. But by 1971 having done that earlier, options were running out, and at that point Mujib’s true intentions and the Awami League’s sinister plans were becoming clear. Like the Kosovar analogy, West Pakis suspected the goal of the Awami League was not autonomy, but independence from the start. Serbs are right to suspect that. And that was never going to be acceptable to West Pakistan, as is indep to Serbia of Kosovo. I am well aware of the economic arguments of E.Pak being a ‘colony’ similar to Serbia-Kosovo, but its much more than that, its an emotional attachment to one’s country. And people, like the Serbs in Kosovo are willing to die for that. So were Pakistanis in 1971. It’s a core value. Like it or not. Not that I support the Serbs, but it has given me an insight into how they probably feel, and how Indians probably feel over Kashmir that I was lacking before I thought about this from the other point of view.



`` This is the harsh truth. Deal with it. And if India tried the same thing with Sindh today for example, IF i were the person making the decisions, there would certainly come a `critical point` at which use of nuclear weapons in a first strike against India would become seriously tempting.``

-- Yeah, would be seriously tempting . would`nt it ? Particularly when the country you want to nuke is probably much more powerful and has its own nukes and much more larger . It would never cross your mind that during your frenetic and bombastic frenzy in pressing the nuke buttons, that in a few seconds you would also vaporize along with all of your family and your country men not to mention a few innocent neighbours who would also suffer the after effects of the radiation carried over by the winds. You give yourself too much credit, you know.



O’S REPLY: Well, have you ever heard of the doctrine of deterrence? Threats only work when the other side believes them. Khrushchev believed Kennedy, thats why U.S WON the Cuban missile crisis, and Khruschev was forced to resign in disgrace later. He blinked first. Nuke threats work/are credible only when the other side believes that there is a certain point beyond which they can’t push you.

`` If you drive a man to the wall, then he can reach a point where he has nothing to lose anymore.``

-- nothing to lose,,, if you had nothing to lose in 1971 what are you trying to protect today. Why do you need all these nukes and missiles if you have nothing to lose ?

O’s reply: THE INTEGRITY OF ANY PART OF A COUNTRY is usually equal to the whole. We don’t rationally decide whether Sindh is more valuable than Punjab, hence if India annexes Sindh, we won’t push the button, but would wish to continue our existence as a nation (of Punjabis!:) in the Punjab, therefore showing a willingness to allow Sindh to become either an independent state or accede to India by force of Indian arms. That would be ridiculous. So you are being ridiculous. Would you like to give Pakistan a guarantee that India won`t resort to Nukesif we sucessfully invade Indian Occupied Kashmir, encircle the Indian forces in the valley, and close a pincer around them strangulating them. Would you like to tell us BEFOREHAND that its okay for us to try?



``Pakistani leaders faced this situation in East Pakistan in 1971. There were few other viable alternatives. ``

-- A most viable alternative would have been to handle the situation as the Indians have been handling kashmir. Instead of forcing things into the open and pushing yourself against the wall so that you have to kick back and kill yourself in the process (which is what milosevic is doing today) , a more saner person would manoever around the corners and keep the fight at a low intensity level till the fighters tire themselves out and choose other easier and more comfortable options which are thrown open to them and retire gracefully from the fight (believe me, the indians did that with Punjab and won the fight We could have easily done a bangladesh in punjab by butchering all punjabi sikhs and not letting them enjoy the benefit of a judiciary, a human rights commission and a diplomatic and political process, but then we would have created a refugee crises and forced things into the open. instead the indians waited it out , not out of some great insight but because their democratic process does not provide any other alternative).

O’s : Precisely what I stated in my earlier posts, India is responsible for extending the conflict and widening it. India stoked the flames of the conflict (See Kissinger & Nixon on Indira Ghandhi) By Oct-Nov the Pakistan army had basically defeated the Mukti Bahini. That is when India expanded border clashes in an effort to seize territory to set up a puppet govt on E.Pakistani soil. I also addressed the myths about the conflict that India has propogated regarding the numbers of dead and displaced people in my earlier posts in detail. Read ‘em. India poured fuel on the fire and created the inferno that engulfed East Pakistan. The allies in Kosovo conflict are NOT broadcasting to Kosovars that they should flee Kosovo.

`` It backfired, but even with 20/20 hindsight, i can`t honestly say that i would have made different choices. That is the emotional truth of it, like it or not. ``

-- read my previous answer again whether you like it or not.

p.s: Your reply my friend, i am sorry to say is typical of the jingoistic nature in which pakistan is run today and is but an example of the political and judiciary and social process . For instance when India tests an Agni-II, There were no public hue and cry about it this time and people took it as a matter of fact. But on the other hand, pakistanis across the border seemed too agitated about it. I would think that all the Pakistanis need to do is to test their own missiles and feel confident about their security rather than link their actions with that of India`s. Just confirms my belief that politics in Pakistan seems to be more India centric than it should probably be. Thankfully things appear a little better across the border in India. At least the Indians don`t appear to get worked up about everything that Pakistan does.

O’s reply : With Pakistan’s history of conflict with India, and 80% of Indian forces deployed facing Pakistan, the current tensions involving Kashmir, SEVERAL HUGE ARMY, AirForce & NAVAL exercises conducted by India recently, plus the detonation of nukes by India just last year, plus the massive disparity in conventional and nuclear weapons between the two sides, CALL ME PARANOID if I and other Pakis are just a trifle concerned about the missile tests for missiles with the capability to strike any Pakistani target from deep within India, as opposed to the Prithvi which needs to be deployed near the border (and India has already deployed over 100 near Pakistan’s border, this missile is Pakistan Specific, does not have the range for use against China, and 85% of Indian aircraft lack the range to Penetrate into China, they are deployed facing Pakistan). Yeah, I guess Pakistanis MUST be Crazy to take all these things into account. Right. You really made your point Rishi.:). Uh, huh.