Operation Searchlight

to : #107 by nazarhayatkhan on November 22, 2003 6:08am PT

you desplay very high moral which i never think any pakistani may likely to contend.till ppl like u in pakistan,pakistan will survive.

NazarHayatKhan:

``I deeply miss them - I think Pakistan lost its softer side by losing them. ``

That was touching. You speak my heart! Though I wasn`t even born then, I say Pakistan lost it`s soul in 1971.

#109 by fountainheader

You hit the nail on the head.

//...India saw this as an excellent opportunity to neutralise one of those 3 frontiers...//

I think the plan was also to ``neutralize`` the western frontier. But for the Americans, that would have been done, and the region would have been much more peaceful by now. Pakistanis, like Bangladeshis, would have had a working democracy by now (with possible imperfections) and would have been trying to improve their economy rather wasting resources on a debilitating fight with much more powerful neighbor.

Actually, the considering the standard of Paki economy at that point time( 6% growth as compared 3% ``Hindu rate of growth`` in India ) - pakis would have been way ahead of India by now. Instead of exporting Talibans to all over the world, Pakis would have been exporting software.

One of those ``if only`` questions of history.

#107 by nazarhayatkhan on November 22, 2003 6:08am PT

I admire you for your honesty! You are a noble and pure soul!!

fountainheader #110 This is perhaps the best presentation of the situation i have seen on chowk from anyone, pakistani or indian. the only qualifier i would add is that 1965 was a different time than today: kashmir was very much a disputed territory, and pakistanis felt quite rightly that the will of the people of kashmir was being unfairly suppressed by the indian government that seemed to set aside all laws and principles in order to hang on to a piece of turf. but as i said, that was 1965 and today after 35 more years have passed, it just does not make sense to keep harping on kashmir. We need to get on with more important things.

the fact that pakistan was the aggressor in 1965 in kashmir (and indeed my own late and beloved uncle led the tank regiment that spearheaded the attack on chhamb-jaurian), does not mean that we should shy away from the facts. only thing i would add is that this attack was the brainchild not of the pakistan military but of the ambitious foreign minister bhutto.

and thus bhutto derailed pakistan from the path of economic development and into the path of instability, confrontations, violence.

I stayed in a hostel with my Benglai friends for years. They were great people - they were much more cultured, refined and artistic than us. They were also proud of their culture, language and Tagore - as it should be. They were politically far more sensitive and aware of their rights.

I deeply miss them - I think Pakistan lost its softer side by losing them.

There are no excuses. The West Pakistani Governments - read bureacrats/Army - did not treat them fairly. Even the political leader of time - Bhutto- refused to accept the Bengali Majority in the Assembly.

It goes to their credit and tolerance that they stuck for 24 long years with Pakistan - even in the end, Mujib was willing to compromise - and stay togather.

1971 was only the culminating point - the grounds for separation had been laid much earlier.

Only we, the Pakistanis are to blamed - and we do not have even the decency to apologize for the atrocities that we committed.

1971 was a complete political & military failure by Pakistan - the greater tragedy is that we have yet not dispassionately discussed the causes of 1971 - and found its underlying root causes.

That is why we continue to harp on the two nation theory when it clearly failed in 1971 - and we did not evolve a new more logical contract between the people of the rest of Pakistan.

A contract based on the four distinct nationalities of Pakistan voluntarily joining to form a federation of Pakistan on a mutually acceptable and a beneficial basis.

For some people, it may be harsh post but I needed to get it out of my system. I saw the 1971 & I was in the armed forces - a junior officer who got the same brainwashing about the Bengalis being a traitor.

#82 by Romair on November 21, 2003 11:46am PT


romairbhai if we accept you statastices that mean if indian kills kashmiri they it is justified to kill bengali.right
what we expect from millitery men.millitery dont understand indivisual`s tragedies.
sad.

India`s role in the Bangladesh issue is neither that of a white knight on a stallion, nor the dark villain, but probably somewhere in between.

What I say is on the universally accepted premise that Pakistan started the 1965 war. If enlightened individuals like urstruly, romair etc are going to dispute this, don`t read my comment any further.

In 1962, there was the Indo-China war, and in 1965, Pakistan attacked India. Though the fighting did not really spill on to the eastern theatre in 65, imagine India`s situation at that time. On the north, you had a hostile china, on the west you has a hostile pakistan, and on the east, you had a hostile Pakistan as well. three frontiers to defend for a country that was an economic midget then. When the whole bengali issue started gaining strength in the late 60s, India saw this as an excellent opportunity to neutralise one of those 3 frontiers. It provided support to the Bengalis which is similar to what Pakistan provided in Punjab in the 80s.

The army in Pakistan had already done a wonderful job of botching up the issue. India merely took what was offered to it on a platter, i. e a chance to cut Pakistan into two.

To offer a cricket analogy, suppose a batsman slips while taking a run and falls in mid-pitch. A gentleman bowler would not run him out. However a smart bowler would. India was that bowler. Not noble perhaps, but acting in self interest. As long as the fielding side does not actually trip the batsman and makes him fall, they are just taking what has been offered to them by a stroke of good luck.

What has happened in Punjab and Kashmir is this. The other inning has now started and the batsman who was run out is now the bowler, and the bowler who earlier affected the run out is the batsman and has tripped, finding himself in an identical position. In the case of Punjab, despite tripping, the batsman managed to scramble home, and though the bowler dislodged the bails, he did not get a wicket.

In Kashmir, the third umpire is yet to give a decision. I personally feel India will scamper home and will not be run out.

There is no moral high ground for any country in the dirty politics of South Asia. there is only a victorious high ground.

romair:

The human rights organizations and international press were banned in early 90s (by George Fernandes).

Ehhhh? To the best of my knowledge, Fernandes became Defence Minister only in 1998. He was the Railway Minister for some months in 1989. Either you are mistaken or the source you quote is mistaken.

#105 by stuka on November 21, 2003 8:11pm PT

Dude. The context is Bangladesh- and the same 9/11 deniers are spreading propoganda and lies about the genocide- by saying ``it never occured`` or ``What could army officers have done! It was done by some renegade soldiers.`` or at best `` It did not happen the way it has been made out to be by the Indian propogandist.`` So the strategy is only one- obfuscation- dispute the facts- denounce those against whom there is evidence- and save the rest by citing lack of evidence. The fact remains that guys have been directly or indirectly participated in the slaughter- and they have got away with it . The criminals now feign ignorance and try to evoke sympathy by propoganda that 1971 was ``humiliation`` of the ENTIRE PAkistan!!!- when infact it was the entire bengali community that was humiliated with the genocide- I know of some Islamist who consider that genocide as HONOUR KILLING.- this is sickening!!!
Can some of the guys like Romair throw light on their role in 1971????

Ballu Khan:

Dude, you are getting hysterical. The funny thing is that Pakistanis bring up Kashmir when they talk of Indian Army atrocities. From what knowledge I have, Kashmir is a football match compared to what the Army has done in the North East in the 60s and 70s. Let he who has not sinned cast the first stone.

Sigalph:

You make a political delineation between the Bangladeshis and Kashmiri examples. My running comparisons was limited to the military realm alone.

``If Bangladesh was contiguous to Pakistan, u guys still would have managed to control it.``

And

``If it had not been language, it would have been the price of fish, but sooner or later the two countries would have gone their different ways.``

Which statement do you endorse actually? :)

LOL!! Both.

The first would apply if East and West Pakistan were contiguous. Regardless of the underlying factors, the insurgency/freedom struggle would not have reached the critical mass required to secede. The Army would have quelled it.

The second statement points towards the biggest factor that led to the seperation in the first place, the lack of geographic contiguity. My point, that you bring out in the contrasting statement s, was that flaw was structural to begin with. Language just happened to be an issue that first ignited political unrest. In that sense, I disagree with your view that there could have been a federal Pakistan if Mujib and Bhutto had compromised. At most, a compromise would have delayed the inevitable independence of Bangladesh.

I demand an answer from all the ex-army men on this board!! I just want their account without any explanation as to what were they doing during those 256 days!!!!


I would like to know how many Bangladeshis Musharaff KILLED?? I demand to know how many Bengalis did he RAPE??? I demand to know what this rascal was doing at the time of 1971- was he providing logistic support to the Butchers or was he Looting the houses of Bengalis?????

A number of interesting points have been brought forward here
thus far. But let us not forget that Bangladesh was an idea whose
time had come mainly due to the arrogance and racism of W. Pakistanis.
India only sealed the fate of the Pakistani occupation (because that is
what it had become after March 25th 1971).

My only debate with Nakhok has been about the numbers killed.
That in no way diminishes the brutality and killing of thousands
of innocent people (Bengalis) by people in uniform who are
supposed to know about discipline. But let us also not forget the
merciless killing of West Pakistanis and “Biharis” by Bengalis
before March 25 and after the surrender.

I do not agree with Urstruly’s comments about Hindus. Whether
it is Bangladesh or Kashmir, Hindus or Muslims, Buddhists or Atheists,
it is saddening to see how quickly South Asians lose their Humanity.
It was shocking to read and hear about Gujarat. We are all still in deep
trouble.

After having spent what is now 30 years in the United States I have
still not discovered what I should hate about Hindus. What I have
come to dislike though is this new found arrogance amongst some Indians,
as if they are superior to those around them (remind you of anybody?) .
The recent new-found (and well deserved) affluence amongst some Indians
needs to be put to better use then trying to put Pakistanis down.
It does not help to keep bringing up 1971 because certain segments of Pakistani
society are already quite irrational. Revenge clouds their judgment.

Indians, Pakistanis, Bagladeshis and Kashmiris need to sit down and do
a peaceful rethink. After each war, only the outside world has won.
It is time to apologize, forgive and move on. It is time to tell people the truth.

The South Asian record on human rights STINKS collectively.
Let us learn from the 1971 Bengalis. You cannot treat people badly for too
long and not expect a reaction.

So pick what suits you from

Jai Hind
Pakistan Zindabad
Joi Bangla &
Azadi

But do not dehumanize your competition in such a volatile environment.
Let us not play with matches around gunpowder.
Or the next genocide
in South Asia will be much larger than 1971.

Re Stuka 84

``If Bangladesh was contiguous to Pakistan, u guys still would have managed to control it.``

And

``If it had not been language, it would have been the price of fish, but sooner or later the two countries would have gone their different ways.``

Which statement do you endorse actually? :)