Operation Searchlight

Romair:

The number killed includes Security Forces as well as innocent victims of militant groups. Please read the papers. Grenade thrown at picket kills 12 cilvillians. Car bomb explodes and kills 4 security forces and 10 civillians. All these are included.

The number killed by Counter Indsurgency operations forms a fraction of the numbers.

As far as troops are concerned, the lowest figure is quoted by the Indians at roughly 300, 000 troops. This number includes troops stationed in all of Kashmir, including Ladakh. Therefore, this number includes all tropps on regular defensive deployment in Kashmir, Jammu, Ladakh areas. It includes all administrative and support personnel. And it is a number spread out over an area more then ten times the size of the valley. The number also includes Police and BSF. Why don`t you check how many Pakistani troops are deployed under normal circumstances in POK, Gilgit, NAs and look at the differential.

The ridiculousness of Pakistani estimates is exposed by the fact that our total strength (even as it is recognized by Pakistan) is 1.1 million troops approx. Since India has not deployed reserves, by Pakistani estimates, we have 80% of our troops in Kashmir (just the valley btw if you look at Pakistani propaganda) and the rest 30% scattered over China border, rest of Pakistan border and the 19 other insurgencies we are currently fighting along with admin staff, HQs etc.

Well, by that low level of defense, your Army should have just walked into Delhi by now.

Stuka #76: “Excellent point. I am sure you would extend the same courtesy to the Indian Army in Kashmir?”

I think in civilian repression, it should always be a question of less or more blame. Never a question of courtesy.

Following is a rough estimation:

The numbers of dead given for Kashmir, a few years ago (around Y2K time), at the lower end, was around 33,000 provided by the BBC. At the higher end, 70,000 provided by Pakistan and Kashmiri leaders. And 61,000 provided by a BJP minister on CNN (though he blamed them all on Pakistan terrorism).

The Kashmiri rebellion in its militant form of freedom struggle, started around 1989, after the Jehlum river killings carried out by the Indian security forces, in which protesting Kashmiris were killed on a bridge. The human rights organizations and international press were banned in early 90s (by George Fernandes). Please read Victoria Schofield’s book to get more details.

So in a period of ten years, the range of dead is between 35k to 70k killed. This difference is not a ten fold difference (300k to 3 million), but a two-fold difference. The population of Jammu and Indian Kashmir is around 7 million. The population of East Pakistan, in 71, was around 65 million(?). The main violence is in the Kashmir valley, which is obviously smaller than all of Indian Kashmir. I don’t know what the exact population of this area is, but lets say between 3 to 5 million.

The number of Indian troops (Army and Security forces) is 500,000+, as given by Peter Jennings of ABC. And 700,000, as given by Pakistan and Kashmiri estimates. So 500k to 700k. The area of the Valley is smaller than 150 km by 50 km. I am not sure how the troops are spread out throughout Kashmir, but I assume nearly all of them are in the Valley or surrounding areas, with smaller amounts in support areas in Ladakh and Jammu – which seem to be generally pro-India.

The general ratio of troops to civilians is taken to be 1 to 7, i.e. 3 to 5 million people and 500k to 700k troops. Thus Indian Kashmir has the highest troops per square feet of any area in the world. Many times higher than that of Pakistanis in East Pakistan. In fact, the economy of the Valley is probably dependent on the troops present there.

If we take the lowest estimates, i.e. 35k dead, out of 3.5 million people, by 500k troops in a ten year time period (89 – 99), we get the ratio of 1% of the population being killed every ten years.

In addition, after every n number of days, the Indian security forces kill a few militants. None of the militants are ever captured alive (for some reason). And after their death, every single one of them is declared to be a Pakistani. None are identified as Indian Kashmiris (primarily to indicate that the Kashmiri struggle is not indigenous). The actual truth is that they are probably a mixture of Pakistani and Kashmiri militants. I talked to a Pakistani guy who went into Kashmir twice, and he told me at any one time there are only a hundreds (not thousands) of active militant inside Kashmir. They are surviving because they have support of the local population. However, to tackle each militant requires hundreds of troops.

If you take all the numbers of militants killed, and reported by India, their combined figure per year, would be in the low hundreds. This number over ten years would not exceed a thousand to three thousand. The number of Indian soldiers killed is even much smaller. If you subtract this figure from the BBC figure of 35 k (or the BJP figure of 61 k, or Pakistani figure of 70k), it still leaves 30k to 60k deaths unaccounted for. These are the Kashmiri civilians killed by the Indian security forces, both deliberately and in the crossfire between militants and security forces.

So, using the complete range (35 to 70 k), roughly .8 to 1.8% of the Kashmiri population in the Valley is being killed every decade. That would be equivalent to 1.3 million Bengalis being killed every ten years today. Or 10 million Indians being killed every decade, in proportional terms.

I agree with Fuzair that all of us – Indians, Pakistanis, (and even Bangladeshis) - have blood on our hands. Different groups at different times. In 71, it was primarily Pakistanis. Now it is primarily Indians. Those of us who are willing to blame everyone, without national biases, are part of the solution for peace in South Asia. I can even see the point of view of the ones who oppose both self-determinations – Kashmir and Bangladesh - as a matter of principle. But those who support Kashmiri self-determination and do not support Bengali self-determination, or vice-versa, are the ones who are responsible for the violence and deaths. This last group should never get anyone’s respect.

On the whole, I think Pakistanis have now (grudgingly) accepted their faults. Perhaps due to time. Or perhaps due to introspection. Pakistanis, from all ranges of views, on this board, have criticized Pakistan for 71. However, had this been an equivalent article written by an Indian about Kashmir, I wonder what the reaction of our Indian colleagues would have been? Hopefully, an acceptance of faults.

One has to believe in self-determination, as a principle, for all South Asians (Indians, Pakistanis, Bangladeshis, Baharis (?), Kashmiris etc.), or for none. And one has to first accept one`s own faults, before blaming others. One cannot have it both ways.

# 60 by ras

++++
We can exaggerate the numbers (3 Million) or diminish them (300,000) but the fact
remains that many people on ALL sides were outright murdered.
++++

Even one murder is one too many. So it is indeed puerile to quibble that 300,000 rather than 3 million were murdered.

And what is truly despicable is that a professional army (rank & file) behaved no better than a mob in order to protect its vested interests.

# 69 by ras

++++
My American source who served the people of Pakistan and Bangladesh for over 30 years & spent ALL of 1971 in Dhaka and the surrounding area put in his estimate at 100,000 to 150,00 peple killed by ALL sides (not 1.5 million). I asked him about the millions killed in these reports in the western press and he just smiled.
++++

That ras doesn`t consider the verbal report from the ``American source`` as the final word is brought out by ras himself in #60 when he gave his own bounds, ``We can exaggerate the numbers (3 Million) or diminish them (300,000)``.

In #55, I have given numbers from numerous published reports in USA and around the world. Among my references was one by Prof. R.J.Rummel from school of law in Unversity of Virginia. In my opinion, Prof. Rummel`s scholarly study published in 1997 is about as close as we will ever get to the actual number of people who died in the 1971 genocide.

Prof. Rummel`s bottom line is:

``I give a final estimate of Pakistan`s democide to be 300,000 to 3,000,000, or a prudent 1,500,000.``

As far as I am concerned, Prof. R.J.Rummel`s published research is more authentic than what ras`s ``American source`` might have verbally communicated to him with a knowing smile.

#69 Ras

{{On India and Indians, it always amazes me how a small number always bring up 1971 as a shining example of the ``defeat`` inflicted on Pakistan.}}

Very well. 1971 was not a “defeat” inflicted on Pakistan, or the Pakistan Army, or the Pakistani establishment. It was at best a stalemate if not an actual victory. Happy now?
{{I hope that most others realize that the reason why India has been bleeding in Kashmir for 13 years now is that ``defeat``. Revenge unfortunately can be a great motivator.}}

Amazing. Am I to understood that Pakistan’s Kashmir policy is motivated by a desire for revenge for the alleged 1971 “defeat”, rather than a pure and unalloyed concern for the human rights and welfare of Kashmiris? Who would have guessed.

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

sigalph:

Actually, Hindi is the national language of India. English is also given ``official status`` but is not the national language.

Re goonga

English would have been just perfect. Look the wonders it did in India. The language statement by the QUaid-e-Azam was probably the biggest mistake he made as the Gov-Gen of the new Dominion.

Urstruly:

``The guestimates you provide are ridiculous at best. These estimates range from 300K to 3million. This range of guestimate is not only mind numbing not only for a elementary level statistician but also mind boggling for an ordinary man. The margin of error in this guestimate is 90% statistically speeking. I think in the name of fairness and justice the benefit of doubt should go to the accused, since these estimates with 90% margin of error are horrenduous. ``

Excellent point. I am sure you would extend the same courtesy to the Indian Army in Kashmir?

OH:

#53

``I am accusing them of harboring bigotted views about India in general and Hindus in particular. I base these accusations on the actual words of and statements made by the two. ``

And I am arguing that case was not one of bigotry but of executing national interest. I would like to see the actual comments you attribute to them if you have access to them.

``If the opinions of such people ran so contrary to the opinions of almost everyone else reporting on the events (not just of the state department), one needs to consider whether Kissinger was not deliberately distorting history to paper over the sins of his friend, Yahya Khan. ``

That is the other thing. Whereas interpersonal relations may smoothen or derail poicy, it rarely is the factor to initiate it. Kissinger clearly states their policy objective (relations with China) and the vehicle towards obtaining that goal (Yahya`s Pakistan) and the obstacle (India). If India had good relations with China, then Pakistan would have been a non issue. But all that is hindsight.

#72 Tahmed32

{{Dr. strangelove was modelled after Dr. Teller (father of the atom bomb),}}

Sahib, you are not quite right. Kissinger was indeed a relatively obscure Harvard professor in 1964 when Kubrick’s movie was made.

However, Edward Teller was the mother of the hydrogen bomb, not the father of the atom bomb, as you erroneously claimed. And the best guess for Dr. Strangelove is that he is a composite of several public figures, among them Teller, Werner von Braun, Herman Kahn, and John von Neumann, all of whom had connections of some sort with nuclear weapons or thermonuclear war or missiles. The most interesting figure is von Neumann, whose connections with the nuclear weapons establishment went back to the Manhattan Project days. Like Teller and von Braun (and Dr. Strangelove in the movie), von Neumann spoke English with a German/Central European accent. Most significantly of all, von Neumann became wheelchair-bound during his last fatal illness (cancer) but continued to work and testify in public – shades of Dr. Strangelove again.

Harimau:

``In that case, you should find yet another alternate perspective on Kissinger equally interesting. In the movie ``Dr. Strangelove or How I learned To Stop Worrying and Start Loving The Bomb``, Kissinger was the model for the mad scientist Dr. Strangelove, brilliantly portrayed by Peter Sellers. ``

Yes, I find it about as illuminating as Ii do the Hollywood liberal perception of Bush being as bad as Saddam.


``at that moment, our incipient China policy was more important than India`s goodwill. We judged that it would be easier to restore our relations with India than to remain inactive toward a challenge that might be viewed in Beijing as a rehearsal for pressure against China. I am not trying to refight the substantive argument; the issue was discipline and coherence.``

I actually find myself in agreement with Kissinger`s perspective. This was not ``anti-India`` feeling but a realistic analysis of their priorities at the time. From an American perspective, the Indo-Pak war was at best a sideshow with the main theatre being the cold war. In such a case, making common cause with China was very much more important then making good with India and an as yet unexisting nation called Bangladesh.

Besides, Pakistan was key to the China policy. All the Americans had recieved from India were hypocritical lectures on morality which seemed to somehow vanish when the Soviets were in the wrong.

``By the way, State did seem to have suggested before the Shrub`s intervention in Iraq that post-war Iraq would not be easy to govern. They seem to be right.... once again. ``

Very convenient. State was not in favor of the Iraq war. Thier job is not to decide foreign policy objectives but to execute them.

#59 Urstruly

{{Your contention is nothing but argumentative.}}

And yours of course are not.

{{The facts like Hitler`s ideology of ``the Final Solution``, the presence of death camps, Nuremburg Trials in open courts of law, and thousands of survivors of those death camps are undeniable historical facts which attest irrevocably that Nazis had only one objective i.e. to exterminate as many Jews as possible not only in Germany but throughout Europe.}}

Dude, whatever. It is a known fact that not everybody who arrived at a death camp went straight from the cattle trucks to the gas chambers, as those thousands of survivors will attest. Lots of people survived in Auschwitz for months and months. The late Italian writer Primo Levi is a good example. Victor Frankl spent 3 years in a succession of concentration camps and survived to tell the tale, living to a ripe old age. Storage and ‘economic’ activity contradict the supposed goal of maximizing rate of killing which was your contention in choosing the Nazis as a benchmark.

I also find your professed passion for truth and reconciliation somewhat contradicted by the slipshod manner in which you carry out elementary calculations, omitting a factor of 60 without so much as an apology. Time for remedial arithmetic, perhaps?

But in any case I am merely adducing facts for your kind consideration. Feel free to weave them into your preferred narrative in any way you please or discard them entirely should you find them inconvenient to your desired conclusion. It’s all the same to me.

harimau #64 Dr. strangelove was modelled after Dr. Teller (father of the atom bomb), and one of the generals in that movie was modelled after Gen Curtis le May. when the movie was made in 1964, dr. kissinger was a relative unknown, being a university professor at the time.

Kindly contribute the 50 cent i charge for error corrections to the Chennai Welfare Society for Retired RSS Warriors where your uncle jay has now been transferred.

It is very rare that Urstruly and I are even in partial agreement about something but maybe its a blue moon tonight? The Germans had severe problems with disposing off the corpses of all the Jews, Poles, Gypsies, homosexuals, etc, that they slaughtered. They finally came up with the incinerators at Auschwitz, Dachau and the other camps. These took months to design and build and even then they did not completely destroy the bodies. So, at the risk of being truly macabre, where are the three million bodies? Even if we take Rummel`s conservative estimate, that still leaves us with 1.5 million. Where are all the mass graves since no one has said that the Pakistani Army was actually incinerators.

The answer to Punjabizulu`s question is to read Sisson`s and Rose`s book, ``War and Secession: Pakistan, India, and the Creation of Bangladesh.`` Here they quote unnamed (for obvious reasons) high Indian officials who give their estimate of total deaths from all causes in E. Pakistan of 300,000. After getting incredibly filthy looks from his fellows there, the official hastily revises it to 500,000 deaths. Presumably, the Indians are in a better position to know what actually happened than random newspaper reporters and Western academics AND they have no reason to downplay the actual numbers (as the Paksitanis do). So, even after subtracting the number of dead Biharis and West Pakistanis from the 500,000 upper estimate, this gives us a number much closer to the 300,000 low estimate contemptously dismissed by people like Rummel. Privately, Pakistani officers who were there acknowledge that this is probably close to the correct estimate (i.e., somewhere between 200,000 to 300,000), although some diehards insist that it was actually closer to 30,000. By any reckoning, these are indications of an incredibly brutal civil war that made no effort to spare civilians.

I believe the number killed in Vietnam are generally believed to be in the 1 to 1.6 million range, mainly by the US forces there. Now, let me ask you, how many Kashmiris have been killed by Indian security forces? How many Punjabis? Assamese? Mizos? Nagas? How many Biharis killed by the Bengalis? How many Chakmas by the Bengalis?

And before you ask, I think the figure is about 35,000 Baluchis in the insurgency and probably 12,000 Sindhis but am not sure about these figures.

See, as I say, there is more than enough blame to go around for everyone. We are all guilty of something.

Urstruly & Nakhok,

the truth needs to be told but is a double edged sword. My American source

who served the people of Pakistan and Bangladesh for over 30 years & spent ALL of 1971

in Dhaka and the surrounding area put in his estimate at 100,000 to 150,00 peple killed by

ALL sides (not 1.5 million). I asked him about the millions killed in

these reports in the western press and he just smiled.

But what if someone in Ballu Khan`s or Nakhok`s immediate family was murdered?

Does the 150,000 or 3 Million make a difference to them?

On India and Indians, it always amazes me how a small number always bring up 1971

as a shining example of the ``defeat`` inflicted on Pakistan. I hope that most others

realize that the reason why India has been bleeding in Kashmir for 13 years now

is that ``defeat``. Revenge unfortunately can be a great motivator.

The Pakistan Army was fighting the Indians AND the Bangladesh people in 1971.

Defeat was inevitable. So the question remains; WHY was this operation started?

We the people of a once United Pakistan who accepted ZAB and Mujib as our

leaders would like to know why they were forced apart at such a great human expense?

Ras

Stuka,

``Going by the rest of your post, I think you have the need to read Kissinger`s memoirs. He and Nixon did what they percieved was right by American foreign policy.``

If the foreign policy of US is/was to overhtrow democratically elected governments and install dictators, then they followed it well. Chile comes to my mind, whenever someone talks of kissinger and Nixon. Victims of dead and disappeared in chile are trying to use legal methods to net in kissinger for his role in the atrocities. But perhaps, they are not very popular as yet for not using terrorism and suicide bombing to gather attention.

Adios