Re: Responsibility for 1971 tragedy
....This band baja that Bhutto was responsible of this tragedy was created by JI and estabilishment of the time. .....
Military establishment and Bhutto were one at that time, with similar goal of keeping Awami League out of power. Yes, military was responsible for breakup of Pakistan, but Bhutto was actively supporting it all.
Re: Responsibility for 1971 tragedy
Background: India was not ready in 1965, as it had just lost a humilating defeat against China in 1962 and morale was very low.
1965 was a desperate time for a defeated & demoralised Indian army, and Pakistan's covert 'Operation Grandslam' to snatch Kashmir in mid 1965 was considered 'treachery' and an attack on India when it was down on its knees.
By withstanding Pakistan's superior weaponery, tanks & aircraft during that war, the Indian army not only recovered it's morale, but also now demanded and got a larger chunk of the national budget for defence.
Ali_Syed;In the light of what I have writen above, I tend to agree with you.NB: However today's India wants to foster trade, peace and prosperity. The trade with China is in billions and so should it be with Pakistan. Insha Allah.
Re: Responsibility for 1971 tragedy
Every body talks a lot about Pakistani armies atrocities ,no one baits an eye for what Mukhti Bahni were doing and did especially after the fall of Dacca .....why...??
Only Sharmila Bose an Indian researcher and historians had the guts to correct some of the exaggerated claims ...
Re: Responsibility for 1971 tragedy
You can post some of what she says here
Re: Responsibility for 1971 tragedy
its a long copy past anyway
Forty years ago Bangladesh won its independence from Pakistan in a short but brutal civil war in which it was claimed as many as three million people could have died. A book released to coincide with the anniversary has reached some highly controversial conclusions as the BBC’s Alastair Lawson has discovered.
Sarmila Bose’s book, Dead Reckoning, says that one of the bloodiest wars in the past half-century has been “dominated by the narrative of the victorious side” - Bangladeshi nationalists who won independence in 1971 from Pakistan.
She writes that both sides in the conflict “are still imprisoned by wartime partisan myths”.
The introduction of her book does not exonerate Pakistani troops from committing atrocities during Bangladesh’s bloody struggle for freedom.
But in what is certain to be viewed in Bangladesh as an extremely controversial conclusion, it says Bengalis - fighting for and against independence - also committed “appalling atrocities”.
Dr Bose, a senior research fellow at Oxford University - and a former BBC presenter - says the Pakistani army has been “demonised” by the pro-liberation side and accused of “monstrous actions regardless of the evidence”, while Bengali people have been depicted as “victims”.
“This has led to a tendency to deny, minimise or justify violence and brutalities perpetrated by pro-liberation Bengalis,” she says.
Already Bangladeshi academics at home and abroad are lining up to attack her book. One, the Dhaka and New York based writer Naeem Mohaiemen, told the BBC that she was guilty of “pushing her conclusions to an extreme” by arguing that the war was fought between two equally violent sides, “with the Pakistan army using only justified and temperate amounts of retaliatory force”.
He has accused her of lacking sufficient curiosity to unpack the more complex issues behind 1971, “such as why the killings began, why the Pakistan state behaved so brutally and why Bengalis reacted violently”.
Nevertheless, the book is one of the first by a Western author to subject the war to thorough and independent scrutiny.
Dr Bose went through published documentary evidence, travelled to remote areas of Bangladesh to interview elderly villagers and journeyed to Pakistan to question retired army officers.
Controversial book accuses Bengalis of 1971 war crimes
The book says both sides in the war committed crimes against humanity
Continue reading the main story Related Stories
Forty years ago Bangladesh won its independence from Pakistan in a short but brutal civil war in which it was claimed as many as three million people could have died. A book released to coincide with the anniversary has reached some highly controversial conclusions as the BBC's Alastair Lawson has discovered.
Sarmila Bose's book, Dead Reckoning, says that one of the bloodiest wars in the past half-century has been "dominated by the narrative of the victorious side" - Bangladeshi nationalists who won independence in 1971 from Pakistan.
She writes that both sides in the conflict "are still imprisoned by wartime partisan myths".
The introduction of her book does not exonerate Pakistani troops from committing atrocities during Bangladesh's bloody struggle for freedom.
[Continue reading the main story](http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-13417170#story_continues_2) **EXTRACT FROM SARMILA BOSE'S DEAD RECKONING**
In the terrible violence of a fratricidal war, the victims were from every ethnic and religious group and from both sides of the political divide and so were the perpetrators…
Both sides had legitimate political arguments and their idealistic followers, along with those who indulged in opportunism, expediency and inhumanity.
Many Bengalis - supposed to be fighting for freedom and dignity - committed appalling atrocities.
And many Pakistani army officers, carrying out a military action against a political rebellion, turned out to be fine men doing their best to fight an unconventional war within the conventions of warfare…
A long-standing theme is the state of denial in Pakistan: A refusal to confront what really happened in East Pakistan.
However the study revealed a greater state of denial in Bangladesh.
But in what is certain to be viewed in Bangladesh as an extremely controversial conclusion, it says Bengalis - fighting for and against independence - also committed "appalling atrocities".
Dr Bose, a senior research fellow at Oxford University - and a former BBC presenter - says the Pakistani army has been "demonised" by the pro-liberation side and accused of "monstrous actions regardless of the evidence", while Bengali people have been depicted as "victims".
"This has led to a tendency to deny, minimise or justify violence and brutalities perpetrated by pro-liberation Bengalis," she says.
Already Bangladeshi academics at home and abroad are lining up to attack her book. One, the Dhaka and New York based writer Naeem Mohaiemen, told the BBC that she was guilty of "pushing her conclusions to an extreme" by arguing that the war was fought between two equally violent sides, "with the Pakistan army using only justified and temperate amounts of retaliatory force".
He has accused her of lacking sufficient curiosity to unpack the more complex issues behind 1971, "such as why the killings began, why the Pakistan state behaved so brutally and why Bengalis reacted violently".
Nevertheless, the book is one of the first by a Western author to subject the war to thorough and independent scrutiny.
Dr Bose went through published documentary evidence, travelled to remote areas of Bangladesh to interview elderly villagers and journeyed to Pakistan to question retired army officers.
‘Shocking bestiality’ Her book says the Bengali nationalist rebellion in what was then East Pakistan “turned into xenophobic violence against non-Bengalis” especially against West Pakistanis and mainly Urdu-speaking people who migrated to East Pakistan from India at the time of partition who were known as Biharis.
Continue reading the main story NAEEM MOHAIEMEN’S RIPOSTE
The bizarre hypothesis of Sarmila Bose’s book is that Pakistani army officers are the most objective source to establish their own innocence.
In fact the interviewee list in her book reveals a distinct selection bias. In Pakistan, she interviewed 30 Pakistani army officers, and three civilians.
In addition four Pakistani army officers are listed as not agreeing to give interviews. So her pool of “expert knowledge” on the Pakistani army’s actions failed to include anyone from Pakistan who has publicly said there was a genocide.
She also relies heavily on Hamoodur Rahman Commission Report, which was done by the post-1971 Pakistan government with the intention of white-washing the war.
Dr Bose takes some gaps in the popular narrative, and then pushes it to an extreme to argue that 1971 was a war between two equally violent sides, with the Pakistan army using only justified and temperate amounts of retaliatory force.
"In the ethnic violence unleashed in the name of Bengali nationalism, non-Bengali men, women and children were slaughtered," Dr Bose says, arguing such atrocities took place in the towns of Chittagong, Khulna, Santahar and Jessore during and after the 10-month war.
"Non-Bengali victims of ethnic killings by Bengalis numbered hundreds or even thousands per incident... men, women and children were massacred on the basis of ethnicity and the killings were executed with shocking bestiality."
Some of the worst brutalities were among Bengalis themselves, Dr Bose says, between those who were defending the unity of Pakistan and those who were fighting for the liberation of Bangladesh.
While "the killing of pro-liberation professionals by pro-regime death squads in the dying days of the war stands out as one of the worst crimes of the conflict... brutalisation and elimination of those with a different political viewpoint seemed to be the hallmark of nationalist Bengalis too".
There is clear evidence, Dr Bose says, of the violence suffered by "non-Bengali victims of Bengali ethnic hatred".
"Of the corpses reported littering the land and clogging up the rivers, many would have been Bihari... as Bengali mobs appear to have killed non-Bengalis indiscriminately while the Pakistani army appeared to target adult Bengali men."
In one notorious incident examined by the author in the south-western town of Khulna on 28 March 1971, Bengalis "slaughtered" large numbers of Biharis in the town's jute mills.
‘Gigantic rumour’ Dr Bose also examines the widely reported suggestion that three million Bengalis were killed by the Pakistani army. These figures are sacrosanct in Bangladesh, where the overwhelming majority of people continue to honour and respect those who died in the liberation struggle.
The book’s conclusions are likely to be vigorously contested in Bangladesh
Describing the three million figure as a “gigantic rumour”, she says it is “not based on any accounting or survey on the ground”.
“None of the popular assertions of three million Bengalis allegedly killed by the [Pakistani] army cites any official report,” she says.
“Claims of the dead in various incidents wildly exceeding anything that can be reasonably supported by evidence on the ground - ‘killing fields’ and ‘mass graves’ were claimed to be everywhere, but none was forensically exhumed and examined in a transparent manner.”
Her conclusion over how many died has been roundly rejected by Mr Mohaiemen, who pointed out that Bangladeshis have themselves publicly dissected the problem of “numbers”, going back to 1972 when the three million number was first cited.
"Researchers like Zunaid Kazi documented 12 different media estimates of death tolls. Thus, the implied ‘hook’ of Dr Bose’s book, a claim to being the ‘first’ to dissect the death toll, rings hollow and is self-promotional.
“In any case, whether the death toll was three million or 300,000, does that make it any less of a genocide? That appears to be her intellectually indefensible conclusion.”
Dr Bose does not ignore atrocities carried out by Pakistan and its supporters - her book has several chapters on this subject - concluding its army committed political and extrajudicial killings that in some cases were “genocidal”.
She says: “Ultimately neither the numbers nor the labels matter. What matters is the nature of the conflict, which was fundamentally a complex and violent struggle for power among several different parties with a terrible human toll.”
The Bangladeshi government has so far not commented on her book - but the country’s attitude towards those who express dissenting views about the 1971 war was clearly seen in April when a film about a woman’s love affair with a Pakistani soldier during the conflict was speedily withdrawn amid suggestions it distorted history.
***The Indian edition of Sarmila Bose’s book is being published by Hachette India and is due to be released in mid-June. The book is published by C Hurst and Co in the UK and by Columbia University Press in the US.
source :BBC News - Controversial book accuses Bengalis of 1971 war crimes
Re: Responsibility for 1971 tragedy
Afat;Sarmila Bose has her views. However the vast majority of western, Indian and even Pakistani writers agree that rapes and mass killings took place by the Pakistani army, on unarmed bengali civilians.
This in turn created a mutiny by the bengali forces who murdered their officers. Thereafter the cycle started. With the Bihari's joinng in the killings - a full grown civil war took place.
Unfortunately, most Pakistani's are still struggling to come to terms with what the PA did in E Pakistan.
Re: Responsibility for 1971 tragedy
^ Bengali forces mutinied first. If you look at FACTS, then you would know east pakistan was paralyzed with strikes for a month before any military operation began.
[quote]
By withstanding Pakistan's superior weaponery, tanks & aircraft during that war, the Indian army not only recovered it's morale, but also now demanded and got a larger chunk of the national budget for defence.
[/quote]
Pakistan also found out about the reliability of the US as an "ally" in that, though sadly we wrote it off as a one time nuisance. I know India has kicked itself in the groin for failing to know that Pakistan really didn't have much in storage per US policy when Americans put military sanctions on Pakistan in 1965.
There were leadership blunders on the field for the pakistani army as well as the indian army. Some say it is because of the non-leadership roles indians served in in the british army, but that is another topic.
Re: Responsibility for 1971 tragedy
no body is denying it, but exaggeration needs to be set straight.
by the way I think there were 93,000 POW's , and about 50,000 or so ,civilians, please correct me if wrong, even if we consider it the other way ,that is 50,000 Army and LEA personal ,then they were stretched all over Bengal from border to border , facing not only external threat ,but also internal ( Mukhti Bahini's)
so I say ,there is a lot of meat , that things are blown out of proportion and massive exaggerated Propaganda has created a lot of misinformed and distorted version of the event .
Re: Responsibility for 1971 tragedy
no body is denying it, but exaggeration needs to be set straight.
by the way I think there were 93,000 POW's , and about 50,000 or so ,civilians, please correct me if wrong, even if we consider it the other way ,that is 50,000 Army and LEA personal ,then they were stretched all over Bengal from border to border , facing not only external threat ,but also internal ( Mukhti Bahini's)
so I say ,there is a lot of meat , that things are blown out of proportion and massive exaggerated Propaganda has created a lot of misinformed and distorted version of the event .
You are right about those nos. The brag about 90000 military POWs surrendering to India is propaganda because a large chunk of POWs were either razakars from Al Badr and Al Shams and other non-military lashkars. Regular fauj was hardly around 10 to 20k.
And Sarmila Bose, while compiling facts and figures for her book Dead Reackoning, interviewed significant nos. of people in Bangladesh and India and probably Pakistan. Those people have witnessed the tragedy first hand. Her interviewing all those people got her to conclude that the events of Dhaka debacle is overwhelmingly exagerrated to malign Pakistan and its armed forces.
Re: Responsibility for 1971 tragedy
Military establishment and Bhutto were one at that time, with similar goal of keeping Awami League out of power. Yes, military was responsible for breakup of Pakistan, but Bhutto was actively supporting it all.
Not only Bhutto but all opposition parties, bureaucray, meida, and all West Pakistanis were supporting military janta of the time. Why do you exclude them?
Re: Responsibility for 1971 tragedy
Not only Bhutto but all opposition parties, bureaucray, meida, and all West Pakistanis were supporting military janta of the time. Why do you exclude them?
aapko ghalti lag gai hai........... sirf punjabion /takht-e-lahore ne support kia hoga..........
Re: Responsibility for 1971 tragedy
After Bhutto left Ayub Khan regime he was target of lathi charge and jails. The relations become of staunch enemies while Ayub Khan was in peak of power. He never tolerated Bhutto or his suggestions. On the other hand he treated Mujib exactly the same way and jailed him false Agar Tala case. The irony of the fact was that it was first time that Bengalis claim the running of Pakistan neither military nor west pakistani were prepared to accept that. Yaya Khan thought that intiating military action in former East Pakistan would make things calm and he would continue as President. He never realized that or he was mentally retarded to see the outcome of his action. He should have never ever started military action. Instead he should have asked Shaikh Mujib to form the government. I am sure, the boiling of emotions would have cooled down, had Bengalis mendate should have been respected by Yahya Khan. But his views for Bengalis were like owner and salves. Look at the following video, what we as Pakistani had gone through for decades of absolute nonsense and tragedy. “I know East Pakistanis more than East Pakistani know themselves” This was height the of arrogance of dicator in those dark days.
Re: Responsibility for 1971 tragedy
You are right about those nos. The brag about 90000 military POWs surrendering to India is propaganda because a large chunk of POWs were either razakars from Al Badr and Al Shams and other non-military lashkars. Regular fauj was hardly around 10 to 20k.
Do you have proof of that? We hard on Pakistan Radio on 16 Dec., 1971 that 95000 surrendered to Indian General Jageet Singh Arora. The sad part was that it was announced at 1' clock news. The whole news was bs about winning war in East and West Pakistan but in last half minute, the news caster (Anwar Behzad) told in just one line that Indian army had moved in East Pakistan and Pakistan army had surrendered. This sudden u-turn in news made all of us stunning and unbelieving whether we hard the news right!
Re: Responsibility for 1971 tragedy
^ Bengali forces mutinied first. If you look at FACTS, then you would know east pakistan was paralyzed with strikes for a month before any military operation began.
Pakistan also found out about the reliability of the US as an "ally" in that, though sadly we wrote it off as a one time nuisance. I know India has kicked itself in the groin for failing to know that Pakistan really didn't have much in storage per US policy when Americans put military sanctions on Pakistan in 1965.
There were leadership blunders on the field for the pakistani army as well as the indian army. Some say it is because of the non-leadership roles indians served in in the british army, but that is another topic.
*I tell you what happend to 7th Fleet. As an eye witness we all west Pakistanis were very happy that Amercian 7th Fleet was coming to save former East Pakistan and slowly moving toward it. It never moved from Indian Ocean and was stabled there. When Pakistani army surrendered in East Pakistan, Indra Gandhi wanted to destroy West Pakistan too. She wanted to continue the war till surrender West Pakistan army also. Nixon warned Indra Gandhi to ceasefire immediately otherwise missiles would be fired to key targets in India from 7th fleet. That was how war stopped on western front. I still remember she said on Indian radio that she wanted teach lesson to Pakistan army that Pakistani would remember it through generations and never ever think of war against India in the future. Perhaps she also wanted to divide the remaining Pakistan into four states.
*
Re: Responsibility for 1971 tragedy
In one of those excerpts Bhutto (dated Feb 28,1971 post 19) is clearly saying that he will not be attending the assembly session in Dhaka, and if the assembly session is convened he will launch agitation in West Pakistan.
Who cared whether he attended or not? The then president should have asked Bengalis to form the government first. They had enough majority to do that. Bhutto either sat in opposition or some kind of coalition government could have been formed under Bengali regime. There was absolutely nothing wrong with that decision. Threre were other parties too, they might have allied with AL to form stable government. As regard six points of AL, I am sure that difference on those points could have been amicably solved in the assmeblies. Pakistan perhpas would still be there in origin form as it was in 1947 with properity and brotherhood.
Re: Responsibility for 1971 tragedy
Not only Bhutto but all opposition parties, bureaucray, meida, and all West Pakistanis were supporting military janta of the time. Why do you exclude them?
LOL... the 'others' argument again!!!
Not excluding them at all. Military was primarily responsible for what happened and you are now accepting the fact that Bhutto was supporting them and therefore equally responsible being the biggest politician from West Pakistan. End of story.
Re: Responsibility for 1971 tragedy
LOL... the 'others' argument again!!!
Not excluding them at all. Military was primarily responsible for what happened and you are now accepting the fact that Bhutto was supporting them and therefore equally responsible being the biggest politician from West Pakistan. End of story.
So were 60 millions west pakistanis, don't forget them.
Re: Responsibility for 1971 tragedy
Its Past We Should Move On Now
Pakistan Zindabad 
Re: Responsibility for 1971 tragedy
Pakistanion nay wohi tareekh parhi hay jo unhani bandook ki nali kay samnay likhi hoi milti hay .
Sach to yeh hay is mulk ka siraf aik hi dushman hay jo tankhwah bhi isi mulk say leta hay .
Re: Responsibility for 1971 tragedy
In the end even the military is a part of us, and during all military tenures they have been supported by civilian politicians and people.