Historical Combat, War, Geopolitics History and Analysis

Afif

Experienced member
Bangladesh Correspondent
DefenceHub Diplomat
Messages
3,264
Reactions
38 4,977
Nation of residence
Bangladesh
Nation of origin
Bangladesh
In the next two decade.

Tier 1- USA and PRC
Tier 1.5- India
Tier 2- UK, France, Germany, Japan, ROK, Italy, T羹rkiye, Brazil and Indonesia.


Mod's Note: The post was moved from Azerbaijan-Armenia conflict thread.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Heartbang

Experienced member
Messages
2,108
Reactions
5 3,066
Nation of residence
Turkey
Nation of origin
Turkey
Ossified bureaucratic structures, lackluster MIC, socio-geographic structure ripe to insurgencies and civil strifes ,male-to-female imbalance on par with China, dire inequality of income, being almost fully independent on imported crude shipped with sea trade, so on and so forth...

These are only the things I came up on the top of my head. And I withheld the "memetastic" ones like the lack of sanitary infrastructure and all the health hazards that come with it.

Don't get me wrong, I do think India will shine eventually. It aint no Kohinoor though.
 

Afif

Experienced member
Bangladesh Correspondent
DefenceHub Diplomat
Messages
3,264
Reactions
38 4,977
Nation of residence
Bangladesh
Nation of origin
Bangladesh
Well, that is why I said in two decades. My assesment is, India will be able reduce most of its material hurdles successfully.
I but I can't say the same about socio-geographic and Socio-cultural environment. Unfortunately, looks like it is backsliding. (E.g. The whole Manipur thing was almost escalating to a small scale regional civil war.)
 
Last edited:

Afif

Experienced member
Bangladesh Correspondent
DefenceHub Diplomat
Messages
3,264
Reactions
38 4,977
Nation of residence
Bangladesh
Nation of origin
Bangladesh

@Nilgiri I was just reading this. Didn't know few days ago it was 75th anniversary of Hydrabad invasion. Actually didn't know any of this history. (Accept that at some point India took over Hyderabad)

Then did some digging. Starting with Wikipedia.





"I was astounded to find that the greatest communal slaughter occurred under neither Modi nor Rajiv but Nehru. His takeover of Hyderabad in 1948 caused maybe 50,000-200,000 deaths. The Sunderlal report on this massacre has been kept an official secret for over 60 years. While other princes acceded to either India or Pakistan in 1947, the Nizam of Hyderabad aimed to remain independent. This was complicated by a Marxist uprising. The Nizams Islamic militia, the Razakars, killed and raped many Hindus. This incensed Sardar Patel and Nehru, who ordered the Army into Hyderabad. The Armys swift victory led to revenge killings and rapes by Hindus on an unprecedented scale.


Civil rights activist AG Noorani has cited Prof Cantwell Smith, a critic of Jinnah, in The Middle Eastern Journal, 1950. The only careful report on what happened in this period was made a few months later by investigators including a Congress Muslim and a sympathetic and admired Hindu (Professor Sunderlal)- commissioned by the Indian government. The report was submitted but has not been published; presumably it makes unpleasant reading. It is widely held that the figure mentioned therein for the number of Muslims massacred is 50,000. Other estimates by responsible observers run as high as 200,000. A lower but still horrific estimate comes from UCLA Professor Perry Anderson. When the Indian Army took over Hyderabad, massive Hindu pogroms against the Muslim population broke out, aided and abetted by its regulars. On learning something of them, the figurehead Muslim Congressman in Delhi, Maulana Azad, then minister of education, prevailed on Nehru to let a team investigate. It reported that at a conservative estimate between 27,000 and 40,000 Muslims had been slaughtered in the space of a few weeks after the Indian takeover. This was the largest single massacre in the history of the Indian Union, dwarfing the killings by the Pathan raiders en route to Srinagar which India has ever since used as the casus belli for its annexation of Kash mir.
Nehru, on proclaiming Indian victory in Hyderabad, had announced that not a single communal incident marred the triumph. What action did he take on receiving the report? He suppressed it, and at Patels urging cancelled the appointment of one of its authors as ambassador in the Middle East. No word about the pogroms, in which his own troops had taken eager part, could be allowed to leak out. Twenty years later, when news of the report finally surfaced, his daughter banned the publication of the document as injurious to national interests.

Perry Andersen is accused by some of anti-Indian bias. This cannot be said of author William Dalrymple. In The Age of Kali, Dalrymple says the Sunderlal report has been leaked and published abroad, and estimates that as many as 200,000 Hyderabadi Muslims were slaughtered."



I am not trying to provoke anyone but honestly, I am very surprised. Because, until now I thought 1971 was the most bloody event after in the subcontinent after the partition. But now that what I have learned, I am asking, how much invasion and annexation of Hyderabad differ than what happened in 1971?

It appears, some elements of Indian army did the same with Hyderabadi Muslim women as Pak army did with Bengali Muslim/Hindue women.


But of course, "The investigation team also reported, however, that in many other instances the Indian Army had behaved well and protected Muslims."

However, Why the report isnt still made public? What national interest does that serve...Hiding what truly happen?

I like to hear a moderate Indian perspective on this whole Hyderabad chapter. But if you are uncomfortable, then i understand.
 
Last edited:

Gary

Experienced member
Messages
6,716
Reactions
14 11,026
Nation of residence
Indonesia
Nation of origin
Indonesia
In the next two decade.

Tier 1- USA and PRC
Tier 1.5- India
Tier 2- UK, France, Germany, Japan, ROK, Italy, T羹rkiye, Brazil and Indonesia.


Mod's Note: The post was moved from Azerbaijan-Armenia conflict thread.

IMO, Mexico should be in the Tier 2
 

Afif

Experienced member
Bangladesh Correspondent
DefenceHub Diplomat
Messages
3,264
Reactions
38 4,977
Nation of residence
Bangladesh
Nation of origin
Bangladesh
IMO, Mexico should be in the Tier 2

I know, from an economic stand point they should be counted. However, they don't have any geopolitical weight what so ever.
 

Nilgiri

Experienced member
Moderator
Aviation Specialist
Messages
8,901
Reactions
71 17,848
Nation of residence
Canada
Nation of origin
India
I like to hear a moderate Indian perspective on this whole Hyderabad chapter. But if you are uncomfortable, then i understand.

I don't see it as separate matter to partition (in a "post partition" manner) given what the razakars fomented and perpetrated before, during and immediately after "partition" (migration + its direct connected massacres and violence) while under the auspices of nizam rule and standstill agreement....and positions he took on the partition matter ideologically and politically for his attempted political and personal leverage as well...as though that can be neatly delineated.

Indian state sinews w.r.t modern rule of law only really came into being with the constitution and republic formed in 1950. The army didnt suddenly overnight have the republic's institutions developed and cultivated in it to change it from the colonial British Indian army to the one we have today. So they operated on number of norms of the colonial era and its grievous faults.

It was slow process to reorganise and reform them for a modern republic, there was no knights in shining armour on this with Nehru, Patel et al and voila you have the "new" Indian army. There was a terrible context in these 3 years and the instruments of application were likewise terribly flawed, influencing political calls in terrible way as well (Nehru holding off till Jinnah died to give the go ahead for operation polo, to minimize potential Pakistani response, along with blanketing the whole thing as a "police action" for the international audience).

The dominion era of 3 years was essentially partition "itself", the JnK war and all its fires and embers (all part of the package of partition).....there were all kind of significant communal riots that happened in Bengal for quite a number of years in these 3 years (again it can't be called "post-partition"). None of the transgressions and excesses by any side (ideology or praxis) can be excused in the end.

I don't appreciate your insinuations that "you understand if there is matter of discomfort"....or your attempt to bring any equivalent with the partition era to something like 1970-1972 in East Pakistan well after its constitution was in place and sufficient institutional root ought to have commensurately imposed within its establishment-military complex by the same passage of 2 decades of time w.r.t the opponents that intervened and defeated them.

It is not a matter of comfort, it is a matter of willingness. I am willing only if I see larger approach of equal consistency and standards on the deep principle. The first steps for coherent trust to develop.

I discuss topics like this one with those I have built up sufficient trust with, have some heritage related to the issue at the hand and skin in the game. Hyderabadi muslim friends I have for example....or close enough acquaintances of theirs I trust. Topics such as Operation Polo and much more.

In open fora with anonymous foreigners, I have gotten tired of selectivity and bad faith approach that undermine how this trust develops from my experience to actually get somewhere regarding the utility of the discussion, so good and bad are clearly distilled from the past, so the bad may not repeat (rather than pointing of fingers stripped of context, unfair victimisation, hubris, vindictiveness or other such negative things that can be more casually harnessed).

So if say a forum membership is predominantly Turkish, trust on the larger principle at hand may develop from my side if a forum participant shows good faith over time with the same tenacity to explore the exact same issues with the larger membership regarding the partition process from all sides of the story regarding the Ottoman empire for example and the Turkish republic formation....and then all subsequent matters on this topic regarding the Turkish republic too from all sides and perspectives out there produced by Turkish state organs, media and academia....including who gets silenced on it and if it was reasonable to do in greater interest of the society today.

If I see unequal approach and double standards (including which certain replies get selective likes because the shoe is suddenly on the other foot on some religion or other identity that now overrides the deeper principle) there is no good faith cultivated and no trust is formed for this kind of discussion with just me and/or the few Indians here.
 
Last edited:

Afif

Experienced member
Bangladesh Correspondent
DefenceHub Diplomat
Messages
3,264
Reactions
38 4,977
Nation of residence
Bangladesh
Nation of origin
Bangladesh
I don't appreciate your insinuations that "you understand if there is matter of discomfort"....

Well, I can tell you there is no insinuation. It is a heavy topic and not everybody always would be in a mood to disscus it. (At least not me)

or your attempt to bring any equivalent with the partition era to something like 1970-1972 in East Pakistan well after its constitution was in place and sufficient institutional root ought to have commensurately imposed within its establishment-military complex by the same passage of 2 decades of time w.r.t the opponents that intervened and defeated them.

That is a fair point, well the equivalency I saw is from apparent similarity that ' you don't like political choice so you send an army to crash it, and in the process there is total chaos'

This kind of history always has a personal emotional aspect for me.

I could've just made my mind and sit and after reading all of those material above in one go. But it was likely that I missed some aspects and perhaps my judgment was clouded temporarily. (Becuase, those reading material contain quite 'heavy' and loaded history)
That is precisely why I asked and the point that you brought that- 'well after its constitution was in place and sufficient institutional root ought to have commensurately imposed within its establishment-military complex' and 'Indian state sinews w.r.t modern rule of law only really came into being with the constitution and republic formed in 1950. The army didnt suddenly overnight have the republic's institutions developed and cultivated in it to change it from the colonial British Indian army to the one we have today. So they operated on number of norms of the colonial era and its grievous faults.

It was slow process to reorganise and reform them for a modern republic, there was no knights in shining armour on this with Nehru, Patel et al and voila you have the "new" Indian army. There was a terrible context in these 3 years and the instruments of application were likewise terribly flawed, influencing political calls in terrible way as well (Nehru holding off till Jinnah died to give the go ahead for operation polo, to minimize potential Pakistani response, along with blanketing the whole thing as a "police action" for the international audience).'
-is quite important and somewhat obvious. But i missed it becuase my thoughts were focused heavily on apparent similarities.

But from this point of view, you are right, the context and environment was considerably different.


So if say a forum membership is predominantly Turkish, trust on the larger principle at hand may develop from my side if a forum participant shows good faith over time with the same tenacity to explore the exact same issues with the larger membership regarding the partition process from all sides of the story regarding the Ottoman empire for example and the Turkish republic formation....and then all subsequent matters on this topic regarding the Turkish republic too from all sides and perspectives out there produced by Turkish state organs, media and academia....including who gets silenced on it and if it was reasonable to do in greater interest of the society today.

I would say, this standard may not be fair because it could be the case someone is well-versed in some parts of history but not in other parts. There is no point for him bringing what he has sufficient knowledge in just to show he is balanced and not selective. (I am not saying that I am)

Or to be blatant-

if a forum participant shows good faith over time with the same tenacity to explore the exact same issues with the larger membership regarding the partition process from all sides of the story regarding the Ottoman empire for example and the Turkish republic formation....and then all subsequent matters on this topic regarding the Turkish republic too from all sides and perspectives out there produced by Turkish state organs, media and academia....including who gets silenced on it and if it was reasonable to do in greater interest of the society today.

Guess what? I tried. At least indirectly multiple times, but I didn't find anybody who is sufficiently interested to disscus it, to put it mildly.
I can only disscus these topics with folks who are willing, as you said.
If you scroll back this thread you can see it is only you, me and one or two people.


Anyway, thank you for your reply.
 
Last edited:

Nilgiri

Experienced member
Moderator
Aviation Specialist
Messages
8,901
Reactions
71 17,848
Nation of residence
Canada
Nation of origin
India
But from this point of view, you are right, the context and environment was considerably different.

Well I will just add it was just 2 divisions of IA sent in for operation polo. Its what could be afforded to be pulled away from what was going on in north (given JnK) and whatever could happen in Bengal.

Sending more divisions (to say provide some semblance of law and order in the interim till the police etc could take over and transgressions/rioting could be stopped where they started with curfews etc) was not an option....cost and risk wise at that point.

Cost and risk wise in 71, India could spare a lot more to concentrate on Eastern front....and with cocurrent view to try ensure some modicum of law and order for the transition afterwards till BD domestic agencies could fully take those over. Op polo, it just was done much more haphazardly in comparison with all this in mind.....the Indian republic didnt exist it was transition phase itself.

The large casualty figure from the communal violence that did occur was hence vindictiveness driven from what had earlier been done (creating the refugee situation that Nehru delayed in responding to till more opportune time, just like Sam advised PM Gandhi as well).

Then the commission estimated that at 20,000 later, and others did the obligatory it was 10x that, given there is general haze that always clouds these things....we've seen similar with 300,000 vs 3 million w.r.t 1971 as well.

There was prisoner release of various likely culprits on both sides afterwards as part of reconciliation effort (given the backdrop and what blame game apportioning would do, esp since it didnt start under Indian union jurisdiction at the time).

It would be like going with fine tooth comb through what was the retribution costs inflicted on those within Bangladesh that cooperated with the Pakistani forces (razakars and other militias) to perpetrate the vast majority of the original crimes. Pure-Innocent and greyer-innocent people get caught up in all of this sadly.

But w.r.t East Pakistan, there is no comparison to Op. Polo in that the East Pakistani population were not doing (to Pakistan forces/establishment) what the Nizam forces were running loose and doing for a few years before Operation polo, thinking standstill agreement or outside pressure would shield it.
 

Gary

Experienced member
Messages
6,716
Reactions
14 11,026
Nation of residence
Indonesia
Nation of origin
Indonesia

Taliban's justice system is soo much better than ours!
@Ryder @Gary I think I am gonna move to Afghanistan.不不




Edit- this is not a promotion. Rather, I am putting it here as a sociological case study.
Thinking about it, the Taliban basically reversed and/or impeded 20 years of whatever progress Afghanistan had, only to replace it with basically the same model of the last government of Afghanistan.

I see nothing very different between the Taliban and the last government other than maybe slogans, symbols, and rhetorics. They're just as corrupt, as inefficient as the last. That fast taliban "court" has now been/in process of being replaced with the traditional judiciary with all its red tapes whatsoever as they transformed in nation-building.

IMO The religiously motivated supporter of the Taliban basically gets nothing, and I don't know if you pay any attention, the religious supporters of the Taliban are having a hard time online justifying/defending the Taliban as it has been 2 years and the only "Sharia" Taliban implemented is basically refusing girls into schools. Afghanistan is just as poor/even poorer, just as vulnerable and when it comes to counter guerilla, the Taliban are just as shit as the ANA, CIA help does reduce the amount of ISKP attack but still...
 

Afif

Experienced member
Bangladesh Correspondent
DefenceHub Diplomat
Messages
3,264
Reactions
38 4,977
Nation of residence
Bangladesh
Nation of origin
Bangladesh
Thinking about it, the Taliban basically reversed and/or impeded 20 years of whatever progress Afghanistan had, only to replace it with basically the same model of the last government of Afghanistan.

I see nothing very different between the Taliban and the last government other than maybe slogans, symbols, and rhetorics. They're just as corrupt, as inefficient as the last. That fast taliban "court" has now been/in process of being replaced with the traditional judiciary with all its red tapes whatsoever as they transformed in nation-building.

IMO The religiously motivated supporter of the Taliban basically gets nothing, and I don't know if you pay any attention, the religious supporters of the Taliban are having a hard time online justifying/defending the Taliban as it has been 2 years and the only "Sharia" Taliban implemented is basically refusing girls into schools. Afghanistan is just as poor/even poorer, just as vulnerable and when it comes to counter guerilla, the Taliban are just as shit as the ANA, CIA help does reduce the amount of ISKP attack but still...

Well, I am in favour of waiting little longer and see how all this turns out in the end. But my initial judgment is, Taliban is considerably less corrupt (I mean economic corruption) than the previous government.
 

Gary

Experienced member
Messages
6,716
Reactions
14 11,026
Nation of residence
Indonesia
Nation of origin
Indonesia
Well, I am in favour of waiting little longer and see how all this turns out in the end. But my initial judgment is, Taliban is considerably less corrupt (I mean economic corruption) than the previous government.
There's two competing claims in this, the Taliban circle will naturally claim to have been effective reducing corruption, while contra Taliban naturally claims otherwise.

But if it was to me, then the former actually makes more sense, especially when situations in Afghanistan are dire and desperate. And the Taliban got like $40M from the UN each month, that $40M will naturally be in preying sight of officials with access to the money, the same way the previous government seized that aid for their personal use.

Afghanistan produce nothing and the IEA is proving just as short-sighted as the previous one when it comes to the economy and development. They close schools, prevent women from education and their best hoorah is selling the country minerals to the Chinese, we all know how the Chinese preyed on the weak in business. And the Taliban is helping the Chinese prey into their country by ensuring that their women portion of the population cannot have any contribution to the economy by denying them education.

So yeah 20 years of war, to be replaced by mostly the same secular government, same corrupt, less funded and less recognized.

No wonder real Afghans fled the country, while many Taliban supporters could be easily identified cheering from Europe.
 

Afif

Experienced member
Bangladesh Correspondent
DefenceHub Diplomat
Messages
3,264
Reactions
38 4,977
Nation of residence
Bangladesh
Nation of origin
Bangladesh
Nothing of the sort will be done. India desires as friendly relationship as possible with BD.

BD has all it needs to ramp up its game stemming from Burma anyway.

It is BD intelligentsa job to question why the GDP estimates by the BBS under the SHW regime have not materialised into commensurate forex and tax base....which are crucial to propel the defence sector in the end.

It was a joke, But I can tell a thing or two about Forex and Tax.

So, just in 2021 when forex was increasing positively, somehow they got a very funny idea of pouring forex money into unnecessary expensive 'infrastructure' development. And then comes the war, skyrocketing energy price coupled with tremendous corruption and mismanagement got us where we are today.

Even Sri Lanka has managed to increase their forex from near zero to 3.5 billions or something in just two years. So, this Ukraine war excuse is mostly bullshit. I am no expert but I think, just with the right management alone we can be right back on the track within a year.

About tax, afaik 7 millions out of 170 millions are only registered and even then, only 60% of these 7 millions actually pay their taxes in full.

I dont know much about economics, hence my question would be, how does more tax help here? Specially considering that anything defence related require USD or Euro.
Or is it about overall development?
 
Top Bottom