India Historical Indian War History Thread

[Madokafc]

I suppose you want to impart your professional wisdom here.

Feel free to do so.

Much better than your wisdom

 

[Madokafc]

PA strength is 55k. Rest were police and para-military forces which would be lightly armed and not trained to fight a war against invading army.

You got the war, and the result is obvious. Bangladesh got their independence as simple as that

 

[Jackdaws]

The 1971 Bangla combined with Indian victory against the PA force deployed in Bangla delta was probably the greatest victory of the 20th century.

A force from Pakistan that numbered about 55k soldiers found itself drowned in a hostile land full of very annoyed 60 millionBangla people who irregular Mukhti Bahini forces supplied by India laid siege on the 55k Pakistani force. Then after duly preparing for months India attacked from three directions. Enjoying 15:1 advantage, yes you read that right 15 to one advantage [source is Indian High Command] working in tandem with the irregular Mukhto Bahini's surrounded the PA force. This was the greatest victory of Indian Arms in 1,000 years.

Interesting account of Bangla Mukhtos attacking in conjunction with Indian Army against isolated PA force.

Battle of Dhalai: The Bangladesh Campaign 1971

That is from a dubious source. Can't expect objectivity. For thread to be constructive - please use known media outlets / reporters.

 

[Jackdaws]

The Blood Telegram -

The Dissent Channel is a messaging framework open to Foreign Service Officers, and other U.S. citizens employed by the United States Department of State and Agency for International Development (USAID) through which they are invited to express constructive criticism of government policy.

Archer Blood was the American Consul in Daaca, East Pakistan. Via this dissent channel, he sent a strongly worded telegram to the Nixon Administration. See attached telegram on April 6, 1971

It read -

Our government has failed to denounce the suppression of democracy. Our government has failed to denounce atrocities. Our government has failed to take forceful measures to protect its citizens while at the same time bending over backwards to placate the West Pak[istan] dominated government and to lessen any deservedly negative international public relations impact against them. Our government has evidenced what many will consider moral bankruptcy,... But we have chosen not to intervene, even morally, on the grounds that the Awami conflict, in which unfortunately the overworked term genocide is applicable, is purely an internal matter of a sovereign state. Private Americans have expressed disgust. We, as professional civil servants, express our dissent with current policy and fervently hope that our true and lasting interests here can be defined and our policies redirected in order to salvage our nation's position as a moral leader of the free world.


In a previous telegram he wrote -
End of March 1971 -

1. Here in Decca we are mute and horrified witnesses to a reign of terror by the Pak[istani] Military. Evidence continues to mount that the MLA authorities have list of AWAMI League supporters whom they are systematically eliminating by seeking them out in their homes and shooting them down

2. Among those marked for extinction in addition to the A.L. hierarchy are student leaders and university faculty. In this second category we have reports that Fazlur Rahman head of the philosophy department and a Hindu, M. Abedin, head of the department of history, have been killed. Razzak of the political science department is rumored dead. Also on the list are the bulk of MNA's elect and number of MPA's.

3. Moreover, with the support of the Pak[istani Military. Non-Bengali Muslims are systematically attacking poor people's quarters and murdering Bengalis and Hindus.

 

[Nilgiri]

Meaningless talking to those journalists or politicians.

It's a bit like Russian media interviewing Assad, Chinese media interviewing Kim Jong Un, Turkmen, Azeri, Saudi, Emirati or Sisi media interviewing their ministers or such.

It may be meaningless to you, but that is your opinion (a very flawed one with these other comparisons).

You would have to talk to an extended number of Bangladeshi regular people (who had parents and grandparents involved in their war of liberation) and read up on the events (from as neutral fact of the matter as you would like to, incl Western journalists based on the ground at the time)....which I suspect you haven't.

The editor/journalist being interviewed is a freedom fighter himself. He knows what he saw on the ground.

That doesn't colour his publication (Dailystar) in any significant way to not criticize Indian govt very extensively when a variety of current topics come to the fore (as the interview also goes into).

If you have any specific dispute with the actual points he and others bring up regarding the war itself (since this thread is more or less going to be oriented toward discussion of facts only, rather than opinions)...you are welcome to bring them up.

But dismissing any of it out of hand for someone merely being from Bangladesh is not going to be tolerated here...given the level and intensity of atrocities that went on...prompting the refugee crisis into India and the eventual outbreak of war (When the situation causing this refugee exodus was not going to be addressed by the Pakistan govt of the time).

That is like dismissing the holocaust out of hand (and the consequential formation of countries/borders/polities after it) because the victims and eventual victors are not entirely 100% "both sides of the story" neutral in some impression an individual downstream to it all may have.

There is little to no media freedom in those countries and Bangladesh military and its politicians take orders from New Delhi and Washington D.C.

I believe the current PM was brought to power thanks to American-Indian machinations sometime in 2006.

Again it shows you know very little on Bangladesh politics....given it is the other party (BNP) that shares far friendlier relations with the US. No idea what the "sometime in 2006" even refers to...the current PM in BD came to power in 2009.

As for "little to no media freedom" in BD (esp. regarding things foundational to their formation that their public carry deeply in their minds and hearts if you just talk to them in any significant number), that can be pointed to pretty much any country. What and who is the basis of consistent neutral measurement? That is off-topic, you can start a new thread for it.

In that thread, we can also explore if say the Turks (gathered here for you to enquire with) formation of their nation-state is similarly compromised in some way by their being some perception of "little to no" media freedom within their country by whomever.

I guess another alternative again would be for you to go talk to a large gathering of Bangladeshis to get their view of it...past the "media".

This is not too different from how the French created Lebanon or helped the minority Allawis gain prominence in politics in Syria.

Not too different from how Republic of India was essentially created by the Brits or how most Arab countries are a creation of imperial powers such as France and the UK. Sykes-Picot.

Not to derail the discussion, carry on. The topic must be interesting to a lot of people

Political and general theory regarding formation of country vs nation is again off-topic. Thank you for recognising its derailing the topic, its something you can create a new thread on and I would be happy to discuss who and what essentially created all the countries of Europe over time (and other parts of the world as the concept then transformed into the nation-state).

Like did the Normans create England...or the Romans or Anglo-Saxons or Danes?

Did the Mongols, Manchus and Japanese "essentially" create China in some larger way it carries on today?....or did the Germans and Soviets through Marx, Lenin and Stalin?...all with due difference to what is a country vs nation vs polity etc.

This subject goes well past so called colonial history filter (given what implants into political and national psyche, institutions and culture)...and best be discussed in another thread if you so desire it.

 

[Nilgiri]

As for all the regular predictable chit chat of "15:1" and the attempted insinuations from that all.

(Deliberately cherrypicking away from what the good field marshal even meant in the context of 15:1 there given India certainly didnt employ 15 times the total force of military power overall in the Eastern Theater as going by even 50,000 Pak forces would suggest 750k Indians were used which was not anywhere close to reality)

Are we to also suggest:

A) the Soviets were to not bring incredible force disparities wherever possible and instead "take it easy" on the invading Wehrmacht and play 1:1 fair in some gentleman rules given the state of war at the time and the atrocities that had long been established to happen (and further much larger atrocities only would be uncovered far later)?

B) Are we to say the Soviets should not have used 10:1 localised disparities where needed (or more) in the prosecution of the Stalingrad effort?

C) Are we to say Napoleon should have not used superior thinking and logistics to bring to bear his full front of armies with his best marshals and defeat enemy armies "one at a time" ...and instead give them enough gentleman time...to gather all together leisurely and "fairly" given war should be "fair"?

D) Numerous other examples all through the prosecution of war in history

I would point out what what the overall force level India had against 2-wing Pakistan at the time. Arguably it was 2:1 in total and 3:1 at most.

From wiki (and underlying sources can all be checked for yourself):

To prosecute a strategy on one wing (with the needed intensity given defenders advantage) while holding off the other wing was the only viable one.

This was known to the Pakistani establishment too btw....yet they still got into that situation and utter morass by their establishments supremacist ego and mass-scale atrocities (to create that larger uprising from the civilians of 50%+ of their country at the time).

This is the severe catch 22 that always comes up, if the recognition was that East Pakistan was never a sustainable part of Pakistan (by the so-called wise Pakistani establishment and elitists today...of course only AFTER the atrocities + war result)....why not let them secede peacefully and create a new relationship with W. Pakistan peacefully (to mutual benefit of both)?

That's on them, and more importantly the establishment there still refuses to learn the sobering lesson given.

The East Pakistanis were just seen (by W. Pak establishment) as sources of jute forex and sources of people to beat down with takfiri, urdu-superiority to feel better (rather than build better)....and the need to shield/whitewash the extremely late-stage flawed foundational narrative of muslim-nationhood (esp. given the sizeable number that remained with India to begin with) in the region to begin with.

Their (former East Pakistan) greater development now, export level, forex level and industriousness...all helped and aided by a more pragmatic peaceful co-existence with India (albeit with issues any neighbours face) can all be looked at.

The difference (and growing one each year) of all this from the country they left....could not be more telling about this.

@Joe Shearer can add anything I might have missed or gotten wrong here if he is so inclined.

 

[Nilgiri]

I will now be going through this thread to see if any rule violations have happened since I was away a while.

Thank you to @Sinan (And any others) for modding it while I was away.

Next time if I am on break, I will be locking this thread I think while I'm away.

People should again read Indian subforum rules (And larger forum rules linked there) if they haven't already:

Indian Subforum Rules, FAQ and Updates

स्वागत Swagat, नमस्कारNamaskar (Welcome, Greetings 🙏 ) to all members and guests reading, browsing and/or posting in Indian subforum of defencehub.live It is now a little past 3 months for this forum's creation. In the rush of all that, a proper welcome (to this subforum) was not given at its...

defencehub.live

 

[Nilgiri]

Bangla was just a sideshow. The PA's primary concern was defending the 'home country' or West Pakistan. The western front was about 1,000 miles and open to attack as most is rolling semi-desert. Major cities like Lahore are only 15 miles from Indian frontier and lay exposed. Don't also overlook the massive population resource disparity between Pakistan and India which of course feeds into all other resources. This infographic is for today but it gives you a idea. India is a union of I believe 30 [?] states. Just one, Utter Pradesh has the same population as Pakistan.

View attachment 9523

Faced with such odds almost all the frontline units were deployed on the Western front. Other assets like most of the airforce also were deployed on the west. In fact questions had been raised as to why the east had miserably small force to which the strategy posited was "defence of the east lay in the west".

In fact the 55k number was elevated because in the previous 2 years the insurgents of the Mukhti Bahini [PKK in the Turkish context] supplied and trained by India was causing trouble. However because of the vast distance and Pakistan's very weak logistics reinforcements sent over to suppress the Mukhtos often went without their heavy equipment. The sea route was well over 3,000 miles making a V shape sailing along the Indian peninsula past Sri Lanka.

The reality was if PA could have contained the rebellion by Banglas it would have been a miracle. Let alone fending off a attack by India. A sober assessment woul;d have been to concede that PA could not hold 60 million people being fueled by India and let them go their way. But Pakistani ruling elite could not accept this and sadly we lost lot of brave men to a futile struggle and gave a soundbite to India which they still brag all these decades later.

Yes dismiss the forex extraction by Pakistani establishment over 20 years or so as a "sideshow"....and then the atrocities perpetrated on them.

@ekemenirtu and any others can simply read themselves about operation searchlight and then the months of further atrocities after that....creating a massive refugee crisis on India...given all this rush to deflect compare and interpolate or extrapolate with some other parts of the world....

....or dismissing it as "3rd worlders killing other 3rd worlders". The next person to demean victims and consequent political formation like that gets warnings...

...if they would like a superior 1st world perspective as the be-all end all, they can go read what the 1st worlders think of a whole country now simply because of one raid on some guy called Osama Bin Laden.

Are we to focus more attention there simply because its a 1st worlder issue and 1st world media and 1st world narrative? ...and thus their 1st world impression on the same country carries a be-all end-all weight on it?...applying this consistency for sake of argument.

Its simple if its not worthy topic and the first worlders are the total representation and repository of truth (muh iraqi WMD and all) and what should and shouldn't be cared about, then don't show up in here to discuss it. It extends btw I guess to what the Japanese did in China too right?...and thus it shouldn't be up for discussion because only pearl harbour and the pacific island hopping really counts for discussion.

Anyway, the whole reasoning behind it should be fairly obvious....the narrative, psyche and cash cow of jute had to be protected for the W. Pakistani cabal and elite....and they figured the US was enough to shield them from Indian (and local Bengali) action no matter the number and scale and condition of refugees showing up in India with harrowing tragedies to speak of.

Can simply look at the export, forex and productivity now of each wing for the basic economic proof.

But I guess...Don't answer the question asked of you, but answer the question you wanted asked of you....right?

@VCheng

 

[Nilgiri]

Warnings issued to some for trolling, counter-trolling etc.

The thread strictly says no trolling.

Any continued behaviour of that sort will result in thread bans.

If you see someone trolling (religion flamebait, lieing/distorting history based on that etc) or breaking another rule (like deeply insulting a world leader or nation)...please report it and dont quote it.

 

[Jackdaws]

On the 1965 War - a Pakistani poster @Kaptaan made an interesting point. He asked why India has not conquered or taken over Lahore.

Was this ever an Indian strategic objective? I do recollect reading that the Americans actually asked India to stop /slow its advance toward Lahore in 1965 so Americans living there could be evacuated. Is this correct @Nilgiri and @Joe Shearer ?

 

[Kaptaan]

Was this ever an Indian strategic objective? I do recollect reading that the Americans actually asked India to stop /slow its advance toward Lahore in 1965 so Americans living there could be evacuated.

Well, funny you say that the Russians and Americans asked [the Yanks even blocked supplies] Pakistan to take it easy on India and the stupid Pakistani elite obliged by using gloves when they hit India.

I guess both India and Pakistan need to grow a pair and not listen like kids to outsiders?

 

[Jackdaws]

Well, funny you say that the Russians and Americans asked [the Yanks even blocked supplies] Pakistan to take it easy on India and the stupid Pakistani elite obliged by using gloves when they hit India.

I guess both India and Pakistan need to grow a pair and not listen like kids to outsiders?

Who ever said the Americans or Russians asked Pakistanis to take it easy on India? Do you have a source for this?

 

[Kaptaan]

Who ever said the Americans or Russians asked Pakistanis to take it easy on India? Do you have a source for this?

I recollect reading that Americans placed enormous pressure on Pakistan to take it easy on Indians and even ceased supplies of essential spare parts. My source is from the same place you pulled yours.

I do recollect reading

 

[Jackdaws]

I recollect reading that Americans placed enormous pressure on Pakistan to take it easy on Indians and even ceased supplies of essential spare parts. My source is from the same place you pulled yours.

And I specifically asked @Nilgiri and @Joe Shearer to verify my point.

Are you 100% sure about your claim?

 

[crixus]

You missed 1984 ... I think that was the best strategic move a shift from reactive to proactive

 

[Jackdaws]

You missed 1984 ... I think that was the best strategic move a shift from reactive to proactive

Siachen?

 

[crixus]

Siachen?

Exactly, such prompt actions have a very deep impact on the psyche of opposition

 

[Jackdaws]

Exactly, such prompt actions have a very deep impact on the psyche of opposition

There was no battle as such to gain Siachen. Just a race to the top of the glacier. There was a minor skirmish named Operation Rajiv to capture Bana Top. When Pakistan had it, it was called Quaid Post - which India renamed after capturing it. But that's just one feature on the glacier and that was in 1987 after India had already taken Siachen in 84.

 

[Nilgiri]

This thread is locked...and will likely be deleted (when I get around to monthly archiving the subforum later) as it is just going to be used to troll/snipe and counter-troll/counter-snipe at members clearly (and it has already happened).

I am issuing soft (verbal) warning to members engaging in that now...to desist from that any further.

Keep any larger discussion about these wars in threads that already exist in their respective country sections.

For Indian section, I will only leave "Indian War History" one available for it for the time being....and it may be locked if and when I am on protracted breaks from forum.

Remember there should be no intent to diminish another country (or religion or any larger group of people) as a whole on this matter.

Criticism is to be as specific and precise as possible to those governing a set of actions and/or ideologies that are up for criticism.

 

[Nilgiri]

Shameful thing to have let happened:

A Defaced and Broken Grave of a National Hero Tells a Story of Our National Character - Heritage Times

Famous author, historian and thinker CLR James once wrote, “A national Hero must have a nation. The nation as it

heritagetimes.in