India Historical Indian War History Thread

[Kaptaan]

Also, in case of "Pakistan fighting so far away from home" is a misnomer. East Pakistan housed 55% of the population of Pakistan. It was where the next elected PM of Pakistan was from. It was home.

It was as much home as it was for poor Turkish soldiers of the Ottoman Empire surrounded by Arab rebels in Arabia while also trying hold out the Allies. Stabbed from the back while trying to fight the invader. This is exactly what PA soldiers had to put up with so it was no more 'home' then Arabia was for the Ottoman soldiers. Only one differance the Ottoman soldiers at least had a land route back to their 'homelands' in Anatolia. PA sodiers had 1,200 miles of India or 3,000 miles of ocean from their homeland.

In 1971 West Pakistan's population was 59 million whereas East wing [Banglas] had 65 million. So the minority was trying to hold the majority. It was a hopeless mission from military POV.

My uncle was there in 1971. He told me vast majority of Banglas despised PA soldiers and leaving base was dangerous. Patrols would often get ambushed in the very difficult, tropical climate of Bengal. No local could be trusted. Even Banglas employed by PA often turned against their officers. This demoralized the outnumberd soldiers. PA regular force numbered bout 55k. Most of the heavy equipment was left behind as there was no logistical capability to shift it 3,000 miles.

Thinly spread out, being attacked by the Bengali insurgents of the Mukhto Bahini who numbered over 150k by then and in a ocean of 65 million hostile population things did not look good. Then India also attacked from three directions. The result was inevitable. Still it gave the soundbite "greatest military victory ever" to India.

 

[Nilgiri]

It was as much home as it was for poor Turkish soldiers of the Ottoman Empire surrounded by Arab rebels in Arabia while also trying hold out the Allies. Stabbed from the back while trying to fight the invader. This is exactly what PA soldiers had to put up with so it was no more 'home' then Arabia was for the Ottoman soldiers. Only one differance the Ottoman soldiers at least had a land route back to their 'homelands' in Anatolia. PA sodiers had 1,200 miles of India or 3,000 miles of ocean from their homeland.

In 1971 West Pakistan's population was 59 million whereas East wing [Banglas] had 65 million. So the minority was trying to hold the majority. It was a hopeless mission from military POV.

My uncle was there in 1971. He told me vast majority of Banglas despised PA soldiers and leaving base was dangerous. Patrols would often get ambushed in the very difficult, tropical climate of Bengal. No local could be trusted. Even Banglas employed by PA often turned against their officers. This demoralized the outnumberd soldiers. PA regular force numbered bout 55k. Most of the heavy equipment was left behind as there was no logistical capability to shift it 3,000 miles.

Thinly spread out, being attacked by the Bengali insurgents of the Mukhto Bahini who numbered over 150k by then and in a ocean of 65 million hostile population things did not look good. Then India also attacked from three directions. The result was inevitable. Still it gave the soundbite "greatest military victory ever" to India.

This is what I don't understand my friend....and also what I keep mentioning....there were always so many more options to do the split peacefully if things were this obvious to Pakistani establishment...and leave a better legacy for the 1st original attempt (at nationhood concept) before.

Either things were not obvious, there was some heavy denial, or other dark things running the irrationality. Or some combination of all of this.

The fact things got this sticky against basic reasoning illustrates this.

Its all one thing for an enemy to exploit a given situation*, but you also have to properly introspect why you got yourself into that situation in first place. Do you think the Pakistani establishment really did this introspection back then and after?

Do you think the Indian establishment would have gotten involved in 1971... going against what it specifically didn't do (the preceding 20 years) or was simply unavailable to do..... if there was no massive refugee crisis?... (bringing in the accounts of just how turned/ripe the situation had become to just a few years prior?)

*If an enemy is making a mistake, do not interrupt him - Napoleon.

 

[Kaptaan]

This is what I don't understand my friend....and also what I keep mentioning....there were always so many more options to do the split peacefully if things were this obvious to Pakistani establishment

The problem with Pakistan is all too often religion and ideaology are allowed to prevail before reason. The British had world class military but if you look at their empire [Bengal was in effect colonial subject in the pre 1971 Pakistan] they rarely fought with their subject with exception of the war in America. What they did do was manipulated control with surgical and spare use of military power. However when things appeared to be reaching where more military power and less manipulation was going to work they just quitely pulled out. Why not leave instead of being kicked out? You saw that in South Asia, Africa and other colonies.

The French though behaved differantly. Out to perhaps redeem their defeat at hands of Germans in WW2 they fought in Vietnam [to lose] and then in bloody war in Algeria. Think about this. Algeria had about 10 million population and was only 200 miles from Marseile in France.

There were also nearly million French settlers in Algeria. When Algerian insurgency began the French were in far better position than Pakistan was with refards to Bangla. Algeria was next door, there was no threat from another country [read India] and they had Western support. Yet ultimately the French lost Algeria.

However such reality was not considered because notions of Islamic brotherhood and lack of critical introspection allowed groupthink to take over. Rest is history.

 

[Jackdaws]

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

Why hasn't it been refurbished?

 

[Jackdaws]

It was as much home as it was for poor Turkish soldiers of the Ottoman Empire surrounded by Arab rebels in Arabia while also trying hold out the Allies. Stabbed from the back while trying to fight the invader. This is exactly what PA soldiers had to put up with so it was no more 'home' then Arabia was for the Ottoman soldiers. Only one differance the Ottoman soldiers at least had a land route back to their 'homelands' in Anatolia. PA sodiers had 1,200 miles of India or 3,000 miles of ocean from their homeland.

In 1971 West Pakistan's population was 59 million whereas East wing [Banglas] had 65 million. So the minority was trying to hold the majority. It was a hopeless mission from military POV.

My uncle was there in 1971. He told me vast majority of Banglas despised PA soldiers and leaving base was dangerous. Patrols would often get ambushed in the very difficult, tropical climate of Bengal. No local could be trusted. Even Banglas employed by PA often turned against their officers. This demoralized the outnumberd soldiers. PA regular force numbered bout 55k. Most of the heavy equipment was left behind as there was no logistical capability to shift it 3,000 miles.

Thinly spread out, being attacked by the Bengali insurgents of the Mukhto Bahini who numbered over 150k by then and in a ocean of 65 million hostile population things did not look good. Then India also attacked from three directions. The result was inevitable. Still it gave the soundbite "greatest military victory ever" to India.

Au contraire - it was the East Pakistani who was stabbed in the back. He voted in an election and then saw the mandate stolen from him. His leader was denied the opportunity to be PM. Citizens were driven out of their homes as refugees, women were raped by the Pak Military and intellectuals were murdered. I have already posted the article by a West Pakistani journalist above - read it.

 

[Nilgiri]

The problem with Pakistan is all too often religion and ideaology are allowed to prevail before reason. The British had world class military but if you look at their empire [Bengal was in effect colonial subject in the pre 1971 Pakistan] they rarely fought with their subject with exception of the war in America. What they did do was manipulated control with surgical and spare use of military power. However when things appeared to be reaching where more military power and less manipulation was going to work they just quitely pulled out. Why not leave instead of being kicked out? You saw that in South Asia, Africa and other colonies.

The French though behaved differantly. Out to perhaps redeem their defeat at hands of Germans in WW2 they fought in Vietnam [to lose] and then in bloody war in Algeria. Think about this. Algeria had about 10 million population and was only 200 miles from Marseile in France.

View attachment 10012

There were also nearly million French settlers in Algeria. When Algerian insurgency began the French were in far better position than Pakistan was with refards to Bangla. Algeria was next door, there was no threat from another country [read India] and they had Western support. Yet ultimately the French lost Algeria.

However such reality was not considered because notions of Islamic brotherhood and lack of critical introspection allowed groupthink to take over. Rest is history.

I get where you are coming from (having a close friend of mine being descendant of pied-noir myself)....but I feel the situation was very unique...given political formation and aegis of Pakistan ver. 1.0 compared to how (modern 20th century nation state) France acquired Algeria.

The jacobins, cordeliers and so on (given their huge downstream legacy on both the revolution and French nation state) didnt start in Algiers or some place like that....unlike where the Muslim League started (Dhaka)

There was no Algerian PM that came to power in France as a whole....say an equivalent to Mr. Suhrawardy.

There was no arabic writing on the Franc currency notes.

I am unaware of any Algerian flying ace like M.M Alam in the French Air Force

There was clearly another narrative as to why East Pakistan was a part of the whole setup....compared to France+Algeria.

...and it all went wrong and no one took a reality check sufficiently upstream.

There were plenty of options btw for the French too, to do something peacefully with Algeria (and earlier with Vietnam rather than face Dien Bien Phu result)...given status of Pied noirs etc. They got that all horridly wrong just the same.

 

[Nilgiri]

Why hasn't it been refurbished?

Print talks about it:

A comment there:

- He never married. He was only commited to his duty for the nation throughout his life.
- He used to donate a large part of his salary for educating poor children and looking after them.
- As mentioned here, he refused an invitation to become one of the highest ranking military officers in the Pakistan army. He chose to fight for India despite tremendous pressure.
- After losing Jhangar once, he pledged to sleep on the floor and not sleep in any kind of comfort until he recaptured it from the Pakistanis.
- He did exactly what he had pledged and captured Jhangar, and also managed to kill a very large number of Pakistani soldiers all by himself.
- His last words were " I am dying but let not the territory we were fighting for fall for the enemy".

=========

And we let his final resting place become like this? I got no words for this. It should come under a special heritage status and protection, certain war heroes especially. I believe he is highest rank Indian army has lost in combat...a Brigadier.

Not to far from where I am here in Canada, they treat final resting places of every rank of soldier with the utmost respect...there is even local small cenotaph to commemorate the ones (that were from the local area) that were never found (after battle) or had no remains to bury etc. Just for the local neighbourhood area this one (for there were many sons it particularly sent to both WW1 and WW2), they always clear snow and tend to it first thing before rest of the area.

 

[Jackdaws]

Print talks about it:

A comment there:

- He never married. He was only commited to his duty for the nation throughout his life.
- He used to donate a large part of his salary for educating poor children and looking after them.
- As mentioned here, he refused an invitation to become one of the highest ranking military officers in the Pakistan army. He chose to fight for India despite tremendous pressure.
- After losing Jhangar once, he pledged to sleep on the floor and not sleep in any kind of comfort until he recaptured it from the Pakistanis.
- He did exactly what he had pledged and captured Jhangar, and also managed to kill a very large number of Pakistani soldiers all by himself.
- His last words were " I am dying but let not the territory we were fighting for fall for the enemy".

=========

And we let his final resting place become like this? I got no words for this. It should come under a special heritage status and protection, certain war heroes especially. I believe he is highest rank Indian army has lost in combat...a Brigadier.

Not to far from where I am here in Canada, they treat final resting places of every rank of soldier with the utmost respect...there is even local small cenotaph to commemorate the ones (that were from the local area) that were never found (after battle) or had no remains to bury etc. Just for the local neighbourhood area this one (for there were many sons it particularly sent to both WW1 and WW2), they always clear snow and tend to it first thing before rest of the area.

Forget Canada. In India, the resting place of Commonwealth Soldiers who fought in WW2 are well maintained by funds from the Commonwealth. Even the grave of the recently deceased celebrated actor Irrfan Khan was in bad shape - someone had posted it.

 

[Jackdaws]

This is what I am talking about

Delhi War Cemetery - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

 

[Jackdaws]

Print talks about it:

A comment there:

- He never married. He was only commited to his duty for the nation throughout his life.
- He used to donate a large part of his salary for educating poor children and looking after them.
- As mentioned here, he refused an invitation to become one of the highest ranking military officers in the Pakistan army. He chose to fight for India despite tremendous pressure.
- After losing Jhangar once, he pledged to sleep on the floor and not sleep in any kind of comfort until he recaptured it from the Pakistanis.
- He did exactly what he had pledged and captured Jhangar, and also managed to kill a very large number of Pakistani soldiers all by himself.
- His last words were " I am dying but let not the territory we were fighting for fall for the enemy".

=========

And we let his final resting place become like this? I got no words for this. It should come under a special heritage status and protection, certain war heroes especially. I believe he is highest rank Indian army has lost in combat...a Brigadier.

Not to far from where I am here in Canada, they treat final resting places of every rank of soldier with the utmost respect...there is even local small cenotaph to commemorate the ones (that were from the local area) that were never found (after battle) or had no remains to bury etc. Just for the local neighbourhood area this one (for there were many sons it particularly sent to both WW1 and WW2), they always clear snow and tend to it first thing before rest of the area.

There we go

Army to restore India-Pakistan war hero Brigadier Usman's ‘vandalised’ grave in Delhi

The Army wrote to Jamia Millia Islamia Tuesday seeking permission to carry out repairs of the grave, which was found damaged by miscreants in Delhi's Batla House Qabristan.

theprint.in

 

[Nilgiri]

There we go

Army to restore India-Pakistan war hero Brigadier Usman's ‘vandalised’ grave in Delhi

The Army wrote to Jamia Millia Islamia Tuesday seeking permission to carry out repairs of the grave, which was found damaged by miscreants in Delhi's Batla House Qabristan.

theprint.in

Yes I knew even if Army didnt correct this, there will be a gofundme etc given the attention its gotten.

But my point is it shouldn't have come to this to begin with that there needs media coverage/pressure etc after something has happened.

It should be default mode we take care of war graves and memorials to highest degree possible.

 

[Jackdaws]

Yes I knew even if Army didnt correct this, there will be a gofundme etc given the attention its gotten.

But my point is it shouldn't have come to this to begin with that there needs media coverage/pressure etc after something has happened.

It should be default mode we take care of war graves and memorials to highest degree possible.

There we go -

 

[ekemenirtu]

Few points here -

I intend to cover the history of 1962 as well. Yes, it was a drubbing. No point denying it and history must not be obfuscated by insecure nationalism. British Rule? It wasn't just one war - British rule in India (both Company and Crown) would deserve a thread of its own. But within India, the history is quite well documented and the only point of divergence is how the Brits and Indians see the First War of Indian Independence of 1857 as the Brits insist on calling it the Sepoy Mutiny. Again, a topic which richly deserves a thread of its own.

Also, in case of "Pakistan fighting so far away from home" is a misnomer. East Pakistan housed 55% of the population of Pakistan. It was where the next elected PM of Pakistan was from. It was home.

Interesting perspectives.

East Pakistan was no more after 1971. Therefore, it is fair to say "Pakistan fighting so far away from home" was meaningless. In retrospect, of course.

At that time, their political and military leaders and elites certainly did not think so. After their loss, there really has been no other way of comforting themselves.

It would be interesting to read the Indian perspective of British rule and how the British essentially created modern day India. I am certain there are plenty of Indians who can do a good job with that.

 

[ekemenirtu]

Much better than your wisdom

Feel free to impart your professional wisdom then.

 

[ekemenirtu]

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

It is not.

It is highly presumptuous of you to think that is a flawed opinion.

Bangladesh's media suffers deeply from lack of freedom.

Therefore, the comparisons with the Russian media in Assad regime controlled territory, Chinese media interviewing Kim Jong Un and such remains valid.

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.

Irrelevant.

As explained above.

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

Irrelevant.

As explained above.

Again, the same could be said of Russian media interviewing Assad regime members or Chinese media interviewing Kim Jong Un or his assistants.

Personal experience or knowledge of ground realities are meaningless when media freedom is lacking in those territories.

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).

Is that a threat from you? On your role as a moderator or a regular member?

Could admin @Webslave or moderators @Test7 @Cabatli_53 @Sinan help me understand this?

Is that a threat from a moderator to fall in line?

I eagerly await your response.

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.

Anybody is free to dismiss the holocaust as a figment of somebody's imagination. I do not see any problems. Others might see serious problems. That's just difference in opinions. It's okay.

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.

I would argue the author of the article here is more qualified than you on the topic. He presents convincing evidence based on facts that my statement is correct. You are however free to contest it but to do so, you should introduce evidence and facts.

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.

That is not off topic. Media freedom is the foundation upon which any independent enquiry can be carried out and hopefully, justice meted out to the perpetrators of injustice.

When media freedom is lacking in those territories, there is only one version of events that is going to emerge.

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.

You can create that thread if you wish. That is off topic, though.

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".

You don't know if I have done so. You should have been less presumptuous.

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).

Certainly, no non Europeans created England or Scotland.

However, we can not say the same for India. It was essentially created by the Brits. If you are happy to discuss those events, that is also your prerogative.

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

They were all Europeans.

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.

Japanese were probably an offshoot of the Chinese civilization, hence they could not have essentially or otherwise, created China.

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.

Why blabber so much on a topic if you did recognize its a tangent off the original discussion?

Are you not derailing it incessantly?

 

[Test7]

Is that a threat from you? On your role as a moderator or a regular member?

Could admin @Webslave or moderators @Test7 @Cabatli_53 @Sinan help me understand this?

Is that a threat from a moderator to fall in line?

I eagerly await your response.

Hi @ekemenirtu ;

DefenceHub is committed to being able to write your opinions freely as long as you follow the forum rules.

Regards..

 

[Jackdaws]

Interesting perspectives.

East Pakistan was no more after 1971. Therefore, it is fair to say "Pakistan fighting so far away from home" was meaningless. In retrospect, of course.

At that time, their political and military leaders and elites certainly did not think so. After their loss, there really has been no other way of comforting themselves.

It would be interesting to read the Indian perspective of British rule and how the British essentially created modern day India. I am certain there are plenty of Indians who can do a good job with that.

Of course, as mentioned - British India is something that deserves its own thread. From the Battle of Plassey to Independent India - from the building of robust institutions and railways to exploitation of rural India to basically feed the industrial revolution. It would be a heck of a thread.

 

[Mis_TR_Like]

Is that a threat from you? On your role as a moderator or a regular member?

Could admin @Webslave or moderators @Test7 @Cabatli_53 @Sinan help me understand this?

Is that a threat from a moderator to fall in line?

I eagerly await your response.

This is precisely why we have moderators which are in control of their own nation's section. Particularly when it comes to Bangladesh, India and Pakistan's complicated relations. As an international forum we cannot pick sides, even if we wish to. You can think of each nation's section as its safe zone. For instance if Indian's, Pakistani's an Bangladeshi's all opened up a thread about the same topic, but in their own sections, naturally each thread will be biased in favour of the nation who's section it is featured on. This is not only because of the users, but also because it is moderated by someone who is from that nation.

Now in regards to what Nilgiri said, I don't think it's a threat. Though it is quite hard to decipher, so I can understand if you consider it a threat to fall in line. I can not definitively say that it breaks any rules. Maybe I am wrong, we'll see what the other moderators/admins think.

Again, this brings me back to the topic of nation mods. This is why it is such an important aspect of Defence Hub. As stated earlier, we cannot pick sides. As a Turk I cannot side with a brotherly nation like Bangladesh, even if I wanted to. Instead, we give each nation the power to control its own section. It's not perfect, but it as close to perfect as it can get. Of course this all needs to be within reason and in accordance with the forum's rules. We cannot allow moderators to abuse their power and bully members of other nations.

I think as a whole Nilgiri has been fair. For such a heated topic, he has handled it quite well. You are free to express yourself here as you like, as Test7 stated you can write your opinions freely as long as you follow the forum rules.

 

[ekemenirtu]

Hi @ekemenirtu ;

DefenceHub is committed to being able to write your opinions freely as long as you follow the forum rules.

Regards..

Thank you brother @Test7.

Does that mean moderator @Nilgiri 's comment should not be seen as a valid threat?

Regards.

 

[ekemenirtu]

This is precisely why we have moderators which are in control of their own nation's section. Particularly when it comes to Bangladesh, India and Pakistan's complicated relations. As an international forum we cannot pick sides, even if we wish to. You can think of each nation's section as its safe zone. For instance if Indian's, Pakistani's an Bangladeshi's all opened up a thread about the same topic, but in their own sections, naturally each thread will be biased in favour of the nation who's section it is featured on. This is not only because of the users, but also because it is moderated by someone who is from that nation.

Now in regards to what Nilgiri said, I don't think it's a threat. Though it is quite hard to decipher, so I can understand if you consider it a threat to fall in line. I can not definitively say that it breaks any rules. Maybe I am wrong, we'll see what the other moderators/admins think.

Again, this brings me back to the topic of nation mods. This is why it is such an important aspect of Defence Hub. As stated earlier, we cannot pick sides. As a Turk I cannot side with a brotherly nation like Bangladesh, even if I wanted to. Instead, we give each nation the power to control its own section. It's not perfect, but it as close to perfect as it can get. Of course this all needs to be within reason and in accordance with the forum's rules. We cannot allow moderators to abuse their power and bully members of other nations.

I think as a whole Nilgiri has been fair.

Wonderfully explained and very well handled.

It is a clearly delicate issue, I understand that.

Kudos to you and your team members @Test7 and every other moderator for their hard work and dedication.