1971 War - The Untold Story - EXPOSING Propanganda and the telling the truth

[Md Akmal]

---

---

Especially when YOU are the one hatching and planning the wars- 1965, 1971, 1948, they were the ones who started it. If they were so concerned about Bangali welfare, WHy didn't they postpone their agenda to focus upon their wellbeing first. Na, that's irrelevant.

@ Tell me the truth out of 527 or more Princely States how many India occupied ? All most all except few.

@ In 1948, once Indian intelligence were planning to annex Kashmir, poor Jinnah was only organising some tribal people(Pathans) to send them to Kashmir. As because Pakistan Army was not in Jinnah's hand. It was commanded by the British General. So you cannot say the Pakistan started the war.

@ Yes about the 1965 war, it was started by Pakistan as they thought they have became something formidable.

@ About the 1971 war, no! no! it was India from the very begining. Pakistan just fired back without any out put. Rather Pakistan was forced to attack India. But Pakistan did not realised that 30/40 % of Pakistan's defence forces had an Bengalee elements. So Pakistan Navy and PAF was crippled. To tell you thruth, Pakistan was defeated both politically and militarically. Politically they(Pakistan) were no match with Indians.
Woo ! Abir has come on the screen,"Ami ekhon jai".

[IND151]

by Md Akmal

Originally Posted by IND151
22 years is not small period.

@ "hissa tu barabar nehi hua tha na, sab kuch tu ap logone leylia tha, samjhe janab".

@ "Itna bara karke likh ka aur ek line me jawab ?"

didn't Pakistan get fertile land of Punjab and jute farms when she got independence? stop pretending that India took every thing you got nothing.

[Md Akmal]

didn't Pakistan get fertile land of Punjab and jute farms when she got independence? stop pretending that India took every thing you got nothing.

@ Now, forget about Pakistan. After our independance whatever we got and accommodated for the last 25 years, your Army took (steal) everything. "Sab kuch lekar chale gai aur ham dhekte hi rahe gai, ye chori chori khel aur ketne din tak khelenge".

" Chalu ab ham akh macholee khele, India, Pakistan and Bangladesh".

[Areesh]

Lol!! I've frequently felt mods think of themselves as dictators rather than policy managers. At least Taimi is ok wrt...there is this other mod with agnostic tendencies who keeps shutting down 1971 threads because it's a 'terrorist act' & what not. Sad to see that ppl are not interested in exchange of views but fantasy revenge.

Dictators or policy managers. This isn't a thread to discuss it. It is the policy of this thread that terrorist organizations can't be supported or sympathised on this forum. Same goes with the Mukti Bahni too. So leave pathetic discussion about Taimi or other mods and discuss the topic at hand.

[Guynextdoor]

@ Tell me the truth out of 527 or more Princely States how many India occupied ? All most all except few.

@ In 1948, once Indian intelligence were planning to annex Kashmir, poor Jinnah was only organising some tribal people(Pathans) to send them to Kashmir. As because Pakistan Army was not in Jinnah's hand. It was commanded by the British General. So you cannot say the Pakistan started the war.

@ Yes about the 1965 war, it was started by Pakistan as they thought they have became something formidable.

@ About the 1971 war, no! no! it was India from the very begining. Pakistan just fired back without any out put. Rather Pakistan was forced to attack India. But Pakistan did not realised that 30/40 % of Pakistan's defence forces had an Bengalee elements. So Pakistan Navy and PAF was crippled. To tell you thruth, Pakistan was defeated both politically and militarically. Politically they(Pakistan) were no match with Indians.
Woo ! Abir has come on the screen,"Ami ekhon jai".

There is nothing to 'hide'. It's all there in the history books.When the British decided to leave, mountbatten had first proposed a plan to take a three way view- Congress, Muslim League and Independence for those who didn't want either. It was Congress & Nehru who put the foot down and said there can only be two ways- Pakistan or India no more pesky inependent principalities. The country would be one and government demoratic. Many gave in immedeatly, some (like the house of patiala) adapted and got voted into power as legitimate representatives of the people and those that held out (Hyderabad etc.) were appropriately invaded. By the point of british departure, historical rights for rulers were of no consequence, the COngress alone had become the true representatives of the Indian ppl- the League staked claims for sections of mulims. The rulers were asked to leave.[COLOR="Silver"]

---------- Post added at 09:16 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:15 PM ----------

P.S- You need a good history book dude. Stuff you've written on 165, 71 etc. are quite hilarious

[Md Akmal]

There is nothing to 'hide'. It's all there in the history books.When the British decided to leave, mountbatten had first proposed a plan to take a three way view- Congress, Muslim League and Independence for those who didn't want either. It was Congress & Nehru who put the foot down and said there can only be two ways- Pakistan or India no more pesky inependent principalities. The country would be one and government demoratic. Many gave in immedeatly, some (like the house of patiala) adapted and got voted into power as legitimate representatives of the people and those that held out (Hyderabad etc.) were appropriately invaded. By the point of british departure, historical rights for rulers were of no consequence, the COngress alone had become the true representatives of the Indian ppl- the League staked claims for sections of mulims. The rulers were asked to leave.[COLOR="Silver"]

---------- Post added at 09:16 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:15 PM ----------

P.S- You need a good history book dude. Stuff you've written on 165, 71 etc. are quite hilarious

@ What Nehru and Jinnah said it hardly matters to us. We all should remember the Indian Sub-continent was divided on the basis of mandate of 1946 election. About the Princely states it was clearly written on the "Indian Independance Act of !947",

Princely States of India: there were a total of 562 princely states in India. Mountbatten in his press conference on 4 June 1947 gave the framework on their fate:

1. Indian States were independent in treaty relations with Britain
2. On 15 August 1947 the paramountancy of British Crown was to lapse
3. Consequently the princely states would assume independent status
4. The states would be free to choose one or other constituent assembly

Ten states signed instrument of accession with Pakistan: Amb, Bahawalpur, Chitral, Dir, Kalat, Khairpur, Kharan, Lasbela, Makran, and Swat.[5]

@ As per your version once British left now the Congress to decide everything about the Princely States. So one by one you invaded and annexed it and than gave a referrendom/plebisite. Good ! good! So, might is right.

[Guynextdoor]

@ What Nehru and Jinnah said it hardly matters to us. We all should remember the Indian Sub-continent was divided on the basis of mandate of 1946 election. About the Princely states it was clearly written on the "Indian Independance Act of !947",

Princely States of India: there were a total of 562 princely states in India. Mountbatten in his press conference on 4 June 1947 gave the framework on their fate:
Indian States were independent in treaty relations with Britain
On 15 August 1947 the paramountancy of British Crown was to lapse
Consequently the princely states would assume independent status
The states would be free to choose one or other constituent assembly

Ten states signed instrument of accession with Pakistan: Amb, Bahawalpur, Chitral, Dir, Kalat, Khairpur, Kharan, Lasbela, Makran, and Swat.[5]

@ As per your version once British left now the Congress to decide everything about the Princely States. So one by one you invaded and annexed it and than gave a referrendom/plebisite. Good ! good! So, might is right.

There's something wrong in what you have stated/presented/ source.

Yes. Congress & Jinnah were the two powers in the subcontinent. The instrument of accesion was a formal surrender document. Mountbatten himself had urged the princes to join this oe other group (one of two) coz he couldn't force them & he wanted it sorted out peacefully after he left. Those who signed immedeately, were absorbed directly, those who did not were eventually incorporated.

[Guynextdoor]

@ What Nehru and Jinnah said it hardly matters to us. We all should remember the Indian Sub-continent was divided on the basis of mandate of 1946 election. About the Princely states it was clearly written on the "Indian Independance Act of !947",

Princely States of India: there were a total of 562 princely states in India. Mountbatten in his press conference on 4 June 1947 gave the framework on their fate:

1. Indian States were independent in treaty relations with Britain
2. On 15 August 1947 the paramountancy of British Crown was to lapse
3. Consequently the princely states would assume independent status
4. The states would be free to choose one or other constituent assembly

Ten states signed instrument of accession with Pakistan: Amb, Bahawalpur, Chitral, Dir, Kalat, Khairpur, Kharan, Lasbela, Makran, and Swat.[5]

@ As per your version once British left now the Congress to decide everything about the Princely States. So one by one you invaded and annexed it and than gave a referrendom/plebisite. Good ! good! So, might is right.

Now I get it....you are referring to the relations betwen england and princely states- of course that's true. But this is not what was discussed for the 'political arrangement between the GOI and princely states. Your reference is misleading.

[Md Akmal]

There's something wrong in what you have stated/presented/ source.

Yes. Congress & Jinnah were the two powers in the subcontinent. The instrument of accesion was a formal surrender document. Mountbatten himself had urged the princes to join this oe other group (one of two) coz he couldn't force them & he wanted it sorted out peacefully after he left. Those who signed immedeately, were absorbed directly, those who did not were eventually incorporated.

@ This was a part of Indian Independance Act of 1947 which was enacted by the British parliament and Royel assent was taken on 18 July 1947. So, it became a Bibble for everybody till the Constitution of Pakistan and India was made. They also had to follow the provision of Indian Act of 1935.

[KSRaj]

@ In 1948, once Indian intelligence were planning to annex Kashmir, poor Jinnah was only organising some tribal people(Pathans) to send them to Kashmir. As because Pakistan Army was not in Jinnah's hand. It was commanded by the British General. So you cannot say the Pakistan started the war.

Both Pakistani and Indian army were commanded by British Generals at that time, right?

So would you suggest that 1948 war was not between India and Pakistan but rather between 2 British regiments?

[Guynextdoor]

^^^ again, all that your text specifies is, what would be the relationship between british crown and states in the subcontinent and the lapsing of the paramountcy. It doesn't talk about political arrangements between the states. What does Poin4 mean...not clear.

[Md Akmal]

^^^ again, all that your text specifies is, what would be the relationship between british crown and states in the subcontinent and the lapsing of the paramountcy. It doesn't talk about political arrangements between the states. What does Poin4 mean...not clear.

@ Point 3 means they are now independence state like India and Pakistan, they can remain as independant state also like Hydrabad.

@ Point 4 means they can also either to join Pakistan or India which ever they feel like.

[Guynextdoor]

^^^ na na. There is a disconnect and this one is coming out of context. The day mountbatten called the princes, he urged the princes or their representatives to join one or the other side. In face he was very irritated with the attitude of some of the princes. Even though their political future was at stake, they had gone off sight seeing in paris and were asking questions about their dogs etc. So he even asked their representatives to take the message back to the pricnes. Of corse he could no longer dictate as he was on his way out. Some held out....them we took care of. Those who saw reason were accomodated reasonably, the others we invaded.

[Guynextdoor]

^^^ there is no need for us to justify why we booted them out.They had lost all legitimacy and the Indian people had decided to throw out any historic right they may claim on them. So we washed out the old and wasted systems and replaced it with a progressive democratic government.

[iajdani]

---

---

@ Realizing their sentiments, Ayub Khan attached great importance to Bengalis’ problems. He tried to take drastic steps to develop national cohesion.

@ He instituted inter-wing scholarships, and inter-wing postings of the civil officers and exchange of students were made compulsory. He was so serious about the problem that he included the provision regarding the removal of inter-regional disparity in the constitution, and thus made it a constitutional responsibility of the government to remove disparity (Article 145(4) of the 1962 Constitution). With his efforts, subsequent revisions and expansion of the 2nd

@ 5 Year Plan, the eastern province become the principal object of development expenditure. To quicken the pace of development in East Pakistan, the 3rd Five Year Plan earmarked Rs. 1600 crore to be spent in East Pakistan in public sector and Rs. 1400 crore in West Pakistan.

@ This was also estimated that the proposed development expenditure may lead to an increase of 40% in the regional income of East Pakistan compared with 35% in West Pakistan.

@ People of East Pakistan were also demanding parity in the Civil Services and Armed Forces. In 1964, there were only 2 Bengali officers who held the rank of acting secretaries. Whereas in 1965 there was only one Major General from East Pakistan out of 17 Generals in 1965.

@ Thus to remove the disparity, government introduced quota system, and 40% seats, apart from 20%, allotted to merit, were reserved for East Pakistan. From 1967 onwards, Ayub Khan abolished quota reserved for merit and allocated these 20% seats to East Pakistan. Thus East Pakistan virtually got 60% of the total vacancies. But, unfortunately, it did not satisfy the Bengalis.

@ As regards the Armed Forces, at the time of partition, East Pakistanis formed only 1% of the total strength of the Armed Forces. The result of Ayub Khan’s policies rose the number of East Pakistanis by about 100% in the army and 30% of the total strength of Navy and the Air Force. Although Bengalis were creating disturbance due to disparity, they themselves, were not serious in joining Armed Forces. The Cadet School, established in Dacca in 1952, had to be closed, because 15 students came to join it.

@ The war of 1965 had a deep impact on East Pakistan. During the war, the East Pakistanis felt isolated and insecure. As Indian agents were active and openly indulged in anti-state activities, they did not open front on that border. Bhutto’s statements further aggravated the sense of insecurity as Foreign Minister in the National Assembly saying that East Pakistan was saved by China during the war. It proved fuel to the fire for the secessionist movement. Sheikh Mujeeb was having very close contact with Indian agencies. Even according to Bhutto, ‘during 1965, the Governor of East Pakistan Mr. Momen Khan, summoned the leaders of East Pakistan to seek their co-operation for the war effort. After the war, in his report to President Ayub Khan, Mr. Momen Khan claimed that in this meeting Mujibur Rehman advised Momen Khan to declare himself the President of an independent Bengal and break away from West Pakistan.’

I did not read all your whining as I had to go back and counter claim most of your numbers...

Here is the demand of E. Pakistan not everything Ayub did or will do. And I see its fair enough as nobody needs nobody but East takes care of east and west takes care of west and we all are happy.


1.The constitution should provide for a Federation of Pakistan in its true sense on the Lahore Resolution and the parliamentary form of government with supremacy of a Legislature directly elected on the basis of universal adult franchise.

2. The federal government should deal with only two subjects : Defence and Foreign Affairs, and all other residuary subjects shall be vested in the federating states.

3. Two separate, but freely convertible currencies for two wings should be introduced ; or if this is not feasible, there should be one currency for the whole country, but effective constitutional provisions should be introduced to stop the flight of capital from East to West Pakistan. Furthermore, a separate Banking Reserve should be established and separate fiscal and monetary policy be adopted for East Pakistan.

4. The power of taxation and revenue collection shall be vested in the federating units and the federal centre will have no such power. The federation will be entitled to a share in the state taxes to meet its expenditures.

5. There should be two separate accounts for the foreign exchange earnings of the two wings ; the foreign exchange requirements of the federal government should be met by the two wings equally or in a ratio to be fixed; indigenous products should move free of duty between the two wings, and the constitution should empower the units to establish trade links with foreign countries.

6. East Pakistan should have a separate militia or paramilitary force.



Did you see anything in these demand where East wanted anything from West????