An insurgency swells, but Pakistan focuses on India

[gubbi]

Originally Posted by AgNoStIc MuSliM

That is not true - the thread I referenced clearly indicates that India was involved prior to 1971 in supporting separatist sentiment. This wasn't just a case of 'intelligence being active in the other nation'.

The support for terrorists and separatists kicked into high gear after the events in 1971.

The underlined part does not answer the questions raised since the Ambassador of India (first quote) can hardly be expected to accept that his nation is looking to break apart another nation and support terrorists in it.

In the second quote, the alleged future impact upon India from long term military control was nothing but speculation on the part of the Indian government. Did they approach Pakistan to resolve these concerns? Did they decide to scale back their cover support for separatists and terrorists in EP? No.

Instead they chose to exacerbate the situation by increasing support for terrorists and separatists. If India was really concerned about the impact from the vents in EP, it should not have interfered in the first place. I would therefore point out that these quotes are nothing but obfuscation of the Indian intent to break apart Pakistan.

Kashmir was not a 'Sovereign Kingdom'- I do not believe it had the option to become independent, it had to accede to either India or Pakistan. And how was Pakistani support for the Kashmir rebellion against the Maharajah different from the Indian military aggression and occupation of the princely states of Junagadh and Hyderabad?

The truth is not 'hurting' me, it is eluding you, in that even now, with so much written about the events in FATA and the underlying dynamics, you still have no understanding about them. There is no separatist insurgency in FATA, it is a religious movement out to control all of Pakistan and Afghanistan (and likely unite them if it succeeds).

And the Baluchistan insurgency has never gone beyond stuttering or gained mass appeal in Baluchistan. Were it any greater then Baluchistan would look like FATA or EP in 1971. So no, IG's comments do not ring true except for Indians with blinders on, and yes, they are indicative of a hateful mindset bent upon destroying Pakistan and not-accepting it.

There is another quote of IG's (ill see if I can dig it up) where she says something along the lines of, 'the Indian leadership will never accept the existence of Pakistan'.
I don't care what you think of her domestic politics, but the fact is that as part of her foreign policy she supported terrorists and insurgents in another nation's sovereign territory, and she spouted hate towards another nation.

Expressing hate and being a warmonger should not be a reason for respect, otherwise we all should respect Hitler!

No, only in 1971 and 1984.

That is an Indian viewpoint and subjective, not objective or a fact. And essentailly what that means is you support any state doing whatever is necessary to protect its own national interests, no matter how. If you find it acceptable that IG supported terrorism in EP, why complain when you have terrorist attacks in Mumbai or elsewhere? The Naga's for example? Is everything 'par for the course' then?

Again - you have the choice to reject IG's warmongering and support for terrorism, but then Indians need to drop the canard about being 'peace loving' or accepting of Pakistan's existence.

What you have essentially said is that India is within her rights to support terrorism in Pakistan today (which most Pakistanis suspect and our IM confirmed) and to break it apart and therefore is not reconciled to Pakistan's existence - all in the pursuit of her interests.

yada yada yada yada yada...Rant rant..
Your word against ours and the rest of the worlds' on the world stage! Don't give too much credibility to RAW. On one hand you "praise" RAW for their actions in '71 and Afghanistan and unrest in Pakistan, and on the other hand you term them as incompetent regarding collecting intelligence on terrorist attacks in India. What exactly is it now?
The thread you gave links to just spews what some people think RAW did. No concrete evidence is presented and yet you claim that it "clearly indicates Indian involvement in EP" prior to '71? Wow.
And above all YOU label all Indians as hate mongers and not accepting Pakistan's existence. Comparing us to Hitler and Nazi Germany. Kudos AM. Nice, I guess its ok for you to break forum rules, right?
Let me say this again, IF it is in India's interest for Pakistan not to exist or fragment, we will give you more than enough reasons to complain. You very well know we have the means to do anything we please, if it wasnt for our good international relations. But it isnt so and it never will be! India and Indians have accepted Pakistan (EP was a totally different case, anyway you could not have kept it together - incompetence?).
'71 you lost it due to your incompetence, don't blame us. Like you took advantage of Kashmir in '48 and 65 we did too in EP. Period. Accept the reality. Again in '84, there was no violation of Shimla agreement - check my previous post. It was a race to the top and we won, again. Accept it.
Kashmir is NOT a disputed territory, its an integral part of India (you just said kashmir did not have an option for independence, so it makes it very clear). You consider it as a disputed territory because you want to grab it. Simple. It again your problem, not ours. We WONT let you grab it. Simple.
Where is hate mongering in all this? Its straight geopolitics for us. Now compare that to the general mood in Pakistan regarding India.

Seriously mate, take a real good look at yourself and around you to see what's going on. Many good men are dying at the hands of the very monsters YOU created and yet you don't want to accept the reality and keep accusing others. You are paying a price to remain blind and not accepting reality. It remains to be seen how long can one carry on this charade.
It wont make any difference to us, its you who is and are going to suffer.

[gubbi]

Originally Posted by Developereo

I have a Machiavellian view of international politics. India, like all countries, will exploit her enemies' weaknesses and do her dirty tricks, and there is no point in expecting good behavior or apologies. Pakistan should focus on building strong domestic institutions that are resistent to Indian manipulation. This, again, comes down to good governance and forging a strong sense of national unity.

I seriously hope you can achieve that.

Kashmir was disputed territory. In any case, just because you can't help everybody doesn't mean you shouldn't help somebody.

Kashmir aint no disputed territory. Pakistan considers it disputed territory. We dont, its an integral part of India. We wont let Pakistan grab it, and when time comes or an opportunity presents itself, we will take back whatever is not yet in our control. Period.

Pakistan provides support to Kashmiri freedom fighters who ask for our help. This is no different from India helping the Bangladeshi rebels in the leadup to 1971.

Excuses and justification for killing thousands of innocent Indian Kashmiri civilians? Tch tch....

NATO/ISAF are facing problems in Aghanistan because, for eight years, they have been sitting on their *** instead of fighting the Taliban. They will eventually adopt the same strategy for success that worked in Iraq, i.e. paying off their enemies not to fight them any more.

Oh yes, what a pity those poor NATO forces cannot fight. They just make peace treaties with tallybs and let them take over control of large swaths of lands and then let them kill NATO soldiers for target practice.

Conventional wars are carried out by regular armies not irregulars.

And yet every conflict was started by pushing 'irregulars' into Indian territory. Regular army doesnt have big enough balls or what?

Glad you acknowledged India's actions. Some of your compatriots are still mired in denial and can't bring themsleves to accept these skeletons' existence.

There are many like minded Indians who think alike. Now show me how many Pakistanis accept reality or their mistakes past.

I have to admit I got that one from one of your compatriots bragging in another thread.
India bringing Maldives into its security net
Lanka is 100% dependent on India in terms of Oil.

I asked about sources where SL wants to relinquish relations with India for those with Pakistan and China!
Seriously, India would be concerned about SL and install radars in Maldives to monitor SL?

Already discussed ad nauseum, including LTTE, "Santi bahini", BLA, etc.
Indian Pursuing Terror for Hegemonic Ambition

AFAIK, India was the first country to declare LTTE as terrorists, even before SL. As to your BLA, show us the evidence, or didnt happen.

As stated already, Western media gives India a pass, so the only sources left are the countries themselves.

And thats because we show evidence to back up our claims, instead of just hot air!

An apropos question for the 400,000 Indian thugs who have been terrorizing, raping and killing Kashmiri civilains for decades. I guess the Indian thugs in Kashmir are only good at raping and killing unarmed Kashmiri civilians.

Stop ranting, it makes you look really sad. Few untoward incidents don't define a security force. Things happen, now move on. You give them guns, we kill those who wield guns against the State of India. Period.

Now now, no need to get so worked up and use foul language.
We understand you guys want to rewrite Kargil, seeing as Pakistan opened a can of whoop-*** on the not-so-mighty Indian army and you guys had to run along and beg the Israelis to come in and save the day.

Shows how much you know about how things work. No more comments. And our soldiers cried (with joy i.e.) all the way to the top of those peaks - vacated by sh!tscared militants!

AM has already covered that in his posts. And there have been a number of threads about this topic. As stated elsewhere, Pakistani proof is being ignored by the West due to their current pro-India agenda.

So where was their support when Pakistan was the favorite in the White House? And that was till '99 wasnt it? Why didnt they listen to you then?

India’s illegal occupation of independent Sikkim has to be reversed
Better put on that hat of yours and start warming up the scones.

Sikkim is a state in India. What does Pakistan have to do with that? None of your business. We did what we did. So what?

They are pragmatic enough not to piss off a bully. Instead they chose to expand their ties with the bully's rivals.

Whatever Pakistan did or didn't do in East Pakistan/Bangladesh is not a validation for India's subversion and terrorism in the region.

Exactly, what Indian forces do in Kashmir should not be any of your concern. Mind your own business in NWFP/ SW, Baluchistan etc.

That was a typical hatchet job by Indian media on the original article.
COAS urges Mehsuds to stand up against militants

Answering a question about the Indian hand in South Waziristan, Athar Abbas said that some Indian weapons had also been captured but no truckload of Indian weapons was found which could provide any concrete evidence. However, he said, some hostile agencies were providing financial and material assistance to miscreants in South Waziristan.

Ok, we will accept if we see those weapons presented to the media by your security forces. Got any pics?

My feet are planted firmly on the ground.

Lol, lead boots?

[irfan1173]

Originally Posted by AgNoStIc MuSliM

I am unfamiliar with that - I though it was the Chinese who were, and by some accounts still are, involved in Eastern India.

AoA

AM
Its mentioned in Hamoodur Rahman Commission Report. Freedom fighters from NE India were trained in East Pakistan through out the 60's.They received help even from the Chinese in term of weapons.

That's why I say no point in blaming India for 71 breakup.They interfered in our internal affairs the same way we did in NE India.

[AgNoStIc MuSliM]

Kissinger to Bhutto:



"I myself heard her say that the NWFP really belongs to India, and there is no way to get to them except through the Punjab."

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/...;202-26-76.pdf

Page 27 of the above document.

And the quote I mentioned earlier, "Indira Gandhi at a public meeting on Nov, 30, 1970 observed, “India has never reconciled with the existence of Pakistan, Indian leaders always believed that Pakistan should not have been created and that Pakistan nation has no right exist”.

I believe that along with the other quotes of IG clearly show her true nature, and I personally do not see how Indians can argue intentions of 'peace with, and acceptance of, Pakistan' while also supporting that shrew's views and policies towards Pakistan.

[AgNoStIc MuSliM]

Originally Posted by irfan1173

AoA

AM
Its mentioned in Hamoodur Rahman Commission Report. Freedom fighters from NE India were trained in East Pakistan through out the 60's.They received help even from the Chinese in term of weapons.

That's why I say no point in blaming India for 71 breakup.They interfered in our internal affairs the same way we did in NE India.

Would you mind referring me to the relevant section please. I perused through the version posted online, but could not find the reference you mentioned, though I was reminded of other material that I'll re-post here or elsewhere related to the level of atrocities.

But if so, then yes, that does change the context of the Indian intervention, and my position on an 'apology' for that intervention.

I would then retract from that position, though I would still insist on Indians denoucning IG's views as mentioned.

[AgNoStIc MuSliM]

Originally Posted by gubbi

yada yada yada yada yada...Rant rant..
Your word against ours and the rest of the worlds' on the world stage! Don't give too much credibility to RAW. On one hand you "praise" RAW for their actions in '71 and Afghanistan and unrest in Pakistan, and on the other hand you term them as incompetent regarding collecting intelligence on terrorist attacks in India. What exactly is it now?

When did I say RAW was incompetent, and isn't RAW an intelligence agency focused on external affairs? Your argument makes no sense in any case, because then one could argue how the ISI was able to covertly support the Mujahideen and Taliban, yet find it so hard to crack down on terrorists at home.

As for the 'evidence' - both Indian and Pakistani analysts (some retired officials with intimate knowledge of the intelligence operations) are pointing out that Indian intelligence was actively fomenting separatism in EP in the sixties. What else would you like? It is a historical event, and evidence will be along the lines of what it is currently.

The thread you gave links to just spews what some people think RAW did. No concrete evidence is presented and yet you claim that it "clearly indicates Indian involvement in EP" prior to '71? Wow.
And above all YOU label all Indians as hate mongers and not accepting Pakistan's existence. Comparing us to Hitler and Nazi Germany. Kudos AM. Nice, I guess its ok for you to break forum rules, right?

Strawman and dissemblance again - I was quite clear that I was referring to those who refused to denounce Indira Gandhi for her views about Pakistan and her foreign policy WRT Pakistan, and not 'all Indians'. Read properly before accusing someone.

Let me say this again, IF it is in India's interest for Pakistan not to exist or fragment, we will give you more than enough reasons to complain. You very well know we have the means to do anything we please, if it wasnt for our good international relations. But it isnt so and it never will be! India and Indians have accepted Pakistan (EP was a totally different case, anyway you could not have kept it together - incompetence?).

Again, stop bandying around school yard threats - no one is impressed except yourself and other Indians with inflated egos and swollen heads. You cannot do more than EP because the conditions that caused EP, civilian and military, were unique to that time.

'71 you lost it due to your incompetence, don't blame us. Like you took advantage of Kashmir in '48 and 65 we did too in EP. Period. Accept the reality. Again in '84, there was no violation of Shimla agreement - check my previous post. It was a race to the top and we won, again. Accept it.

Hogwash - Pakistan did nothing different in 1947 than what India did in Junagadh and Hyderabad, and 65 WAS in disputed territory, accepted by India and the international community in the UNSC, and a result of India's decision to violate her commitment to a plebiscite and unilaterally and illegally annex J&K.

And as I have repeatedly pointed out, Pakistan's poor domestic policies are one thing, another nation exploiting them, exacerbating them and supporting terrorism in Pakistan are another.

Now that Pakistan is combating insurgencies in FATA and Baluchistan, your logic would dictate that India can come up with another speculative scenario where she invents a 'threat to her national interests and security' (as in EP) and proceeds to intervene in Pakistan!

Kashmir is NOT a disputed territory, its an integral part of India (you just said kashmir did not have an option for independence, so it makes it very clear). You consider it as a disputed territory because you want to grab it. Simple. It again your problem, not ours. We WONT let you grab it. Simple.

Yes, and perhaps someday you can claim California as well - no one aside from India considers J&K Indian territory. It is considered disputed since the UNSC resolutions declared it so with India and Pakistan agreeing. The status does not change just because India wants it to, and the UNSC resolutions are only made irrelevant with new resolutions, or if the dispute is settled between the nations party to it.

Where is hate mongering in all this? Its straight geopolitics for us. Now compare that to the general mood in Pakistan regarding India.

Supporting a leader that made the statements IG did, supported terror and separatism in Pakistan with a view to break it apart, and made statements refusing to accept Pakistan is implicitly endorsing that leader's 'hate-mongering'.

And if any action can be explained under 'geo-politics' and national interests, then why criticize Hitler? There must be limits surely!

And the opinions in Pakistan about India are largely similar to those in India about Pakistan, in fact slightly more negative in India towards Pakistan - there is a thread on that here too. So what exactly do you want me to know about the 'mood' in Pakistan?

Seriously mate, take a real good look at yourself and around you to see what's going on. Many good men are dying at the hands of the very monsters YOU created and yet you don't want to accept the reality and keep accusing others. You are paying a price to remain blind and not accepting reality. It remains to be seen how long can one carry on this charade.
It wont make any difference to us, its you who is and are going to suffer.

Fighting the Taliban insurgency does not mean we become blind to India's intentions, nor does remaining vigilant against a nation that eulogizes a hate-mongering leader mean we cannot fight the Taliban threat. States need to be able to address multiple threats simultaneously, and we are, for now, doing that.

Thanks for your concern, but it's rather self-serving.

[praveen]

I am unfamiliar with the sources that allow you to claim that PA generals were dreaming about 'Lunch at the red fort' as late as 1998. And as for Ayub's alleged comments, how is that different than the Indian Generals calling for 'Breakfast in Lahore'?

Well thats what a Military official told me about the Pakistani generals thought processes

how is that different than the Indian Generals calling for 'Breakfast in Lahore'?

Extremely plausible since Lahore is only 13 km from indian border.If they said Islamabad,Karachi or Peshawar I would consider it as hot air

That comment ignores the issue I raised - Pakistan's domestic policies are her business - poor domestic policies do not justify external intervention by another nation. They are two different issues.

Domestic policies or not you gave the opening AM.We were not rich to feed the endless stream of refugees pouring into indian borders.And break up of Pakistan was never the intention of the Indian Army.Here is an interview of Lt general JFK Jacob

Taking Dhaka did not figure in Manekshaw’s plans: General Jacob

In CNBC’s ‘India Tonight’ programme broadcast on April 30, Karan Thapar presented an interview with Lieutenant-General J.F.R. Jacob, who was Chief of Staff of the Indian Army’s Eastern Command during the Bangladesh campaign of 1971, and who was after his retirement Governor of Goa and Governor of Punjab, in the context of the Government’s decision to give Field Marshal S.H.F.J. Manekshaw back pay for the period since his retirement from service over 36 years ago. There is a particular focus here on his role, as well as General Jacob’s role, in the Bangladesh campaign. This is an edited but substantially intact version of the transcript provided by CNBC:



Karan Thapar: Recently the Government gave Field Marshal Manekshaw a cheque for Rs. 1.6 crore in lieu of the salary he should have received as Field Marshal but didn’t get over the last 36 years. You have worked very closely with him. In 1971 when he was made Field Marshal, was he treated fairly or shabbily?

General Jacob: I think the Government was less than generous. He went out on a pension of Rs. 1,300 — that was Rs. 100 more than [that of] the Chief [of the Army Staff]. And no perks whatsoever, no car, nothing.

Karan: You met him a few days after his retirement. You called on him at the MES Inspection Bungalow. How did you find him?

Gen. Jacob: I found him sitting there dejected and looking very lonely. I asked him what the problem was, and he told me he had just returned after meeting Mrs. Gandhi and that he had asked to be made Deputy Chairman of the Planning Commission, which she declined. Instead she offered him the high commissionership in one of the Commonwealth countries, and he was very upset.

Karan: He was upset at being refused the Deputy Chairmanship. Did he explain why he wanted the Deputy Chairmanship?

Gen. Jacob: No, he didn’t explain it. But I pre-assume that he thought he would be able to do it. It’s an important job.

Karan: And it was the job he had set his heart on.

Gen. Jacob: Yes.

Karan: In fact, when Manekshaw visited Calcutta after retirement — by then you were the Army Commander in Calcutta — he didn’t even have a car and you put one at his disposal. But Jagjivan Ram, Defence Minister, ticked you off for that.

Gen. Jacob: Yes, he did. He said, why [are] you giving him a car he is not authorised [to use] as a Field Marshal? So I told him, look I am not giving him a car because he is Field Marshal; this is a courtesy I extend to all ex-Army Commanders of the Eastern Command.

Karan: But the Defence Minister of the day didn’t like the idea?

Gen. Jacob: No.

Karan: Your association with Manekshaw goes back to 1950 when he was a Brigadier and DMO [Director of Military Operations] and you were a Major attached to General Staff in Delhi. He used to consult you a lot in those days, didn’t he?

Gen. Jacob: Yes, I used to go fairly often to his house. He was generous and hospitable to me and he used to discuss matters with me. You see, Sam unfortunately had a very short experience of war. He was wounded in the early stages of war; unfortunately he was not able to command a battalion, so he used to call me in for discussions.

Karan: So in a sense he had a short experience of war and he never commanded a battalion in his entire career.

Gen. Jacob: That’s correct.

Karan: Which meant those were little bits of disadvantages for him as a DMO. In contrast, you had done full five years in the Second World War, he needed your advice.

Gen. Jacob: Well, I don’t know [if] he needed [it] or not, but he used to ask for it.

Karan: In an interview in 1999, Manekshaw told me that he won a Military Cross almost at the beginning of the Second World War; a certain General Cowan took the unusual step of pinning the medal on him on the battlefield itself.

Gen. Jacob: Well, I don’t know about that: no one wears medals at war. But Sam deserved it: he was courageous and got an active gallantry [award]. But the question of anyone pinning on a medal… no one wears medals in war. I think it is Sam’s over-exuberance.

Karan: That’s a bit of an exaggeration.

Gen. Jacob: Well, call that…

Karan: You next served with Manekshaw in 1961. He was at that time the Commandant of the Staff College at Wellington and you were a member of the teaching staff. At the time Manekshaw was accused of anti-national activities and a court of inquiry was appointed to investigate the matter. And you were asked to give evidence. Is that right?

Gen. Jacob: That’s correct, I was rung up by General Kaul, offered anything if I gave evidence. I refused to give evidence. It’s not my wont and my character to give evidence against my boss. I refused.

Karan: But were you, in refusing to give evidence, protecting Manekshaw?

Gen. Jacob: I consider that is not done for me to give evidence against my boss. Had I done so, it would have caused difficulties for Manekshaw.

Karan: Had you given evidence, you could have caused difficulties for Manekshaw?

Gen. Jacob: I said it could have caused.

Karan: In other words, you are saying had you given evidence, had you spoken about things you knew of — instead of being exonerated as Manekshaw was, he could have been found guilty?

Gen. Jacob: I don’t think so. All I can say is, he might have created some problem.

Karan: At the time, if I recall correctly, the speculation was that Manekshaw had the habit of talking loosely. People say that he would go around referring to Indians dismissively as natives and that in public frequently, sitting at Wellington Club, he would criticise politicians like V.K. Krishna Menon, or General Kaul. If I recall correctly, you were honorary secretary of the Wellington Club. Was there some credibility to these stories?

Gen. Jacob: I can’t comment on that.

Karan: You can’t comment?

Gen. Jacob: No.

Karan: But you won’t deny them either.

Gen. Jacob: I won’t comment.

Karan: That’s very significant. You won’t comment, but you won’t deny them.

Let’s come to the 1971 war, for which Manekshaw is best known. At that time you were Chief of Staff, Eastern Command. It is widely believed that Manekshaw stood up to pressure from politicians and as a result military action was delayed from April 1971 to December. But that’s not the real truth, is it?

Gen. Jacob: Well, put [it] this way, he did ring me three times in early April to move to Bangladesh. I refused, I gave him reasons.

Karan: He rang you three times wanting the Army to move to Bangladesh?

Gen. Jacob: I gave him reasons why we couldn’t move.

Karan: I will soon ask you what your reasons were, but he wasn’t happy with your refusal?

Gen. Jacob: No.

Karan: He got irritated?

Gen. Jacob: Yes.

Karan: Now, you refused to move in. What exactly were the reasons you gave Manekshaw?

Gen. Jacob: I told him, look, we are mountain divisions. We don’t have a single bridge. There are large numbers of rivers between us to cross. We don’t have transport. The monsoon is about to break. And international penal [action] will not let you move. So these are the reasons we cannot move. I told him: [I’m] afraid it’s not possible at this stage.

Karan: Two things: first of all, the reasons you had — and obviously they were good reasons — for not moving in April were reasons he had never thought of or appreciated as the Army chief.

Gen. Jacob: I can’t comment on what he thought.

Karan: But clearly that follows that he was pushing you to move in, he rung you three times, were irritated by your refusal.

Gen. Jacob: But his people in Delhi pushed him.

Karan: Secondly, you also pointed out to him that if the Army moved in April, it would have been disastrous?

Gen. Jacob: Yes, it would have been, because we [would have] got bogged down.

Karan: So the truth is, people say Manekshaw stood up to political pressure and delayed military action from April to December. The full truth is that he did this because the Eastern Command stood up to him on three separate occasions, otherwise he might have agreed to the pressure he was under.

Gen. Jacob: Yes, maybe after he got our advice he went to the Cabinet and told them ‘No.’

Karan: Let’s now come to the war plan under which India fought the war. As Chief of Staff, Eastern Command, you sent your version of the plan to Delhi in May. What was the strategy that plan was based upon?

Gen. Jacob: We assessed that to win a war we had to take Dhaka. Dhaka was the geo-strategic heart of East Pakistan. No campaign would have been complete without it.

Karan: So the core of your war plan was the taking of Dhaka?

Gen. Jacob: Yes.

Karan: In August, Manekshaw came to Calcutta where the Eastern Command has its headquarters, where you were Chief of Staff. He came with [his] own war plan. How different was that to yours?

Gen. Jacob: It was very, very different. The orders that come with him, which he read out with his DMO, K.K. Singh, were the following:

You will take Khulna and Chittagong — these are the entry points — and territory. Those were the orders given.

Karan: And no mention of Dhaka whatsoever.

Gen. Jacob: None whatsoever

Karan: So Dhaka didn’t feature in Manekshaw’s war plan at all?

Gen. Jacob: At all.

Karan: I gathered [that] at that meeting in Calcutta there was a sort of acrimonious exchange of opinions. You fairly forcefully pointed out to Manekshaw that not taking Dhaka, not focussing on Dhaka, was a serious mistake. How did he react to your views?

Gen. Jacob: He was very upset. He said, don’t you see sweetie — that term he uses when he doesn’t like something you say. He said, don’t you see if we take Khulna and Chittagong the war will be over? I said I didn’t see how that could happen.

Karan: At that point he turned to General Aurora, who was there and who was your boss and army commander. And what did he say to General Aurora?

Jacob: Don’t you agree? Yes sir, I entirely agree, said General Aurora.

Karan: At that moment of time, you were in a minority — General Manekshaw, General Aurora and DMO K.K. Singh were all in favour of the war plan which Manekshaw had brought, which concentrated on Khulna and Chittagong and completely ignored Dhaka. You were a lone voice demanding that the war plan should concentrate on Dhaka instead.

Gen. Jacob: Yes, Manekshaw has briefed the government accordingly and these are orders, which have been approved.

Karan: So the nub of this is that ultimately when India went to war in December, it went to war with a war plan which completely ignored Dhaka?

Gen. Jacob: The war plan that was given to us in writing was [one that concentrated on] Khulna and Chittagong.

Karan: In fact, Air Chief Marshal P.C. Lal, the [Air Force] chief of the time, writes in his book My Years With the IAF, that the Indian Army didn’t expect that Pakistani forces in East Pakistan would collapse and that Dhaka would fall. As Air Chief Marshal Lal writes: “The possibility that Pakistani forces in West Pakistan would collapse altogether as they did and that Dhaka would fall... was not considered something that was likely to happen.”

Gen. Jacob: That’s correct. That was the recommendation given to the Government by Manekshaw.

Karan: So General Manekshaw did not expect that East Pakistan would collapse and Dhaka would fall.

Gen. Jacob: Correct

Karan: Air Chief Marshal P.C Lal has also contradicted something else that the Field Marshal has repeatedly said of himself. Manekshaw always claimed that he ran the war single-handedly — clearly suggesting that the Navy and the Air Force took orders from him. Air Chief Marshal Lal writes: “The three services, the Army, the Navy and the Air Force, were left to plan their activities as they thought best.” Whose version is right: Manekshaw’s or Lal’s?

Gen. Jacob: Difficult. Lal is right.

Karan: Lal is right? You’re absolutely sure of that?

Gen. Jacob: Yes, sure.

Karan: There were also moments when Manekshaw’s behaviour upset and offended senior commanders. For instance, there is what happened on September 1971, when he flew to Calcutta with D.P Dhar. In front of him Dhar proceeded to scold senior generals... This was not only indiscreet and improper but could have affected camaraderie. They took that very badly.

Gen. Jacob: A meeting was there with the Army Commander, the Core Commander, the Divisional Commander, and Manekshaw started berating all of us.

Karan: And this had a bad effect on the Generals?

Gen. Jacob: It was resented deeply…

Karan: Therefore, at this critical moment of time, just two months before war began, this was very bad behaviour on the part of the Army chief?

Gen. Jacob: All I say is, people were surprised that Mr. D.P. Dhar, who is a politician and who was sitting close to the Prime Minister, was listening to it.

Karan: And the Army chief should not have scolded his senior Generals, whose services he critically required at that time, in this way?

Gen. Jacob: Well, I would have not done it.

Karan: Let’s jump to the weeks immediately before the military action in December. I’m talking about November. Manekshaw refused to give you troops to tackle Dhaka because he refused to make Dhaka a part of the war plan. You moved three brigades from the Chinese border for this purpose. What did he say when he found out?

Gen. Jacob: He was furious. And you see…I told…Gill who was the DMO…it was done between us… and [he] agreed with me to take Dhaka. Manekshaw was not informed of the move of these brigades and he was absolutely furious with Gill. He told him that he would… and that the brigades would move back at once.

Karan: But the brigades didn’t move back.

Gen. Jacob: I spoke to Gill and we had a long chat and I said I cannot move these brigades back.

Karan: So the brigades stayed where they were regardless of the fact that the Army chief was furious and wanted them to return.

Gen. Jacob: Gill did that…but…Gill made me promise since he was shouted at… I would not commit them inside Bangladesh without reference to them.

Karan: So you had access to them…should you need them…but you gave a commitment not to use them without further permission.

Gen. Jacob: I expected that I would be given permission once the war started… but permission was denied for five days… I requested every day for their deployment but they were not cleared to move in by Manekshaw until December 8.

Karan: So even when you needed these brigades he denied you permission for five full days. Had you got that permission five days earlier, could you have taken Dhaka five days earlier?

Gen. Jacob: We would not have taken Dhaka, but would have surely speeded up the fall of Dhaka.

Karan: So you could have speeded up the fall of Dhaka. You could have speeded up the war. But Gen. Manekshaw’s refusal to let you use these three brigades held things up.

Gen. Jacob: They did.

Karan: One other thing. Am I right in believing that when war began by December 2-3-4, the plan was to go for Khulna and Chittagong, but you ignored it and instead you went straight to Dhaka, which you always believed was the right thing to do?

Gen. Jacob: That’s correct.

Karan: Let’s jump the story to December 13. At that point in time, the Indian Army had bypassed towns like Rangpur, Dinajpur and Sylhet and had reached the gates of Dhaka. Which meant that you were virtually at the doorstep of the capital, but you had no major towns under your control except for Jessore and Comilla which the Pakistanis had evacuated and you had occupied. Is that a correct assessment of the position?

Gen. Jacob: Yes.

Karan: At this point in time, [there] was a great fear that India might be forced to accept a ceasefire and that if that happened [would be left] without major towns under its control?

Gen. Jacob: The U.N. was in session

Karan: The U.N. was in session, and if that had happened without any major town under its control the ceasefire would be very disadvantageous to India

Gen. Jacob: Entirely.

Karan: General Manekshaw sent you an order, copied to the Corps Commanders, asking you to capture all the bypassed towns. How did you respond to that order?

Gen. Jacob: Except Dhaka. Dhaka was not mentioned.

Karan: So he wanted all the towns that had been bypassed to be captured, but once again ignored Dhaka?

Gen. Jacob: No mention was made whatsoever. You can’t capture a town, it takes a long time… See what happened in Faluja. It takes time and it’s very heavy in casualties.

Karan: So you therefore ignored his orders?

Gen. Jacob: Well, there is an example in history. Horatio Nelson putting the telescope to his blind eye.

Karan: So you did the same thing.

Gen. Jacob: We did the same thing.

Karan: Now, in fact you went one step further… didn’t you? You also contacted a Corps Commander who had to copy to Signals what instructions you gave them?

Gen. Jacob: Ignore it.

Karan: You said, the Corps Commanders [may] ignore the Army chief’s signal. If you had agreed to what Manekshaw was asking and you had gone back to capture towns you had bypassed, there was the likelihood that you would have got bogged down.

Gen. Jacob: We would [have] completely [got] bogged down, we could not have captured the towns.

Karan: Secondly, … [had you] concentrated on the bypassed towns, you would have failed to take Dhaka.

Gen. Jacob: Absolutely right. [Had] we gone back, we couldn’t have taken Dhaka.

Karan: So had General Manekshaw’s signal of December 13 been accepted, that could have endangered India’s great victory?

Gen. Jacob: Well, I put it differently that it would have delayed the proceedings.

Karan: It would have delayed the proceedings… those proceedings, as you told me a moment ago, would anyway [have been] delayed because he denied you access to the three brigades. This order from Manekshaw was a bad order.

Let’s jump to December 15. General Niazi, the Pakistani Commander, sent a signal offering a ceasefire. More importantly, he had 30,000 soldiers under his command in Dhaka.

Gen. Jacob: Yes, about 30,000.

Karan: Whilst you only had 3,000 outside the city. So you were out-manned 10 to one.

Gen. Jacob: Yes.

Karan: In addition [to the fact that] the U.N. was in session, there was a Polish resolution in front of the Security Council calling for an Indian withdrawal. And the Russians had indicated that they were not going to use their veto in India’s favour again.

Gen. Jacob: And Poland was [part of the] Soviet bloc.

Karan: So at that point of time, on December 15, the circumstances both within East Pakistan and internationally made it seem as if a surrender was not the likely outcome.

Gen. Jacob: You see, Niazi had merely sent a signal to us, which was conveyed to the Americans, that there should be a ceasefire under the U.N., a withdrawal under the U.N., handover to the U.N., and no more crimes… That’s all.

Karan: And therefore if Niazi had used his 30,000 soldiers… he could have carried on fighting for another two to three weeks, giving the U.N. ample time to impose the ceasefire. And that would have been very disadvantageous because India had no other town under its control.

Gen. Jacob: That’s quite right.

Karan: So it’s a critical moment.

Gen. Jacob: Very critical.

Karan: Now on December 16 you arrived in Dhaka in response to Niazi’s offer of a ceasefire. Four hours later you had converted a ceasefire into an unconditional surrender. What did you do to achieve what sounds now like a miracle?


Gen. Jacob: Well… one thing that happened was, on the morning of December 16. Manekshaw phoned me and said go to Dhaka and get a surrender. I said we have sent you a surrender document, do I negotiate on those terms? He said just go, you know what to do. So I carried with me my draft what I sent to Delhi and I arrived in Dhaka with this draft with the staff officer. I was met at the Dhaka airport by the U.N.’s Mark Henry, Kelly and the others. And they said we are coming with you to arrange the ceasefire and withdraw the Pakistan Army and take over. I said, thank you very much, I don’t need your help. Then I proceeded to Niazi’s headquarters. The Pakistani Brigadier was with me, the Mukthi Bahini and the Pakistanis were fighting on the streets. Firing was going on. They wanted to kill this guy with me. With a lot of difficulty we reached the Pakistani headquarters and this thing was read out to Niazi — the surrender document. He said that you have only come here to discuss the ceasefire and withdrawal…Who said I am surrendering? So this argument went on. So it’s an unconditional surrender. I said it’s not an unconditional surrender, we have put the treaty with respect. We will evacuate all the civilians, etc., so it’s not an unconditional surrender.

Karan: Then what happened? How did you get him to agree to a surrender?

Gen. Jacob: Then I told him, General, I assure you if you surrender, accept these terms, we look after you, etc., and I will ensure that. The Government of India has given the word and will ensure your safety and that of your civilians.

Karan: Did you also say to him [that] if you don’t surrender, there will be no protection?

Gen. Jacob: I said that in a different way. I said if you don’t surrender, we can take no responsibility.

Karan: Then what happened?

Gen. Jacob: Then he kept [on talking] and then I said General, I cannot give you any better terms. I will give you 30 minutes. If you don’t comply I would have no option but to order resumption of hostilities.

Karan: During those 30 minutes were you panicking?

Gen. Jacob: I wasn’t panicking but I walked out and I said god, he has 30,000 troops we have 3,000... Suppose he says no, what do I do? And I had no answer.

Karan: Thirty minutes later you went back to the room, and what did he say?

Gen. Jacob: He kept quiet, I walked up to him. The document was on the table and I asked him: General, do you accept this document? I asked him three times but he didn’t answer. So I picked it up. I said, I take it as accepted.

Karan: At that point he also cried.

Gen. Jacob: He was in tears…

Karan: He was in tears… so in a sense you called his bluff… made him believe that you were in a more powerful position than you were…

Gen. Jacob: Yes, yes.

Karan: He fell for it and he failed to take advantage of the 30,000 soldiers he had.

Gen. Jacob: He was held to task by his own commission: why you didn’t do it? You know what he said, I was forced to do it because Gen. Jacob blackmailed me, he said he would hang them over the massacre.

Karan: Very quickly, you haven’t got the credit for the surrender that you organised almost single-handedly. Has history been unfair to you?

Gen. Jacob: No, I’m not commenting on that…I as a soldier did my duties, that’s not my concern.

Karan: One other question. Today you have cast Gen, Manekshaw, Field Marshal Manekshaw as he is, in a very different light to the way we’ve got used to thinking of him. You have suggested that the orders that he gave, particularly on changing the direction of military strategy, were wrong. You also suggested things about him when he was in his earlier post at Wellington that people will find hard to believe. You want to retract any other things you said?

Gen. Jacob: Listen, I have not suggested anything. You asked me questions and I have answered them to the best of my ability.

Karan: Do you stand by what you said?

Gen Jacob: I stand by what I said… all the things [relating to] the order for the operation are in Army Headquarters.

Karan: Everything you said is documented in Army Headquarters. Gen. Jacob, a pleasure talking to you on India Tonight.


http://www.hinduonnet.com/nic/karan-gen-jacob.htm

Secondly, the Durand Line agreement was a valid international agreement between two states, and under precedent in international law, agreements between two states get passed down to successor states - in this case the agreement transfers down to Afghanistan and Pakistan. There is no clause in the Durand Agreement for 'expiration in 100 years' or 'ratification by the Afghan parliament' as some people like to lie about. So there is not question about NWFP belonging to Afghanistan.

So was the instrument of acession signed by the Maharaja of Kashmir.I don't know what is wrong in that to be disputed in the treaty signed

I think Afghanistan owes Pakistan an apology first for refusing to accept Pakistan in 1947 and supporting the Baluch insurgency and trying to foster a Pashtun insurgency (there are declassified memos and telegrams from the US embassy in Pakistan talking about the latter attempts posted in the forum). Once they do that, we can talk about what Pakistan has to do, or perhaps both nations can issue a 'joint apology'.

Same is the case with India you occupied Indian territory in 1947, operation Gibraltar in 1965.Kargil war and numerous terrorist attacks
and so on
The thread is related to India-Pakistan, and I have already debunked your attempt to derail it by bringing up the flawed Afghanistan comparison. So now its India's turn.

Then you admit that India is a warmongering state and has always been so, and all the talk about 'peaceful state' is just baloney, and that in reality India and Indians such as yourself agree with Indira Gandhi's policy of breaking apart Pakistan and not accepting her existence as an independent nation.

We are peaceful AM but does not mean that we are pushed to a corner even we will put up a fight.As I showed in Jacobji's interview breaking up of Pakistan was never the idea on the table

As I said, you have the choice to not apologize or denounce IG, but then you also have to accept the reality of what that choice means in terms of your attitudes towards Pakistan.

You cannot have it both ways - eulogize hatred, a break up of Pakistan, non-acceptance of Pakistan, and also claim to be peace loving and accepting of Pakistan

.
We very accept Pakistan AM but we cannot accept some of its action which harm India AM.We are peace loving but not Gandhian AM

[InExile]

Really, does it really matter, trying to prove who were the bad guys in the past 60 years?

Both sides have done terrible things, but Pakistanis seem to focus only on Indian wrongs, and vice versa for the Indians.

We need to leave unrealistic ideals and posturing and try to find solutions based on pragmatic realism.

[AgNoStIc MuSliM]

Originally Posted by praveen

Well thats what a Military official told me about the Pakistani generals thought processes

Anecdotal - obviously not a fact.

Extremely plausible since Lahore is only 13 km from indian border.If they said Islamabad,Karachi or Peshawar I would consider it as hot air

Point being, the Indian military was dreaming about capturing Lahore, its not about being plausible or not, but about a mindset.

Domestic policies or not you gave the opening AM.We were not rich to feed the endless stream of refugees pouring into indian borders.And break up of Pakistan was never the intention of the Indian Army.Here is an interview of Lt general JFK Jacob

Indian intervention started before 1971, and barely a few weeks into the PA crackdown, IG was looking to have the Indian Military attack. No discussions with Pakistan over the situation, no movement in the UNSC to prevent the situation from escalating etc. That IG wanted to invade EP that early does not support the contention of 'refugees to feed.

I am not sure what the interview indicates - Manekshaw himself told Indira Gandhi that he would defeat Pakistan if she let him operate independently. A defeat of Pakistan in EP meant what else other than independence for EP? And did India not hold up the return of Pakistani POW's until Simla in which one of the conditions was the recognition of Bangladesh?

So was the instrument of acession signed by the Maharaja of Kashmir.I don't know what is wrong in that to be disputed in the treaty signed

Because the instrument of accession was conditional to a plebiscite, since the accession was disputed. This was why the UNSC ruled that the final status of J&K would be through plebiscite, and why India accepted the UNSC resolutions, and why Nehru continued to publicly at least for many years state that he would hold a plebiscite in J&K.

Same is the case with India you occupied Indian territory in 1947, operation Gibraltar in 1965.Kargil war and numerous terrorist attacks
and so on

Hardly - Pakistani action in J&K was reciprocated by India's military occupation of Hyderabad and Junagadh, and 1965 was not an attack on Indian territory, but an attempt to force India to resolve the dispute since she had chosen to unilaterally annex J&k. And before Kargil there was Siachen, and none of the terrorist attacks in India have been supported by Pakistan - no more than the terrorist attacks in Pakistan have been supported by India.

We are peaceful AM but does not mean that we are pushed to a corner even we will put up a fight.As I showed in Jacobji's interview breaking up of Pakistan was never the idea on the table

We very accept Pakistan AM but we cannot accept some of its action which harm India AM.We are peace loving but not Gandhian AM

Peaceful has nothing to do with accepting and eulogizing Indira Gandhi's views about Pakistan - Jacob's interview indicates nothing, he was a soldier and followed orders (or not). It is the rulers of India who made strategic policies, and on that count Indira Gandhi's views indicate hate and a non-acceptance of Pakistan. As an Indian, you cannot claim to support peace and acceptance of Pakistan without denouncing IG for those views.

If you can I would like to know how.

[InExile]

"As an Indian, you cannot claim to support peace and acceptance of Pakistan without denouncing IG for those views."

I think Indira Gandhi was overall a good leader for India; though I wouldn't agree with her if she did indeed express these sentiments towards Pakistan.

Isn't that enough?

[gubbi]

Originally Posted by AgNoStIc MuSliM

Your argument makes no sense in any case, because then one could argue how the ISI was able to covertly support the Mujahideen and Taliban, yet find it so hard to crack down on terrorists at home.

In the same way the Bhindranwale Tigers turned against GoI precipitating Op Bluestar.

As for the 'evidence' - both Indian and Pakistani analysts (some retired officials with intimate knowledge of the intelligence operations) are pointing out that Indian intelligence was actively fomenting separatism in EP in the sixties. What else would you like? It is a historical event, and evidence will be along the lines of what it is currently.

If you have sources, please do post. It would make an interesting read and probably change my mind.

Strawman and dissemblance again - I was quite clear that I was referring to those who refused to denounce Indira Gandhi for her views about Pakistan and her foreign policy WRT Pakistan, and not 'all Indians'. Read properly before accusing someone.

If a people judge a leader by his/her foreign policy when there exist so many social problems, then God help them. In a similar extrapolation Mr Zardari is an excellent leader because he tries to appease India.
What a bloody nonsensical argument? No Indian is going to denounce IG for her foreign policy, she did far greater good to the country than the harm she caused to Pakistan. (Notice my use of the term harm - so you know where I stand personally). Oh, we do denounce her for the Emergency though.

Again, stop bandying around school yard threats - no one is impressed except yourself and other Indians with inflated egos and swollen heads. You cannot do more than EP because the conditions that caused EP, civilian and military, were unique to that time.

And as I have repeatedly pointed out, Pakistan's poor domestic policies are one thing, another nation exploiting them, exacerbating them and supporting terrorism in Pakistan are another.

When an opportunity presents itself, one has to take advantage of the situation. Mush did it in '99 though he grossly miscalculated our response. We did it in '71 and '84 with resounding success. So our planners are not idiots you know. As for the threats, dont pay attention to them.
Its just a logical conclusion that whenever an opportunity arose, we Indians exploited it and will do so in the future. That is how events have turned out and its anybodys guess as to what will happen i the future.

Now that Pakistan is combating insurgencies in FATA and Baluchistan, your logic would dictate that India can come up with another speculative scenario where she invents a 'threat to her national interests and security' (as in EP) and proceeds to intervene in Pakistan!

Might be a possibility, though I dont think India will do anything nasty what with all the world focusing on that particular god-forsaken area.
But (assuming you know CS doctrine and its objectives) there are some detractors to the CS doctrine who argue that we have the means to effectively implement Sunderji doctrine once initial advantages are consolidated. What that means is quite clear. Though I dont agree with it, these Zaid Hamid clones are quite passionate about it.

Hogwash - Pakistan did nothing different in 1947 than what India did in Junagadh and Hyderabad, and 65 WAS in disputed territory, accepted by India and the international community in the UNSC, and a result of India's decision to violate her commitment to a plebiscite and unilaterally and illegally annex J&K.

Yes, and perhaps someday you can claim California as well - no one aside from India considers J&K Indian territory. It is considered disputed since the UNSC resolutions declared it so with India and Pakistan agreeing. The status does not change just because India wants it to, and the UNSC resolutions are only made irrelevant with new resolutions, or if the dispute is settled between the nations party to it.

California? Nah theres still time for that. Wait till desi population exceeds that of the locals and then we will decide. LOL. Seriously what a sad argument!
As for your Kashmir disputed territory, we dont consider it as disputed, UN resolutions or not. 'Jiski lathi uski bheins'

Supporting a leader that made the statements IG did, supported terror and separatism in Pakistan with a view to break it apart, and made statements refusing to accept Pakistan is implicitly endorsing that leader's 'hate-mongering'.

Seriously mate, in day to day affairs, for a layman - the majority of the Indian population - Pakistan does not matter unless there is a terrorist attack on Indian soil. We support our leaders for what good they do to us and not for what their policies do to Pakistan.

And if any action can be explained under 'geo-politics' and national interests, then why criticize Hitler? There must be limits surely!

There's a fine line between sanity and insanity, and now with that comment of yours I surely don't know which side of the fence you are leaning.

And the opinions in Pakistan about India are largely similar to those in India about Pakistan, in fact slightly more negative in India towards Pakistan - there is a thread on that here too. So what exactly do you want me to know about the 'mood' in Pakistan?

OK, agreed about negative feelings towards Pakistan - in certain situations. (Don't point out contradiction with my above statement - totally unrelated contexts) But why? Indians are not fools to be carried away by jingoism. The last general elections gives a clear picture of what Indians want. You should be able to read the masses my friend.

Fighting the Taliban insurgency does not mean we become blind to India's intentions, nor does remaining vigilant against a nation that eulogizes a hate-mongering leader mean we cannot fight the Taliban threat. States need to be able to address multiple threats simultaneously, and we are, for now, doing that.

Thanks for your concern, but it's rather self-serving.

Yes you are right. No taliban threat in Pakistan = no taliban threat in India, subsequently no religious fundamentalist threat in India = no militancy in India. Basically like Sl against LTTE, you are working for us indirectly. A big thank you for that.
Self serving - of course. Indians are interested in prosperity and are out to get it. What about Pakistanis? Want Kashmir or Prosperity? Unfortunately you can pick only one!

[toxic_pus]

Originally Posted by AgNoStIc MuSliM

That is not true - the thread I referenced clearly indicates that India was involved prior to 1971 in supporting separatist sentiment. This wasn't just a case of 'intelligence being active in the other nation'.

The support for terrorists and separatists kicked into high gear after the events in 1971.

The thread that you had referenced has nothing other than the usual speculation, rumor, hearsay and some wishful thinking. Much the same as Pakistan’s current favorite national pastime – accuse India for Baluchistan.

The underlined part does not answer the questions raised since the Ambassador of India (first quote) can hardly be expected to accept that his nation is looking to break apart another nation and support terrorists in it.

By doubting Ambassador of India’s comments you, in effect, doubt the wisdom of Dr Henry Kissinger, the advisor to President Nixon, and Richard Nixon, the President of USA. Both of them believed the Ambassador of India, because their own independent assessment coincided with that of India’s position. Unless, of course they were suckers.

Anyway, the assessment of the possible outcome of independent Bangladesh, then, in 1971, was very different than it actually turned out to be. India did want a weak Pakistan. But never, until well into few weeks of Pakistani crackdown of Bangladeshis, wanted a split Pakistan.

…actually the Indians, who, one normally would expect to favor a breakup of Pakistan, aren’t so eager for this one. Because they’re afraid that East Pakistan may in time, or East Bengal may in time have an attraction for West Bengal with Calcutta and also that the Chinese will gain a lot of influence there.- Dr. Henry Kissinger.-29th March, 1971 on a phone conversation with Nixon.(pg-36)

India is the one country that would suffer from the establishment of an independent East Pakistan.- Dr. Henry Kissinger at Senior Review Group Committee Meeting, 31st March 1971.(pg-41)

- FRUS, vol XI, South Asia 1969-1976

At around the same time the Naxalbari movement had just picked up wind, even among urban middle class in Kolkata. Naxalbari is actually a place in Northern Bengal, where a peasant movement in 1969, led by Charu Majumdar, had snowballed into a communist revolutionary movement, which today you know as Naxal movement. These people were openly claiming that ‘China’s chairman is our chairman’. India’s concern of China’s influence on a fledgling state in India’s immediate vicinity, was valid.

In the second quote, the alleged future impact upon India from long term military control was nothing but speculation on the part of the Indian government.

Of course it was speculation. Isn’t it how policies, particularly Foreign ones, are formulated – on the basis of anticipation, based on current available facts.

Did they approach Pakistan to resolve these concerns? Did they decide to scale back their cover support for separatists and terrorists in EP? No.

Your question. Your answer. But wrong answer. India had, more than once, approached Pakistan, via US, to compromise with Sk Mujib and diffuse the situation. India couldn't have approached Pakistan directly, because then it would have been interpreted as 'intervention' in Pakistan's internal affairs. Irony is that you are now accusing India of not doing exactly that.

Head I win, tails you loose.

Instead they chose to exacerbate the situation by increasing support for terrorists and separatists. If India was really concerned about the impact from the vents in EP, it should not have interfered in the first place. I would therefore point out that these quotes are nothing but obfuscation of the Indian intent to break apart Pakistan.

First, India’s interference was extremely limited even after 25th March. It scaled up when even after repeated appeals to Yahya to show restraint in his crack down and to take back all the refugees, the refugees continued to flood West Bengal. Second, India didn’t have to exacerbate any situation.

The judgement of all of us is that with the number of troops available to Yahya (a total of 20,000, with 12,000 combat troops) and a hostile East Pakistan population of 75 million, the result would be a blood-bath with no hope of West Pakistan reestablishing control over East Pakistan.-6th March, 1971

- FRUS, vol XI, South Asia, 1969-1976

The above was the assessment of Senior Advisor Group, one day before Sk Mujib had delivered his historic speech. I will however, grant you that India had ensured, that Pak army was kept busy through out that period following 25th March. The initial idea, before the refugee problem went beyond India’s ability to handle, was to bring Pakistan to table and strike a deal with Sk Mujib, not to break her up. Splitting Pakistan into two was something that came to be considered seriously only after it became evident, that neither Yahya nor Bhutto would strike a deal with Sk Mujib and the purging of Bengalis, and mostly Hindus would continue unabated.

You are of course free to assume that the quotes are India’s attempt at obfuscation.

Kashmir was not a 'Sovereign Kingdom'- I do not believe it had the option to become independent, it had to accede to either India or Pakistan. And how was Pakistani support for the Kashmir rebellion against the Maharajah different from the Indian military aggression and occupation of the princely states of Junagadh and Hyderabad?

Whatever option Kashmir had, it was and continued to be an independent sovereign kingdom till it exercised its option. Sovereignty was not to be relinquished by accepting to choose, but by making the actual choice. Regarding Junagadh and Hyderabad, it was different from Kashmir, because of the principle of congruity. It was decided that princely states that were congruous to BOTH the countries would get to choose. Junagadh and Hyderabad were not congruous to Pakistan by any stretch of imagination and hence they didn’t get to choose.

The truth is not 'hurting' me, it is eluding you, in that even now, with so much written about the events in FATA and the underlying dynamics, you still have no understanding about them. There is no separatist insurgency in FATA, it is a religious movement out to control all of Pakistan and Afghanistan (and likely unite them if it succeeds).

And the Baluchistan insurgency has never gone beyond stuttering or gained mass appeal in Baluchistan. Were it any greater then Baluchistan would look like FATA or EP in 1971. So no, IG's comments do not ring true except for Indians with blinders on, and yes, they are indicative of a hateful mindset bent upon destroying Pakistan and not-accepting it.

Perhaps you are right about the nature of conflict in FATA and Baluchistan. Religious movement in FATA, which aspires to control whole Pakistan, or separatism in Baluchistan, just because it didn't spread to the other ethnicity in that region, still don’t disprove that those regions are ‘congenital defects’ of Pakistan.

I don't care what you think of her domestic politics, but the fact is that as part of her foreign policy she supported terrorists and insurgents in another nation's sovereign territory, and she spouted hate towards another nation.

Expressing hate and being a warmonger should not be a reason for respect, otherwise we all should respect Hitler!

It is hypocritical of a Pakistani to accuse anybody, let alone Ms Gandh, to be a ‘hatemonger’ or ‘warmonger’. She paid Pakistan back in the same coin, that Pakistan used in ‘65. Only Ms Gandhi was successful.

No, only in 1971 and 1984.

Both were of Pakistan’s own making.

That is an Indian viewpoint and subjective, not objective or a fact. And essentailly what that means is you support any state doing whatever is necessary to protect its own national interests, no matter how. If you find it acceptable that IG supported terrorism in EP, why complain when you have terrorist attacks in Mumbai or elsewhere? The Naga's for example? Is everything 'par for the course' then?

Any means, to defend oneself against another who has vowed to bleed one by thousand cuts, is in my understanding, acceptable. However, killing of innocent unarmed tourists or civilians, in a hotel or elsewhere, just for the heck of it, is not. It is another thing that Bangladesh's liberation movement is nowhere close to be same as the 'terrorist attacks in Mumbai or elsewhere'.

Btw, if Mumbai carnage is tantamount to a state's right to defend itself by any means, does that mean, that Pakistan state was tacitly involved in the whole affair.

Again - you have the choice to reject IG's warmongering and support for terrorism, but then Indians need to drop the canard about being 'peace loving' or accepting of Pakistan's existence.

You are entitled to your opinion.

What you have essentially said is that India is within her rights to support terrorism in Pakistan today (which most Pakistanis suspect and our IM confirmed) and to break it apart and therefore is not reconciled to Pakistan's existence - all in the pursuit of her interests.

Yes, the right is there. The need is not.

[praveen]

Point being, the Indian military was dreaming about capturing Lahore, its not about being plausible or not, but about a mindset.

They could have done it If they wanted but it could have hogged the resources

Indian intervention started before 1971, and barely a few weeks into the PA crackdown, IG was looking to have the Indian Military attack.

RAW was est in 1971 .IG was only considering an attack when there was an endless stream of refugees into India.

No discussions with Pakistan over the situation, no movement in the UNSC to prevent the situation from escalating etc. That IG wanted to invade EP that early does not support the contention of 'refugees to feed.

Kashmir showed that UN is a failure

I am not sure what the interview indicates - Manekshaw himself told Indira Gandhi that he would defeat Pakistan if she let him operate independently. A defeat of Pakistan in EP meant what else other than independence for EP? And did India not hold up the return of Pakistani POW's until Simla in which one of the conditions was the recognition of Bangladesh?

Peaceful has nothing to do with accepting and eulogizing Indira Gandhi's views about Pakistan - Jacob's interview indicates nothing, he was a soldier and followed orders (or not). It is the rulers of India who made strategic policies, and on that count Indira Gandhi's views indicate hate and a non-acceptance of Pakistan. As an Indian, you cannot claim to support peace and acceptance of Pakistan without denouncing IG for those views.

The above interview shows that Jacob did not follow the instructions to the letter and His personal decisions were what that shaped the war the most,more than anyone elses IG or Sam Manekshaw

Because the instrument of accession was conditional to a plebiscite, since the accession was disputed. This was why the UNSC ruled that the final status of J&K would be through plebiscite, and why India accepted the UNSC resolutions, and why Nehru continued to publicly at least for many years state that he would hold a plebiscite in J&K.

Nehru was a naive fool when it came to foreign policies unlike his daughter

Hardly - Pakistani action in J&K was reciprocated by India's military occupation of Hyderabad and Junagadh,

Realpolitik influenced India's decisions at that

and 1965 was not an attack on Indian territory, but an attempt to force India to resolve the dispute since she had chosen to unilaterally annex J&k

Ayub's statement that
1)He would be having lunch on the red fort ramparts
2)1 pakistani~10 indians(Martial race theory i know it sucks)
never gave us that impression

. And before Kargil there was Siachen

It was a race to the top which we won and which you lost

, and none of the terrorist attacks in India have been supported by Pakistan - no more than the terrorist attacks in Pakistan have been supported by India.

lol AM I did not expect this from you .What about LeT (I know it is rumoured to be banned now),Jaish-e-Mohammad,Those infrastructure in Muridke and Lahore.And most importantly Hamid Guls famous statement that "India will be bled by a thousand cuts"

Peaceful has nothing to do with accepting and eulogizing Indira Gandhi's views about Pakistan - Jacob's interview indicates nothing, he was a soldier and followed orders (or not). It is the rulers of India who made strategic policies, and on that count Indira Gandhi's views indicate hate and a non-acceptance of Pakistan. As an Indian, you cannot claim to support peace and acceptance of Pakistan without denouncing IG for those views.
If you can I would like to know how.

Her view was only a reflection of Pakistan's actions towards India

[toxic_pus]

Originally Posted by AgNoStIc MuSliM

Anecdotal - obviously not a fact.

How else do you think a historian would write history after 30 years of occurrence of an event? How does one unearth the 'fact'?

Indian intervention started before 1971, and barely a few weeks into the PA crackdown, IG was looking to have the Indian Military attack. No discussions with Pakistan over the situation, no movement in the UNSC to prevent the situation from escalating etc. That IG wanted to invade EP that early does not support the contention of 'refugees to feed.

The magnitude of this problem—coming suddenly as it does—is beyond India’s limited resources. We have already told them that we would support Indian efforts to obtain assistance through international relief agencies.-29th April, 1971 (pg 100)
-----------

There are now almost 2 million refugees from East Pakistan in India, and the figure could go substantially higher. You approved $2.5 million for US participation in an international effort, and this is operating through the UN High Commission for Refugees and private voluntary agencies. More food will be required, but basically this seems in hand for now, though there are the makings of a long-term problem.-14th May, 1971 (pg 121)
-----------

...the Indians have reported to us that the flow of refugees has increased to a rate of 100,000 per day. The UN Deputy High Commissioner for Refugees, who is now touring India, has concluded that the refugee flow is “monumental” and “the greatest displacement of people in recent times.”...We are considering providing an airlift to move refugees from Tripura to Assam where they can be more easily assisted. We have encouraged the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees to organize an international relief effort and we have indicated our in-
tention to support his efforts.-18th May, 1971 (pg 127)
-----------

Of the initial $2.5 million in relief assistance to the refugees that you authorized, $1.5 million has gone to feeding programs by U.S. voluntary agencies and $500,000 has been contributed directly to the UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) to assist in meeting immediate needs for shelter, medical aid and other non-food supplies.

Of the additional $15 million, $10 million will be devoted to satisfying about half of the estimated food needs for around 2.5 million refugees over the next three months. This will be coordinated through the UNHCR but administered through US voluntary agencies, international organizations, and Indian relief agencies.-7th June, 1971 (pg 170)
-----------

You will have seen from our refugee sitreps that number of refugees is now 5.4 million and that rate of flow is increasing. This should be evidence enough that no matter what noises President Yahya may make about restoration of normalcy, he has not yet done anything to effectively impede reign of terror and brutality of Pakistan army, the root cause of the refugee exodus.

I believe the United States, whether we like it or not, bears very heavy responsibility for the continuing deterioration of the situation. Unless forceful and effective action is promptly undertaken to stem the refugee flow, the GOI will be forced into an act of desperation to halt a situation that is clearly not of India’s making.-11th June, 1971 (pg 176)
-----------

From all indications the East Pakistani refugee problem in India is taking an enormous toll on the Indian economy and could seriously set back development. Best estimates at this time of the total annual economic costs for supporting the refugees is upwards of $400 million—an amount beyond the Indian government’s means. This includes not only direct costs for food, medicine and shelter but also significant indirect costs such as increased inflation, increased Indian unemployment, diversion of health, transport and other services, and the spread of cholera.

High as it is, the economic cost could be dwarfed by the social and political costs to India. The Hindu-Muslem communal problem is potentially explosive in India and the law and order situation, already bad in some border areas, could deteriorate even more, especially in volatile West Bengal.-14th June, 1971 (pg 171)
-----------

FRUS, vol-XI, South Asia, 1969-1976

I can go on, if you so desire. In any case, there was no need for India to rush to UNSC when US was itself actively involved, through donation, supply of food and even evacuation. And all of these were happening through UNHCR.

[irfan1173]

Originally Posted by AgNoStIc MuSliM

Would you mind referring me to the relevant section please. I perused through the version posted online, but could not find the reference you mentioned, though I was reminded of other material that I'll re-post here or elsewhere related to the level of atrocities.

AoA
AM
Unfortunately I don't have the book with me here in US but the book is with my parents in Pakistan.I read the book prob 10 years back. Couple of my father's colleague's in the army actually confirmed the story of freedom fighters being trained in East Pakistan in the 60's.