"Did we do the right thing?"

[Arnab]

Originally Posted by Alien
Thats because Mujib asked Indira Gandhi to get her troops out of BD when the war was finished.

And the fact that Indira Gandhi promptly obliged that request removes a lot of doubt about India's hidden non-altruistic ulterior motives, at least in 1971-1972. Indira Gandhi might not have removed her army for years, and realistically, there was nothing Bangladeshis could do to budge an army as big and resourceful as the Indian army.

[al Furqaan]

Originally Posted by Arnab
And the fact that Indira Gandhi promptly obliged that request removes a lot of doubt about India's hidden non-altruistic ulterior motives, at least in 1971-1972. Indira Gandhi might not have removed her army for years, and realistically, there was nothing Bangladeshis could do to budge an army as big and resourceful as the Indian army.

true...but anyone who underestimates the ambition of a guerilla is in for a life of sleepless nights. the days of going to someone else's country and ruling them for however long ended with WW II.

india wouldn't have tried to do what pakistan had been doing for the 9 months prior, unless they wanted to shed their own blood on foreign soil. besides, i can't think of a reason why india would want to maintain a troop presence (at the cost of crores of rupees and gallons of blood). sure the US has troops in Germany, Korea, Japan, etc. but they have reason too (bases), and don't face any resistance. firstly india could just establish those bases in assam or the 7 sisters, and bengalis would not have fought the pakis for 9 mos to be subjugated yet again.

bottom line is, the threats that the Indian gov put on us from time to time, indicate the genuineness of their altruism. again, i am not implying that you believe that, i'm just saying for the sake of clarity.

anyone who expects certain concessions , or resorts to outright threats upon denial of said concessions, after previously helping someone...that says a lot about the quality of that "help", IMH(and correct)O

[Arnab]

Originally Posted by al Furqaan
anyone who expects certain concessions , or resorts to outright threats upon denial of said concessions, after previously helping someone...that says a lot about the quality of that "help", IMH(and correct)O

I think you might be blurring the boundaries between certain factions of Indian people (represented by the Indian forum posts in discussion here) and the official position of India as represented by the actions of their government.

I don't think anyone in Bangladesh expected unconditionally altruistic "high-quality" help from Indians in 1971. You are being misled by rhetorical nonsense from the Indian posters in these Internet addas.

The reality is, of course, always more complex than what we state in our little discussion here.

[al Furqaan]

Originally Posted by Arnab
I think you might be blurring the boundaries between certain factions of Indian people (represented by the Indian forum posts in discussion here) and the official position of India as represented by the actions of their government.

I don't think anyone in Bangladesh expected unconditionally altruistic "high-quality" help from Indians in 1971. You are being misled by rhetorical nonsense from the Indian posters in these Internet addas.

The reality is, of course, always more complex than what we state in our little discussion here.

certainly...but i can't help but feeling governments are just a reflection of their citizens, especially in democratic ones.

also, is it not the indian gov that is threatening the Bangladeshi gov? of course many indian citizens would favor that, and some would not (these would be the genuinely altruistic). i don't know. assuming that the gov is making the threats, then my statement would hold. otherwise, yes its fallible.

[Arnab]

Originally Posted by al Furqaan
true...but anyone who underestimates the ambition of a guerilla is in for a life of sleepless nights. the days of going to someone else's country and ruling them for however long ended with WW II.

Absolutely right. And India, despite being a regional military superpower (and being backed by teh Soviet Union, a global superpower), purposefully chose the path of peace instead of occupying Bangladesh and initiating ANOTHER war. That has to be commended. I am sure you agree.

[al Furqaan]

Originally Posted by Arnab
Absolutely right. And India, despite being a regional military superpower (and being backed by teh Soviet Union, a global superpower), purposefully chose the path of peace instead of occupying Bangladesh and initiating ANOTHER war. That has to be commended. I am sure you agree.

i agree that it was easier for us, the bangladeshi people, and also the indian people, military, and gov.

in that sense the indian gov exercised its common sense (only a fool would invite a guerilla war, no matter how robust ur military; just ask the pakis), and it should be commended as much as you would commend a 4 year for not touching the red-hot stove. so some miniscule commendations are on order, no doubt.

[Arnab]

Originally Posted by al Furqaan
i agree that it was easier for us, the bangladeshi people, and also the indian people, military, and gov.





in that sense the indian gov exercised its common sense (only a fool would invite a guerilla war, no matter how robust ur military; just ask the pakis), and it should be commended as much as you would commend a 4 year for not touching the red-hot stove. so some miniscule commendations are on order, no doubt.

Sure. As long as you acknowledge it. Needed a lot of coaxing though.

Like I said, what India did under Indira Gandhi in 1971-1972 re: the Bangladesh situation was right on the money.

The only big time loser (apart from Bangladesh herself with hundereds of thousands of lives lost and her whole infrastructure tattered) was Pakistan.

[Alien]

Originally Posted by Arnab
Absolutely right. And India, despite being a regional military superpower (and being backed by teh Soviet Union, a global superpower), purposefully chose the path of peace instead of occupying Bangladesh and initiating ANOTHER war. That has to be commended. I am sure you agree.

India had no reason to occupy us. Our independence and their ambition to break up Pakistan went hand in hand. Its more of a partnership to get rid of a common enemy.

Even if they did occupy us, all India will have is 140 million more people to burden its population. No one would want that.

[HereWeGo]

Originally Posted by Alien
India had no reason to occupy us. Our independence and their ambition to break up Pakistan went hand in hand. Its more of a partnership to get rid of a common enemy.

Even if they did occupy us, all India will have is 140 million more people to burden its population. No one would want that.

Mutual benefit cannot be a reason for not being thankful for what they have done. Accept it...we owe them a lot of our lives.

[al Furqaan]

Originally Posted by HereWeGo
Mutual benefit cannot be a reason for not being thankful for what they have done. Accept it...we owe them a lot of our lives.

well, i am thanful to god, fate, karma, whatever you wanna call it. we were extremely luck that our interests coincided with india's. and i reserve a much smaller level of gratitude to their gov, and their country and people. but measured.

lemme give you some unsolicted but much needed advice.

never indebt yourself with gratitude to another person. the moment you do, you are enslaved. and my mother did not go thru the pains of labor to give birth to slave. no ones mother did.

borrowwing money is fine. you borrow 10K, pay it back and an extra sum as interest, etc.

but you owe someone gratefulness...especially fallible human beings, then how will you pay back? what amount is fair? no one knows. your better off not asking for ppl's help. if you can do for someone else, do out of the goodness of your heart. but don't ask, because 99% if those who are indebted to, will seek to exploit you.

[HereWeGo]

Originally Posted by al Furqaan
well, i am thanful to god, fate, karma, whatever you wanna call it. we were extremely luck that our interests coincided with india's. and i reserve a much smaller level of gratitude to their gov, and their country and people. but measured.

lemme give you some unsolicted but much needed advice.

never indebt yourself with gratitude to another person. the moment you do, you are enslaved. and my mother did not go thru the pains of labor to give birth to slave. no ones mother did.

borrowwing money is fine. you borrow 10K, pay it back and an extra sum as interest, etc.

but you owe someone gratefulness...especially fallible human beings, then how will you pay back? what amount is fair? no one knows. your better off not asking for ppl's help. if you can do for someone else, do out of the goodness of your heart. but don't ask, because 99% if those who are indebted to, will seek to exploit you.

Cant help asking? Name me the amount of money that u will be willing to pay for freedom for ur country? I will pay with my life for it. Since i don have to do that, let alone pay interest the least i can do is be a lil grateful. I am not a slave to the indians, they gifted me with the freedom from the slavery of the pakistanis. If they wanted me to be their slave they would have occupied us. I respect them for that. Does that make me their slaves.. no it doesnt.

[Arnab]

Originally Posted by Alien
India had no reason to occupy us. Our independence and their ambition to break up Pakistan went hand in hand. Its more of a partnership to get rid of a common enemy.

Even if they did occupy us, all India will have is 140 million more people to burden its population. No one would want that.

We were talking 1972, not 2006. You lost track there.

[Alien]

Originally Posted by Arnab
We were talking 1972, not 2006. You lost track there.

I was refering to 1971-2. Ok maybe the population then wasn't 140 million but atleast 100 million or so. But thats more than the burden India can cope. Occupying Bangladesh would be nothing but a big liability for any nation.

We aren't much of a developed nation now and neither were we were 30 years ago. Not all countries are good for invading. And BD tops that list.

[Arnab]

Originally Posted by Alien
I was refering to 1971-2. Ok maybe the population then wasn't 140 million but atleast 100 million or so. But thats more than the burden India can cope. Occupying Bangladesh would be nothing but a big liability for any nation.

We aren't much of a developed nation now and neither were we were 30 years ago. Not all countries are good for invading. And BD tops that list.

Yeah, right.

Bangladesh had ~70 million people back in 1971.

The whole Indian subcontinent was a pile of developing nations, India included.

Occupying/annexing Bangladesh would have given India huge benefits. It would have given her precious territorial continuity, seamless transport of resources from its eastern states, the world's most fertile alluvial plain (Bengal was the richest region in India before the Brits took over and was the seat of British Raj), etc etc.

You know, the same arguments given by those who feel India is always threatening Bangladesh and will attack her soon.