"Did we do the right thing?"

[Kabir]

Originally Posted by Arnab
India obviously did the right thing in 1971. Bengalis in East Pakistan were being massacred in a calculated manner and helping them gain their independence was absolutely the right thing India could do.

That was easy! What was I thinking about?

[bharat]

Originally Posted by Kabir
Which reaction are you talking about? There seem to be at least 3 different types here:

1. based on our schools of thoughts
2. based on domestic politics
3. based on international politics

Based on what? Schools of thoughts? I guess not. Domestic politics after 35 years? I'm sure you don't wanna get there. International politics b/w the two countries for free trade and OPEN access to Assam? We've seen enough without open access, who knows what granting the access will bring.

Based on reactions in here ...

Free trade or not is BD's decision .BD needs to do what it feels right for her and she is doing the same.India has no right to impose on it and it will not.

My reaction has been completely based on teh remarks in here ...India faced a lot of trouble for helping out BD (with US etc ..you know your history better), if not anything it should not be blamed for its help ( I am talking abt '71 and the nothing else )and genuiness.It lost close to 7000+ army men and took the brunt of US for the next 25 years.

[al Furqaan]

Originally Posted by bharat
Based on reactions in here ...

Free trade or not is BD's decision .BD needs to do what it feels right for her and she is doing the same.India has no right to impose on it and it will not.

My reaction has been completely based on teh remarks in here ...India faced a lot of trouble for helping out BD (with US etc ..you know your history better), if not anything it should not be blamed for its help ( I am talking abt '71 and the nothing else )and genuiness.It lost close to 7000+ army men and took the brunt of US for the next 25 years.

bharat,

you are a very sensible person. unfortunately most people are not, whether they are indian, pakistani or bangladeshi. and we have had less than sensible indians here before and pakis.

its downright condescending for indians to lie thru their teeth and say they fought the pakis in 71 to help us. no nation sacrifices its sons and daughters so that people of another nation can enjoy freedom. even bangladesh would never do such a thing.

individual indians may deplore the huminatarian crisis that occured in 71, but that doesn't change the reasons why the GOV did what it did.

did India do the right thing?

indian PoV: yes, BD are not gonna be a satellite state, but benefit of dividing Pakistan and making it a weaker adversary is much bigger than the con of not getting everything it wanted. i highly doubt they expected BD to bend over backwards anyways.

BD PoV: yes because we benefit greatly

Pak PoV: initially not of course, in the long run they are weaker, at least strategically. but they do have a gainer in that 150 million extra bodies are burdening their already weak economy.

[al Furqaan]

Originally Posted by Arnab
India obviously did the right thing in 1971. Bengalis in East Pakistan were being massacred in a calculated manner and helping them gain their independence was absolutely the right thing India could do.

from whose PoV, ours or the indians?

surely Arnab has heard of the political realism and the fact that all states act in their self interest.

[Kabir]

Originally Posted by bharat
My reaction has been completely based on teh remarks in here ...India faced a lot of trouble for helping out BD (with US etc ..you know your history better), if not anything it should not be blamed for its help ( I am talking abt '71 and the nothing else )and genuiness.It lost close to 7000+ army men and took the brunt of US for the next 25 years.

Similarly, most of our reaction has been based on the experiences we've got from our political and social contradictions. Most of us, if not all, were born long after the war was over. And to be honest with you, Bangladeshi people do credit India for stepping in back then, and are also thankful for that. I think you're confusing the current political problems with this. We may be politically incorrect, but not heartless enough to forget that much and be thankless.

[ialbd]

I'll never deny India for their rightful credit...

The thing is, everyone considers Bangladesh to be inferior (West finds BD to be synonymous to 'flood' & 'poverty', Middle-East calls us 'Miskin' [Beggar], Pakis think.... [needless to say] & now the Indians are calling us 'betrayers'.

So its like we dont know who our friends are anymore and so the country is divided among pro-western, pro-arab,pro-paki & pro-indian ppl...

and lastly, yes I am totally ashamed myself that ppl who opposed BD's independence in 71 are in power of the govt (and I have been embarassed several times with this and I apologized on behalf of my poor country). Ans I was really hurt reading the posts in rediff, because I couldnt reply........ my 2 cents....

[Alien]

Originally Posted by bharat
been completely based on teh remarks in here ...India faced a lot of trouble for helping out BD (with US etc ..you know your history better), if not anything it should not be blamed for its help ( I am talking abt '71 and the nothing else )and genuiness.It lost close to 7000+ army men and took the brunt of US for the next 25 years.

You got some of your facts muddled up here. I'll try to get them straight. I don't know what they preach in India but here is the true facts.

Firstly my own opinion, India was already at war with Pakistan and it was in India's interest to have Pakistan broken up so in future they don't have to fight a war on 2 front. That I strongly believe was the prime reason.

Now, India's loss of 7000+ army men was because it was at war with pakistan. Pakistan bombed India's airfields so it was technically at war with Pakistan. BD has little to do with it. We weren't BD then, we were East Pakistan so obviously its in India's interest to fix the eastern front first and then focus on west. Once again, to avoid war on 2 front. Not to mention, if BD becomes Independent, there would be about 90 000 Pakistani POW trapped in BD for negotiation table. That is surely a terrific advantage for India.

Secondly, India bore the brunt of US because it signed a 20 Years Friendship Treaty with USSR(source) during Cold War. Pakistan was part of the CENTO making it alligned to US(source). So what happens when you have one country aligned to US and other alligned to USSR? You obvously don't expect USA to pamper India after having treaties with its enemy USSR? I don't think so!

Bangladesh cannot be blamed if India aligns itself with USSR/Russia. It was India's foreign policy at the time that put itself at odds with USA. Bangladesh had nothing to do with it.

[Arnab]

Originally Posted by al Furqaan
from whose PoV, ours or the indians?

surely Arnab has heard of the political realism and the fact that all states act in their self interest.

From the "right" PoV. Calculated mass murdering of hundreds of thousands of armless civilians to squash and silence an entire society - what West Pakistan was doing in 1971 - was the wrong thing. Legitimate and deep-seated aspiration for national autonomy or independence - what the Bengalis of all layers in East Pakistani society was showing (as evidenced by the results of the first ever democratic election held in Pakistan in 1970) - was the right thing.

India's actions in 1971 aligned with the right side of things.

[Special 1]

Originally Posted by al Furqaan
some level of genuineness, eh?

why the hell would they care so much about MUSLIM EAST PAKISTANIS, yet the same ppl come up with excuses out the wazoo when 2000 muslim GUJRATIS (INDIAN CITIZENS FOR CRYIN OUT LOUD, THEIR OWN COUNTRYMEN) got massacred.

if that is what you call genuine altruisim you can take that and stick in the dust bin.

Do not compare 1971 to 2000. Societies are not homogenous over time atleast their leadership was not. I am not saying that india did not have any self interst then, but they also had some level of genuineness. Why did people in Kolkata raise money for bangladeshi refugees in 1971? Were they expecting tonnes of money in the future out of it?

[imtiaz82]

Originally Posted by Arnab
From the "right" PoV. Calculated mass murdering of hundreds of thousands of armless civilians to squash and silence an entire society - what West Pakistan was doing in 1971 - was the wrong thing. Legitimate and deep-seated aspiration for national autonomy or independence - what the Bengalis of all layers in East Pakistani society was showing (as evidenced by the results of the first ever democratic election held in Pakistan in 1970) - was the right thing.

India's actions in 1971 aligned with the right side of things.

Yup, just the same way America's "war of liberation"in IRaq is also on the "right side of things".

Saddam Hossain was killing thousand of armless civilains in Kurdistan and shias in order to silence an entire society. So how could the generous Americans stop themselves from helping the poor people? They had to go there to liberate the people from the grasp of cruel dictator Saddam right?

Bengali's fight for independence was justified based on the treatment they received at all level in the society. But in no circumstance am I going to believe the theory that India was helping us for "altruistic" reason. All they cared about was splitting their arch rival into 2. Indians till today take pride in defeating Pakistan, no one cares about Bangladesh's independence.

It's the same thing as someone saying that US army went to Iraq for the sole purpose of liberating the Iraqis and not for OIL.

But just as it has happened in IRaq, the civilians were happy in getting rid of Saddam but they could not accept living under the shadow of a foreign power. The countless bombing in Iraq is a direct response to America's action. Similarly, the Bengalis could not stand living their entire life under the umbrella of India, their "liberator".

[HereWeGo]

Originally Posted by al Furqaan
some level of genuineness, eh?

why the hell would they care so much about MUSLIM EAST PAKISTANIS, yet the same ppl come up with excuses out the wazoo when 2000 muslim GUJRATIS (INDIAN CITIZENS FOR CRYIN OUT LOUD, THEIR OWN COUNTRYMEN) got massacred.

if that is what you call genuine altruisim you can take that and stick in the dust bin.

Almost all of us are muslim by birth and not by choice... and we are all humans prone to both good and bad deeds. A deed of some men cannot reflect on the whole community. There are extremist in all religion and lets not try to proof what is wrong to be right by setting examples about some Extremist. Minorities were even made to suffer in Bangladesh. That doesnt mean that all of us ( the bangladeshi citizens) support the crimes. There is even a Jewish organisations in US ( Jews against occupation of Palestine), that voices towards the freedom of palestine. So lets pls stop stereotyping.

Finally Indians did helf us and Pakistans did fight against us and killed us in 1971. Irrespective of all the selfish reassons involved for India we did need them back then. We wont have liberated so soon (if at all), if it werent for their help. Pls don suggest otherwise and corrupt fact with fiction. And pls don post any anti semitic comments.

[HereWeGo]

Originally Posted by imtiaz82

Bengali's fight for independence was justified based on the treatment they received at all level in the society. But in no circumstance am I going to believe the theory that India was helping us for "altruistic" reason. All they cared about was splitting their arch rival into 2. Indians till today take pride in defeating Pakistan, no one cares about Bangladesh's independence.

But just as it has happened in IRaq, the civilians were happy in getting rid of Saddam but they could not accept living under the shadow of a foreign power. The countless bombing in Iraq is a direct response to America's action. Similarly, the Bengalis could not stand living their entire life under the umbrella of India, their "liberator".

First and foremost we dont have indian armies inside our border in our territory unlike Iraq. It doesnt matter if neone cares abt our independnce, we have independence and we care abt it. Thats all that counts. India had their reasons to fight with Pakistani's, fine ,true, but that helped us to gain independence. Not like we never wanted to seperate our selves from Pakistan. So don make it sound as if that was the case.

[imtiaz82]

EDITED Double post

[imtiaz82]

Originally Posted by HereWeGo
First and foremost we dont have indian armies inside our border in our territory unlike Iraq. It doesnt matter if neone cares abt our independnce, we have independence and we care abt it. Thats all that counts. India had their reasons to fight with Pakistani's, fine ,true, but that helped us to gain independence. Not like we never wanted to seperate our selves from Pakistan. So don make it sound as if that was the case.

I meant "No one in INDIA cared about Bangladesh's independence", all they wanted was to split Pakistan, their arch rival. Ofcourse the Bengalis themselves wanted to get their own country otherwise young people won't be fighting a full blown army for no reason, would they?

The same way US really don't care if the common IRaqis are liberated or not, they are just happy to have world's second largest oil reserve in their bag.Also, the Americans will also leave IRaq once they have made sure that they have brought Iraq completely under their control with smooth supply of oil for the coming decades. Indians after December 16th thought that their mission of seperating their arch rival and creating a friendly nation in the east was complete, thus they left.

Lastly , Bangladesh would have been able to get independence from Pakistan irrespective of India's help. It would have just taken longer. The primary reason being we were 55% of the population and were 1000 miles away from West Pakistan. The Pakistan army would have had an extremely hard time in maintaining supply for a long time. Even the mighty US army could not sustain a war in Vietnam or the Soviets in Afghanistan since the locals were against them. So discrediting the effor of our own Muktijodha(freedom fighters) and giving all credit to a foreign force is not only shameful but illogical too.

[HereWeGo]

When did we ever help India or any other nation without any selfish reasons involved. thats the way the world works. But even if it was for indians benefit, we did get our independence with their help. The greatest gift that we could have ever wanted. So we must atleast be a lil thankful to them. For the sake of showing respect to the millions of bangladeshi lives lost in gaining independence we shud try to stop waving Pakistani flags during a Pak cricket match hosted in BD soil.

[Arnab]

Originally Posted by imtiaz82
Yup, just the same way America's "war of liberation"in IRaq is also on the "right side of things".

Ridiculous analogy that bear NO real resemblance to what led to and what happened during the 1971 Bangladeshi War of Independence.

Saddam Hossain was killing thousand of armless civilains in Kurdistan and shias in order to silence an entire society. So how could the generous Americans stop themselves from helping the poor people? They had to go there to liberate the people from the grasp of cruel dictator Saddam right?

Did 10 million Iraqis suddenly swamp all American ports of entry overnight and got rehabilitated as refugees in, say, upstate New York?

Because in 1971, that's the number of Bengali refugees (1/7 th of the East Pakistani population) who ran for their lives from their home and took shelter in West Bengal, India.

So your analogy is wrong.

Did Saddam Hussain attack the US militarily by sinking an American warship in the Persian Gulf?

Because in 1971, Pakistan attacked India militarily on the western borders. Only then did India choose to directly intervene inside Bangladesh, after nine months of waiting.

Bengali's fight for independence was justified based on the treatment they received at all level in the society. But in no circumstance am I going to believe the theory that India was helping us for "altruistic" reason.

I wasn't talking about India's ulterior motives borne out of political realism. Whatever they did, it was the right thing from a Bangladeshi AND from an overall "right" point of view. That's all I am saying.

All they cared about was splitting their arch rival into 2. Indians till today take pride in defeating Pakistan, no one cares about Bangladesh's independence.

Over-generalizations. Last time I checked, the Indian government considers Bangladesh a sovereign country. As does the congressional and senate representatives of the people of Montana, most of whom cannot even locate Bangladesh on a map.

It's the same thing as someone saying that US army went to Iraq for the sole purpose of liberating the Iraqis and not for OIL.

Wrong analogy. The US went inside Iraq using entirely false pretexts (i.e., WMD, ties with Al Qaeda, etc). India didn't need such a pretext to enter East Pakistan, because

1. It was Pakistan that attacked India militarily in 1971 first, on its Western border.
2. It was being well-documented all around the world the atrocities Pak Army was causing inside Bangladesh. This should be obviuos to you if you are a Bangladeshi. Would you rather India not help us out militarily in 1971? Is that what you are suggesting?

But just as it has happened in IRaq, the civilians were happy in getting rid of Saddam but they could not accept living under the shadow of a foreign power. The countless bombing in Iraq is a direct response to America's action. Similarly, the Bengalis could not stand living their entire life under the umbrella of India, their "liberator".

Ridiculous parallels.

That India borders Bangladesh is a geographically unalterable fact. It's Bangaldesh's destiny to be under the shadow of a regional superpower with a much bigger population. Both countries lie in the same subcontinental plain, share innumerous cultural, regional, geographical, etc ties.

America, however, is thousands of miles away from Iraq.

A closer analogy would be Canada=Bangladesh, US=India. Although it's better not to take these analogies too literally, your attempt at drawing a parallel with Iraq was totally ludicrous.

[Alien]

Originally Posted by HereWeGo
First and foremost we dont have indian armies inside our border in our territory unlike Iraq. It doesnt matter if neone cares abt our independnce, we have independence and we care abt it. Thats all that counts. India had their reasons to fight with Pakistani's, fine ,true, but that helped us to gain independence. Not like we never wanted to seperate our selves from Pakistan. So don make it sound as if that was the case.

Thats because Mujib asked Indira Gandhi to get her troops out of BD when the war was finished. Iraq didn't do that to US and I don't blame them for that. The current Iraqi government is little less than a puppet of Bush Administration.

[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]

Do not compare 1971 to 2000. Societies are not homogenous over time atleast their leadership was not. I am not saying that india did not have any self interst then, but they also had some level of genuineness. Why did people in Kolkata raise money for bangladeshi refugees in 1971? Were they expecting tonnes of money in the future out of it?
- BBgun

actually, i agree with you and arnab.

my point is the following... its actually my fault because i did not correctly describe my opinion. but i'll put it in bold so that everyone here knows exactly where i stand on this issue.

indian gov helped us, and we are thankful for that help to the extent that it was genuine. if it was 100% genuine (which we all agree was not the case) then we are infitely gracious (i hope thats the right word).

i am not denying, that there was NO element of altruism involved. but i will mention this:

all i am saying is, suppose india stood not to benefit from aiding bengali EPs...then they would not have helped us, even if they felt sorry for us. so no one should claim they acted altruistically. yes, an element of humanitarian desire was there but to say otherwise is hogwash.

as far as kolkatans raising money for us...sure, but who were they. they could have been muslim bengali indians who had genuinely altruistic reasons. they could have been hindus who had genuine altruisim in mind. they coulda been a lot of people. but the actions of a few don't describe the actions of the whole.

India's actions in 1971 aligned with the right side of things.
- Arnab

i agree with this statement of yours.

[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.

[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
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.

[HereWeGo]

Originally Posted by al Furqaan
actually, i agree with you and arnab.

as far as kolkatans raising money for us...sure, but who were they. they could have been muslim bengali indians who had genuinely altruistic reasons. they could have been hindus who had genuine altruisim in mind. they coulda been a lot of people. but the actions of a few don't describe the actions of the whole.

Do u even hear yourself talking. Millions of Bangladesh took refuge in kolkata. The Government of India paid for the refugees till independence. The number of refugees were in millions and even if the government spend 1 Rupee on each of them for over 7 months than imagine the kind of money they spend for BDeshis. Would you allow that many people of india coming inside our border let alone feed them (even if it is once a day). Please be a little respectful. And obviously ur comparison of US IRAQ with PAK and BD is completely ridiculuos to say the least. No offence intended.

Plus the country helped us raise money. If only minority supported than that kind of money could have never been raised. And again u keep on mentioning hindu and muslim, i don get it why. How does it even matter? Pls love humanity...love people for who they are not what they are.

[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.