![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | → | Archive 10 |
this is in response to a couple of edits made by an ip-user [1] ; can this war be considered a part of coldwar because of the effects of cold war politics on it?
't confirmed the looting, rapes and the killings by the Pakistan Army and their local agents although the figures are far lower than the ones quoted by Bangladesh. According to Bangladeshi sources, 200,000 women were raped and over 3 million people were killed, while the Rahman Commission report in Pakistan claimed 26,000 died and the rapes were in the hundreds. However, the army's role in splintering Pakistan after its greatest military debacle was largely ignored by successive Pakistani governments'
that is false, the commission did not confirm that.the 3 million figure always peddled by indians but it has no proof or facts behind it —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.151.0.13 ( talk) 02:34, 6 April 2011 (UTC) also Pakistan did not launch a preemptive war. it was a response to direct Indian intervention.this article if very biased and full of lies.it fails to mention that Mujib had met with Indian Diplomats in London,the whole rebellion was preplanned and the british continued to supply India with missiles through out the war
There is no proof with hard evidence or circumstantial evidence that clearly confirms that Mujib has ordered "declaration of independence". Rather hard evidences and circumstantial evidences suggests Major Zia has declared indpendance all by himself on behalf of Mujib (not because of any order issued to him by Sheikh Mujib or Awami League).
Please see timesmachine.nytimes.com to research on 24th March to 27 March 1971. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sraihan ( talk • contribs) 19:12, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
True what Ragib says, however -- I am not sure that Sheikh Mujib was the major concern for Pakistanis. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.69.213.12 ( talk) 15:40, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
The picture has been moved to the indian section of the article where it can be further edited and adjusted.
There are various options for the picture at the intro:
A montage of pictures as in the world war article. it can have around 4 pictures and can have a description reading from clockwise on top. pictures that can be used sheikh mujib, mukti bahini soldier, bengali civilian etc. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_I
or it can be left as in the sri lanka civil war which is just a neutral map http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sri_Lankan_Civil_War
an indian picture in the intro cannot be used since this article is dealing with the bangladesh liberation war that started in march 1971. also there is an entire article for the indian war made by indian users. and there are redirects even in the intro of this article. on top of that there is an indian section later in this article.
A lot has been accomodated. please refrain from indianizing the article. BangladeshPride ( talk) 16:05, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
I completely agree with Bangladeshpride. Once India lost the war and East Bengal, it has no business in rewriting the history of the war it lost. If anything, this article should reflect more on the sacrifices made by brave Pakistani martyrs who laid down their lives to create a nation like Bangladesh.
Harvardoxford (
talk)
15:36, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
Wiki editors, your aim should be to unearth the truth and not propagate "official truth". The war was not disorganised before June 1971 -- that is a myth propagated to give Awami League full credit for the liberation of Bangladesh. Please identify the organisation of a liberation army -- with a full plan of how to build the nation (a constitution of sorts) after liberation. The army had a vision and was preparing for the war since the late 60's. This was outside the Awami League. They fought till the end and fought outside the Awami League sphere. Dig and find out about that army. And we will all learn. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.69.213.12 ( talk) 15:28, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
nothing will change the fact that Pakistan handed defeat to India and won the 1971 war. So it is pointless arguing on such matters. All that really matters is that Pakistan liberated Bangladesh and that a new nation was created. The organisation in question was only an Indian front involved in trying to retain East Bengal in the Indian Union.
Harvardoxford (
talk)
15:33, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
The table showing comparrison of expenditure on West Pakistan vs East Pakistan may be sourced, but without it isn't useful wihtout some contextualizatation such as the population of the two regions. Dainamo ( talk) 11:00, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
The word "resapond" should be changed to respond in the following text:
"the reason why Chinese did not resapond as Nixon suggested was unknown." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vypo9 ( talk • contribs) 16:48, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
In the atrocities section, one finds written: "Numerous women were tortured, raped and killed during the war; the exact numbers are not known and are a subject of debate. Bangladeshi sources cite a figure of 200,000 women raped, giving birth to thousands of war babies. The Pakistan Army also kept numerous Bengali women as sex-slaves inside the Dhaka Cantonment."
However, no source is provided at all for any of these claims. The next cited source makes no mention of the claims above. Please cite a verifiable and unbiased source for the claims, or remove them. Unverifiable information is essentially the same as imaginary information when it comes to writing an encyclopedia article.
Under the Operations Searchlight section, we have written:
"and the atrocities have been referred to as acts of genocide. [37]" However, the source quoted ( http://www.virtualbangladesh.com/history/holocaust.html) is not encyclopedic in nature, and the figure of 3.0 million is twice as high as the next highest estimate of deaths. Could someone please use a better source than "virtualbangladesh.com"?
Further, the definition of genocide is the systematic killing of an entire race. It has not been proven that Pakistan ever intended to kill every last Bengali, so the claim of genocide appears dubious. One can endlessly argue that had Pakistan been given enough time, it would have killed every Bengali, but evidence to that point is totally lacking since no Pakistani official has ever mentioned the extermination of the Bengali race as an end-goal in 1971 (unlike in Nazi Germany where intentions were made clear). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.247.239.101 ( talk) 01:47, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
The number of Pakistani troops cited to be present in East Pakistan during the war is terribly wrong. The two sources cited are highly biased and use second-hand information from sources that have themselves picked up figures from hear-say. NO Evidence exists of Pakistani troop figures to be that high in East Pakistan. The correct estimate comes from the newly published book, "Dead Reckoning: Memories of the 1971 Bangladesh War' by Sarmila Bose. She has cross-checked all information in her detailed research. It is about time to revise this article to challenge the dominant narrative of the victors of war which amounts to propaganda as there is no real evidence of many of the claims made in this article; except Indians and Bangladeshis citing third-rate sources that cite other sources, who cite yet other second-hand sources & hear-say.
Other ridiculous claims in the article related to Pakistani POWs where the article states, 93k Pakistani 'troops' were taken as POWs by the Indian Army. Even the source cited for this claim, clearly shows that the 93k POW figure included Pakistani troops PLUS thousands of civilian officials AND their families. The actual Pakistani SOLDIERS taken POWs did not exceed 40k by the most liberal of estimates in researched academia.
Another heinous claim made by the article is that Pakistan Army abducted female students from Dhaka University and kept them as sex slaves in the cantonment. Absolute rubbish! The ONLY TWO books based on 'field research' by reputable scholars Richard Sisson & Leo Rose and now Sarmila Bose - folks who interviewed survivors demonstrates beyond doubt that there were NO female students at the Dhaka university campus since the uprising had shutdown all universities and schools a year prior & students had gone home. The only females that remained were some staffers who lived on the campus along with faculty members. This claim and the claim that 200,000 women were raped by the Army is ludicrous to say the least. The 'Times Magazine' report 'Even the Skies Weep' cited is written by a journalist who based his story on second and third-hand information received from third-rate sources. Even Samantha Power, the so-called Pulitzer Prize winning author who made this claim of massive rape, NEVER cited any sources in her book. NO ONE bothered to verify these claims.
And then comes the claim of 3million killed by Pakistan Army. Here's an excerpt from The Guardian titled 'The Missing Millions' published 6th June, 1972 by William Drummond who sneaked into East Pakistan on several occasions wrote after the war, This figure of three million deaths, which the Sheikh has repeated several times since he returned to Bangladesh in early January, has been carried uncritically in sections of the world press. Through repititions such a claim gains a validity of its own and gradually evolves from assertion to fact needing no attribution. My judgment, based on numerous trips around Bangladesh and extensive discussions with many people at the village level as well as in the government, is that the three million figure is an exaggeration so gross as to be absurd.
Same goes for 'Indian Involvement' section. Amazingly this section starts from the date of December 3, 1971 when war in the Western sector started after PAF launched attack on Indian fields in the West. The actual covert Indian involvement goes all the way back to March but overt Indian involvement started mid-to-late August 1971. This is evident again from The Guardian report on 18th Sept. 1971 whose correspondent got in touch with a Bengali rebel who openly claimed, The big operations are always done by the Indians. This was in reference to blowing up strategic assets & key infrastructure around East Pakistan.
Those guarding this topic from editing seem to be committing a heinous travesty of the highest proportions by letting only ONE side of the story flow. NO attempt is made in the article to present a balanced view by putting forth facts and figures that run counter to Indian and Bangladeshi claims regarding different aspects of the war. A gullible & select set of Western media outlets are sourced over and over again despite there being NO evidence of their journalists actually verifying any of the claims made in their stories. S.faris ( talk) 01:46, 15 July 2011 (UTC)s.faris S.faris ( talk) 01:46, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
So you are saying that the reports that appeared in The Guardian were written by Sarmila Bose? Of course Sarmila Bose is 'controversial' because she is challenging the established myths of the 1971 war that the victor's repetitive narratives would have the gullible lot believe without question or attempt at verification. The farcical narrative is then defended by those that seek to lose the most credibility by assaulting credentials and character of those who seek to question that narrative. Sir, I can guarantee you a hundred percent, you have NOT read Dead Reckoning at all. Simply saying that a distinguished scholar is 'controversial' is a lame-duck excuse to muzzle dissent against the dominant narrative. And using some Pakistani sources to reveal the other side of the story is wrong? Please tell us as to HOW. The Pakistanis were one of the three belligerents in the war. If the article can use completely Indian and completely Bangladeshi sources, why not balance the article out with Pakistani side of the narrative? Let me guess! All Pakistanis present in East Pakistan were monsters? SO they ALL must be lying? Correct?
Your username denotes Bangladeshi ancestry, your partisan views regarding Sarmila Bose are understandable - this is NOT a personal attack, just my humble observation. Her book is littered with countless Bangladeshi sources & eye-witness accounts of prominent Bangladeshis who supported the 'liberation'. Your argument to keep Bose's material off of Wikipedia is the same tactic used by pro-Liberation folks who wish to silence all voices that seek to question the dominant narrative. If Sarmila Bose's scholarship is questionable, I'm amazed to see sources in the references section whose authors do not exist in the academia beyond their one-page articles on dubious websites. You are effectively working as a policeman to avoid a neutral point-of-view to be presented to people all over the world so that they can see both sides of the story. Presenting a specific narrative of the conflict is NOT your job. This is why Wikipedia continues to be treated with apprehension as a source for proper information by most universities where 'standards' matter.
Next you will say that Richard Sisson and Leo Rose's work is also not acceptable by labeling them 'controversial' as well. And with that, you toss out the two most extensively researched works on the 1971 war thereby shutting out any challenge to the narrative painted in the current article. S.faris ( talk) 08:51, 15 July 2011 (UTC)s.faris S.faris ( talk) 08:51, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
I will be changing the number of Pakistani troops cited in the Order of Battle section since it is absolutely wrong and defies all etiquette of sourcing information. The number cited for the figure of regular Pakistan Army troops is 365,000 and is sourced from www.acig.org. To begin with, a simple thorough reading of the article on acig.org will reveal that the article cites 365,000 figure as being the 'total' strength of the Pakistan Army; this Wikipedia article is about 'Bangladesh Liberation War' - by no stretch of imagination was the entire Pakistan Army involved in East Pakistan - heck, the entire Pakistan Army was not even involved once the 'official' Indo-Pak war of 1971 began which brought West Pakistan into the equation.
In 1971, the total strength of the Pakistan Army was about 365.000 men, with additional 280.000 in para-military forces. In the west, the PA deployed its 12 Infantry Division and part of 23 Infantry Division along the ceasefire line in Kashmir.
This sentence is directly quoted from the article at acig.org. Furthermore, the article at NO point claims that the entire strength of 365,000 troops of the Pakistan Army was involved in the 'liberation war' and this is to be treated separately from the Indo-Pak War of 1971. Stating 365,000 Pakistani troop strength for Bangladesh Liberation War is therefore a fallacy and presents the readers who source Wikipedia with misinformation and a skewered rendering of a historical event. To continue further, www.acig.org is a highly unreliable source for this topic since the website is primarily about combat aircraft & to some level pseudo-intellectual discussion of air-warfare, these are NO historians, academics or scholars by any standard, nothing more than a collection of history/military (air-warfare) enthusiasts. To top it all, the 'editor' of the self-styled website, Mr Tom Cooper has pretty much written 75% of the articles on the website.
The article from the website that is used in this Wikipedia article cites NO sources for 'any' of the claims in the written piece by Mr Tom Cooper and his associate Khan Syed Shaiz Ali and merely posts a vague 'bibliography' of SIX 'actual' sources for an article that stretches to such a great length about a complex civil-war, of which, FIVE books cited are about specific combat aircraft written by other 'enthusiasts'. To add insult to injury, the remaining two sources are vaguely cited as 'bharat-rakshak.com' and 'pakdef.info' both highly biased websites aimed at regurgitating national myths and other hyperbole to their respective audiences (not to mention no specific article or anything from those two websites is cited). And MOST amazingly, the article proudly claims that much of the information for the article is sourced from 'discussions' on its online 'forum' between members. WHO are these members? Are they academics? Historians? University-standard scholars? NO CLUE. There is NO information on who runs acig.org, there is NO contact information, there are NO credentials presented for any of its 'staff' who supposedly write the articles posted on the website.
Sadly, this is a travesty to allow such rubbish information to be published here in this Wikipedia article as a 'source'.
I will be citing information from the recently published book, "Dead Reckoning" on the Bangladesh Liberation War by a respected university scholar, professor and the book is published by a respected university's own press which adds immense credibility that acig.org can only dream about. This information has been cross-checked by the author who has seen actual primary documents of troop postings by Pakistan of its units to then East Pakistan. This information also challenges the other 'myth' of the 1971 war that 93,000 Pakistani troops were taken POW by India; which I will be fixing next. S.faris —Preceding undated comment added 11:15, 4 October 2011 (UTC).
And which academics have 'snubbed' "Dead Reckoning" exactly? Almost all of them are Bangladeshis and Indians who dare not let anyone challenge their narrative of the war just as you are protecting it here based on false information from sources such as 'acig.org'; if you can, please try & refute my points regarding acig.org's credibility instead of using the same redundant mantra of accusing a scholarly work published by a 'university press' (hope you know what credibility a university press publication carries) as you've been doing all along since I raised my first objection, that would be most appreciated.
You claim that the book 'Dead Reckoning' which is based on extensive interviews from survivors of the war and primary documents is not authoritative & the author, Sarmila Bose, who is a Senior Researcher in the Politics of South Asia dept. at the University of Oxford and has held Directorship of the Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism at Oxford University has somehow done 'shoddy' research; yet you provide NO evidence to that effect except your previous mention of ONE individual, Nayanika Mukherjee. Thats about it.
Now lets see, who has more credibility; Sarmila Bose (Senior Researcher at Oxford University & a Director of Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism) or some unknown Tom Cooper from 'acig.org' whose credentials are nowhere to be found, nor is there any contact information on acig.org for him or anyone else & the fact that he cites ZERO sources for his claims while Sarmila Bose has interviewed war survivors & has cited at the very least, a 100 sources (there are plenty of Bangladeshi and Indian ones in there) in her book.
You are doing nothing but killing actual facts by stalling the editing of this fallacious article by raising moot objections such as POV and what not, where they don't even apply. I have yet to see a logical rebuttal from you regarding any of the points I have raised so far, which leads me to believe you are prejudiced towards actual facts and are deliberately hindering the way forward.
You have appointed yourself as the protector of a false narrative that cannot be supported by factual evidence, to which you have yet to provide logical & factual rationale, aside from hurling moot accusations against "Dead Reckoning" & its author without supporting evidence. Its author has conducted extensive interviews with war survivors in Bangladesh, Pakistan, India, seen primary documents & the author cites sources for all the information in the book as opposed to 'acig.org' which you are protecting, that has NO source citations of their work whatsoever. I would like to see a response from you that goes beyond a one-liner. Thanks S.faris
Before you do any kind of edits to this article, please look at the following reviews on S. Bose’s new book "Dead Reckoning" and her research on Bangladesh War:
[1] Srinath Raghavan reviewed Bose's new book which was published by the Indian Express on July 30, 2011: http://www.indianexpress.com/news/a-dhaka-debacle/824484/1
Here are few excerpts from that article:
“The book examines a number of “case studies” of violence. The contextual framing of most of these is either skewed or missing, resulting in systematic misrepresentation of events….”
“Her claim that “several thousand Biharis” were killed by Bengalis in a single incident is dubious. More importantly, her attempt to pass off these (and other) reprehensible killings of Biharis as driven solely by ethnic hatred — the basis of her claim about “genocide” by Bengali nationalists — is utterly tendentious.”
“Equally problematic is Bose’s consistent effort to present the Bengalis in negative light— even when her own evidence suggests otherwise….”
“Bose makes an important point about the unreliability of most figures of the dead. Yet, her own approach to numbers scarcely inspires confidence…”
“….Far from advancing the cause of truth, it ends up muddying the waters of scholarship.”
[2] Nirupama Subramanian’s review, published by The Hindu on September 27, 2011: http://www.thehindu.com/arts/books/article2488077.ece
Here are some excerpts:
"For me, what is problematic was the moral equivalence Bose has sought to create between the actions of the oppressor and the oppressed, on the one hand, a full-fledged Army — with its superior training and firepower backed by the quiet acquiescence of a superpower — and, on the other, a people who, by her own account, were ill-trained and had no stomach for battle."
"Bose puts down Rumi's disappearance as the “curse of custodial violence that is endemic to all of South Asia”, then goes on to say the Pakistani military personnel were “rather accurate” in picking up the right guys, not detaining anyone who was not involved. And then, citing the example of one rebel who got away, she concludes that “[the Pakistanis] did err in the opposite direction”.
Aside from being equivocal, Bose is free with generalisations about Bengalis and their “demonisation” of the other side and their hatred for the “Shaala Panjabi” or “Khan sena”. On the other hand, she highlights individual acts of kindness of Pakistani soldiers, narrating them with poignancy."
"Bose's interviews with the Pakistani officers who were involved in the “action” in East Pakistan are an important part of the book. But these seem to have none of the interrogative rigour of her interviews in Bangladesh."
[3] And here is what “The Economist” says about S. Bose’s new book:
"Dead Reckoning: Memories of the 1971 Bangladesh war” is an effort by an Indian former journalist to interview Bangladeshis and Pakistanis who took part in, or were victims of, atrocities during the war. Her book is indeed flawed: it rushes to sweeping judgments and fails to offer much context for the snippets of interviews she presents."
Link: http://www.economist.com/blogs/banyan/2011/08/bangladesh-looks-back
It seems you are aware of Dr. Nayanika Mookerjee’s criticism on Bose’s shoddy research on Bangladesh War published by the “Economic and Political Weekly”: http://www.bricklanecircle.org/uploads/Bangladesh_War_of_1971_-_A_prescription_for_Reconciliation.pdf
Here is another EPW article which raised questions about her research methodology: http://www.epw.org.in/uploads/articles/11334.pdf
I can provide you more reference if you want. But, please tell me why this “flawed” book and her “shoddy” research should be referenced in this article on Wikipedia? Just because she works at Oxford and her book was published by a university press won’t fly my dear. It seems she has clearly an agenda in favor of Pakistan, which is exposed in this CSM article where she defended the U.S. sale of F-16 to Pakistan: http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0411/p09s02-coop.html. And it is not hard to understand either why you are so interested using this fictitious book as a reference.
Thank you User:GOM_T —Preceding undated comment added 07:48, 6 October 2011 (UTC).
Anyways, I don’t have time for your BS. Here is the reference for the number of Pakistani soldiers surrendered in 1971 from the book “The Armed Forces of Pakistan” (2002) written by Dr. Parvaiz Iqbal Cheema:
"Until 1971 defence planning had remained entirely within the domain of the military leaders. The defeat of the Army and surrender of over 90000 soldiers in East Pakistan had demoralised the armed forces considerably." ( http://www.scribd.com/doc/49099614/The-Armed-Forces-of-Pakistan)
What is the number of troops Bose mentioned in her book that you wanna fix??
And here is another "peer-reviewed" EPW article about Bose’s shoddy research on the "Dead Reckoning": Mohaiemen N.(2011) Flying Blind: Waiting for a Real Reckoning on 1971,vol xlvi no 36 EPW Economic & Political Weekly http://www.epw.in/epw/uploads/articles/16507.pdf
Arnold Zeitlin, a professor and the former AP Bureau Chief in Pakistan in 1971 reviewed the book “Dead Reckoning” and concluded it as a “distortion of history” to the face of Sarmila Bose during her book event at the Woodrow Wilson Center: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xFoEZoCQfHU
Faris, I assume you are ashamed of the heinous acts of genocide and rape ( http://www.rnw.nl/english/article/bangladesh-became-a-free-nation-and-i-a-fallen-woman) done by the Pakistani Army in 1971. And that’s why you are trolling here to change the facts with distortion. I totally understand. But you have to come up with better references than S. Bose. Good luck! User:GOM_T
There is a new book out on the topic of atrocities in 1971 by Pak Army. The article as is shows bias towards the bangladeshi line. Please see review here:
http://www.thefridaytimes.com/beta2/tft/article.php?issue=20110902&page=20
Also, the quote by Mujib "Kill 3 million and they will be eating out of our hands" is of very dubious origin. Pynes book provides no evidence as to where he got the quote. More on this quote is in the article too link provided above.
Im new to wikipedia as you can prob tell. ______________
Taimur Ali Ahmed www.taimurahmed.com taimura@gmail.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by Taimura ( talk • contribs) 05:43, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
The very first line under Background states:
"In August 1947, the Partition of British India gave birth to two new states; a secular state named India and an Islamic state named Pakistan."
However, Pakistan was a secular state in 1947, and was founded as a homeland for Indian Muslims. So it is more appropriately called a Muslim State. It only began to Islamize itself and refer to itself as the Islamic Republic AFTER the 1971 war. The term Islamic state suggests a non-secular state based on the Shariah, which is adequately true of today's Pakistan. However, it is not true of Pakistan in 1947.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.247.239.101 ( talk) 00:36, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | → | Archive 10 |
this is in response to a couple of edits made by an ip-user [1] ; can this war be considered a part of coldwar because of the effects of cold war politics on it?
't confirmed the looting, rapes and the killings by the Pakistan Army and their local agents although the figures are far lower than the ones quoted by Bangladesh. According to Bangladeshi sources, 200,000 women were raped and over 3 million people were killed, while the Rahman Commission report in Pakistan claimed 26,000 died and the rapes were in the hundreds. However, the army's role in splintering Pakistan after its greatest military debacle was largely ignored by successive Pakistani governments'
that is false, the commission did not confirm that.the 3 million figure always peddled by indians but it has no proof or facts behind it —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.151.0.13 ( talk) 02:34, 6 April 2011 (UTC) also Pakistan did not launch a preemptive war. it was a response to direct Indian intervention.this article if very biased and full of lies.it fails to mention that Mujib had met with Indian Diplomats in London,the whole rebellion was preplanned and the british continued to supply India with missiles through out the war
There is no proof with hard evidence or circumstantial evidence that clearly confirms that Mujib has ordered "declaration of independence". Rather hard evidences and circumstantial evidences suggests Major Zia has declared indpendance all by himself on behalf of Mujib (not because of any order issued to him by Sheikh Mujib or Awami League).
Please see timesmachine.nytimes.com to research on 24th March to 27 March 1971. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sraihan ( talk • contribs) 19:12, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
True what Ragib says, however -- I am not sure that Sheikh Mujib was the major concern for Pakistanis. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.69.213.12 ( talk) 15:40, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
The picture has been moved to the indian section of the article where it can be further edited and adjusted.
There are various options for the picture at the intro:
A montage of pictures as in the world war article. it can have around 4 pictures and can have a description reading from clockwise on top. pictures that can be used sheikh mujib, mukti bahini soldier, bengali civilian etc. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_I
or it can be left as in the sri lanka civil war which is just a neutral map http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sri_Lankan_Civil_War
an indian picture in the intro cannot be used since this article is dealing with the bangladesh liberation war that started in march 1971. also there is an entire article for the indian war made by indian users. and there are redirects even in the intro of this article. on top of that there is an indian section later in this article.
A lot has been accomodated. please refrain from indianizing the article. BangladeshPride ( talk) 16:05, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
I completely agree with Bangladeshpride. Once India lost the war and East Bengal, it has no business in rewriting the history of the war it lost. If anything, this article should reflect more on the sacrifices made by brave Pakistani martyrs who laid down their lives to create a nation like Bangladesh.
Harvardoxford (
talk)
15:36, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
Wiki editors, your aim should be to unearth the truth and not propagate "official truth". The war was not disorganised before June 1971 -- that is a myth propagated to give Awami League full credit for the liberation of Bangladesh. Please identify the organisation of a liberation army -- with a full plan of how to build the nation (a constitution of sorts) after liberation. The army had a vision and was preparing for the war since the late 60's. This was outside the Awami League. They fought till the end and fought outside the Awami League sphere. Dig and find out about that army. And we will all learn. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.69.213.12 ( talk) 15:28, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
nothing will change the fact that Pakistan handed defeat to India and won the 1971 war. So it is pointless arguing on such matters. All that really matters is that Pakistan liberated Bangladesh and that a new nation was created. The organisation in question was only an Indian front involved in trying to retain East Bengal in the Indian Union.
Harvardoxford (
talk)
15:33, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
The table showing comparrison of expenditure on West Pakistan vs East Pakistan may be sourced, but without it isn't useful wihtout some contextualizatation such as the population of the two regions. Dainamo ( talk) 11:00, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
The word "resapond" should be changed to respond in the following text:
"the reason why Chinese did not resapond as Nixon suggested was unknown." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vypo9 ( talk • contribs) 16:48, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
In the atrocities section, one finds written: "Numerous women were tortured, raped and killed during the war; the exact numbers are not known and are a subject of debate. Bangladeshi sources cite a figure of 200,000 women raped, giving birth to thousands of war babies. The Pakistan Army also kept numerous Bengali women as sex-slaves inside the Dhaka Cantonment."
However, no source is provided at all for any of these claims. The next cited source makes no mention of the claims above. Please cite a verifiable and unbiased source for the claims, or remove them. Unverifiable information is essentially the same as imaginary information when it comes to writing an encyclopedia article.
Under the Operations Searchlight section, we have written:
"and the atrocities have been referred to as acts of genocide. [37]" However, the source quoted ( http://www.virtualbangladesh.com/history/holocaust.html) is not encyclopedic in nature, and the figure of 3.0 million is twice as high as the next highest estimate of deaths. Could someone please use a better source than "virtualbangladesh.com"?
Further, the definition of genocide is the systematic killing of an entire race. It has not been proven that Pakistan ever intended to kill every last Bengali, so the claim of genocide appears dubious. One can endlessly argue that had Pakistan been given enough time, it would have killed every Bengali, but evidence to that point is totally lacking since no Pakistani official has ever mentioned the extermination of the Bengali race as an end-goal in 1971 (unlike in Nazi Germany where intentions were made clear). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.247.239.101 ( talk) 01:47, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
The number of Pakistani troops cited to be present in East Pakistan during the war is terribly wrong. The two sources cited are highly biased and use second-hand information from sources that have themselves picked up figures from hear-say. NO Evidence exists of Pakistani troop figures to be that high in East Pakistan. The correct estimate comes from the newly published book, "Dead Reckoning: Memories of the 1971 Bangladesh War' by Sarmila Bose. She has cross-checked all information in her detailed research. It is about time to revise this article to challenge the dominant narrative of the victors of war which amounts to propaganda as there is no real evidence of many of the claims made in this article; except Indians and Bangladeshis citing third-rate sources that cite other sources, who cite yet other second-hand sources & hear-say.
Other ridiculous claims in the article related to Pakistani POWs where the article states, 93k Pakistani 'troops' were taken as POWs by the Indian Army. Even the source cited for this claim, clearly shows that the 93k POW figure included Pakistani troops PLUS thousands of civilian officials AND their families. The actual Pakistani SOLDIERS taken POWs did not exceed 40k by the most liberal of estimates in researched academia.
Another heinous claim made by the article is that Pakistan Army abducted female students from Dhaka University and kept them as sex slaves in the cantonment. Absolute rubbish! The ONLY TWO books based on 'field research' by reputable scholars Richard Sisson & Leo Rose and now Sarmila Bose - folks who interviewed survivors demonstrates beyond doubt that there were NO female students at the Dhaka university campus since the uprising had shutdown all universities and schools a year prior & students had gone home. The only females that remained were some staffers who lived on the campus along with faculty members. This claim and the claim that 200,000 women were raped by the Army is ludicrous to say the least. The 'Times Magazine' report 'Even the Skies Weep' cited is written by a journalist who based his story on second and third-hand information received from third-rate sources. Even Samantha Power, the so-called Pulitzer Prize winning author who made this claim of massive rape, NEVER cited any sources in her book. NO ONE bothered to verify these claims.
And then comes the claim of 3million killed by Pakistan Army. Here's an excerpt from The Guardian titled 'The Missing Millions' published 6th June, 1972 by William Drummond who sneaked into East Pakistan on several occasions wrote after the war, This figure of three million deaths, which the Sheikh has repeated several times since he returned to Bangladesh in early January, has been carried uncritically in sections of the world press. Through repititions such a claim gains a validity of its own and gradually evolves from assertion to fact needing no attribution. My judgment, based on numerous trips around Bangladesh and extensive discussions with many people at the village level as well as in the government, is that the three million figure is an exaggeration so gross as to be absurd.
Same goes for 'Indian Involvement' section. Amazingly this section starts from the date of December 3, 1971 when war in the Western sector started after PAF launched attack on Indian fields in the West. The actual covert Indian involvement goes all the way back to March but overt Indian involvement started mid-to-late August 1971. This is evident again from The Guardian report on 18th Sept. 1971 whose correspondent got in touch with a Bengali rebel who openly claimed, The big operations are always done by the Indians. This was in reference to blowing up strategic assets & key infrastructure around East Pakistan.
Those guarding this topic from editing seem to be committing a heinous travesty of the highest proportions by letting only ONE side of the story flow. NO attempt is made in the article to present a balanced view by putting forth facts and figures that run counter to Indian and Bangladeshi claims regarding different aspects of the war. A gullible & select set of Western media outlets are sourced over and over again despite there being NO evidence of their journalists actually verifying any of the claims made in their stories. S.faris ( talk) 01:46, 15 July 2011 (UTC)s.faris S.faris ( talk) 01:46, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
So you are saying that the reports that appeared in The Guardian were written by Sarmila Bose? Of course Sarmila Bose is 'controversial' because she is challenging the established myths of the 1971 war that the victor's repetitive narratives would have the gullible lot believe without question or attempt at verification. The farcical narrative is then defended by those that seek to lose the most credibility by assaulting credentials and character of those who seek to question that narrative. Sir, I can guarantee you a hundred percent, you have NOT read Dead Reckoning at all. Simply saying that a distinguished scholar is 'controversial' is a lame-duck excuse to muzzle dissent against the dominant narrative. And using some Pakistani sources to reveal the other side of the story is wrong? Please tell us as to HOW. The Pakistanis were one of the three belligerents in the war. If the article can use completely Indian and completely Bangladeshi sources, why not balance the article out with Pakistani side of the narrative? Let me guess! All Pakistanis present in East Pakistan were monsters? SO they ALL must be lying? Correct?
Your username denotes Bangladeshi ancestry, your partisan views regarding Sarmila Bose are understandable - this is NOT a personal attack, just my humble observation. Her book is littered with countless Bangladeshi sources & eye-witness accounts of prominent Bangladeshis who supported the 'liberation'. Your argument to keep Bose's material off of Wikipedia is the same tactic used by pro-Liberation folks who wish to silence all voices that seek to question the dominant narrative. If Sarmila Bose's scholarship is questionable, I'm amazed to see sources in the references section whose authors do not exist in the academia beyond their one-page articles on dubious websites. You are effectively working as a policeman to avoid a neutral point-of-view to be presented to people all over the world so that they can see both sides of the story. Presenting a specific narrative of the conflict is NOT your job. This is why Wikipedia continues to be treated with apprehension as a source for proper information by most universities where 'standards' matter.
Next you will say that Richard Sisson and Leo Rose's work is also not acceptable by labeling them 'controversial' as well. And with that, you toss out the two most extensively researched works on the 1971 war thereby shutting out any challenge to the narrative painted in the current article. S.faris ( talk) 08:51, 15 July 2011 (UTC)s.faris S.faris ( talk) 08:51, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
I will be changing the number of Pakistani troops cited in the Order of Battle section since it is absolutely wrong and defies all etiquette of sourcing information. The number cited for the figure of regular Pakistan Army troops is 365,000 and is sourced from www.acig.org. To begin with, a simple thorough reading of the article on acig.org will reveal that the article cites 365,000 figure as being the 'total' strength of the Pakistan Army; this Wikipedia article is about 'Bangladesh Liberation War' - by no stretch of imagination was the entire Pakistan Army involved in East Pakistan - heck, the entire Pakistan Army was not even involved once the 'official' Indo-Pak war of 1971 began which brought West Pakistan into the equation.
In 1971, the total strength of the Pakistan Army was about 365.000 men, with additional 280.000 in para-military forces. In the west, the PA deployed its 12 Infantry Division and part of 23 Infantry Division along the ceasefire line in Kashmir.
This sentence is directly quoted from the article at acig.org. Furthermore, the article at NO point claims that the entire strength of 365,000 troops of the Pakistan Army was involved in the 'liberation war' and this is to be treated separately from the Indo-Pak War of 1971. Stating 365,000 Pakistani troop strength for Bangladesh Liberation War is therefore a fallacy and presents the readers who source Wikipedia with misinformation and a skewered rendering of a historical event. To continue further, www.acig.org is a highly unreliable source for this topic since the website is primarily about combat aircraft & to some level pseudo-intellectual discussion of air-warfare, these are NO historians, academics or scholars by any standard, nothing more than a collection of history/military (air-warfare) enthusiasts. To top it all, the 'editor' of the self-styled website, Mr Tom Cooper has pretty much written 75% of the articles on the website.
The article from the website that is used in this Wikipedia article cites NO sources for 'any' of the claims in the written piece by Mr Tom Cooper and his associate Khan Syed Shaiz Ali and merely posts a vague 'bibliography' of SIX 'actual' sources for an article that stretches to such a great length about a complex civil-war, of which, FIVE books cited are about specific combat aircraft written by other 'enthusiasts'. To add insult to injury, the remaining two sources are vaguely cited as 'bharat-rakshak.com' and 'pakdef.info' both highly biased websites aimed at regurgitating national myths and other hyperbole to their respective audiences (not to mention no specific article or anything from those two websites is cited). And MOST amazingly, the article proudly claims that much of the information for the article is sourced from 'discussions' on its online 'forum' between members. WHO are these members? Are they academics? Historians? University-standard scholars? NO CLUE. There is NO information on who runs acig.org, there is NO contact information, there are NO credentials presented for any of its 'staff' who supposedly write the articles posted on the website.
Sadly, this is a travesty to allow such rubbish information to be published here in this Wikipedia article as a 'source'.
I will be citing information from the recently published book, "Dead Reckoning" on the Bangladesh Liberation War by a respected university scholar, professor and the book is published by a respected university's own press which adds immense credibility that acig.org can only dream about. This information has been cross-checked by the author who has seen actual primary documents of troop postings by Pakistan of its units to then East Pakistan. This information also challenges the other 'myth' of the 1971 war that 93,000 Pakistani troops were taken POW by India; which I will be fixing next. S.faris —Preceding undated comment added 11:15, 4 October 2011 (UTC).
And which academics have 'snubbed' "Dead Reckoning" exactly? Almost all of them are Bangladeshis and Indians who dare not let anyone challenge their narrative of the war just as you are protecting it here based on false information from sources such as 'acig.org'; if you can, please try & refute my points regarding acig.org's credibility instead of using the same redundant mantra of accusing a scholarly work published by a 'university press' (hope you know what credibility a university press publication carries) as you've been doing all along since I raised my first objection, that would be most appreciated.
You claim that the book 'Dead Reckoning' which is based on extensive interviews from survivors of the war and primary documents is not authoritative & the author, Sarmila Bose, who is a Senior Researcher in the Politics of South Asia dept. at the University of Oxford and has held Directorship of the Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism at Oxford University has somehow done 'shoddy' research; yet you provide NO evidence to that effect except your previous mention of ONE individual, Nayanika Mukherjee. Thats about it.
Now lets see, who has more credibility; Sarmila Bose (Senior Researcher at Oxford University & a Director of Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism) or some unknown Tom Cooper from 'acig.org' whose credentials are nowhere to be found, nor is there any contact information on acig.org for him or anyone else & the fact that he cites ZERO sources for his claims while Sarmila Bose has interviewed war survivors & has cited at the very least, a 100 sources (there are plenty of Bangladeshi and Indian ones in there) in her book.
You are doing nothing but killing actual facts by stalling the editing of this fallacious article by raising moot objections such as POV and what not, where they don't even apply. I have yet to see a logical rebuttal from you regarding any of the points I have raised so far, which leads me to believe you are prejudiced towards actual facts and are deliberately hindering the way forward.
You have appointed yourself as the protector of a false narrative that cannot be supported by factual evidence, to which you have yet to provide logical & factual rationale, aside from hurling moot accusations against "Dead Reckoning" & its author without supporting evidence. Its author has conducted extensive interviews with war survivors in Bangladesh, Pakistan, India, seen primary documents & the author cites sources for all the information in the book as opposed to 'acig.org' which you are protecting, that has NO source citations of their work whatsoever. I would like to see a response from you that goes beyond a one-liner. Thanks S.faris
Before you do any kind of edits to this article, please look at the following reviews on S. Bose’s new book "Dead Reckoning" and her research on Bangladesh War:
[1] Srinath Raghavan reviewed Bose's new book which was published by the Indian Express on July 30, 2011: http://www.indianexpress.com/news/a-dhaka-debacle/824484/1
Here are few excerpts from that article:
“The book examines a number of “case studies” of violence. The contextual framing of most of these is either skewed or missing, resulting in systematic misrepresentation of events….”
“Her claim that “several thousand Biharis” were killed by Bengalis in a single incident is dubious. More importantly, her attempt to pass off these (and other) reprehensible killings of Biharis as driven solely by ethnic hatred — the basis of her claim about “genocide” by Bengali nationalists — is utterly tendentious.”
“Equally problematic is Bose’s consistent effort to present the Bengalis in negative light— even when her own evidence suggests otherwise….”
“Bose makes an important point about the unreliability of most figures of the dead. Yet, her own approach to numbers scarcely inspires confidence…”
“….Far from advancing the cause of truth, it ends up muddying the waters of scholarship.”
[2] Nirupama Subramanian’s review, published by The Hindu on September 27, 2011: http://www.thehindu.com/arts/books/article2488077.ece
Here are some excerpts:
"For me, what is problematic was the moral equivalence Bose has sought to create between the actions of the oppressor and the oppressed, on the one hand, a full-fledged Army — with its superior training and firepower backed by the quiet acquiescence of a superpower — and, on the other, a people who, by her own account, were ill-trained and had no stomach for battle."
"Bose puts down Rumi's disappearance as the “curse of custodial violence that is endemic to all of South Asia”, then goes on to say the Pakistani military personnel were “rather accurate” in picking up the right guys, not detaining anyone who was not involved. And then, citing the example of one rebel who got away, she concludes that “[the Pakistanis] did err in the opposite direction”.
Aside from being equivocal, Bose is free with generalisations about Bengalis and their “demonisation” of the other side and their hatred for the “Shaala Panjabi” or “Khan sena”. On the other hand, she highlights individual acts of kindness of Pakistani soldiers, narrating them with poignancy."
"Bose's interviews with the Pakistani officers who were involved in the “action” in East Pakistan are an important part of the book. But these seem to have none of the interrogative rigour of her interviews in Bangladesh."
[3] And here is what “The Economist” says about S. Bose’s new book:
"Dead Reckoning: Memories of the 1971 Bangladesh war” is an effort by an Indian former journalist to interview Bangladeshis and Pakistanis who took part in, or were victims of, atrocities during the war. Her book is indeed flawed: it rushes to sweeping judgments and fails to offer much context for the snippets of interviews she presents."
Link: http://www.economist.com/blogs/banyan/2011/08/bangladesh-looks-back
It seems you are aware of Dr. Nayanika Mookerjee’s criticism on Bose’s shoddy research on Bangladesh War published by the “Economic and Political Weekly”: http://www.bricklanecircle.org/uploads/Bangladesh_War_of_1971_-_A_prescription_for_Reconciliation.pdf
Here is another EPW article which raised questions about her research methodology: http://www.epw.org.in/uploads/articles/11334.pdf
I can provide you more reference if you want. But, please tell me why this “flawed” book and her “shoddy” research should be referenced in this article on Wikipedia? Just because she works at Oxford and her book was published by a university press won’t fly my dear. It seems she has clearly an agenda in favor of Pakistan, which is exposed in this CSM article where she defended the U.S. sale of F-16 to Pakistan: http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0411/p09s02-coop.html. And it is not hard to understand either why you are so interested using this fictitious book as a reference.
Thank you User:GOM_T —Preceding undated comment added 07:48, 6 October 2011 (UTC).
Anyways, I don’t have time for your BS. Here is the reference for the number of Pakistani soldiers surrendered in 1971 from the book “The Armed Forces of Pakistan” (2002) written by Dr. Parvaiz Iqbal Cheema:
"Until 1971 defence planning had remained entirely within the domain of the military leaders. The defeat of the Army and surrender of over 90000 soldiers in East Pakistan had demoralised the armed forces considerably." ( http://www.scribd.com/doc/49099614/The-Armed-Forces-of-Pakistan)
What is the number of troops Bose mentioned in her book that you wanna fix??
And here is another "peer-reviewed" EPW article about Bose’s shoddy research on the "Dead Reckoning": Mohaiemen N.(2011) Flying Blind: Waiting for a Real Reckoning on 1971,vol xlvi no 36 EPW Economic & Political Weekly http://www.epw.in/epw/uploads/articles/16507.pdf
Arnold Zeitlin, a professor and the former AP Bureau Chief in Pakistan in 1971 reviewed the book “Dead Reckoning” and concluded it as a “distortion of history” to the face of Sarmila Bose during her book event at the Woodrow Wilson Center: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xFoEZoCQfHU
Faris, I assume you are ashamed of the heinous acts of genocide and rape ( http://www.rnw.nl/english/article/bangladesh-became-a-free-nation-and-i-a-fallen-woman) done by the Pakistani Army in 1971. And that’s why you are trolling here to change the facts with distortion. I totally understand. But you have to come up with better references than S. Bose. Good luck! User:GOM_T
There is a new book out on the topic of atrocities in 1971 by Pak Army. The article as is shows bias towards the bangladeshi line. Please see review here:
http://www.thefridaytimes.com/beta2/tft/article.php?issue=20110902&page=20
Also, the quote by Mujib "Kill 3 million and they will be eating out of our hands" is of very dubious origin. Pynes book provides no evidence as to where he got the quote. More on this quote is in the article too link provided above.
Im new to wikipedia as you can prob tell. ______________
Taimur Ali Ahmed www.taimurahmed.com taimura@gmail.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by Taimura ( talk • contribs) 05:43, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
The very first line under Background states:
"In August 1947, the Partition of British India gave birth to two new states; a secular state named India and an Islamic state named Pakistan."
However, Pakistan was a secular state in 1947, and was founded as a homeland for Indian Muslims. So it is more appropriately called a Muslim State. It only began to Islamize itself and refer to itself as the Islamic Republic AFTER the 1971 war. The term Islamic state suggests a non-secular state based on the Shariah, which is adequately true of today's Pakistan. However, it is not true of Pakistan in 1947.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.247.239.101 ( talk) 00:36, 9 November 2011 (UTC)