Could the East Pakistan surrender have been avoided from a military perspective?

[Savak]

According to the General who surrendered i.e. General Niazi in East Pakistan, he did so after being ordered by the GHQ in West Pakistan and under orders from President Yahya Khan. However the GHQ denied giving any such order to surrender and claimed that General Niazi was a coward who was incapable of being a millitary commander and did not have the heart or stomach for war and leading an army and he chose to surrender of his own accord.

I read an interview of General Niazi a few months before he died in 2004 where he claimed that the situation he faced was an impossibility, there were just 45,000 Pakistani soldiers and another 12,000 paramillitary and police forces on the ground in East Pakistan where they were up against 500,000 Indian troops, around 100,000 Mukhti Bahini fighters and a very hostile population which was indulging in sabotage and non-coperation with the Pakistani army.

Most neutral observers have commented that General Niazi was faced with a millitary impossibility and had been made the fall guy by the GHQ and Pakistani leadership for the East Pakistan debacle. Other observers dismiss this as hogwash and states that a self respecting, proud patriotic soldier would fight to the very end and that the Pakistani army could have tried to resist for atleast another 2-3 weeks. Others say General Niazi ended up saving the lives of his troops, paramillitary and civilian officials who were not well armed enough, well equipped enough to deal with the might of the Indian army, Mukti Bahini.

Anyways i thought i would raise this question here and get everyone elses thoughts.

 

[Rafa]

Interesting thread but no replies yet from any people that maybe well read on this event.

 

[Madplayer]

From what i know, it could not have been avoided from a military perspective especially in the later part of the war.

However it could have been avoided from the civil administration and political perspective if west Pakistanis weren't so full of themselves.

 

[Pakistanian]

The Indian army chief said the Pakistan military fought valiantly given the circumstances as they had the odds stacked against them. His video is on youtube, y'all can look it up.

 

[Pakistanian]

Here it is. Indian troops outnumbered Pakistanis 15 to 1 and had months of preparation.

 

[Varun]

Reading up on this war is an enlightening experience of human greed and foolishness. Pakistan's Army should have taken a 25% pay cut for handing a quarter of the country on a platter to the enemy.

 

[Savak]

A few East Pakistani soldiers always mention that no one in West Pakistan and Pakistan today could understand the circumstances and overall situation they were fighting under. There was extremely poor discipline among Pakistani soldiers and their morale was further dented by just not being welcomed by the local population. And yes a record no of women were raped.

But the Bengali's were also not innocent either. They had launched assasinations and attacks on West Pakistani officials as well.

Overall i must say it was best for both countries to part ways.

 

[indipper]

On later part, no. We can still save Baluchistan though.

 

[Madplayer]

On later part, no. We can still save Baluchistan though.

Baluchistan isnt going anywhere. The demographic make up has changed. Pathans outnumber balochs in Balochistan as far as i can remember. Please correct me if i am wrong.

 

[imrankhannsu]

I think Operation Search Light was one of the most despicable military operations carried out by the Pakistan army.

 

[Savak]

Baluchistan isnt going anywhere. The demographic make up has changed. Pathans outnumber balochs in Balochistan as far as i can remember. Please correct me if i am wrong.

Bengali's didn't speak Urdu, so that was a big divide there. Also the big territorial gap with India in the middle and cultural differences didn't help.

Balochi's atleast can speak Urdu and share something in common with Pakistan. Also helps that Balochistan is in Pakistan. This talk of Liberation and cessation is just fueled by a few self serving fuedals. The lack of development in Balochistan has a lot to do with the Balochi feudals themselves.

 

[faraz39]

I know this goes against all military code of honor but the generals should have refused to fight fellow East Pakistanis when Yahya Khan declared war. Everything was doomed from the time Yahya Khan decided to send the military in. There was only a political solution here to keep the country united.

 

[Savak]

I know this goes against all military code of honor but the generals should have refused to fight fellow East Pakistanis when Yahya Khan declared war. Everything was doomed from the time Yahya Khan decided to send the military in. There was only a political solution here to keep the country united.

The question needs to be asked what would any other country have done if they had a province or state which was declaring cessation from the rest of the country and refusing to co-operate with the central govt?

The excuse given for the millitary coming in is that West Pakistani's were being attacked by Mukti Bahini and East Pakistani's.

 

[Napa]

According to the General who surrendered i.e. General Niazi in East Pakistan, he did so after being ordered by the GHQ in West Pakistan and under orders from President Yahya Khan. However the GHQ denied giving any such order to surrender and claimed that General Niazi was a coward who was incapable of being a millitary commander and did not have the heart or stomach for war and leading an army and he chose to surrender of his own accord.

I read an interview of General Niazi a few months before he died in 2004 where he claimed that the situation he faced was an impossibility, there were just 45,000 Pakistani soldiers and another 12,000 paramillitary and police forces on the ground in East Pakistan where they were up against 500,000 Indian troops, around 100,000 Mukhti Bahini fighters and a very hostile population which was indulging in sabotage and non-coperation with the Pakistani army.

Most neutral observers have commented that General Niazi was faced with a millitary impossibility and had been made the fall guy by the GHQ and Pakistani leadership for the East Pakistan debacle. Other observers dismiss this as hogwash and states that a self respecting, proud patriotic soldier would fight to the very end and that the Pakistani army could have tried to resist for atleast another 2-3 weeks. Others say General Niazi ended up saving the lives of his troops, paramillitary and civilian officials who were not well armed enough, well equipped enough to deal with the might of the Indian army, Mukti Bahini.

Anyways i thought i would raise this question here and get everyone elses thoughts.

The record of the Pakistani Army in the war will remain that they first raped and massacred civilians, and next when faced by an army they surrendered. Shameful!

 

[Savak]

The record of the Pakistani Army in the war will remain that they first raped and massacred civilians, and next when faced by an army they surrendered. Shameful!

There are 2 schools of thought, one is you fight to the end and even sacrifice your lifes for a cause that is just. The war in East Pakistan was not just, the Bengali's wanted independence, freedom from Pakistan and this definately sagged the morale of the Pakistani army over there.

The other school of thought is that it is stupidity and suicidal to sacrifice your lives, suffer bloodshed for a nothing cause. Some observers believe General Niazi did not let his ego get the better of him and saved the lives of the 55,000 troops, paramillitary forces and the 38,000 West Pakistani civilians in East Pakistan from the Indian Army and the Mukti Bahini.

 

[faraz39]

The question needs to be asked what would any other country have done if they had a province or state which was declaring cessation from the rest of the country and refusing to co-operate with the central govt?

The excuse given for the millitary coming in is that West Pakistani's were being attacked by Mukti Bahini and East Pakistani's.

To the best of my knowledge:

-Sheikh Mujeeb's party had clearly won the general elections but were prevented from forming a gov't because the West thought they were too good to be ruled by the East
-negotiations were going on between ZAB and Mujeeb when Yahya Khan decided to send in the military
-the fact that the military was sent in to ruthlessly kill and rape the East showed the level of arrogance the west had developed
-I can't blame the East for wanting independence after being denied a clear election win and getting massacred by the military

 

[imrankhannsu]

To the best of my knowledge:

-Sheikh Mujeeb's party had clearly won the general elections but were prevented from forming a gov't because the West thought they were too good to be ruled by the East
-negotiations were going on between ZAB and Mujeeb when Yahya Khan decided to send in the military
-the fact that the military was sent in to ruthlessly kill and rape the East showed the level of arrogance the west had developed
-I can't blame the East for wanting independence after being denied a clear election win and getting massacred by the military

Regrettably I have also come to the same conclusion

 

[CricketCartoons]

What I love Bangladesh most is for the love of their mother tongue. The International Mother Language Day celebration is based on the Bengali Movement in Bangladesh.

Learn English or any language you are interested in, but one must always always honour, preserve and promote their mother tongue. Something I see missing among millennial indians.

 

[Snak3eye5]

The question needs to be asked what would any other country have done if they had a province or state which was declaring cessation from the rest of the country and refusing to co-operate with the central govt?

The excuse given for the millitary coming in is that West Pakistani's were being attacked by Mukti Bahini and East Pakistani's.

This cessation talk of splitting off from the rest of the country happens all the time in India and could even make a better case that east bengal. Over 50 religions and languages exist in India. But the majority don't want it and don't want to be broken up.

 

[Snak3eye5]

What I love Bangladesh most is for the love of their mother tongue. The International Mother Language Day celebration is based on the Bengali Movement in Bangladesh.

Learn English or any language you are interested in, but one must always always honour, preserve and promote their mother tongue. Something I see missing among millennial indians.

Millennial Indians are learning to adapt just like the rest of the world or they can get left behind and fight for survival. I would choose to survive and adapt. In India there is over 50 something languages, to communicate with one and another and learning English is you're best bet if you want to communicate. Doesn't mean you have to ignore your mother tongue. But I don't see why I need to post a flag and proclaim my love for my mother tongue.

Bengalis for the last couple of years are currently flooding in big numbers to Kerala for work and they are also getting hired for all kinds of help since they get a fraction of what Keralites would pay their own workers and to be honest Bengalis are better workers when it comes to heavy lifting and blue collar jobs. The bengalis speak a mix of broken Malayalam English and Hindi. The malayalees from Kerala speak a mix of Malayalam, broken hindi and English to communicate back.
So at the end of the day you do what you have to and speak any damn language to survive...

 

[Markhor]

The question needs to be asked what would any other country have done if they had a province or state which was declaring cessation from the rest of the country and refusing to co-operate with the central govt?

The excuse given for the millitary coming in is that West Pakistani's were being attacked by Mukti Bahini and East Pakistani's.

Any civilised government, unlike West Pakistan who viewed the Eastern Wing as a vast colonial possession, would've allowed the negotiations to continue.

Secession only came on the agenda after months of foot dragging from the West Pakistanis. Crucial to antagonising the Bengalis was drunkard Yahya's decision to postpone the National Assembly session for 3rd March 1971 and not announcing an alternative date.

Mujib's conception of a free Bengali nation was not incompatible with something less than an independent, sovereign state. The Six Points asked for complete autonomy within a federal arrangement in the spirit of the Lahore resolution. Awami League sent proposals even as late as March 1971 for a Confederation of Pakistan, allowing PPP to govern West Pakistan. But the generals were never interested in allowing a provincial party to frame the Constitution and run the national government for the next five years as per the words of Brigadier A.R. Siddiqi, the head of the ISPR.

There were honourable exceptions within the military - the governor of East Pakistan Admiral Ahsan and General Sahibzada Yaqub Khan, commander of the eastern forces, resigned as they saw no good in abandoning political dialogue and pursuing the military course.

 

[Napa]

There are 2 schools of thought, one is you fight to the end and even sacrifice your lifes for a cause that is just. The war in East Pakistan was not just, the Bengali's wanted independence, freedom from Pakistan and this definately sagged the morale of the Pakistani army over there.

The other school of thought is that it is stupidity and suicidal to sacrifice your lives, suffer bloodshed for a nothing cause. Some observers believe General Niazi did not let his ego get the better of him and saved the lives of the 55,000 troops, paramillitary forces and the 38,000 West Pakistani civilians in East Pakistan from the Indian Army and the Mukti Bahini.

I mostly agree with you. However, the killing and rape of the civilians that preceded the entry the Indian Army is still shameful.

 

[Traveller55]

From a purely military perspective, no, the eastern front was not winnable.
India had superior army, domination of the skies and utterly dominated the naval supply route.
Its a classic choke-seige, except instead of a city or a battlefront, it involved entire Bangladesh.

 

[waqar goraya]

Fighting for your land and people is an honorable thing. But neither those soldiers belonged to that land nor its people considered them as their own. It would have been a heroic thing to fight till the last breath but for what purpose?
East Pakistan issue was political one. The part might have stuck with West Pakistan for few more years., but the geographical distance, an extremely hostile territory in the middle and different culture would have always resulted in tensions between these two wings. Only an extremely tactful polity could maintain a balance, which Pakistan did not have.

 

[Savak]

Fighting for your land and people is an honorable thing. But neither those soldiers belonged to that land nor its people considered them as their own. It would have been a heroic thing to fight till the last breath but for what purpose?
East Pakistan issue was political one. The part might have stuck with West Pakistan for few more years., but the geographical distance, an extremely hostile territory in the middle and different culture would have always resulted in tensions between these two wings. Only an extremely tactful polity could maintain a balance, which Pakistan did not have.

The borders at East Pakistan look impossible to defend to be honest, totally open to invasion from all sides

 

[FearlessRoar]

1971 war painting not removed, shifted to new location, says Army amid row​

Amid the row over replacing the iconic 1971 Surrender painting at the Army Chief's lounge, the Indian Army has clarified that the painting, depicting the surrender of Pakistani forces during the Bangladesh Liberation War, has not been removed but relocated to the prestigious Manekshaw Centre in Delhi Cantonment.

The 1971 Surrender painting at the Army Chief's lounge was replaced by a new artwork showcasing Pangong Tso, Mahabharata-inspired themes, and modern warfare, arguably reflecting India's increasing strategic focus on its northern border with China.

This sparked controversy, with Congress leaders Rahul and Priyanka Gandhi accusing the government of undermining India's military history and the legacy of the Indira Gandhi-led government. Several military veterans have also voiced against.

The Army, however, clarified that the relocation was a deliberate move to showcase the painting to a wider audience, including dignitaries from India and abroad. The installation ceremony, held on Vijay Diwas, was attended by senior military officials, veterans, and serving personnel.

"This painting is a testament to one of the greatest military victories of the Indian Armed Forces and the commitment of India for justice and humanity for all. Its placement at the Manekshaw Centre New Delhi will benefit a large audience due to substantial footfall of diverse audience and dignitaries from India and abroad at this venue," the army said in a statement.

The Manekshaw Centre in Delhi Cantonment is a state-of-the-art convention centre named in honour of Field Marshal SHFJ Manekshaw, the first Field Marshal of the Indian Army.

The 1971 surrender painting remains a powerful symbol of India's military might and its commitment to justice and humanity.

1971 war painting not removed, shifted to new location, says Army amid row

The replacement of the 1971 Surrender painting at the Army Chief's lounge with an artwork sparked controversy with Opposition leaders and military veterans accusing the government of undermining military history.

www.indiatoday.in

 

[Farhan The Man]

The 1971 surrender painting remains a powerful symbol of India's military might and its commitment to justice and humanity.

This last statement got to hurt from pak/punjabi army perspective.

ISPR must feverishly work away on a counter: hey we are ready for all internal and external threats.

Willing to defend the nation to the last amreekan dolla received after a beg!