Was creation of bangladesh a blunder?

bhramos

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 21, 2009
Messages
25,625
Likes
37,233
Country flag
Has Bangladesh's creation benefited India strategically?

New Delhi: Has India's role in the creation of Bangladesh 40 years ago benefited this country strategically? The poser, at a seminar here Wednesday, produced a rather iffy answer: The strategic environment will flow from the geopolitics of the region.

"Can (Bangladesh Prime Minister) Sheikh Hasina carry the people and the army for another term? On this will depend the geopolitics of the region. An improved strategic environment would flow from this," noted security expert Maj. Gen. (retd) Ashok Mehta said.

He was participating in the question-nswer session at the seminar "1971 War: India's Greatest Victory" organised by the Indian Army funded think tank Centre for Land Warfare Studies (CLAWS).

Mehta had earlier spoken on "Military Lessons Learnt" from the Indian Army operation that ended Dec 16, 1971, with the surrender of 93,000 troops in what was then East Pakistan and the creation of an independent Bangladesh.

"There was the question of 10 million refugees (who had poured into India after the military crackdown in East Pakistan in March 1971). What was the option? Initially it was a limited military solution of creating enclaves along the border with India to house the refugees and an interim Bangladesh government," Mehta said.

"But, as other elements began to coalesce, it was hoped the creation of Bangladesh would secure India's eastern flank from the hotbed of sanctuaries (that existed along India's northeastern states). That did not happen for several years. Sheikh Mujib (who mentored the Bangladesh freedom movement) left the scene early (being assassinated in 1975). Frequent regime changes compounded the problem," Mehta said.

"Now, the situation has changed. Our commandos are conducting joint exercises. The Bangladesh Army chief took the salute at the NDA (National Defence Academy) passing out parade. ULFA (United Liberation Front of Asom) insurgents are being deported. What was originally envisaged can happen if Sheikh Hasina can carry the people and the army for another term," Mehta maintained.

In all this, what was left unsaid was that the government has studiously refrained from celebrating the 40th anniversary of the end of the war, the last full-blown conflict the Indian Army has been involved in.

There was, however, a reference to the 25th anniversary of the surrender in 1996 and former Indian Army chief Gen. V.P. Malik, who chaired the seminar, lamented that it too had not been celebrated.

"The raksha mantri (defence minister) had agreed that the 25th anniversary would be celebrated but then there was nothing from the government. At a meeting with the three service chiefs, the cabinet secretary asked: 'Why do you want to celebrate? What do you wish to achieve?' He was told: 'Because India has never won such a victory for centuries. Strategy will change but military history will not.' All this cut no ice," Malik said.

So, what were the lessons learnt from the war and where do we stand today?

Mehta painted a rather horrific picture.

"The civil-military relations, which were at their peak in 1971, are down in the dumps. Inter-services cooperation was at its peak. Today, there is no integration despite the (creation of the) IDS (Headquarters, Integrated Defence Staff. I can't get the three chiefs to sit for one (TV programme). So much for integration," he noted.

"The modernisation process is pathetic. The measures suggested in 1986-87 by the Defence Planning Staff (created for the first time) are only now being implemented. Of the 114 recommendations in the Kargil report, only 67 have been implemented, partly implemented or are likely to be implemented. The key recommendations are not even being considered," Mehta added.

The report was formulated after the 1999 Kargil conflict when the Indian Army went into action to evict Pakistani Army intruders who had occupied the icy heights in Jammu and Kashmir. At the centre of the report is the recommendation for creating a Chief of Defence Staff (CDS) to serve as a single point of reference between the three services and the defence ministry.

Eleven years after the report was submitted in 2000, the government says the CDS can be created only after consensus on this is built among all political parties.

Has Bangladesh's creation benefited India strategically? | TwoCircles.net
 

Ray

The Chairman
Professional
Joined
Apr 17, 2009
Messages
43,132
Likes
23,834
Maj Gen Mehta conducts his TV show as if he was conducting a class in an Army school of instruction!

He requires to learn a wee bit from the anchors how to conduct the debates in a more relaxed and in a civilian manner.

The audience are not military people, but civilians who are interested in learning more about the armed forces.

He could take a tip or two even from his brother, Vinod, who is the Editor of Outlook and appears regularly for TV debates.
 

pmaitra

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2009
Messages
33,262
Likes
19,593
Maj Gen Mehta conducts his TV show as if he was conducting a class in an Army school of instruction!

He requires to learn a wee bit from the anchors how to conduct the debates in a more relaxed and in a civilian manner.

The audience are not military people, but civilians who are interested in learning more about the armed forces.

He could take a tip or two even from his brother, Vinod, who is the Editor of Outlook and appears regularly for TV debates.
Vinod Mehta is also a good friend and regular debate-participant of/with Arnab Goswami. I wonder what kind of advice he will give his brother. Moreover, I wonder what would happen in Maj. Gen. Mehta participate instead of Vinod Mehta in Arnab's show. I think all hell will break lose. :)
 

Iamanidiot

Senior Member
Joined
Dec 21, 2009
Messages
5,325
Likes
1,504
One of the attributes I like in a Bangladeshi are they are not as inherently criminal as say Pakistanis
 

amoy

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 17, 2010
Messages
5,982
Likes
1,849
So the answer is Y to 'strategic benefits' . But why, havent BD and India built up a sustainable and mutually beneficial relationship (in your words, BD into Indian Camp, after its creation)?

My question can be better phrased. But I know u know what I mean 8)
 

lcatejas

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 19, 2010
Messages
710
Likes
256
yes ! absolutely we got illegal migrants and terrorists :thumb:
 

lemontree

Professional
Joined
Apr 5, 2009
Messages
815
Likes
647
So the answer is Y to 'strategic benefits' . But why, havent BD and India built up a sustainable and mutually beneficial relationship (in your words, BD into Indian Camp, after its creation)?

My question can be better phrased. But I know u know what I mean 8)
If I may try to answer your query...
India and Bangladesh started on a very warm platform after 1971 and creation of Bangladesh. But the founder of the nation was assasinated in 1975 and the country faced multiple military coups. The country remained unsable politically and the new military rulers supported the pro-islamic elements.

A few bilateral irritants kep the two nations apart. However, the whole picture is different now. Bangladesh and India are on a new page altogether.
 

lemontree

Professional
Joined
Apr 5, 2009
Messages
815
Likes
647
- The creation of Bangladesh has releaved Indian Army's 3 - 4 divisions that can be used on the Indo-Pak or Indo-China border.
- Air assest focus only towards the north. There is no air threat from Bangladesh.
- There is no naval threat from Bangladesh.

Earlier the north east insurgents got training and weapons in East Pakistan, which is not available now (especially after the changed Indo-Bangladesh relations). The problems with Bangladesh are minor and are being revolved. So yes, creation of Bangaldesh has benefited India strategically.
 

Ray

The Chairman
Professional
Joined
Apr 17, 2009
Messages
43,132
Likes
23,834
So the answer is Y to 'strategic benefits' . But why, havent BD and India built up a sustainable and mutually beneficial relationship (in your words, BD into Indian Camp, after its creation)?

My question can be better phrased. But I know u know what I mean 8)
A good question.

Even though India was instrumental in the creation of Bangladesh and liberating it at great expense, there are reasons for the distrust.

Interestingly, unlike the US which hung around Iraq for political and strategic reason, India quit once the job task was done and left it to the Bangladeshis to chalk their future.

India left it to Mujib. Mujib, however, let his ego take hold of him and he wanted to have a one party rule and that led to discontent. It had it natural result. Since he was the icon that India supported, the anger was deflected most ingenuously by those who had been dispossessed such as the military (they had the same arrogance that the Pak military has towards its democratically elected govt) and the Razzakar and Biharis who detested the Bengali Muslims as second class, which the Bengali Muslims were when it was Pakistan and the Biharis ruled the roost.

The Bangladeshi military had the same Pakistani mentality wherein Islam was paramount.

They took over the govt and even when the General who led was assassinated, his wife (again influenced by Pakistan military social activity) took over, Islam took hold.

I don't have to tell you how powerful is the Islamic thought.

Look at Xinjiang. You claim you are giving them a better life. If that is true, the Muslims don't care since Islam is a better option even if they live in poverty and slums!
 

panduranghari

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 2, 2012
Messages
1,786
Likes
1,245
I need to add that with increasing economic prowess we seem to have more guts to stand up to anyone. Perhaps Indira Gandhi had the self confidence which is missing in most politicians today. It will come soon I hope.
 

bengalraider

DFI Technocrat
Ambassador
Joined
Oct 10, 2009
Messages
3,779
Likes
2,666
Country flag
I need to add that with increasing economic prowess we seem to have more guts to stand up to anyone. Perhaps Indira Gandhi had the self confidence which is missing in most politicians today. It will come soon I hope.
What most politicians lack today is the ability to pull their heads out of their asses and smell the shit brewing in the neighborhood.
 

Ray

The Chairman
Professional
Joined
Apr 17, 2009
Messages
43,132
Likes
23,834
Hardly a blunder.

One flank somewhat neutralised if there is a war with Pakistan.
 

Singh

Phat Cat
Super Mod
Joined
Feb 23, 2009
Messages
20,311
Likes
8,403
Country flag
When India held firm and carved out a nation called Bangladesh

NEW DELHI: Sending its 7th Fleet to the Bay of Bengal during the 1971 Indo-Pak war might not have been the only aggressive military action taken by the US against India in 1971, newly declassified top-secret documents say. Among these papers is a six-page note prepared by the Americas Division in the ministry of external affairs.

On the US behaviour, it says: "The assessment of our embassy reveal (sic) that the decision to brand India as an 'aggressor' and to send the 7th Fleet to the Bay of Bengal was taken personally by President Nixon." More significantly, the note reveals what was hitherto not in the public domain: "Our embassy understand (sic) that even three Marine battalions in USA were placed on the standby for emergency airlift."


Published material and documents don't speak of the US keeping Marine battalions on the standby for military operations against India. Despite such a hostile and aggressive US stand, then Prime Minister Indira Gandhi held firm and went on to liberate Bangladesh.

The note says that the Indian embassy in Washington "feel (sic) that the bomber force aboard the (aircraft carrier) Enterprise had the US President's authority to undertake bombing of Indian Army's communications , if necessary. This assessment of our embassy clearly indicates the anti-India attitude of the US administration and particularly of President Nixon and his personal advisor Dr Kissinger."

The Americas Division note is part of a file titled "US Military Assistance and Arms Sales to Pakistan" . The file is a narrative of the tense days of the later part of 1971, when the US weighed in on Pakistan's side against India. In December first week, the two countries went to war, and in less than two weeks a new nation – Bangladesh – was born.

"In spite of both Houses of Congress passing resolutions demanding the stoppage of all economic aid and arms supplies, economic aid to Pakistan was not suspended by the US administration," the note points out.

On the military front, the Indian government was misled by the US administration saying that no arms were being supplied to Pakistan. But an article in the New York Times on June 22, 1971, exposed that two Pakistani ships laden with military supplies were on their way to Karachi from the US. "Later, on June 5 the state department conceded that this was true and that a few more ships would be carrying arms to Pakistan. This came as a surprise. The US authorities , at first described this as bu re a u c r at i c bungling but later on it became clear that this was a policy which had been approved at the highest level," the MEA file notes.

The file shows that the US government finally announced on November 8, 1971, that after discussions with Pakistan and "with their consent" , the US agreed to wind up their remaining shipments and cancel outstanding licences for military equipment to Pakistan.

On December 1, 1971, the US gov ernment also announced its deci sions against India to suspend is suance of future munitions list li cences, not to issue any new licences or to renew existing ones.

"While an nouncing the deci sion, the US gov ernment informed us that this did not affect outstanding li cences for Indian scheduled purchases in the US which were valued at approximate ly $11.5 million," the MEA file notes But in two days a nasty surprise was yet in store for India. "Two days lat er, the US government also an nounced the suspension of these li cences" too. In a detailed analysis of the US's political stand during the Indo-Pak stand off, the Americas di vision pointed out, "The political sup port extended by the US government to Pakistan during the recent Indo Pak hostilities can be described as all-out.

The US government extend ed full political support to the Pak istan government, both before and during the hostilities. While at no stage was there any condemnation of the atrocities committed by the Pakistan government against the people of Bangladesh, the US gov ernment was quick to react to India' reaction to Pakistani aggression which they described as aggression." President Nixon in his letter to Prime Minister Indira Gandhi had "reject ed" the pleas that the US was re sponsible for aggravating the crisis the note said.

In the US, the Indian mission was "asked not to instigate the news me dia in USA against the administra tion," the file says. At the UN, the US delegation "extended full politi cal support to Pakistan" and they proposed a resolution in the Secu rity Council asking for a ceasefire and withdrawal of troops "without in any manner taking into account the root-cause " of the problem. "The American delegation accused India of aggression. In the Security Coun cil and the General Assembly they tried to mobilize support in favour of Pakistan," the ministry said.

When India held firm and carved out a nation called Bangladesh - Economic Times
 

Zarvin

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2012
Messages
302
Likes
54
I personally as a Pakistani think Bangladesh was the greatest thing India has ever done for us. Jai Hind.:india:
 

trackwhack

Senior Member
Joined
Jul 20, 2011
Messages
3,757
Likes
2,589
btw, does this qualify as the largest number of human beings liberated since WW2?
 

Global Defence

New threads

Articles

Top