India did the best thing by truncating Pakistan and liberating B'desh. Indra Gandhi should be congratulated for the statemanship she displayed by this act.Ofcourse she could have extracted a better concession with the prized catch of 90000 Pak prisoners The present problems will pass and the B'desh will bea great support if we play our cards well S.Ramaswamy
Separating West Pakistan and East Pakistan was one of the most important thing Indira Gandhi did for the sake of national security. What do you think would have happened to India if the USA backed Pakistan would have militarized on two fronts along the Indian border all these years (especially during the cold war and the Islamist aftermath of the Afghan war)? The fault here is ours. It is the Indian government who has failed miserably to form good diplomatic ties with Bangladesh, a country that could have then and can today use our help. Yet, time after time all the Indian government has done is strong armed its way to humiliate the Bangaladeshis, so much so that they have had to re establish ties with a country responsible for carrying a genocide against them not too long ago. There is still time. India needs to take its economic leadership role more responsibly, in the words of Spiderman Peter Parker's uncle Ben: "with power comes responsibility." India has to learn the art of strategic diplomacy if it is to thrive.
Thanks to rediff.com for an opportunity to partcipate in this debate. It was a disaster for us to have created another Frankenstein to our east. This is not wisdom in hindsight; the guru of realpolitik, Dr.Henry Kissinger had even then warned of the potent danger of an Islamic state on India's Eastern borders, although our political class and media were euphoric about having "proved the two-nation theory wrong". No sir, it was not proven wrong. I'm afraid our so-called intellegentsia either does not want to understand the ramifications of the two-nation theory or is incapable it. The theory holds Hindus and Muslims constitute two separate nations, and the emergence of Bangladesh does not disprove it. But we were ready to swallow Mujib's so-called 'secularism'. The Bangladesh war was a triumph of our armed forces, no doubt, but a miserable failure of our diplomacy. The Simla Accord, trusting a defeated but treacherous enemy like Pakistan, the transformation of Bangladesh into an Islamic jihadi state, not to forget Paki-ISI terror, is proof of the fact that India's Nehruvian establishment is a wolly-headed one, incapable of learning the lessons of history. Jaganniwas Iyer
Yeah. India acted correctly during that scheuation in Pakistan but Indira gandhi made huge mistake after seperation of bangladesh and pakistan. As usual Indira Gandhi acted on her fellow members who suggested to use sechuation for political advantage without understanding india's interest. Even after that Congress acted to please minority and forget everything about bangladesh and terrorist activities. Unfortunately, india is still suffering from that strock and current government is so lame to act against terrorism that it does not look like going forward in right direction.
at that point of time, we definitely did the right thing. having thousands of immigrants in your country without any identification and verification is no joke. plus as they say it is ones duty to help ones neighbour. what is happening today is different. people in bangladesh generally dont like India. so as of today, India should definitely be maintaining a strong stand against bangladesh
India would have been sandwiched between east and west pakistan and would have had lot more terrorist and hostile activities. Pakistan is still nursing it's woonds from that separation.
Let me tell you one thing this is a stupid question
You are asking. This is not Child's play. I think
You People are more obedient to Pakistan instead of Bangladesh. Sheikh Haseena was the firs in United Nations who raised question against Marshal- Law.
Not any of the Indian leaders. And I found Indian Media and Journalist are always supporting Fundamentalist force of Bangladesh. Some political leaders do have direct business relation ship with
The Most corrupt and Fundamentalist BNP and Jamat leaders.
I know very well what dirty game BJP played in last election with USA to make Awami league Gov't out.
Just remember Bangladesh is a Sovereign Nation.
Bangladesh is grateful to India to help in liberation war. But that dose not means Bangladesh will do slavery to India.
And You Indians and Pakistani people will make peace process, friendship, war etc and Bangladesh has also right to make their independent, secular entity. So stop such stupid questions. Tanoy Dutta
RE:Stupid Question
by saroj on Dec 20, 2006 11:48 AM Permalink
My dear,it's my humble request to you please read once again the above story and the comment as well the people who have given the reply to ur subject.hope u will never comment such type of ridiculous msg.
RE:Stupid Question
by tc on Dec 07, 2006 08:25 PM Permalink
wow you read the posts... i.e your comp monitor isnt under water, congrats!, now that you got this far, read up a little more about history and write. In the meantime please tell your govt and people to stop becoming terrorists as we might decide to pee a bit more from calcutta to wipe some of your camps out. Ungrateful gits!
It was a mistake infact the biggest one ever made by India, but the thing that hurts most is our political shortsightedness and lack of will to resolve the matter with Bangaldesh. Why a small and timid country like bangladesh can do and get away with anything. How can they continue sponsoring terrorism, illegal migration etc? WHAT IS OUR army doing there? Are we blind or we dont want to see what is happening there? Or are we so corrupt to see it. How the hell we call India a Great Nation? I think we all need to think...within ourselves...if Britishers were right in calling Indians as Bloody Indians.Think...my friend...think..
Actually before starting the war, the idea was to occupy half of east pak and trade this with the half of kashmir left out in paks hand, after indian army reached the middle of dhaka, Niazi got scared and bluntly surrendered, instead he could have put a good fight with 93000 soldiers and declare ceasfire ( which india expected),but hte whole scene changed, even afetr the surrender , indira gandhi could have negotiated the kashmir deal, but she wanted to get the name \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\" creator of bangladesh,which actually goes to indian army\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s credit, at the cost of indias future. Had the deal been negotiated then, there would not have been any kargil, we could have paid them back in the same coin for terrorism they are sponsring with the help of mukthi bahini. But as is the case with india all the time, personal inetrest dominated the national interest.
Of course, Indira Gandhi is lauded for her efforts in separating east pakistan and west pakistan and also indicating that India is not looking for an inch of Bangladeshi territory and thereby winning its confidence. This is definitely worked in India's favour. This is what is called intelligent politics. In today's time India would be spending a lot on securing the other border as well and India would have been sandwiched between two territories of Pakistan.
In the Shimla Agreement it is learnt that both Prime Ministers were concerned about the image they would carry in their own country. Both wanted to showcase their acheivements in Shimla. Indira Gandhi did win over a part of Kashmir in the agreement. In fact in the negotiations she gave an option to Zulfikar Ali Bhutto to take the pows in exchange of a part of the land. But bhutto chose the land. His logic was that the POWs were a burden to a country so let India keep the burden while we get a part of the land taken by India during the war. If Indira Gandhi would have demanded a settlement in Kashmir then the talks would have failed which was not good for both countries.
