Talk:Bangladesh Liberation War/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10

is bangla liberation war part of cold war?

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?

The info-box describes the Bangladesh Liberation War as Part of Cold War. The article explains that the Indo-Soviet Treaty of Friendship and Cooperation made the Liberation War relevant to the Cold War, but part of? How so? Was the Cold War the cause of the Liberation War, or did the support of the Soviet Union decide the outcome? --catslash (talk) 01:24, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

most probably some editors are the anti-activist of Liberation War 1971 (either pakistani or jammat). they always kept an eye on it as Foreign people are watching the trial against War Criminals, they may colect info from wiki, so 24 hours in a day some Anti-Bangladeshi minded people are doing this. SAJIB — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sajibdhaka (talk • contribs) 07:49, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Fabrication in article

'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

Declaration of Independance by Sheikh Mujib is Disputed

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)

What is your reference for Zia being the first? According to the writings of Belal Mahmud and other Radio station staff, Zia was the 8th person to read the announcement. Mujib's declaration on 25th March is backed even by Major Siddique Salique, the Public Relations officer Pakistan Army (interestingly, they'd be least expected to claim anything about Mujib, their rival, right?). --Ragib (talk) 20:14, 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)

Intro picture

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)

Harvardoxford (talk · contribs) is a vandal and troll who is making nonsensical edits on various pages. I am scratching his post. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 05:23, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Disorganised until OSmani was put in charge.

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)

You are being sarcastic, right? :) --Ragib (talk) 18:18, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Harvardoxford (talk · contribs) is a vandal and troll who is making nonsensical edits on various pages. I am scratching his post. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 05:26, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Economic disparities

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)

China

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)

Atrocities Section

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.

Citation added. NasrinatWiki (talk) 07:46, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Questionable Source for Genocide Claims

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 way Pakistan Army killed Bengalis suggests it was a genocide. Some of the researchers who worked on genocide and war termed the 1971 killing of Bengalis as genocide. The well accepted definion of genocide says: "genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group', as such: (a) killing members of the group, (b) causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group, (c) deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part".[The convention of 1948]. According to this definition, what the Pakistan Army did in the then East Pakistan in 1971 can be termed as genocide. They targeted the religious group Hindus and the ethnic group Bengalis and did no harm to other ethnic group the Biharis. They indiscriminately killed only the Bengalis and the Hindus. Moreover, they tried to wipe the Hindus out. "...They also planned to indiscriminately murder hundreds of thousands of its Hindus and drive the rest into India. ... This despicable and cutthroat plan was outright genocide'. ..." [STATISTICS OF DEMOCIDE: Genocide and Mass Murder Since 1900, R.J Rummel]. "There is no doubt whatsoever about the targets of the GENOCIDE. They were: ... (2) The Hindus..." [Anthony Mascarenhas, The Rape of Bangla Desh [Delhi: Vikas Publications], pp. 116-17]. "I was informed chattily by Major Rathore, the G-2 Ops. Of the 9th Division…”Why kill him?” …”Because he might be a hindu ...". [2]. "It is Mujib’s home district. Kill as many bastards as you can and make sure there is no Hindu left alive, I was ordered. … Kill the Hindus. It is an order for everyone." [3] "Hindus were sought out and killed on the spot. As a matter of course, soldiers would check males for the obligated circumcision among Moslems. If circumcised, they might live; if not, sure death." [Rummel, p.323].“…Moreover, with support of Pak military, non-Bengali Muslims are systemically attacking poor peoples quarters and murdering Bengalis and Hindus. Streets of Dhaka are flooded with Hindus and others seeking to get out of Dacca…” [4]. So, we can see that the Pakistan army selectively killed two groups of people to destroy them in whole, or in part: the Bengalis and The Hindus. Surely, this act fits well with the definiton of genocide. NasrinatWiki (talk) 06:23, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

The best sources are white papers published by the Government of Bangladesh soon after the conflict in two volumes (one red and one green) called the Bangladesh Papers. Look in archives for that. AshLin (talk) 07:23, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your suggestions. I have added another source supporting the statement. I'll cite the white papers as soon as I collect them. NasrinatWiki (talk) 08:23, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Number of Pakistani Troops

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.

Ms. Bose’s “Dead Reckoning: Memories of the 1971 Bangladesh War” does not present an objective history of the Liberation war of Bangladesh. Her claims, raised in this book, are in line with what she said in some of her articles involving Pakistan. What she said about the Pakistani military, the perpetrators, in this book are very similar to what she said about Pakistan and Pakistani army officers in her articles written before. Starting from 2005, she wrote several articles on different issues that go in favor of Pakistan. Similarly, the narrative she presented in this book goes in favor of Pakistan and Pakistani military. No wonder the narrative supports Pakistan. Ms. Bose gave absolute credence to Pakistani army officers statements and suspected the authenticity of the statements by the victims, reasonable doubt prevails. It will not be appropriate if you use this doubtful book as a source of information in Wikipedia.

Ms. Bose’s objectivity is questionable as she showed obvious favoritism toward Pakistan and Pakistani rulers several times. Her articles give us a lucid picture of her preference for Pakistani army officers, and it is not certain that such a person with an obvious bias for one specific side in a conflict will remain objective in a judgmental investigation of what happened in that conflict. It will not be unreasonable if I say that Ms. Bose was NOT NEUTRAL in writing a different narrative of the Liberation war since the references, the assumptions, the interpretations of events in her book makes it clear that Ms. Bose gave more credence to the perpetrators than to the victims.

Let's see what impression she gave about Pakistan in some of her articles. “The right stuff: F-16s to Pakistan is wise decision”, co-authored by Millam and Ms. Bose, implies Ms. Bose’s favor for Pakistan as she defended the sell F-16 to Pakistan and highly praised General Pervez Musharraf.[5] Besides, Her liking for General Musharraf becomes apparent in an eulogy written by Ms Bose in the Pakistani Daily Times.[6] In her judgement, Gen. Musharraf‘s military dictatorship provided better governance, not only compared to previous elected governments of Pakistan, but also compared to the democratically elected government of India during the same period. Her admiration for Pakistan is confirmed as she considers the country to be a political model for the Muslim world and believes that Pakistan has a stable Muslim democracy. This admiration, inclination, bias makes her unreliable and doubtful in rewriting a history in which Pakistan was the oppressor and Pakistani military perpetrated genocide. NasrinatWiki (talk) 18:27, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

So according to you, Sarmila Bose's book would be 'credible' if she agrees with you & the Indian and Bangladeshi versions of the war. This is hardly acceptable in the academic circles as a 'valid point' for rejecting someone else's work - simply because you do not agree with it. She is derided by Indians & Bangladeshis because she is challenging the propagandist narrative that continues to plague any information on the 1971 war. Your arguments demonstrate beyond doubt that you have NOT read the book, "Dead Reckoning" but are part of the bandwagonner brigade out to discredit anyone who challenges the mythic Indian and Bangladeshi narrative of the war. Ms Bose harbors no liking for Pakistani officers of the war who perpetrated atrocities but she equally does not harbor any liking for Mukti Bahini militias who perpetrated equally brutal atrocities - famous incidents such as Khulna, Santahar & Mymensingh massacres at the very least. What is ludicrously evident in this lopsided Wikipedia article on Bangladesh Liberation War is the complete absence of any attempt to give a balanced perspective. Instead, it resembles an anti-Pakistani rant by amateurs.

"...Sarmila Bose's book would be 'credible' if she agrees with you & the Indian and Bangladeshi versions of the war..."...ABSOLUTELY not! Ms. Bose's book would be credible if she gives EQUAL weight to both sides statements. BUT, Ms. Bose showed (in her "Dead Reckoning") an ABSOLUTE CREDENCE in the statements by Pakistani Military part and cast doubt on most of the statements by victims. It seems really STRANGE to me that you have just overlooked this fact! NasrinatWiki (talk) 06:43, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Haven’t you read what I stated at several places in this section? It seems like you have missed some of my points or didn’t bother to have a look at them. You said, "...Ms Bose harbors no liking for Pakistani officers of the war who perpetrated atrocities but she equally does not harbor any liking for Mukti Bahini militias who perpetrated equally brutal atrocities...". There’s no doubt that Ms. Bose does not have any liking for Mukti Bahini. But she does have a liking for the Pakistan and the Pakistani military as expressed it clearly in several of her articles. S. Faris, please note, killing of Bihari by Mukti Bahini and killing of Bengalis by Pakistani Military are not comparable in any way, not in death toll or not in intent. You can’t expect an oppressed or persecuted to harbor liking for the oppressors and perpatrators supporters. Ms. Bose did mention the Bihari killing incidents, BUT avoided to mention why Bengalis acted in that way. Ms. Bose did not care to go deep through the cause of the increasing distrust between Bengalis and Biharis and the events that outraged Bengalis and drove them to attack the Beharis. This approach of doing research on a very both psychologically and politically)complex history makes her book less credible, or alternatively casts doubt on her intention. The Biharis remained in support of West Pakistan from the very beginning despite West Pakistan’s unfair treatment of East Pakistan. Here are some excerpts for you from Biharis. The Indian Emigres in Bangladesh: An Objective Analysis, a book by Ahmed Ilias. “…The Bihari Mohajer in East Pakistan took the same stand to support the ideology of Pakistan ignoring the political aspirations of the local population......Gradually majority of the community turned into a pack of tools in the hands of the ruling clique, who used them only to perpetuate their political and economic domination over the country. This situation generated distrust and suspicion among the local population….”. Again, “…There was no social intercourse, as they preferred to live in their reservations’ Mohammedpur, Mirpur in Dhaka and similar ’reservations’ in other parts of the country. They were completely isolated from the grassroots and adopted a life of alien characters’ on the soil where they had come to settle permanently….” [p.80]. “…Those who escaped death on that fateful night fled from capital City of Dhaka and moved towards borders of India. On their way, they narrated to their countrymen in rural areas the story of Bengalis' killing, brutalities of Pakistan Army, and the cruelty of a section of the Bihari community. This narration worked as fuel on the fire and the microscopic Bihari population in remote places of Bangladesh became the victims of the resultant violence, killings, and atrocities. When Pakistan Army reached these places, it was too late. The Army found the Biharis alive only in those shelters provided to - them by the friendly Bengali neighbours…” (p. 173); “…A section of the Bihari community, mostly uneducated, ruffians, miscreants, and hoodlums joined the Mujahid Force and immediately started atrocities on the Bengali population in their areas. As 'mastans,' santrashis' and armed cadres of political godfathers of current days, they became so powerful under the protection of the Army that none could dare to challenge them. … (p. 175)”; “…The anti-Bengali role played by a section of the Bihari community during the nine-month period of war of liberation, was spread widely through various media. Even during the early days of Pakistan, the working class of the communitywas blamed for anti-Bengali communal riots in mills and industries. ....In Mirpur, Mohammedpur (Dhaka) Pahartali (Chittagong) and Syedpur '(Rangpur), these arms were already seen in the hands of the refugees settled in these areas….” (p. 176); there are lot more descriptions in the book. I don’t deny that Bengalis killed Biharis, but Mr. Faris, you should also accept that you (or Ms. Bose) are wrong in your attempt in giving equal weight and color to killing of Bengalis(by Pakistani Military) and the killing of Biharis. What the Pakistani Military did in 1971 was simply a GENOCIDE. Brutal, systematic, planned (Rummel) attack on innocent Bengalis on 25th March at night and they continued the systematic killing until December. This systematic killing by Pakistani Military, the Genocide, is in no way comparable to the sporadic Bihari killing which was obviously an after-effect of the Biharis support for the West Pakistan’s unjustifiable treatment of Bengalis. NasrinatWiki (talk) 00:42, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Ms Bose has at the very least 100 sources in her book, MOST of which are Bangladeshi sources as well as Indian. Any Pakistani sources are few and far in between. So much for Pakistani 'favoritism'. In addition, she has first-person interviews from survivors of the war, cites third-party journalistic accounts from the time of the war, etc to bolster her arguments. The fact that you readily accept that there was a 'genocide' committed in 1971 shows your bias and disqualifies you as someone 'credible' to even respond to my arguments. Please show us evidence of such 'genocide' like the evidence that has come out of Rwanda, Cambodia, etc. Fact is, you are trying to perpetuate same propagandist rhetoric that has been used for the last 40yrs to drown out any objective research on this topic. Your use of Bose's remarks on Musharraf and Pakistani democracy have no bearing on her book on Bangladesh. You forget, that she's a Indian born Bengali.S.faris (talk) 22:25, 10 October 2011 (UTC)farisS.faris (talk) 22:25, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, she is an indian born Bengali with an OBVIOUS FAVOR for Pakistan ans Pakistani military! Read her articles carefully with an OPEN mind. NasrinatWiki (talk) 06:43, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

“The fact that you readily accept that there was a 'genocide' committed in 1971 shows your bias and disqualifies you as someone 'credible' to even respond to my arguments.” So, S. Faris, you don’t see the “Genocide” committed by Pakistani Military in 1971. Let me remind you the definition of genocide at first: “…genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group', as such: (a) killing members of the group, (b) causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group, (c) deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; …..” [the convention of 1948], the first three acts, specified in the definition, were committed by the Pakistani military during the Liberation war. “” Raphael Lemkin defined genocide as “the destruction of a nation or an ethnic group”, this definition fits too with what the Pakistani Military did in 1971 to people of then East Pakistan. They indiscriminately killed an ethnic group, the Bengalis regardless of their religion, gender and social class. Not only that, They were eager to kill HINDUS. "...They also planned to indiscriminately murder hundreds of thousands of its Hindus and drive the rest into India. And they planned to destroy its economic base to insure that it would be subordinate to West Pakistan for at least a generation to come. This despicable and cutthroat plan was outright genocide'. ..." [STATISTICS OF DEMOCIDE: Genocide and Mass Murder Since 1900, R.J Rummel] According to Anthony Mascarenhas, "There is no doubt whatsoever about the targets of the GENOCIDE":

They were: (1) The Bengali militarymen of the East Bengal Regiment, the East Pakistan Rifles, police and para-military Ansars and Mujahids. (2) The Hindus -- "We are only killing the men; the women and children go free. We are soldiers not cowards to kill them ..." I was to hear in Comilla [site of a major military base] [Comments R.J. Rummel: "One would think that murdering an unarmed man was a heroic act" (Death By Government, p. 323)] (3) The Awami Leaguers -- all office bearers and volunteers down to the lowest link in the chain of command. (4) The students -- college and university boys and some of the more militant girls. (5) Bengali intellectuals such as professors and teachers whenever damned by the army as "militant." (Anthony Mascarenhas, The Rape of Bangla Desh [Delhi: Vikas Publications], pp. 116-17.) . On June 13,1971, The Sunday Times published a report by Anthony Mascarenhas. It stated, “…He was 24 years old, a slight man surrounded by soldiers “Normally we would have killed him as he ran, I was informed chattily by Major Rathore, the G-2 Ops. Of the 9th Division…”Why kill him?” …”Because he might be a hindu or he might be a rebel, perhaps a student or an Awami Leaguer... [7] Take some time to read the recollection of Retd. Pakistani colonel Nadir Ali. He stated, "It is Mujib’s home district. Kill as many bastards as you can and make sure there is no Hindu left alive,” I was ordered. … “Kill the Hindus. It is an order for everyone. Don’t show me your commando finesse!”. ; “I received direct orders from General Niazi, General Rahim and later Gen Qazi Majid of 14 Div Dhaka.” . Now, Please note, The Pak. Military killed ‘students’,‘intellectuals’, ‘Hindus’, ‘Militarymen’, ‘Awami Leaguers’. It is obvious that the Pak. Military selectively killed the Bengalis so that their economic, educational, political base are destroyed. In this respect, Bengali killing by Pak. Military can reasonably be classified as GENOCIDE. "In what became province-wide acts of genocide, Hindus were sought out and killed on the spot. As a matter of course, soldiers would check males for the obligated circumcision among Moslems. If circumcised, they might live; if not, sure death." [Rummel, p.323] Doesn’t it remind the killing of Jews by Nazis? The military Raped groups of women regardless of their age "Girls of eight and grandmothers of seventy-five had been sexually assaulted ... Pakistani soldiers had not only violated Bengali women on the spot; they abducted tens of hundreds and held them by force in their military barracks for nightly use." Some women may have been raped as many as eighty times in a night (Brownmiller, Against Our Will, p. 83). On the night of March 25th 1971 at 11:25 P.M. the West Pakistani Army launched their attack; four American built M-24 tanks were followed by a platoon of soldiers to Dhaka University. (Payne) “³We saw traces of two mass graves on the campus...The rain on the night of March 29 exposed some of the bodies and the stench was terrible.´” [Archer Blood] A total of 4,000 to 6,000 people killed that first night in Dhaka. [Archer Blood] On March 28, American Consul General Archer Blood Archer Blood telexed a message to Washington, “…Moreover, with support of Pak military, non-Bengali Muslims are systemically attacking poor peoples quarters and murdering Bengalis and Hindus. Streets of Dhaka are flooded with Hindus and others seeking to get out of Dacca…” [8] It was clearly a GENOCIDE. S. faris, what surprised me is that You are not convinced with Archer Bloods Telex message giving information directly from killing field during the war, But you are fully convinced with Ms. Bose’s stories that have been collected after 40 years of the war! NasrinatWiki (talk) 00:42, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

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.

You have considered the accusation of rape by Pakistani military “rubbish” based on ONLY TWO books and ignoring OTHER BOOKS, PRESS REPORTS, EYE WITNESSES. This approach of making judgments on a highly sensitive issue can not be considered rational. What convinces you to fully trust Ms. Bose’s “Dead Reckoning” is the “field research” she did. I must say she did a very dubious “field research” because she found the Pakistani military doing no harm to women and children during the Liberation war which is firmly denied by other available evidences, eye witnesses, and press reports. Let's see what Archer Blood, the American Consul General in Dhaka, wrote in the telegram sent to the US State Department: “Major atrocity recounted to him took place at [R]okeya Girls’ Hall, where building set ablaze and girls machine-gunned as they fled building. (USIS local who lives nearby confirms girls gunned down.) Girls had no weapons, forty killed. Attacks aimed at eliminating female student leadership, since army apparently told girl student activists resided there. Estimated 1,000 persons, mostly students, but including faculty members resident in dorms, killed.”[9][10] The telegram conclusively proves Ms. Bose having bias and favor for Pakistan and Pakistani military as she found the Pakistani perpetrators doing no harm to women during Liberation war. This single example makes Ms. Bose’s “Dead Reckoning” questionable, and you should not take an inappropriate action by citing this book and using information from it in an Wikipedia article. I can provide you with more reports on killings and rapes by Pakistani military in 1971.

Again, goes to show you have NOT read the book 'Dead Reckoning'. Ms Bose does not state that NO rape took place or that the Pakistani military was completely innocent of any such claims. What she says in the book is based on her interview with those living in the staff & student residences at Dhaka University as well as other areas to challenge the myth that somehow '200,000' women were raped by Pakistani troops. Quoting Archer Blood is a useless exercise, since he did NOT witness any of the acts taking place himself. He relied on information passed to him by junior officers of the American diplomatic mission in Dhaka, who themselves relies on local Bengali informants -exactly what your quote says: "USIS local". These Bengali informants were not saints, their judgment tainted by paranoia, deep-hatred of non-Bengalis, exaggeration due to emotional involvement in the war, etc. The infamous Archer Blood telegram that Bangladeshis and Indians loved to cite has been discredited for the very fact that according to the Provost of Rokeya Hall, Begum Akhtar Imam, the total capacity of Rokeya Hall was about 800 maximum. And by the night of 25th March 1971, only 7 girls remained since most left for home owing to worsening security situation. Her account has been verified by Hall Superintendent Jahanara and the house tutor, Sahera Khatun. So much for Rokeya Hall rapes & killings.

"... Ms Bose does not state that NO rape took place or that the Pakistani military was completely innocent of any such claims...." , SHE MADE A VERY SIMILAR CLAIM. She said she found Pakistani military DOING NO HARM TO WOMEN AND CHILDREN. "...Quoting Archer Blood is a useless exercise, since he did NOT witness any of the acts taking place himself. He relied on information passed to him by junior officers of the American diplomatic mission in Dhaka, who themselves relies on local Bengali informants ...", Look S. Faris, If you claim that quoting Archer Blood is a useless exercise because he collected information from local Bengali informants and the Bengali informants are no saints, then I can also argue that citing Ms. Bose's book is also a useless exercise because she gathered information from some local Bengali informants who are no saints! Don't tag me emotional Mr. Faris! I'm giving you reasonable points for thought. Rather I see that you are getting emotional since you are ignoring the implicit notions and ideas and blindly giving full credence to Ms. Bose's statements and interpretations. NasrinatWiki (talk) 00:42, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

You said, “…What she says in the book is based on her interview with those living in the staff & student residences at Dhaka University as well as other areas to challenge the myth that somehow '200,000' women were raped by Pakistani troops…” It's not a 'myth' that 200,000 women were raped. The journalists who witnessed the war, talked directly with the victims, snapped photos of victims wrote about the rapes in various international newspapers during the war and just after the war. There are some other researchers who cared to investigate the rapes of women by Pak. military had also mentioned the 200,000 rapes. Archer Blood sent a telegram on March 31 that stated, "Six naked female bodies at Rokeya Hall, Dacca U. Feet tied together. Bits of rope hanging from ceiling fans. Apparently raped, shot and hung by their heels from fans." Take a look at these excerpts from recognized international newspapers, and research works “…One of the more horrible revelations concerns 563 young Bengali women, some only 18, who have been held captive inside Dacca's dingy military cantonment since the first days of the fighting. Seized from Dacca University and private homes and forced into military brothels, the girls are all three to five months pregnant. The army is reported to have enlisted Bengali gynecologists to abort girls held at military installations. But for those at the Dacca cantonment it is too late for abortion. The military has begun freeing the girls a few at a time, still carrying the babies of Pakistani soldiers. …” [11]; “…A stream of victims and eyewitnesses tell how truckloads of Pakistani soldiers and their hireling razakars swooped down on villages in the night, rounding up women by force. Some were raped on the spot. Others were carried off to military compounds...” [Susan Brownmiller, Against Our Will:Men, Women and Rape, 1975]; “An Asian relief secretary for the World Council of Churches…. The Reverend Kentaro Buma reported that more that 200,000 Bengali women had been raped by Pakistani soldiers during the nine-month conflict” [Brownmiller, 1975]; “…. During the nine-month terror, terminated by the two week armed intervention of India, a possible three million people lost their lives, ten millions fled across the border to India and 200,000, 300,000 or possible 400,000 women (three sets of statistics have been variously quoted) were raped. Eighty percent of the raped women were Moslems, reflecting the population of Bangladesh, but Hindu and Christian women were not exempt….” [Brownmiller]; “…Dr. Geoffrey Davis of the London-based International Abortion Research and Training Centre who worked for months in the remote countryside of Bangladesh reported that he had heard of "countless" incidents of suicide and infanticide during his travels….” [Brownmiller, 1975]; “…The number of rapes per capita during the nine-month occupation of Bangladesh had been no greater than the incidence of rape during the occupation in the city of Nanking in 1937. No greater than the per capita incidence of rape in Belgium and France as the German Army marched unchecked during the first three months of World War I, No greater than the violation of women in every village in Soviet Russia in World War II….” [Brownmiller, 1975]; "A church relief official reported today that about 200,000 Bengali wives who were raped by Pakistani soldiers during the war in East Pakistan last month were now ostracized by the Moslem comunities...". [January 18, 1972, New York Times][12]; "An American expert today sought U.N. help in using his new abortion techniques to solve one of the saddest problems of the new state of Bangladesh - the estimated 200,000 pregnancies resulting from the rape of Bengali women by Pakistani soldiers..." [May 2, 1972, Washington Post][13]; On February , 1972, a report was published on The Bryan Times. It stated, “A team of American doctors will go to Bangladesh this week to perform abortions on women raped by Pakistani soldiers, Dr. Harvey Karman announced Wednesday. …..He estimated that as many as 200,000 Bangladeshi women were raped by soldiers from West Pakistan during the Pakistani occupation of the area and in the recent war in which Bangladesh won its freedom”. [14] S. Faris, please read these reports and books to know the real story of rape and killing. It wont be a good practice if I add quotations after quotations from books and newspapers to this page since it is not a forum. Once again, Don’t rely merely on Ms. Bose’s “Dead Reckoning” and her ‘field research’ . Take some time to read other books, the interviews that the books include and the news published in international newspapers in the time of the war. NasrinatWiki (talk) 00:42, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Your next claim will be that these were all 'collaborators' who worked for Pakistan army. Obviously this is what you've been repetitively taught by biased pro-Indian & pro-Bangladeshi writers thus far. The truth is, after the war, anyone who disagreed with the 'official' propagandist Bangladeshi version of events was termed a 'collaborator', and either forced to retire, forcibly disappeared or extra-judicially killed. Those who are still alive, live in Bangladesh today - and if they truly were such collaborators, the lack of any trial against them for being 'collaborators' is a sign of how hollow claims against such individuals are in themselves. Archer Blood remains a highly controversial figure for his contradictory views. Since you are citing him, this was also transmitted by Archer Blood to Washington:

I havn't made any claim yet and didn't have an intention to make any claim and you have discovered that I have a something to claim! Ridiculous! I am just trying to make you understand that there are other things that you should consider before you give full credence to one's claims. You said that (you think/believe) I've been taught by "biased pro-Indian & pro-Bangladeshi writers". Similarly, Mr. Faris, I can say that you have been taught by pro-Pakistani writers! NasrinatWiki (talk) 06:43, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

"...we realized that the term 'genocide' was not appropriate to characterize all killings of Muslim Bengalis.." his autobiography states.S.faris (talk)farisS.faris (talk) 22:25, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

In her speech, on March 15 2011 in the Woodrow Wilson Center, she expressed her bias in General Yahya Khan when she said, “Yahya did not personally harbor prejudices against the Bengalis”. Her statement stunned the audience since it was general Yahya who said "Kill three million of them, and the rest will eat out of our hands." (Robert Payne, Massacre [1972], p. 50.). Yahya Khan ordered the Operation Searchlight, and On March 25, the genocide was launched. Note that Ms. Bose had a single message to convey in this regard and that message indirectly supports Mr. Yahya! Clearly, she lacks neutrality.

Again, there is much controversy as to IF Yahya Khan actually uttered those words. And your hollow argument of Operation Searchlight being the 'launch of genocide' is still not borne out by evidence. You fail to distinguish between fact and faction, between myth and reality. Goes to show just how objective you are. Your personal sentimental attachment to the war goes to show that you're the last person to comment on Bose's neutrality since you've YET to exhibit any on your own part.S.faris (talk) 22:25, 10 October 2011 (UTC)farisS.faris (talk) 22:25, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

S. faris. Yahya khan uttered those words in a conference held on 22nd February, 1971. May be you’ve missed the reference that backs up this statement. Let me repeat the reference. See Massacre, Pierre, Stephen and Robert Payne (February, 1973), New York: Macmillan, ISBN 0025952404. NasrinatWiki (talk) 00:42, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

‘Operation Searchlight’ is a code name given by the Pak. Militry to term the launch of mass killing of 25th march. Call it by this code name or not, there’s no way to deny that the mass killing started on 25th of March. Time Magazine reports, “Within hours after launching a tank-led offensive in Dacca and other East Pakistani cities on the night of March 25, the Pakistan army imposed a virtual blackout on the brutal civil war in Bangla Desh (Bengal State) by expelling foreign newsmen…” [PAKISTAN: Dacca, City of the Dead, May 03, 1971] [15] Simon Dring’s Report in the Daily Telegraph: “In the name of “God and a united Pakistan” Dacca is today a crushed and a frightened city. After 24 hours of ruthless, cold-blooded shelling by the Pakistan army, as many as, 7,000 people are dead……But the first target as the tanks rolled into Dacca on the night of the 25th was the students. An estimated three battalions of troops were used in the attack on Dacca – one armoured, one artillery and one infantry. They started living the barracks shortly before p.m.”[March 30, 1971][16] University students, teachers, staffs, people residing in nearby market area, medical college, Police H.Q., Bengali Language newspaper Ittefaq and supporters of Awami league were killed in that dreadful night attack. NasrinatWiki (talk) 00:42, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Ms. Bose’s appreciation for General Niazi is prominent in her article “The Courageous Pakistan Army Stand on the Eastern Front: An Untold Story of 1971 Indo-Pak War”.[17] She painted the picture of General Niazi as an icon of bravery, skill and dignity. Please note that it was Mr. Neazi who compared Bangalis with monkeys and chickens! “It was a low land of low lying people”, said Gen. Niazi, and Ms. Bose admires this General. How can she be neutral in writing these Pakistani officers heinous acts during Liberation war of Bangladesh?! NO, she was not neutral. At least, There is a very, very high probability that her “Dead Reckoning ” does not give a neutral view of what the Pakistani Military did in the Liberation war in 1971. NasrinatWiki (talk) 18:27, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Again, whether you like what Bose states or not, you cannot argue with facts. FACT that it was indeed courageous for a heavily outnumbered Pakistan Army garrison in East Pakistan to take on the Muktis and Indian Army all at the same time. You are quick to point out Niazi's comparing of Bengalis to monkeys and chickens but you fail to mention that it was common for pro-independence Bengalis to refer to West Pakistanis as Punjabi kukur, noropushu (human animal), noropishach (human demon), etc. So spare me your 'holier than thou' atttiude since you have failed to show an ounce of neutrality in any of the points you've raised thus far. The whole purpose of your diatribe is the same as that of others who wish to keep Bangladeshi and Indian propaganda intact by launching an assault on the credibility of anyone who dares to challenge the dominant narrative. This is one of the reasons why there aren't many works by learned scholars who digress from official Indian and Bangladeshi versions of the war since whoever dares to do so, either goes missing, is forcibly silenced or outright chased out of the two countries. SO much for objectivity and neutrality.S.faris (talk) 22:25, 10 October 2011 (UTC)farisS.faris (talk) 22:25, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

You have mentioned that Bengalis used to refer to West Pakistanis as Punjabi kukur, noropushu (human animal), noropishach (human demon), etc, but you've forgot to mention when the Bengalis started calling West Pakistanis by those terms. Bengalis started to refer the West Pakistanis as noroposhu when the Pak. army began brutal attack on Bengalis. They started calling the Punjabis by bitter terms when the West Pakistanis started to oppress the Bengalis in East Pakistan and considered them as an inferior breed. “…The westerners generally regard the people of the East wing as an inferior breed…”.[18] [Kenneth Clarke, Daily Telegraph, 27th March, 1971] You have mentioned the ‘consequences’, but you’ve avoided to mention the ‘events/triggers’ that caused the consequences. I’m arguing with facts S. faris. Please DO READ the articles, international newspaper reports published in the time of the war, DO READ the books by recognized authors, journalists and activists. You’ll find many other facts that I haven’t present here for you. NasrinatWiki (talk) 00:42, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

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.

R. J. Rummel , in his book “Statistics of Democide: Genocide and Mass Murder Since 1900”, took an attempt to analyze the figures of death estimated by several researchers and concluded that 1,500,000 to 3,000,000 people killed by Pakistani military in 9 months of Liberation war. Some other estimates back up the stated figures: Harff & Gurr: 1,250,000 to 3,000,000, Compton's Encyclopedia, "Genocide": 3,000,000, Encyclopedia Americana (2003), "Bangladesh": 3,000,000. NasrinatWiki (talk) 00:42, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

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.farisS.faris (talk) 01:46, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Most, if not all, of your arguments are from Bose's book. Bose's scholarship is questionable and controversial, and her claims have been debunked by multiple authors. For example, Bose bases her book on Pakistani sources, while disregarding any Bangladeshi source. See Mukherjee et al.'s debunking of Bose's "theories". --Ragib (talk) 07:58, 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?

Dear S. Faris, you couldn't catch the points correctly that suggests Ms. Bose "biased" and "controversial" in writing her book "Dead Recknoning". Sarmila Bose is "controversial" because she was biased in selecting interviewees while trying to establish the figures and some statements. Her interviewee list shows that she interviewed 30 Pakistani army officers, and three civilians. These officers can not be authentic sources of information as they were the perpetrators. Information, coming directly from perpetrators has a good probability of being flawed. Clearly, you can not use the figures stated in this book as facts in an wikipedia article since there is a high probability that the sources for these figures and some statements are not authentic and are biased therefore. NasrinatWiki (talk) 08:52, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

SO the books sourced for this Wikipedia article that cite only pro-liberation Bangladeshi & Indian sources for their claims are not biased? Where do the authors of these books demonstrate their neutrality and search for the actual truth regarding the war in an objective manner? Please point out. Your argument is very much applicable to MOST of the sources cited for this Wikipedia article since most of them are written by folks who deeply resent and hate Pakistan. Hence, these sources cannot be trusted to be representing facts either and therefore the scholarship involved is questionable as is your judgment. You have yet to demonstrate anything but cognitive dissonance to say the least.S.faris (talk) 22:25, 10 October 2011 (UTC)farisS.faris (talk) 22:25, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Ok, let me mention some of the books, writers and newspapers cited by this article: Pakistan & the Karakoram Highway By Owen Bennett-Jones, Lindsay Brown, John Mock, Sarina Singh, Daily Times [Pakistan], Matthew White's Death Tolls for the Major Wars and Atrocities of the Twentieth Century, Sydney Schanberg’s column in New York Times, Crisis in South Asia – A report by Senator Edward Kennedy to the Subcommittee investigating the Problem of Refugees and Their Settlement [U.S. Govt. Press.pp6-7], TIME Magazine, The Mirage of Power: An Inquiry into the Bhutto Years 1971-1977 [Oxford University Press, USA], Dr. Tariq Rahman’s[Distinguished National Professor & Director National Institute of Pakistan Studies Quaid-i-Azam University Islamabad] books and articles, The Journal of Asian Studies, Reuters, U.S. Consulate in Dacca [Dhaka]. So, S. faris, in your opinion, all these sources are pro-Indian and pro-Bangladeshi and they hate Pakistan! At least you should have provided an explanation before you make such a serious claim. NasrinatWiki (talk) 00:42, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

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.

Dear S. Faris, I am sorry to say that Ms. Bose gives us a partisan view of the Liberation war of Bangladesh in her book “Dear Reckoning”, this is my observation. Yes, her book assembles Bangladeshi sources & eye-witness accounts of prominent Bangladesh, BUT she cast doubts on most of them and misinterpreted their statements, AND AGAIN she is completely convinced by what the Pakistani army officers, the oppressors, said to her. Doesn’t it hint Ms. Bose’s bias for Pakistan and Pakistani military? YES, it does. NasrinatWiki (talk) 18:27, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Your judgment that Bose misinterprets the statements of her interviewees is POV and false in the light that it goes to show that you have not read the book since most of the statements of the interviewees are in the book in direct quotes verbatim. You fail to demonstrate how she is 'convinced' by Pakistani military. To the contrary she criticizes the Pakistani military to a great extent in the book and any sources she has used to challenge commonly held myths about the war are not just singular Pakistani sources; but those claims are cross-references and checked against Bangladeshi witnesses. AGAIN, please demonstrate to me an iota of neutrality on your part before launching a barrage of accusations against Ms Bose.S.faris (talk) 22:25, 10 October 2011 (UTC)farisS.faris (talk) 22:25, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Let me explain how she proved herself being convinced by staments by Pakistani Military. She said, “Different figures were mentioned by different persons in authority but the latest statement supplied to us by the GHQ shows approximately 26,000 persons killed during the action by the Pakistan Army. This figure is based on situation reports submitted from time to time by the Eastern Command to the General Headquarters. It is possible that even these figures may contain an element of exaggeration as the lower formations may have magnified their own achievements in quelling the rebellion. However, in the absence of any other reliable date, the Commission is of the view that the latest figure supplied by the GHQ should be accepted. ” Ms. Bose doubts the figures stated by several other researchers like Rummel and the journalists who have witnessed the war, but she readily accepted the report by Pakistani Government. So, S. faris, you see that Ms. Bose is convinced by the statements by Pakistani report. Again, she writes, “During my research, some Pakistan army officers who had then been junior officers serving in East Pakistan, told me of occasional opportunistic cases of rape or attempted rape by army personnel, such as when on patrolling duty. Usually, the accused soldier was put through the army’s disciplinary process and jailed if found guilty.” She didn’t doubt the statements by the Pakistani army officers. BUT she was not hesitant to cast doubt on the victims statements. She dismissed the statements by several eye-witnesses. Rabeya Khatun is one of them. Ms. Bose writes, “She is illiterate, as her signature is a ‘tip-sohi’ or finger imprint. Khatun, therefore, is not in a position to verify what is written in her name.” Ms. Bose refused Rabeya Khatun’s account as “dubious” because she was illiterate. Refusing to accept one’s witness just because s/he is illiterate does not seem to be a correct and sound method of doing ‘field reserarch’.. She dismissed some other statements by other eye-witnesses because “the language is not what would be used either by illiterate sweepers or by educated Bengalis in everyday conversation”. She wrote that the “hellish account” attributed to illiterate women will not suffice and therefore she intends to wait for “more credible witnessess”. Later she presented a a Pakistani Lt. Col as a “more credible witness" . She presents Lt. Col. Taj as a FACT WITNESS THOUGH Col. Taj WAS NOT actually present at Rajarbag after the first night of Pak. Military attack. This pattern of accepting and denying statements repeats in her “Dead Reckoning”. She didn’t give credence to what the Bengali eye-witnesses stated to her, But was ready to accept the Pakistani army officers stories and this approach makes her book objectionable. NasrinatWiki (talk) 00:42, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

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.farisS.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.

It will be wrong if you change the numbers based merely on Ms. Bose’s “Dead Reckoning”. Ms. Bose failed to remain impartial in this book. I have explained you why Ms. Bose is considered a biased narrator of history of Liberation war of Bangladesh. No doubt a book with biased view will contain wrong and biased information. Please DO NOT change any statement or figure of this article based on “Dead Reckoning” only. NasrinatWiki (talk) 18:27, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Do NOT worry, I am taking up the issue of this article being protected by pro-India and pro-Bangladesh users to the highest authorities of Wikipedia. Lets see how long fake sources can protect a propagandist narrative. You have yet to demonstrate any impartiality on your own part, hence, you do not have the credibility to question Ms Bose's work.S.faris (talk) 22:25, 10 October 2011 (UTC)farisS.faris (talk) 22:25, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

I’m NOT worried. You are claiming the sources as FAKE without any proof or any explanation. This is not a rational approach to make such a serious claim. Prove that the sources like US consulate, TIME Magazine, New York times, books by recognized researchers like Rummel etc are fake. Surely I can question a research work that is not above doubt in its method of doing research. NasrinatWiki (talk) 00:42, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

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).

Once again, the book "Dead Reckoning" has been snubbed by many academics as shoddy research and can't be used as an authoritative source. So, it is a POV source that can't be used as a fact. --Ragib (talk) 14:42, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Dear S. Faris, you should not cite information from Bose's book "Dead Recknoning" because this book lacks neutrality in method of collecting information on an highly sensitive issue. Ms. Bose used some information as facts which she collected from the people who were the perpetrators of 1971 Liberation War of Bangladesh. Obviously there is a very high probability that the information is biased. And again, information coming directly from the perpetrators has high probability of being flawed and these probably flawed information has been used by Ms. Bose. So, you should keep yourself from using information from Bose's book. NasrinatWiki (talk) 08:52, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

AGAIN, I do not need lectures on neutrality from you regarding Bose's book when you have yet to demonstrate any neutrality on your part. You are part of the brigade that seeks to silence any logical, factual work that challenges the mythical narrative of 1971 as taught by Bangladesh to its citizens to build a narrative of 'nation-hood' so that Bangladeshis could feel like a 'nation'. You have YET to demonstrate how the information in Bose's book is 'flawed' except simply calling it 'flawed'. Perhaps you would like me to gain the approval of the Govt of Bangladesh on WHOM to quote on 1971 war.S.faris (talk) 22:25, 10 October 2011 (UTC)farisS.faris (talk) 22:25, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Whether you need it or not, you will receive "lectures" on neutrality if you try to use information from Ms. Bose's controversial book. I've explained why Ms. Bose's method of doing 'field research' is dubious. I've esplained with examples why Ms. Bose seems to be biased in her book "Dead Reckoning". Please read my explanations thoroughly. NasrinatWiki (talk) 00:42, 14 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.

Dear S. Faris, I can see you have got stuck with a single source acig.org. There are 75 other sources this article cited. Do you consider all these sources unreliable? Please go through the other 75 sources before you raise doubt on the claims of this article. NasrinatWiki (talk) 18:27, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm not stuck on a single source, this article is the one that cites a SINGLE source which is a fake source called 'acig.org' for the number of Pakistani troops in East Pakistan in 1971. You have better sources, please quote them. None of the sources so far have seen the actual records of Pakistani troops deployments in East Pakistan except Ms Bose. Send an email to any neutral scholar on South Asian studies and tell them the figure of 350,000+ Pakistani troops in E. Pakistan and they will laugh at you.S.faris (talk) 22:25, 10 October 2011 (UTC)farisS.faris (talk) 22:25, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

you seem so! Why don't you explore the sources I've referred in several places in this section? And again, please go through other sources cited by this article. NasrinatWiki (talk) 00:42, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

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.

Being a Senior Researcher at Oxford University or being a Director of Reuters Institute does not make one credible. It is the neutral approach and objectivity in method of doing research on an issue that makes one trustworthy. Ms. Bose lacks this neutral approach and method of doing “field research” and therefore she lacks credibility. She is ready to accept the statements made by Pakistani officers, the perpetrators of killing and rape, but doubts the credibility of statements by rape victims, dismisses them as “alleged”. Her “Dead Reckoning ” is not neutral in any way because it relies greatly on the stories, statements, reports by Pakistani officers, the perpetrators on the killings and rapes. Please avoid citing this book in this article. NasrinatWiki (talk) 18:27, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Nonsense! If you had any actual knowledge about how the Departments of Humanities of various reputable universities across the world operate; you would not dare make that comment. A person with biased and partisan views does not become Senior Researcher at Oxford University. This is not some lame-duck university in the subcontinent. Please do not waste my time with your useless arguements.S.faris (talk) 22:25, 10 October 2011 (UTC)farisS.faris (talk) 22:25, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

calm down S. faris. Try to control your emotion and think logically. I've nothing against Oxford Uiversity. BUT surely I've something to say if I see someone, from Oxford or from any university, probably being inclined to one side while rewriting a history of Liberation war. NasrinatWiki (talk) 00:42, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

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. ThanksS.faris

You can not claim a narrative as false on the basis of solely the statements of Ms. Bose’s book and ignoring other books, reports, statements by other eye-witnesses on the same topic. There are some other reasons that invalidate your claim: firstly, you have ignored Ms. Bose’s tendency (that is evident in her articles)to incline to a specific group, then you have avoided Ms. Bose’s approach of giving credence to perpetrators statements, but casting doubt to the victims of atrocity, you are sticking with only the acic.org, and seemingly paying no or little attention to other references cited by this article.

Her tendency to challenge Indian and Bangladeshi war propaganda is NO basis to reject her work. You should perhaps build up tolerance for those who disagree with your views - particular on the war. The same logic that you are using to discredit Bose's work, can be aptly used to discredit every other work on 1971 war by those authors whom you agree with; since most of the work on 1971 is done by Indians and Bangladeshis with the official version of history very much prominent in all their works and hardly ANY of them making the effort to find out the Pakistani narrative so as to cross-check information and then present an objective/neutral analysis.S.faris (talk) 22:25, 10 October 2011 (UTC)farisS.faris (talk) 22:25, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

“..You should perhaps build up tolerance for those who disagree with your views - particular on the war…” And I think S. faris, you should perhaps read more books and articles and stop giving absolute credence to one's claims – particularly on the Liberation war. “The same logic that you are using to discredit Bose's work, can be aptly used to discredit every other work on 1971 war by those authors whom you agree with”, I’m not agreeing or disagreeing with anyone. I’ve presented some publications by well-known writers, journalists, activists and international Newspapers that contradict Ms. Bose's theories. NasrinatWiki (talk) 00:42, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Ms. Bose made a very intelligent attempt to distort the history of Liberation war of Bangladesh in her article "Anatomy of Violence: Analysis of Civil War in East Pakistan in 1971" (EPW, Oct 8, 2005). She presented this paper at a conference organized by historian branch of the United States Department of State. Note that, US government gave support to Pakistan during 1971. Her paper seems to present Pakistani version of picture of 1971 because she terms the Liberation/Independence war of Bangladesh as a civil war. The way she selected and interpreted various “case studies” reveals her favor for Pakistan.

AGAIN, I have yet to see distortions. All I see is Bangladeshi & Indian sources cited who outnumber any Pakistani sources in Bose's book. Just because she isn't pro-Indian and pro-Bangladeshi, doesn't make her pro-Pakistani automatically. This very assumption exposes your flawed judgment and assessment of Bose's work.S.faris (talk) 22:25, 10 October 2011 (UTC)farisS.faris (talk) 22:25, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

You should by now, after all these explanations and references, see the probable distortions. Again, I can’t understand why do you consider all 76 sources as pro-Indian and pro-Bangladeshi. Again, I can’t understand how the New York Times, TIME Magazine, Susan Brownmiller, Rummmel, Pakistani Daily Times, Us consulate became pro-Indian and pro-Bangladeshi. NasrinatWiki (talk) 00:42, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Do not rely solely on the “Dead Reckoning” when you are going to claim something about the Liberation war of a country as fact that has been collected from a dubious “field research” and biased interpretation of events. It is not a rational approach to deny the reports by foreign journalists, newspaper reports in 1971, other books on 1971 Liberation war and relying only on one book, the “Dead Reckoning”, which is completely biased, or at least has a very high probability of being biased. Reasonably, You should not use this controversial book as a source of information in an Wikipedia article. NasrinatWiki (talk) 18:27, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

You have YET to refute this 'field research' that you claim is 'dubious' other than citing works of other folks who are KNOWN pro-Indian and pro-Bangladeshi authors. No one is denying the reports of foreign journalists here except you. There are a plethora of foreign journalists cited in 'Dead Reckoning' by Ms Bose; even Bangladesh's darling, Anthony Mascarenhas.S.faris (talk) 22:25, 10 October 2011 (UTC)farisS.faris (talk) 22:25, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

I’ve already explained why Ms. Bose’s ‘field research’ is dubious by analyzing the pattern she folowed when she accepts or dismisses statements by Pak. Military and the Bengali eye-witnesses. She showed a tendency to accept what the Pakistani army officers stated to her but dismissed the Bengali eye-witnesses. "No one is denying the reports of foreign journalists here except you…" When did I deny the reports of foreign journalists? Please DO NOT twist my statements and DO NOT give false statements. It is you, who is continually denying the foreign journalists reports by tagging them pro-Indian and pro-Bangladeshi. NasrinatWiki (talk) 00:42, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Dear 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.”

Ahem! And your best rebuttal for Bose's work is an 'article' in INDIAN EXPRESS? From an author who cites NO sources in this rebuttal.. except expressing opinion and using conjecture. Amazing logic!S.faris (talk) 22:25, 10 October 2011 (UTC)farisS.faris (talk) 22:25, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

[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."

AGAIN, I do not see any actual evidence or sources cited by Nirupama Subramanian to refute any of Bose's arguments except rhetoric and conjecture. And who exactly is Nirupama Subramanian? Yes, Indian journalist, working for The Hindu, a conservative Indian news media outlet.S.faris (talk) 22:25, 10 October 2011 (UTC)farisS.faris (talk) 22:25, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

[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

AGAIN! Another piece -and this is a BLOG entry, meaning OPINION- with NO sources cited, no factual evidence, nada! The author's name undisclosed. A quick glance at the Economist website shows the same author's barrage of anti-Pakistani pieces written & published as 'blog' by the Economist since clearly, the Economist does not want to stamp its own seal on such content for fear of losing all credibility.S.faris (talk) 22:25, 10 October 2011 (UTC)farisS.faris (talk) 22:25, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

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).

SO defending F-16 sales to Pakistan means she is pro-Pakistani? As opposed to what, pro-Indian and pro-Bangladeshi? If she'd have opposed F-16 deal just like every other hysterical Indian journalist out there; then I presume she'd be 'credible' for you? Given this logic, your argument to discredit her using the F-16 piece does not fly at all. Yes, being a Senior Researcher at Oxford University matters since not just any average joe/jane can reach such a position. Oxford is not some lame-duck university in the subcontinent. They actually have standards for writing, research, etc which one must come up to before attaining any respectable position at the university. So spare me the usual personal accusations against Sarmila Bose that the Indo-Bangla brigade -that seeks to keep 1971 propaganda intact- utilizes to maintain the status-quo of information on the war by perpetuating misinformation.S.faris (talk) 22:25, 10 October 2011 (UTC)farisS.faris (talk) 22:25, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Faris: you are talking nothing but nonstop nonsense. Oxford is not a lame-duck university, but there can be lame-duck professors/researchers in any university. That’s why journal articles are published based on peer-review, not by some stamps from Oxford or Harvard or any university.

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??

What is nonsensical is the farce that you are protecting and the same biased material that you are peddling. You cite no page number from Dr Parvaiz I Cheema's book. I am unable to check what source he cites for this statement if I can find it in the first place. And yes, a university press doesn't just publish any book. It has to meet certain standards - research wise, thesis-wise, etc. As for troop numbers; those who hold pro-Indian, pro-Bangladeshi views of the war love to cite General Niazi regarding his so-called statements about Bengalis and what not, but the same folks (I believe you to be one of them) reject his claims when being the commander of Pakistani troops, Niazi clearly states that he only had 45,000 Pakistani troops in E. Pakistan (army+paramilitary+loyal police units) fighting for him. Cherry-picking information seems to be an art perfected by the likes of those that have written this shoddy article here on Wikipedia.

Even leaving Niazi himself aside; the number of loyal West Pakistani troops in East Pakistan on 26th March 1971 was only 20,000 according to CIA director Richard Helms as was declassified in Foreign Relations of the United States, vol. XI, p. 25. So is CIA director correct or the shady source called acig.org cited here on Wikipedia? To go from 20,000 troops at the end of March 1971 to the supposed 600,000 troops as per claims of the two sources cited in this article regarding Pakistani troop numbers would mean that the poorly equipped Pakistan Army had somehow magically mastered the logistics of transporting half a million troops to East Pakistan in less than 8months - something that would be considered a feat today even if an advanced army like the U.S forces would be able to do so - not to forget the fact that it would've had to have left enough soldiers in West Pakistan to keep a vigil on the border with India there.S.faris (talk) 01:20, 14 October 2011 (UTC)farisS.faris (talk) 01:20, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I am sorry, there is a search option on scribd to find reference. I thought, like your big mouth you are smart enough to find it. Anyways, the pg. number is 180. It was stated also in pg. 77 as "..surrender of a large number of soldiers on 16 December". And this is not "cherry-picking"; open your eyes dude, the whole book is about "The Armed Forces of Pakistan" and written by a leading strategic and defense analyst Dr. Parvaiz Cheema: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pervaiz_Iqbal_Cheema User: GOM_T

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

Article by a Bangladeshi reviewing a book that doesn't portray the actions of those who he calls 'freedom fighters' in a good light, is not going to say nice things about Bose, nor her work. Hence, this is moot just like this Wikipedia article that we are arguing about which is littered with numerous over-zealous pro-Indian, pro-Bangladeshi biased sources many of whom neither cite any specific sources, nor attempt at any junction to get down to the truth of the matter.S.faris (talk) 01:20, 14 October 2011 (UTC)farisS.faris (talk) 01:20, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Haha, so any peer-reviewed article is not credible to you just because it is written by a Bangladeshi? What a logic!!!! User: GOM_T

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

Your anger and frustration are ample evidence to verify that you are neither interested in presenting a balanced article on this topic to the public, nor are willing to constructively investigate some of the arguments that I have raised. For your information, hardly any country or international organization (say, U.N for that matter) outside India and Bangladesh considers 1971 to be a 'genocide'. I know it hurts, but that's the bitter truth. I point this out not to pull your leg, but to bring you back to reality. Calling me names isn't helping your case, only highlighting the weakness and shallowness of your argument. You can point to Arnold Zeitlin, I can point to Stephen Cohen, A Dirk Moses of the European University Institute (Florence), Sunanda K. Datta-Ray, etc to counter it. Obviously your next best bet is to jump up and down to proclaim all these folks being pro-Pakistani and hence, of no value to cite in this article. Which is the same I can say for all the sources you cite which are inherently and blindly pro-Indian and pro-Bangladeshi who peddle and perpetuate the same nonsensical narrative of the war.

Simply blanketing my arguments as nothing but trolling by highlighting ONE source that I cited (Bose) is not going to help you. You're going to have to try a bit harder rather than ball-parking it. I have mentioned news reports from the Guardian and other news media outlets too but obviously you have not bothered to go through all that I wrote. I haven't even challenged the full narrative of the war yet. I am merely pointing out factual errors and your exercise of blindly labeling me as a Pakistani goes to show just how 'real' investigative work has been muted across India and Bangladesh in to the actualities of the war. Folks like you start hounding people who beg to differ from the mythical nation-building narrative that Bangladesh peddles to the world and its own citizenry to glorify the actions of its 'liberators'. My beef is NOT how the Pakistanis are represented in the article, it is with factual inaccuracies and the fact that the article makes NO attempt at all to present a balanced view-point, failing to even highlight a single incident of the many atrocities carried out by the mukti jodha.S.faris (talk) 01:20, 14 October 2011 (UTC)farisS.faris (talk) 01:20, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

New books Insights must be added

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)

Pakistan as an Islamic State

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)