Talk:Bangladesh War of Independence/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

THIS IS AN ARCHIVE. PLEASE DO NOT POST HERE. GO TO Talk:Bangladesh Liberation War INSTEAD.

Talk archives for Bangladesh War of Independence (current talk page)
<< 1		Archive 1	Archive 2 >	2 >>

Archives
Archive 2 (Jan. 2005 — Jan. 2006)

"The __"

The article seems to consistently omit "the" and descriptive terms. "Pakistan army did this and that" seems to not sound right. Shouldn't it be "the Pakistani Army did this and that?" I've caught a few examples of this and corrected it, but it's a bit late and I'm sure some have escaped me. --Impaciente 09:42, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Genocide versus violence issue

I think it's non-biased to use the word genocide. Violence is too general and can have multiple interpretations. I am reproducing an excerpt that shows that the violence was indeed a planned genocide.

London, 6/13/71). The Sunday Times....."The Government's policy for East Bengal was spelled out to me in the Eastern Command headquarters at Dacca. It has three elements:
*The Bengalis have proved themselves unreliable and must be ruled by West Pakistanis;
*The Bengalis will have to be re-educated along proper Islamic lines. The - Islamization of the masses - this is the official jargon - is intended to eliminate secessionist tendencies and provide a strong religious bond with West Pakistan;
*When the Hindus have been eliminated by death and fight, their property will be used as a golden carrot to win over the under privileged Muslim middle-class. This will provide the base for erecting administrative and political structures in the future."

PS: Thanks for the ise to ize. I am a little obsessed with British (aka standard) English! :) Urnonav

This is a difficult issue, and similar to ones that have arisen on other articles. Most people agree genocide was in progress in 1971, but there is nothing that clearly removes all doubt such as a war crimes prosecution. Important, if self interested, players such as Pakistan and the United States strongly disagree with the genocide label. In general the best solution in these cases is to use more general language, but to give a detailed accounting of the facts so that the reader can decide themselves if the more specific label of genocide is applicable. This is also important as there is also dispute over the very meaning of the word genocide and different readers will have their own opinions of what is genocide. - SimonP 06:15, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)

Sounds sensible. I'll try to get some numbers and pictures. Sensible readers should be able to infer from a number like 3 million in 9 months (which is actually worse than the Jewish Holocaust of WWII!!!) Urnonav

Doesn't the plan for Islamization of the Bengalis prove that the Pak Army didn't want to exterminate the entire Bengali populace? Of course, there was ingrained hostility toward Hindus (AFAIK it had been this way since Indian independence and partition post-1948) and the 3 million number in 9 months does look genocidal just in terms of scale. But it seems more of a "cultural genocide" than anything, what with the Islamization plan and all, rather than a plan to exterminate the Bengalis. It is my understanding that the mass killings and torture were in the cities (including capital Dhaka) where pro-independence sentiment was strong. Anyone who is read-up on the subject, I'd appreciate your input because I only have basic knowledge of what went on.

Of course I might be using a rather strict definition of genocide here, I know that the UN often terms something "genocidal" just in terms of abnormally high numbers from massacres and the like, but I personally think the term is not correctly applied at times, such as in early '80s Guatemala and 1975-79 Democratic Kampuchea. J. Parker Stone 04:07, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

I think the issue was more of cultural, rather than Islamization. East Pakistan's 70 million Bengalis were 85% muslim already. True, the Pakistani Army was quite hostile to Hindu Bengalis, and also didn't consider Muslim Bengalis "muslim"-enough. I agree that they didn't want to exterminate "all" Bengalis (with 70 million people!!! even the biggest genocides didn't have that much in target). Also, the cultural factor seems to be the biggest issue in the genocide here. The rate of killings (1 to 3 million in 9 months) is definitely quite high.

I just want to clarify here that the killings were not only limited to Dhaka or other major cities, it was extended to almost all of the country (mass graves were unearthed in many places). The Bangladesh Government published a set of documents related to the independence war, but these are not probably online. I do have some book references, even some from Pakistan Army officers (Major Siddique Saliq, PR officer of Pakistan Army in Dhaka). I'll look up the appropriate references on the killings outside Dhaka. Anyway, Thanks for your comment. --Ragib 04:30, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Well didn't "genocide" only come into common usage post-WWII, and that was when Hitler had, in fact, tried to exterminate the entire Jewish populace in Germany and occupied Europe. But in subsequent conflicts such a strict definition hasn't been attached to the term, so I'm unsure where it should be applied.

BTW thanks for referencing the number of people within Bangladesh, I knew it was densely populated like the rest of the subcontinent but I didn't know specific numbers. Another question I have about the conflict, is how much of it was fighting, and how much of it was wanton brutality against Bengali civilians from the Pak Army. J. Parker Stone 04:43, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Well, I can't quote figures off hand, but the Mukti Bahini guerrillas numbered around 100,000 , so the majority of the dead must be the civilians. This website has some graphic images from the time, some of the killings in Dhaka and around the country. I wish I had the copyright info on the images ... Anyway, there are a lot of refernces there as well. Thanks. --Ragib 04:55, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Like Ragib said, many of the brutalities included civilians. The Hamoodur Rahman commision report compiled after the war by the Pakistanis revealed several brutalities like rape, torture, killings even by the officers of the Pakistan Army. However the "several" fails to give us an exact detail or the official number. It is assumed that the term genocide was used liberally to include the refugees who left the nation during the crisis as I believe the figures of 1 million is more or less to be accurate.

I want to add more to discuss 'genocide' here. Is what happened an incident of genocide. The George Washington University National Security Archives has some interesting declassified documents in this regard.Amibidhrohi 17:32, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I think that the mention of genocide in this article needs to be reviewed. At the moment it uses weasel words to put across the idea with sentences like: " In Bangladesh, and elsewhere, the Pakistani actions are referred to as genocide." and "On the other hand, though the figure of 3 million is without clear proof, many believe that the real number is still exceedingly high (more than 1 million) and the killing can clearly be termed a genocide. "

As the article "weasel word" makes clear: Who are the people who say ..., who are the people who knew the truth and who ought to have spoken up, and when are the times when it is difficult to do something about something? What has been decided by whom? The sentences should be rewritten to answer the questions in the "weasel word" article.

a sentence in the article states that "Among them, the infamous Blood telegram from the US embassy in Dacca, East Pakistan, stated the horrors of genocide taking place in East Pakistan" The reference describe the unlawful killing of many political and other opponents of the Government but the source does not claim that the actions are a genocide.

If no one has been found guilty of the crime of genocide from atrocities carried out during this war then the word must be qualified with Wikipedia: reliable sources which claim that it was a genocide (and preferably others which refute this). For example reference (PDF) The Tilt: The U.S. and the South Asian Crisis of 1971 National Security Archive Electronic Briefing Book No. 79 Edited by Sajit Gandhi, December 16, 2002; includes a link to what he refers to as (Document 8) A U.S. Consulate (Dacca) Cable, Dissent from U.S. Policy Toward East Pakistan, April 6, 1971, Confidential, 5 pp. Includes Signatures from dissidents who hold a minority view in the Department of State and includes the phrase "unfortunately, the overworked term genocide is applicable." --Philip Baird Shearer 22:18, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Casualty number

There are various quotes of casualties of the war. However, all quotes made after the war, including those from Newsweek and National Geographic, quote figures above 2 million. So, that number has been put in the page. Please avoid quoting other numbers. Throughout this article an effort should be made to be in line with facts and figures provided by Bangladesh Government since that seems to be the only way to avoid controversy.

Newsweek 3/27/72 1.5
National Geographic Sept. 1972 3.0

Urnonav

The figure of 26,000 may be true for the number of deaths for the night of March 25, 1971 in Dhaka alone, but for the rest of the war, the figure is more than 1 million. The anon user seems to be adding several links from Sharmila Bose's controvertial paper, which has been refuted by the Govt of Bangladesh (despite the anon's claims of acceptance published in pakistani news papers). Accounts from Anthony Mascarenhaas ("The Rape of Bangladesh") clearly show the high number of casualties. So, the attempt to claim the amazingly low figure of 26,000 is regrettable, and not backed by any other sources. Thanks. --Ragib 23:34, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Nothing is mentionned in the article about the rapes that occured, but it may be noteworthy, because most estimates are very high. I found the following sources, others who know the issue better may find better ones:

Susan Brownmiller (1993) has written about the rapes that occured in the war: "...200,000, 300,000 or possibly 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. ... Hit-and-run rape of large numbers of Bengali women was brutally simple in terms of logistics as the Pakistani regulars swept through and occupied the tiny, populous land ..." (Brownmiller, p. 81). "...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." (Brownmiller, p. 83)

According to a statement by the Bangladesh government 70,000 women were pregnant as a result of rape (ICJ, Events in East Pakistan, supra, p.40; also cited in [1]) and other sources estimated that 300'000 rapes occured (Ziauddin, Case of Bangladesh, supra, p.100; also cited in [2]). --Kefalonia 14:26, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Date of declaration of independence

Someone edited the part on declaration of independence. The information entered had no reference; the date was changed. SM Rahman could not have made a declaration on 26 March since he was arrested on 25 March. The new material has POV I think. No useful information was added but instead some dates were changed. The initial dates were from quoted sources; so one cannot freely change these dates without quoting new sources. Hence a revert seemed necessary.

-- Urnonav 07:47, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

There was a meeting of historians in July to confirm the correct number of casualties in the 1971 war. The Bangladeshi historians said the correct number was 300,000 not 3 million, which was mistranslated originally from Bengali to English and is often used. The Bangladesh embassy in Washington D.C. has confirmed that 300,000 is the correct number. If that is the number the government of Bangladesh is advocating, should that be the number used? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 141.156.180.160 (talk • contribs) .

The claim is *NOT* supported by Bangladesh Government, from what I see in Bangladeshi news papers. So far as I can see, all the official versions relate to the 3 million number. See "Muktijuddher Dolilpotro" (Collection of documents of the Liberation War) published by the Government of Bangladesh. Besides, several other independent sources support greater than 1 million deaths. Thanks. --Ragib 05:59, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

U.S. involvement

do we need POV statements like "this propaganda apparently failed in the face of world opinion?" that whole section needs to be reworked. J. Parker Stone 09:03, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Well, maybe that specific statement could use with a more neutral tone but the fact remains that US showed a "tilt" towards West Pakistan even after the war. According to the declassified documents (listed in the references) it shows that despite CIA hinting that Pakistan was the first to attack in the war with their pre-emptive air raids, the Nixon administration along with Kissinger wanted to portray otherwise. Many neutral nations felt that Bangladesh was the oppressed country and few supported the american's claim. Thanx.--Idleguy 09:58, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

my point is that it can be worded, the same facts, without the current POV tone. the broader Cold War context is barely mentioned -- there's just some stuff in there about how the U.S. wanted to "blame India," seemingly for no reason. this context can be included while still keeping room for the view that the U.S. blinded itself to the realities of the situation based on Cold War realpolitik, without the POV language. J. Parker Stone 10:37, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Adding to "Recipients of Military Awards" subsection

The section on "Recipients of Military Awards" lists only Bangladesh war heroes while both Indian and pakistan fighters too took part in the war. if the reason is only to include the victors then both Bangladesh and Indian winners of the highest honor should be added. If the objective is to put all the recipients of each nation's highest military decoration then Nishan e Haider and Param Vir Chakra awardees should also be added to this list. Please throw in your views on this to move forward. Idleguy 19:30, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

I think the recipients of gallantry awards from Pakistan and India belong to Indo-Pakistani War of 1971, which was fought from 3 December-16 December 1971. I am emphasizing on the fine grained difference between the two wars of 1971 ... Bangladesh Liberation War was the war fought by Mukti Bahini with the help of Indian army, between March 26-December 16, 1971. If any Indian and Pakistani Gallantry awards were given between 3 December-16 December, and the award was given for bravery in war between India and Pakistan, then that can be added to Indo-Pakistani War of 1971. For example, Rashid Minhas, the Pakistani fighter pilot got Pakistan's highest gallantry award , that was in August, and that can be included here, but for other awardees, like Albert Ekka, belong to Indo-Pakistani War of 1971 and not here. Looking into Param Vir Chakra awardees, it seems to me that they got the award for the Indo-Pakistani War of 1971 (first, the war in the western sector, and second, after the declaration of war between India and Pakistan on December 3]. Among the Nishan-E-Haidar recepients, I think Rashid Minhas, Muhammad Akram can be added to Bangladesh Liberation War.

On a personal note, I feel kind of sad writing and reading about Matiur Rahman and Rashid Minhas. Both were awarded the highest gallantry awards of their own country, both have a Air force base named after them. When I was in grade school, I read about Matiur Rahman's story. It is equally sad to read the one on Rashid Minhas. Anyway, I think I made my point on the fine difference between the two concurrent wars clear... --Ragib 20:02, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

I was thinking on the same lines, I just wanted to make sure that recipients dont' get repeated in two places. I'll put up the India Pakistan gallantry award winners in the Indo Pak war article.

Regarding Rashid and Rahman, I'm betting it must surely be the first such instance wherein two different nation's highest military awards went to two people in an incident involving just the two of them. I also noticed that both their names have MR (Matiur Rahman) and RM (Rashid Minhas) basically a reverse of the starting letters. Two heroes of the same coin, but in reverse they are viewed as antagonists by the opposite parties. Truly amazing. This could actualy be a candidate for "Did You Know". Tx Idleguy 20:19, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

I'm fine with that, as long as there's a link to the names of Indian and Pakistani award recipients not listed here. --Skoosh 02:40, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Clarifications

I don't want to get greatly involved in this article, but I think there should be more mention made of violence comitted by Bengalis against Bengalis and Biharis. For example, I have spoken to many Bengalis who recall that groups such as Jamat-i-Islami in Bangladesh, were responsible for blood-shed, and similarily, there are many Biharis who claim that they were persecuted during this turbulent time, yet I find no mention of this, with the blame seemingly given only to the Pakistani Army. Second, sources should be provided for the figure of 3 million dead Bengalis. This number itself is a number debated by Bengalis, as I have read in certain places that it was an embellishment by Rahman in order to gain more sympathy for the Bengali cause. Keep in mind, I am totally aware that this was a very turbulent period, with a lot of senseless violence resulting in the death and disruption of the lives of many people. All I am suggesting is that a complete picture be given. DigiBullet 16:18, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

I agree about the deaths of the "Bihari" people (urdu speaking migrants from Bihar and other regions to East Pakistan). There were certainly riots during which both groups (Biharis and Bengalis) butchered each other. I guess the main focus has been on the genocide of Bengalis as the sheer number of deaths surpass those on Biharis. But still, the plights of the Biharis needs to be mentioned.

You are absolutely correct about the war crimes committed by Bengali collaborators, who sided with Pakistan Army. Some right-wing parties like Jamat-e-Islami formed militias which were responsible for widespread killings.

As for your question on the figure, my guess is that the number of deaths is around 1-1.5 million. You can find a lot of sources here, which gives a credible figure of 1.25 million, considering different sources. The 3 million deaths is a Government of Bangladesh statement, which was supported by the erstwhile Soviet News Agency in 1972. Most likely, the figure is off the mark by at least 1.5 million or so. But the figure is definitely more than 1 million. Thanks. --Ragib 16:37, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Important Notice

Important: A number of books for further reading that I wrote were immediately deleted by someone, probably a Bangladeshi. This includes some of the best books on the subject, those by Sisson & Rose and Hasan Zaheer. The only reason for this is that someone does not want people to read more balanced accounts of this crisis.

Moreover, a number of external links that I wrote were also immediately deleted. These include excerpts by the current Bangladeshi ambassador to the United States, Shamsher M. Chowdhury, who admitted on record at the U.S. State Department South Asia conference on June 28-29, 2005 that the 3 million figure was "grossly exaggerated." He said the discrepancy was due to a mistake in translation from Bengali to English and the original figue put forth by Bangladeshis was 300,000.

It is important that Bangladeshi readers (and others) read this. This is NOT a small issue. It is a decrease of 900% from the Bangladeshi figures, and it seriously brings into question the validity of the Bangladeshi allegations. I would suggest people look at the transcript of the June 28-29, 2005 South Asia conference as well.

Do NOT delete the external links and the further reading portion that challenges the validity of the Bangladeshi alegations. The whole point of this is for people to look at both points of views, and make their own judgement.

If these are deleted again, I will raise this issue with Wikipedia; make no mistake about that. Do not underestimate my resolve.

Regards, Taimur Khan August 9, 2005

The book reference should obviously stay, but not the POV statement "This is perhaps..." etc. I am removing that. --ppm 00:37, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

The only diff I see from the page history is this, and I don't see any removal of the book references. Taimur, what exactly are you talking about? I don't see any "removal of links/books" here. The only thing removed was "(Note: This is perhaps the most comprehensive book on the East Pakistan crisis)", and the removal is certainly justified, as per User:Shmitra above. Thanks. --Ragib 05:26, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Some factually incorrect additions made by anon user

An anonymous user has stirred a hornet's nest by trying to include a dawn newspaper link that shows that there were NO rapes by the army. the article till now has not discussed this issue of rape specifically - it has a few lines on the atrocities and the killings but the "atrocities" have not been detailed. With the anon's edits I think this issue should be put in perspective.

In 1971 there have been several reports of rape though the original figure of 200,000 quoted by Mujibur rahman is way high. However there is no denying the fact that rapes and tortures took place. General Niazi reports in his book and in an interview that there was much raping and looting taking place under Tikka Khan's leadership. Despite Pakistan's dislike of Niazi for his meek surrender, his opinions cannot be dismissed summarily. Even the hamoodur rahman reported the incidence of rape even after niazi took over and even Maj. Gen. Rao Barman Ali quotes these rapes. PPP site on the report The official Pakistan People's party too while rubbishing the 200,000 rape claim admits that a hundred or more cases involved terminated pregnancies which is an indicative % of the total raped (since not all who r gangraped get pregnant). While this can be graphical, the truth is that a few hundred cases of rapes are beyond doubt. Now a court martial or a war crime trial on the pakistan officers should have revealed these facts. However since this was not done the miscreants escaped punishment and now decades later can very well deny the accusations - since there is no proof now.

In light of this I think the POV links to 2 pakistan newspapers claiming NO rapes took place by the army in bangladesh has to be taken with a pinch of salt. I'll also be adding these references to back up the same. Idleguy 10:33, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

For Ragib

I am referring to the further reading portion that was deleted by someone, I then added the names of the 4 books again. Don't try to play games here. More importantly, someone has been deleting the external links i added. These are from the Dawn and Daily Times. These stories are on the South Asia Conference held at the State Department. The Bangladeshi ambassador conceded that the 3 million figure is wrong. He added that his figure is close to 300,000. This is an official of the Bangladeshi government saying this. I repeat, this is not a small issue, its a decrease of 900% in the Bangladeshi figure. That says a lot about the credibility of the Bangladeshi figures. But you were perhaps right in deleting the comment on Hasan Zaheer's book.

The Daily Times articles are a summary of the State Sept conference. Why are you people so afraid that others may look at a countering argument? Let the readers look at Sarmila Bose's research, let them read what your own ambassador is saying. I will not tolerate any more deleting from you people. Let people read both sides of the story. You have no right to delete a link just because you think its not accurate. My links are from newspapers, and respected ones. Most of the Bangladeshi links here are way off target, in terms of their figures. Did I delete any of your links? No.

Have the decency to let the other point of view be read. Don't delete the Pakistani external links again.

One more point. You quote General Niazi's book. This book contains a lot of factual errors and makes wild claims. Let me give you an example of Niazi's errors. He claims that he was received by throngs when he returned to Pakistan, and claims that he was garlanded. Crickers get their houses stoned if they lose a match, let alone a defeat in war. Quoting Niazi is simply useless.

- Taimur

Dear Taimur, as of now, the links you added to newspaper articles are there, although sans any commentry from you on the contents. I don't see any problem with keeping the pakistani version of the war, I kept it there. Book references are also welcome, I have added a few more. I also added links to a PhD thesis solely focusing on the rape issue, which debunks Sarmila Bose's "Theory" as well. You also wrote that "Most of the Bangladeshi links here are way off target", well show me some. In Bangladesh, there are hundreds of books and other documentation on this issue, and claiming all of them to be off target is surely a fallacy. In any case, I am glad now that you have come to the talk page instead of putting warnings in the article, Wikipedia doesn't work in that way. Thanks. --Ragib 01:39, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

From what I can gather, the user has not been following the edits I made. Instead of blaming others I suggest Taimur reads properly before making claims that the external links are being deleted. Firstly there is no use for redundant links that point to the same story, i.e. "pakistan army not involved in 1971 rapes". one is an article another an editorial; both talk on the same subject, so the question is why two links on the same issue?

Secondly the south asia conference was not removed as claimed, it was merely moved to the section on casualty controversy to make it easier for readers. And including links to articles on "Yahya Khan agreeing to withdraw his troops" is a POV link from a partisan newspaper and covers only a sliver of selective history without talking about the background. If such links be included, then all external links talking about the political aspects, in nitty gritty details have to be included. Such an exercise is likely to tire the readers as it would serve no purpose. Already volumes of information on the war are being published in various Indian newspapers after reading the recently declassified documents - from which dawn has selectively quoted this statement of yours on Yahya attempting to withdraw troops.

If you want to know history please read it, don't selectively add links that jump out of nowhere with little regard to the bigger picture of the war. Thanx Idleguy 05:17, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

Shamsher M. Chowdhury

Whoever added his statement about the casualty, can u give a reliable reference on this? thanks --ppm 16:50, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

I am asking again, pls give more (neutral) references to this statement. A Dawn report is not enough, moreover Dawan does NOT put 300,000 in Shamsher M. Chowdhury's mouth. It simply reports that Chowdhuty wants a joint effort to recount the casualty number. --ppm 02:27, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

As nobody gave any references, I have removed the Samsher M. statement from the article. A link to the related Dawn article, however, I have inserted during the rewrite of the "Casualty Controversy" section. --ppm 20:58, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

I second that. Also, the re-written number-of-people-dead section looks balanced enough to me. Thanks for the rewrite. --Ragib 21:11, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Now we need a section for atrocities against women and minorities. Will get to it in a while, but if someone can start it that woudl be great. --ppm 20:42, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

kacha gu coming.--ppm 18:21, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Threats of action from anon user

Anon 69.214.220.8 (talk · contribs) had put the following notice on top of the External Links section

(WARNING, DO NOT DELETE THE PAKISTANI LINKS, INCLUDING FROM DAWN AND DAILY TIMES. ACTION WILL BE TAKEN AGAINST THE USERS DELETING THE PAKISTANI LINKS)

First of all, in no way, you can put such a "warning" in a wikipedia article. Wikipedia works on consensus, not threats. You can't also put such notices to highlight your point. If you have any grievances, the talk page is yours to comment in. Secondly, I initially thought that you used actual article titles for naming those links, but upon following the links, I found you have used your personal comments for naming the links. I have renamed the links using the actual article titles along with the author's name and sources. Thirdly, you have added several links to the Hamoodur Rahman Commission report, all of which come from the Google cache. Well, there IS already a link to the chapterized version of the report, and I don't think google cache stays forever. So I have removed the redundant links to individual chapters in the google cache. Thanks a lot. --Ragib 01:26, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Is this guy crazy?--ppm 02:28, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Ragib

That message is due to the fact that some Bangladeshis have been repeatedly deleting my links. This has happened 3-4 times. As for the Hamood Commission, I went to the complete site you added, and it did not seem to be working at the time, so I left the Dawn links. Let them stay there for a few days. I will delete them if they are not needed. I used Google cache because the original link was not working properly.

Persentage of Hindu's

Does anyone have a reference of the number of Hindus in East Pakistan when Pakistan was created? I kinda remember it was more like 30% but cannot remeber/find any references so want to crosscheck before making any changes. This number is sort of important because a interesting discourse in Pakistan used to be that the numeric majority claimed by Bengalis is not true because it includes Hindus, and also the number should be higher since a very high number of Hindu refugees in 1971 never came back and the number is currently close to 15%. --ppm 02:38, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Double links

In the external links section, there are two links to the exact same Daily Times report. The addition of that report is very important, but clearly two links is unnecessary? I'll remove that in a day or two if no good reason to keep both is put forward. --ppm 20:07, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

I think it was just a mistake. I removed the less descriptive link. Thanks for pointing this out. --Ragib 20:13, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Theatre of conflict

I have this nagging doubt whether the Place of conflict in the infobox on war should be limited just to east pakistan or include the indian subcontinent. The reasoning behind the latter's inclusion is this: the war took place in east and west pakistan, in kashmir and on the seas. so the theatre of conflict is large and not limited to bangladesh alone. I'm assuming that Bangladesh Liberation War is like the larger scope that covers even the india pakistan war. in this case then indian subcontinent would be the right use IMHO. Idleguy 05:44, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

Actually it does not. The war on Western Front of India is under Indo-Pakistani War of 1971 which has its own article. This article is strictly about the war on Bangladeshi territory between 26 March 1971 and 16 December 1971 inclusive. However, you are right in that it includes all the different forces and terrains: air, water, land, paramilitary, etc.

Urnonav 17:16, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

25 th march

The more I read, this article is revealing mentions of things that don't look true. In the "violence of 25th march" section, someone has written that Sarmila Bose has opposed the number (600-700) of the students being killed. I haven't found any such reference in her paper. Please point out where, in which section she had made such a claim. The claim that is there, is that the students were armed, contrary to the popular Bangladeshi discourse.--ppm 22:31, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Official name

is this the official name of the conflict, or just the one used by the Bengalis? of course considering they won this might be the accepted term, but i dunno. enlightenmeplz J. Parker Stone 04:45, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

I believe most of the books I found (some cited at the end of the article) do use that name. Of course, in Pakistan, the term "civil war" is used (and there is a redirect from "Pakistan Civil War" to here). Another term, "Indo-Pakistan War of 1971" is used to mark a subset of the whole conflict (the part of the war where India and Pakistan officially fought; with its own wikipedia article). And finally, you are right, the victors of the wars usually get to name it, the British would probably name the conflict in American colonies as "Colonial revolt" or something, but it became known as "American war of independence". Similar precedent exist almost in every independence war. Thanks. --Ragib 05:11, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

yeah the only other term i knew of was the Third Indo-Pakistani War but that implies direct fighting between India and Pakistan which wasn't the whole scope of the conflict. anyway thanks. J. Parker Stone 05:37, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Casualty figure

It seems awkward that the 3 million number is labelled "Bangladeshi estimate". It seems to allude that it's an otherwise wrong figure only pushed forward by Bangladeshis. If you check on the different sources and figures quoted, most sources that did their survey soon after the war reached numbers between 1.5-3 million. 3 million is NOT a Bangladeshi estimate. Bangladesh government at that time used the estimate made by the National Geographic! Estimates of below 1 million mostly "surprisingly" seem to come from sources based in Pakistan that never even went to Bangladesh for surveys or if they did, they did so so long after 1971 that any evidence must have been difficult to get.

I propose editing the casualties section in the infobox to only 1.5-3.0 million and adding a section mentioning which sources quote what and when and how each source gathered its information, thus clearing our conscience of possible POV!

Urnonav 17:28, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

3 million - haunting or very plausible indeed?

3 million over 267 days would come out to: 11236 deaths per day. Now recall 93000 POW's were taken. Assume half of them were actively working in Pakistan's military action. 11236/46500 = slightly above 1/5 Now, I know this purely mathematical perspective will be seen as preposterous, but logically speaking every group of 5 Pakistani soldiers/paramilitary forces killed one Bangladeshi every day. Judging by recent deaths in a modern war (with embeded journalists) like that in Iraq, this number doesn't seem impossible at all for a war done 30 years back where journalists were removed for "special security reasons".

I have actively opposed the idea of a "mistranslation". Firstly, international organisations some even of American origin support a number above 1 million. These have nothing to do with the now-hated "Mujib-figure". Secondly, a politician who was about to become the Prime Minister of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, who speaks fluent English should have known the difference between lakh and million. Plus if he were confused wouldn't he have just said 3 lakhs if he meants 3 lakhs instead of 3 million? In history as often happens, proponent of one side always manage to find "evidence" of stupidity on the others' part.

Urnonav 17:44, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Analyzing the information from different sources, I think the figure should be between 1.5-2.0 million. I often cite this source, which has many references on the number of fatalities. The 3 million figure, to the best of my knowledge, was first cited by a news agency from the former Soviet Union (I read this in a book, unfortunately I don't recall the name now). The "mistranslation-by-Mujib" is probably a typical anti-Mujib propaganda. --Ragib 17:56, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

According to some reading I did a while ago, it seems that the quote of 1.5-3.0 million was accepted by a very wide range of sources. Since Pakistan neither maintained an organised "hitlist" like the Nazis did nor did they put in a database any summary of their "success", it is impossible to pinpoint a number, but I personally would support rephrase of the following lines in the article:

many are inclined to believe that the real number was still a far cry from the 3 million put forward by Bangladesh, or to be specific, Sheikh Mujibur Rahman
Due to the lack of records and long time that has passed since, any number put forward for the number of casualties will almost necessarily be wrong

The first has an unnecessary and possibly false assertion about Mr Rahman. The second is a bad self-assertion. Any number won't be wrong because at least one will be right, irrespective of how big or small that "one" is. My take on this is any number put forward now or by organisations that never carried out any surveys or studies and base their speculation on an interest to save or prove as a hero one or the other side of the war will obviously be wrong. However, numbers presented in and around 1971-1972 by journalists and social workers based in Bangladesh are more likely than not to be correct. Any reason to not change the above two lines?

Urnonav

There is a "almost" in there. Bad reading.--ppm 17:36, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Yes I saw the almost. =) However, I still disagree with the wording. It sounds iffy to me. Could we replace it with:

Due to the lack of records and long time that has passed since, any number put forward for the number of casualties will be speculative
Due to the lack of records and long time that has passed since, it is difficult to provide a definitive number of casualties? -- Urnonav 14:42, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Economic Exploitation

The % is misleading. If 1129 was spent on West and 524 on the East, the percentage spent on East = 524/(524+1129) = 31.7. To be correct, 'percentage spent on east' should be rephrased into 'percentage of west that was spent on the east' or something to that effect; or the third column should be changed Tintin 18:28, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Biased Article

Shows the Indian point of view. The Indians "liberated" a country with which thay have border fights on a daily basis. The Indians wanted to break Pakistan to make it weak; they were successful in breaking it but could not make it weak; the Kargil Conflict makes that obvious (U.S pressure worked). But sadly for India, Bangladesh became a vibrant and great country and not another state of India. This article needs to objective. Calling it the Bangladesh Liberation War is wrong. It should be called the Indo-Pak war of 1971. The Indians think that calling it the Bangladesh Liberation War would probably sound better, jsut like the U.S calls its attack and occupation of Iraq, the Operation Iraqi Freedom. What a joke!!! Fawwad - 2 Sept, 2005 - 20:44 PST

Fawwad, you might notice that the issue of name has been discussed at length. Indo-Pak war of 1971 is a subset of this war. "indians" did not liberate the country, Bangladeshis liberated it with the invaluable help from Indians. This war is called Bangladesh Liberation War in almost all the books refferred to in the article, and also by the Government of Bangladesh. May I ask you by what name the American Revolution is known? Is it called Rebel-British war of 1776? The antagonism between Indians and Pakistanis is evident, even in wikipedia. But that doesn't mean we should look into every article thru biased eyes. As for border fights with India, yes that do occur. But in 1971, when Bangladeshis were raped/massacred by Pakistan Army soldiers, India hosted 10 million refugees and trained the Mukti Bahni guerrillas/armed the Bangladesh armed forces ... even if it was to their advantage, it helped the independence of Bangladesh. Current events can't erase that fact from history. Thanks. --Ragib 16:11, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Ragib, my family was put in a concentration camp by the Indian government and the Mukti Bahni guerrillas. Women were raped and whole familes were killed. My parents escaped on a boat. Please don't tell me about biases, my family faced biases while being tortured by the Indians just because we are Bihari Muslims not Bangla speaking Muslims. Come to Pakistan and meet the 2 Million illegal Bangladeshis here; they came here on boats to find work. We treat them very nicely because we consider them our brothers and sisters. Thanks. Encylopedias are supposed to give information not make people predijuced - Fawwad - 2 Sept, 2005 - 21:44 PST

Well, compare that to 1.5 million deaths in part of Bangladeshis. I could cite many examples regarding deaths in my family, but that's true for all Bangladeshi families who lost at least one family member in 1971. The situation about the Bihari muslims stranded in Bangladesh is regrettable. They expressed their allegience to Pakistan, but the Government of Pakistan, even after 30 years, is not eager to repatriate them to Pakistan. Look up the news reports on that. The issue of illegal Bangladeshis living in Pakistan is very irrelevant to this article. Encyclopedias should not make people prejudiced, but should not hide the genocide of 1.5 million people either. I'll add a paragraph on stranded Pakistanis to the artilce (in the legacy/aftermath section). Thanks. --Ragib 16:50, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Another Pakistani who couldn't digest his nation's history. Apparently he is trying this same "the article is biased" lament across most India Pakistan war articles with little information on the actual events that transpired during the various conflicts. Idleguy 18:03, September 2, 2005 (UTC)

Fawaad, the Bangladeshi people call the war fought on their land the Bangladesh liberation war. Please learn to respect that. --ppm 18:04, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Fawwad, given your family's history in the concentration camps, we would expect you, of all the people, to understand the sentiments of Bangladeshis the most - for over 200 days all of Bangladesh was a concentration camp and everyone was a refugee! If you believe there are POV's, could you please help us get rid of them by probably listing them here in a point-by-point form? It could also help us write about the much-undocumentation fate of Biharis. The nomenclature issue is cleared up in the article. As for the naming, Independence War of Bangladesh and Bangladesh Liberation War are exactly English of what the country's government uses and in line with other examples on Wikipedia, it seemed logical to use the name here. There is an article on Indo-Pakistani War of 1971 on Wikipedia, if you are interested to contribute. -- Urnonav 14:49, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Whats with this number of 2million illegal Bangladeshis in Pakistan? Does anybody else have trouble believing this. NG

I don't, but not all of these people are asking to be repatriated. In fact there's a pretty big Bengali population in Karachi, but most of these people went after independence, in search of jobs, etc. It has no link with the BLW. There's a much smaller group of people who picked to live in Pakistan rather than in the newly independent Bangladesh. I believe most Bengalis were repatriated shortly after independence. -- Urnonav 23:52, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

The article has become pretty big.

I think the time has come to cut down on some details and hive it off into individual articles. But I just don't know which one gets the axe. Everything seems so relevant. Hmm. Idleguy 17:35, September 8, 2005 (UTC)

Well, some other info are not present now, like the Agartala conspiracy case, the 6 point movement etc. But I agree that the article is quite long. --Ragib 17:47, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Is there a Wikipedia upper limit on lengths of article? I initially created out most of the sections of this article which used to redirect to Indo-Pak War of 1971 and I personally think I created a little too many sub-sections. I believe the whole issue of the killing could go into an article called Genocide 1971. In that case we also have more space to discuss the advocates and the opponents of the notion that a genocide happened - makes it easier to make it a fair case. The pre-war could be removed to History of East Pakistan, History of Bangladesh or Pre-liberation War Period (Bangladesh) [I agree that's a stupid title]. Does anyone agree/disagree on this matter? -- Urnonav 14:39, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

I agree. The article is on the war per se. So it should talk in detail about the war with a lead up. As far as I see the Indo-Pakistani War of 1971 seems concise and clear for a new comer than this one is. Hiving the causes of the war and the Genocide would be the best idea retaining the gist here. And can't we get more images of the "actual war"? I find it impossible to find images (fair use or public domain i.e.). One of the best photos on war/battle is in the Battle of France (1st photo). Idleguy 06:05, September 10, 2005 (UTC)

I have some pictures, but I'm unsure of their copyright. However, what I am thinking is: aren't most war pictures under fair use anyway? It is impossible for someone to take those pictures now. As for the I-P 1971 war, I continue to think that many contributors mix up what part of the information should go here and what should go there. We should have some note on this on the discussion page of each article. -- Urnonav 22:35, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

If you do have pictures on the war, and are unsure then we could tag it as {Fairuseunsure}. That way it would still be fair use. And yes, your suggestion that 'a main note at the top of the discussion page stating what goes here and what goes to the other article' is practical. That way it'll avoid any confusion and overlapping. Idleguy 10:34, September 11, 2005 (UTC)

Bangladesh War

I think a better and less POV title for this article is Bangladesh War this is also the most common name on Google:

about 32,800 English pages for "Bangladesh War" -wikipedia
about 11,500 English pages for "Bangladesh Liberation War" -wikipedia
about 14,200 English pages for "Bangladesh War" 1971 -wikipedia
about 982 English pages for "Bangladesh Liberation War" 1971 -wikipedia

To break those figures down a little, "Bangladesh War of" returns:

about 9,090 English pages for "Bangladesh War of independence" -wikipedia
about 370 English pages for "Bangladesh War of Liberation" -wikipedia
about 211 English pages for "Bangladesh War of 1971" -wikipedia

If a disambiguation problem with "Bangladesh War" the the name "Bangladesh War of Independence" carries less POV --Philip Baird Shearer 12:02, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Why is google god? --ppm 19:11, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

It is not but it is an indicator of common usage which is part of Wikipedia:Naming conventions. --Philip Baird Shearer 14:31, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

If this is POV, so is American revolutionary war.--ppm 04:36, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

See my comments on Talk:American Revolutionary War#American_Revolutionary War vs. American War of Independence --Philip Baird Shearer 11:04, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

What is it adding to this topic? You seem to be suggesting to call it "American war of independence", which seems equally POV. Also, I googled "bangladesh war" and it returned numerous links that actually use the words "independenc" or "liberation" in them. Google is a very good engine.--ppm 01:20, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Your raised ARW as an example. Why do you think that "American War of Independence" an equally POV title and what is it equal to? --Philip Baird Shearer 09:59, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Officially the govts. of Bangladesh and India call it "Bangladesh Liberation War" or "Liberation War of Bangladesh". So I don't see any issue. Idleguy 05:02, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

It does not matter much what the Bangladeshi and Indian governments call it officially, what matters on Wikipedia is that the name does not have a one sided POV and the common English language usage. What is the war called in Pakistan and what is it called by organisations which are disinterested? --Philip Baird Shearer 11:04, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

The US Library of Congress talks in detail about this war under "liberation war" which was one of the sources used. The Russians obviously call it something like that as an ally of India then. Though officially Pak calls it as civil war - a nomenclature justification included in the article - it is NOT the way how the majority remember this war. The word "liberation war" is used in many media and historical accounts from Pakistan as well as since then. The UN refers to this as liberation war so I don't see any POV issue for an official name. Idleguy 05:05, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Please could you direct me to the Library of Congress source because I could not find it with a quick search of the article. I had missed out a Google search of ["Bangladesh War" -wikipedia] above so I have added it, and it is 3 times a common as "Bangladesh Liberation War" but because it could refer to more than one one (not sure which other one) was the reason I added 1971 for a secondary search. Doing a seach of gov.uk only returns one page, a search of ac.uk does not return many pages, but it does return more with the name "Bangladesh War". It is a similar case with the domain ".edu":

about 49 English pages from ac.uk for "Bangladesh War"
about 219 English pages for "Bangladesh War" site:.edu
about 14 English pages from ac.uk for "Bangladesh Liberation War" site:.ac.uk
about 44 English pages for "Bangladesh Liberation War" site:.edu

Doing a search of the Amazon.com site on books returns nearly twice as many book titles "Bangladesh War" as "Bangladesh liberation War" (76 to 41). Can you show me any more UN page which calls it the "Bangladesh Liberation War" because when I google for the phrase including (site:un.org) I get:

1 English pages from un.org for "Bangladesh Liberation War"
1 English pages from un.org for "Bangladesh War"

and for site:unhcr.org

4 English pages from unhcr.org for "Bangladesh War"
"Bangladesh Liberation War" site:unhcr. - did not match any documents.

It seem to me that by any seach I do over a number of different criteria that "Bangladesh War" is more common than "Bangladesh liberation War" and IMHO "Bangladesh War" carries less POV than "Bangladesh Liberation War". I would be interested to hear any arguments that the title "Bangladesh Liberation War" does not carry more POV than "Bangladesh War" --Philip Baird Shearer 09:59, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Britannica seems to use "The Bangladesh war (from India)" as a page title. [3] At first glance it seems reasonable to me to omit the "liberation" part from the name but my opinion is pretty irrelevant since I've never edited this page and know nothing about the topic :) - Haukur 19:43, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Both Amazon and Google are sites that use English in their searches. The west is particularly advanced when it comes to using the internet to create pages or discuss things. Amazon is obviously dominated by goods and books retailed in the Western countries. Therefore the results you get back disproportionately represent the opinion of the West. Most westerners have little or no knowlege of the event, save the famine that followed in 1975, so it makes sense that they'd defer to the most simplistic title for the event, namely the "Bangladesh War". To use popular search engines and shop sites like Amazon to determine the title of the article is rather unencyclopedic.

Bit of an off-topic...Is it POV to called what happened to Jews during WW2 a holocaust? POV doesn't mean we presume all sides equal at the cost of accurately depicting history. A neutral eye over what happened in East Pakistan prior to and leading to the war, and all that's happened since pretty much supports the phrase "War of Independence" or "War of Liberation", even from a neutral perspective. Amibidhrohi 17:32, 17 January 2006 (UTC)