Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 04:26, 8 February 2022

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Bangladesh Liberation War article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11Auto-archiving period: 3 months

Template:Vital article

This article is written in Bangladeshi English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, analyse, defence) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

Bangladesh Liberation War received a peer review by Misplaced Pages editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Military history: Asian / South Asia / Cold War This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status: Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met Associated task forces: /  Asian military history task force South Asian military history task force Cold War task force (c. 1945 – c. 1989) Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. History Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the subject of History on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Historyhistory Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Bangladesh Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Bangladesh, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Bangladesh on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BangladeshWikipedia:WikiProject BangladeshTemplate:WikiProject BangladeshBangladesh Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. The article falls into the work area of the History workgroup of WikiProject Bangladesh WikiProject Bangladesh To-do list: edit history watch purge Add more images to Bangladesh Liberation War and related pages Clean up Climate change in Bangladesh, it needs a lot of work Clean up History of Bangladesh after independence, it needs NPOV Improve Bangladesh back to FA as it was demoted (see discussion) Improve Bengali language back to FA as it was demoted (see discussion) Improve Bengalis and related pages Take a look at the requested articles. Make a MRT line 3 article. Extend, add an infobox and a map of New Eskaton to New Eskaton. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Pakistan High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pakistan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pakistan on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PakistanWikipedia:WikiProject PakistanTemplate:WikiProject PakistanPakistan High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. India High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. This article was last assessed in April 2012. Bengal (defunct) This article is within the scope of WikiProject Bengal, a project which is currently considered to be defunct.BengalWikipedia:WikiProject BengalTemplate:WikiProject BengalBengal Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Cold War High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cold War, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Cold War on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Cold WarWikipedia:WikiProject Cold WarTemplate:WikiProject Cold WarCold War High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. History This article is within the scope of WikiProject History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the subject of History on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Historyhistory ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

A fact from this article was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the On this day section on 10 dates. December 16, 2005, March 26, 2007, December 16, 2007, March 26, 2008, March 26, 2009, December 16, 2009, March 26, 2010, March 26, 2018, March 26, 2021, and December 16, 2021

Semi-protected edit request on 12 December 2019

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 24 October 2021

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

This is unrelated to my previous edit request which is under discussion.

The strength of Pakistani forces should be changed to just 97,000.

Presently, the infobox displays the combined Pakistani strength on both fronts, while for India, only the strength on the Eastern Front is displayed. Changing it to 97,000 would conform to WP:NPOV better. Cipher21 (talk) 14:59, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

ScottishFinnishRadish, pinging you since it's been a week and no one's seen this request. Cipher21 (talk) 06:56, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. It dos not appear there is consensus for this change. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:45, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

ScottishFinnishRadish, I don't think this is controversial enough to require consensus. It's pretty minor and this request has been up for almost a month and no one has objected to it. Cipher21 (talk) 18:08, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Do you have a srouce?Slatersteven (talk) 18:10, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

The figure was in the article when I made this request, before MBlaze Lightning removed it. The source currently cited states the strength of the Pakistan Army on both fronts was 365,000 supported by 280,000 paramilitary while the Indian Army's on the Eastern front alone was 250,000, supported by 100,000 Mukhti Bahini. It's misleading and POV-pushing to put the Pakistan Army's total strength on both fronts while only mentioning India's in the East and making it seem like both figures are for the eastern front.Cipher21 (talk) 06:42, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

I have objection to this change, the total strength of both sides should be added, as the war was fought on both fronts. —Echo1Charlie (talk) 05:21, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

@Echo1Charlie: I think, war on Eastern front should only be added as the war on western front is rather “Indo-Pakistani war”. — Meghmollar2017 (UTC) — 15:43, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Meghmollar2017 Sorry I didn't get you dude, could you please write it plain and simple? :) —Echo1Charlie (talk) 16:47, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

I think what he's trying to say is the Bangladesh Liberation War refers to the months long civil war in East Pakistan and the subsequent Indian intervention. The Indo-Pakistani War of 1971 was the conventional war fought as a result of Indian intervention during the last weeks of the civil war, and took place in both East Pakistan and West Pakistan. Cipher21 (talk) 06:42, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

RFC on the strength of each combatant

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Should the infobox equally represent the strength of both belligerent's armies? Currently, it mentions the combined forces (army+paramilitary) of Pakistan on all fronts of the war (365,000 + 280,000), while it only show's India's strength on the Eastern front (250,000+175,000) (India's total strength was 860,000+180,000 and counts of Pakistan's strength in the east range between ~45,000 to ~90,000). Keeping in mind the fact that the Bangladesh Liberation War took place on the Eastern front, do you support:

• Option 1: Include only the strength on the Eastern Front for both sides
• Option 2: Include the total strength across all fronts for both sides
• Option 3: Include the total strength of one side, but only the strength on one front for the other (as the article currently does)

References

1. Niazi, Amir Abdullah Khan (1998), The betrayal of East Pakistan / A.A.K. Niazi, Oxford University Press, p. 102
2. https://tribune.com.pk/story/2330344/revisiting-november-1971-of-united-pakistan
3. Cloughley, Brian (5 January 2016). A History of the Pakistan Army: Wars and Insurrections. Simon and Schuster. ISBN 978-1-63144-039-7, p. 222

Cipher21 (talk) 17:00, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Option 1 As this page is about (specficaly) the Bangladesh Liberation War and not the Indo-Pakistani War of 1971, it should be seperate.Slatersteven (talk) 17:26, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

• All you were required to do was provide a source in the above section instead of opening an RfC which is likely going to waste time. --Yoonadue (talk) 17:40, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
• When citing sources, it helps to give a page number or page range, so the reader does not have to examine the entire cited source to find your supporting evidence. For sources that are offline, it is especially helpful to provide an exact quotation from the source. Do you mean p. 102 of Niazi, where he writes, "I had only 45,000 regular and paramilitary forces from West Pakistan"? Do you mean p. 193 of Cloughley (3rd ed., 2006), where he writes, "The war in the East was over. Some 90,000 civilian and military prisoners would remain in captivity in India for over two years"? --Worldbruce (talk) 19:58, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

I've added the pages (p. 102 of Niazi and p. 222 of Cloughley, "a quarter of the army was in the east.") Cipher21 (talk) 10:53, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

A quarter of the army is ambiguous unless Cloughley also provides the magnitude of the total Pakistani forces. Of the three sources, Cloughley will be the one considered as reliable for the above-mentioned information. Kerberous (talk) 06:27, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

The figure of 90/93,000 has been termed as exaggerated, one that confuses the total number of civilian and military PoWs with the number of regular soldiers. See:

• Bose, Sarmila. 2011. Dead reckoning: memories of the 1971 Bangladesh War. New York: Columbia University Press. p.173: "One of the most notable ‘numbers’ of 1971 in circulation is the assertion that ‘93,000 Pakistani soldiers’ were taken prisoner by India at the end of the war. This statement has been repeated, virtually unchallenged, in practically every form of publication. It is a number about which one expects a certain precision—after all the number of POWs in India had to be an exact figure, not an approximation. Yet it turns out that 93,000 soldiers were not, in fact, taken prisoner...How did 34,000 army personnel plus 11,000 civilian police and other armed personnel, a total of 45,000 men, more than double into 93,000 soldiers’ who were reported taken prisoner by India in December?"

You are correct when you say it is ambiguous and I could not find a mention of the total strength. So, here are more sources on the numbers which are more specific.

• Faruqui, A., 2001. Failure in Command: Lessons from Pakistan's Indian Wars, 1947—1999. Defense Analysis, 17(1), pp.31-40. "the Pakistani army surrendered in thirteen days with more than 45,000 soldiers still fighting"
• Khan, T.H., 2018. What Kinds of Variables Allow War to Create a New State? The Case of Bangladesh’s Secessionist War. Journal of Indian Studies, 4(1), pp.65-84. "The Eastern command had roughly 45,000 soldiers" Cipher21 (talk) 14:09, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Option 1 Makes much more sense, Option 2 would include too much potentially irrelevant data, and Option 3 simply does not make sense at all. KJS ml343x (talk) 04:18, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Option 1 here but Option 2 at the Indo-Pakistan war article. Greatder (talk) 04:03, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Option 1 for this article - confusing otherwise - the Indo-Pakistani War of 1971 article can have the other info. Deathlibrarian (talk) 00:42, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

• Option 1 - It seems to be a no-brainer. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:19, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Option 1 Makes sense. Plus I have come across more sources saying that Pakistan possessed soldier strength ranging from 20,000 to 45,000 . The 20,000 source was used by Bose in her book but her research showed that the number had risen to about 34,000 at the end of the war. Many sources and Gen AAK Niazi himself has established that soldiers ranging from 34,000-45,000 soldiers were present at the time of ending of war and should be quoted. Truthwins018 (talk) 19:23, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

References

1. https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1969-76v11/d11
2. https://www.jstor.org/stable/44988228?read-now=1&seq=11#page_scan_tab_contents
3. Bose, Sharmila. Dead reckoning: memories of the 1971 Bangladesh War. New York: Columbia University Press. Columbia University Press. p. 173.

Ambiguity vis-à-vis the Declaration of Independence

@Vinegarymass911 @Worldbruce

The third paragraph of the introduction of this article states that “The Bangladeshi Declaration of Independence was proclaimed from Chittagong by members of the Mukti Bahini” whereas the Proclamation of Bangladeshi Independence states that “The independence of Bangladesh was declared on 26 March 1971 at the onset of the Bangladesh Liberation War by Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman”.

The majority of sources I have encountered state unequivocally that Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman did indeed declare Bangladesh’s independence after the onset of Operation Searchlight in the early hours of 26 March, 1971, as opposed to “members of the Mukti Bahini” in Chattogram.

I believe in order to avoid ambiguity a discussion is warranted before taking any actions. I would be happy to enact any edits pursuant to the consensus reached here. Thanks —AMomen88 (talk) 00:07, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

I have changed "proclaimed" to "broadcast". This is supported by the linked article. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:51, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

@AMomen88: If you want more information, the most complete exploration of the topic that I've read is in: Dowlah, Caf (2016). The Bangladesh Liberation War, the Sheikh Mujib Regime, and Contemporary Controversies. Lexington Books. pp. 153–160. ISBN 978-1-4985-3418-5. He leads with:

The declaration of independence of Bangladesh has been one of the highly controversial and most widely debated issues in the political discourse of the country. In March, 1971, when ordinary people of all walks of life took up arms ..., they did not care to know who declared the independence of the country. Nobody heard of any controversy over the issue ... until the mid-1970s ... fierce controversies flared up over the issue.

Dowlah then delves into the half a dozen or so conflicting narratives around the declaration of independence. --Worldbruce (talk) 05:44, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

@Worldbruce: Very interesting. Thanks for sharing the book. Can I ask how you got a copy of the book as I've used the ISBN and it appears there are very few viable options to purchase the book. Kind regards—AMomen88 (talk) 22:15, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

@AMomen88: I borrowed it from a university. There were only two chapters that I thought were above average, and although he lays out the background well, his own opinions are a little wild, so it might not be worth buying the whole book. If you can't get it from a library, WP:RX is set up to supply modest page ranges or even an entire chapter of almost any book. --Worldbruce (talk) 23:29, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 13 January 2022

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Per consensus, could the strength figures in the infobox be changed to match those of the Eastern front? These are 250,000 soldiers for India and 34,000-45,000 for Pakistan. Cipher21 (talk) 11:22, 13 January 2022 (UTC) : Question: Can you please provide the formatted cites for those number as well? Thanks. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:44, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Cipher21 (talk) 12:51, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

@Cipher21: There is consensus for including only the strength of the Eastern Front for both sides, but there is no clear consensus for the numbers 34,000-45,000.

Kerberous commented that, of your three original sources, "Cloughley will be the one considered as reliable ". I suspect they said so because the book was originally published by Oxford University Press (although you cite a later Simon and Schuster edition), and because Cloughley is a former Australian defense attaché to Pakistan who has a long history of writing about their military. You quoted p. 222, "a quarter of the army was in the east." In the strength table on p. 149, he states "Pakistan (Army Strength 365,000)". A quarter of that would be 91,250.

Niazi was the general in charge of the Pakistan Eastern Command. If anyone knows how many were under his command, it ought to be him. Like Cloughley, his book was published by Oxford University Press. It would be nice if we could just take his word for it. But there's a reason that the essay WP:HISTRS assigns military officers' memoirs the less desirable classification "not historical scholarship". Niazi has a powerful incentive to downplay the strength he had available and spin things to make himself look good. Read what he says closely. "I had only 45,000 regular and paramilitary forces from West Pakistan" (emphasis mine). He also had regular and paramilitary forces from East Pakistan. Perhaps he used the qualifier "from West Pakistan" because he didn't trust, or wasn't sure he could trust, forces with local ties. Although some East Pakistanis rebelled, deserted, were killed, or were preemptively disarmed, others remained loyal to the central government.

Niazi's 45,000 may be too low because it brushes under the carpet the regular forces from East Pakistan who remained loyal. Cloughley's 91,250 might be too high if he's using the size of the army from before the start of the Bangladesh Liberation War (it isn't clear). Both may be a bit low for our purposes because although the army made up the lion's share of their strength, Pakistan also had navy and air force personnel in the East.

Bose's work is not intellectually independent of Niazi when it comes to troop strength. Her 34,000 figure is quoting Niazi p. 52, "The total fighting strength available to me was forty-five thousand-34,000 from the army, plus 11,000 from CAF and West Pakistan civilian police and armed non-combatants." Here Niazi is describing his situation at the beginning of April 1971, before he raised additional troops and received reinforcements from West Pakistan.

Are Faruqui 2001 and Khan 2018 intellectually independent of Niazi? --Worldbruce (talk) 17:34, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

:::: Khan 2018 is intellectually independent of Niazi. The same seems to be the case for Faruqi 2001. In the RFC, Truthwins018 mentioned the initial strength was 20,000 which later raised to 45,000 when reinforcements arrived.

There's also this historical document from the US government which states before reinforcements arrived, there were 20,000 loyal West Pakistani troops in East Pakistan. There are also 5,000 East Pakistani regulars and 13,000 East Pakistani paramilitary troops, but their loyalty is doubtful. Cipher21 (talk) 18:47, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

They are clearly using Niazi's number. That number was given on p. 102 in the context of "counter-insurgency" operations, a key piece of context that you have ignored. I can find corroboration for this figure from other sources.

But this is not the number of troops involved in the war. If it was, Cloughley would have stated it. So, we have to say, "45,000-91,250". -- Kautilya3 (talk) 01:39, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

I have obtained a copy of Faruqui 2001. His first mention of troop strength, "Yahya Khan, with less than 40,000 troops {in March}, decided to establish military rule over the 75 million people of East Pakistan" is a direct quote from Kissinger's 1979 memoir (p. 852). A few pages later Faruqui writes "When confronted by Kissinger about how the 45,000 garrison in East Pakistan would survive a full-scale assault by more than half a million Indian troops, Yahya ..." This time he doesn't cite a source. He cites Niazi's book elsewhere, so we can assume he was aware of Niazi's 45,000 figure, but as far as I can tell, Niazi doesn't mention Kissinger, and Kissinger doesn't mention 45,000. Kissinger does say, on p. 863, " 70,000 West Pakistani soldiers (they had been augmented since March) could not hold down 75 million East Pakistanis for long." This emphasizes the problem that troop numbers depend on when the measurement is made. --Worldbruce (talk) 15:59, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

I think Khan 2018 is independent of Niazi. For his statement about troop strength, he cites Salik's Witness to Surrender, first published in 1977. Salik writes, on p. 101, "How did Pakistan meet the challenge? She had 1,260 officers and 41,060 other ranks to counter the mounting menace of insurgency ... Yet Pakistan effectively kept the widespread insurgency in check for nine full months until the war broke out." Whether Salik's total of 42,320 was measured at the start of the Bangladesh Liberation War or at some other point before war broke out with India is unclear. --Worldbruce (talk) 16:20, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

45,000 is a flawed number, it doesn't cater for the other branches of Pakistan military - regular or irregular that partook in the genocide and resulting war. Azuredivay (talk) 07:30, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages articles that use Bangladeshi English
• Old requests for peer review
• All unassessed articles
• Pages using WikiProject banner shell with duplicate banner templates
• B-Class military history articles
• B-Class Asian military history articles
• Asian military history task force articles
• B-Class South Asian military history articles
• South Asian military history task force articles
• B-Class Cold War articles
• Cold War task force articles
• B-Class history articles
• Mid-importance history articles
• WikiProject History articles
• B-Class Bangladesh articles
• Top-importance Bangladesh articles
• Help of History Workgroup of Bangladesh needed
• WikiProject Bangladesh articles
• B-Class Pakistan articles
• High-importance Pakistan articles
• WikiProject Pakistan articles
• B-Class India articles
• High-importance India articles
• B-Class India articles of High-importance
• WikiProject India articles
• WikiProject templates with unknown parameters
• High-importance Cold War articles
• Unassessed history articles
• Unknown-importance history articles
• Selected anniversaries (December 2005)
• Selected anniversaries (March 2007)
• Selected anniversaries (December 2007)
• Selected anniversaries (March 2008)
• Selected anniversaries (March 2009)
• Selected anniversaries (December 2009)
• Selected anniversaries (March 2010)
• Selected anniversaries (March 2018)
• Selected anniversaries (March 2021)
• Selected anniversaries (December 2021)