Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Why Pakistani Army surrendered in 1971?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Duellist
    replied
    The idea of nationalism being a purely European construct is debatable to me, considering the empirics. I do think conceptions of ethno-religious nationalism in places such as Japan or the Ottoman Empire are too often overlooked. The evolution of such nationalism in India absent colonialism is interesting to consider. While a united India would depend on administrative and military skill as well as social cohesion, the same holds for every sovereign entity.

    Leave a comment:


  • Skywatcher
    replied
    Originally posted by Agnostic Muslim View Post
    Pakistan (and India) were themselves examples of the continued 'adaptation, reproduction and spread' of the 'evolution' in governance, namely Parliamentary democracy, and a sense of 'nationhood' based on Western models, with 'modifications' to the model based on their particular circumstances.

    Pakistan did not 'secede' from the current nation-State of India, so I fail to see how 'encouraging the Manchus, Uighurs, Tibetan's etc.' to secede from their respective nation-States fits in with the Pakistani model - your 'suggestion' is a better fit for the Bangladesh model.
    That would also require the Manchus to want to secede (like a lot of the minorities in eastern China, the Manchus are pretty well Sinified, sort of like how the Normans became English).

    Leave a comment:


  • Deltacamelately
    replied
    Originally posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
    Colonel, at this point, I really don't know.

    The Soong was very much capable of repelling the Yuan and the Brits lost more than a few wars in SE Asia. What I actually see ... if history proves to my favour is two blocs. The Soong was actually within 5 years of gaining the military technology to slaughter the Yuan, ie cannon parks and if that occurred, the Brits could not have won SE Asia, lacking the firepower to do so.

    God, how would I have loved you and the good Capt in the mess discussing what-ifs.
    Sir,

    Thanks for the kind words. To continue the discussion, I would bring it your notice that the success of the post colonial Indian administration in integrating the princely states can be exemplified by the simple fact, that the Crown itself made several attempts in the 20th century to integrate the said states more closely with British India, like for example creating the Chamber of Princes as a consultative and advisory body and in 1936 transferring the responsibility for the supervision of smaller states from the provinces to the centre and creating direct relations between the GoI and the larger princely states, superseding political agents. Another aim was a scheme of federation contained in the GoI Act of 1935 which envisaged the princely states and British India being rulled under a federal government. In 1939 as a result of the outbreak of the WW II all this was abandoned and in the 40s the relationship between the princely states and the crown remained regulated by the principle of paramountcy and by the various treaties between the crown and the states.

    However, neither paramountcy nor the subsidiary alliances could continue after Indian independence. The British took the view that because they had been established directly between the British crown and the princely states, they could not be transferred to the newly independent dominion of India. Thereby clearly demonstrating their unwillingness to facilitate the creation of a strong, unified Central Indian State. In the same breath, the alliances imposed obligations on the English that they were not prepared to continue to carry out, such as the obligation to maintain troops in India for the defence of the princely states. The Brits therefore decided that paramountcy, together with all treaties between them and the princely states, would come to an end upon the British departure from India.

    That the Central Indian leadership, together with the hardline stand of Vallabhbhai Patel and V.P. Menon decided to cajole, comfort and if required coerce the princely state to accede to India speaks volumes of the clear intent on the Indian side to integrate all of the enclaves, paramountcy and estates into a single unified Indian state. No pleasantries were shared with the Rajas and Nijams without Un-seething the silver dagger and the inevitable.

    Leave a comment:


  • Officer of Engineers
    replied
    Originally posted by Deltacamelately View Post
    So yes, that entity would definitely be very similar, in fact geographically far bigger than the present state of India.
    Colonel, at this point, I really don't know.

    The Soong was very much capable of repelling the Yuan and the Brits lost more than a few wars in SE Asia. What I actually see ... if history proves to my favour is two blocs. The Soong was actually within 5 years of gaining the military technology to slaughter the Yuan, ie cannon parks and if that occurred, the Brits could not have won SE Asia, lacking the firepower to do so.

    God, how would I have loved you and the good Capt in the mess discussing what-ifs.

    Leave a comment:


  • Deltacamelately
    replied
    BF Reply

    Originally posted by Bigfella View Post
    Something would have existed without the British, but it wouldn't have been India. it would have been something quite different. There would have been Muslim ruled states too. They might have been bigger or smaller then modern day Pakistan and Bangladesh. They wouldn't have been Pakistan or Bangladesh, however.

    In both cases something would exist in the same geographic space with some of the same people, but it wouldn't be the same thing.
    India in its current geographical contour would be inevitable. If you take a careful look at how the political integration of India took shape, you would realize that Paramountcy/Princely states wouldn't stay long. They were neither militarily nor socio-politically sustainable in proximity of a inevitably bigger central state, claiming the inheritance of the ancient spirit of the Indian nation state/empire.

    What would thus be the central Indian state, through a combination of diplomatic and military means, including coercion, would acquire de facto and de jure control over the remaining colonial enclaves, which would get integrated into India.

    I watched a very interesting documentary in you tube sometimes back that depicted the ground realities of how V.P Menon and Vallabhbhai Patel went about integrating one Princely State after another, irrespective of it being predominantly Muslim or Hindu. Same for the other colonial enclaves, French or English or Portuguese. And here I would add that morality and such were not the guiding principles in this process.

    So yes, that entity would definitely be very similar, in fact geographically far bigger than the present state of India.

    Leave a comment:


  • Officer of Engineers
    replied
    Originally posted by cataphract View Post
    Pretty much. Both retreated from their empires to cold and bleak homelands with shitty food.
    And created China and India.

    I love this forum. Thinkers trying to outhink other thinkers.

    Leave a comment:


  • cataphract
    replied
    Originally posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
    So the Brits was India's Yuan Dynasty.
    Pretty much. Both retreated from their empires to cold and bleak homelands with shitty food.

    Leave a comment:


  • Officer of Engineers
    replied
    So the Brits was India's Yuan Dynasty.

    Leave a comment:


  • cataphract
    replied
    Originally posted by Bigfella View Post
    India is a colonial construct governed as a republican democracy
    Depends on what you mean by 'colonial construct'. Do you attribute the formation of the republic of India to the British imperial administration? The Raj actively sought to sabotage nationalist thought in India, most prominently by supporting the Muslim League. Was India's nationhood shaped by her colonial experience? Undoubtedly. But I would only give the Raj credit for creating a western-educated intelligentsia, which then went on to form the national idea of India in-spite of the very Raj that made them.

    Originally posted by Bigfella View Post
    European nations forged those identities from what had been Imperial and occasionally colonial constructs and European nations enforced languages before & during the transition to the modern nation state. Sometimes the ethno/linguistic groups that created these states were large majorities, sometimes small ones, sometimes minorities. Usually the 'national' language was that of the national capitol or governing group. There wasn't a 'one size fits all' model.
    This is something I realized somewhat late. European nation states were nowhere as homogenous as they appear today - the French language only began to replace regional languages in French provinces through official exclusion of native languages. The big difference in India's case is that there isn't a strong central authority capable of enforcing such homogenization across the country. So whether India succeeds in nation-building or not is yet to be seen, but if it does succeed, it will be a monumental first in history.

    Leave a comment:


  • anil
    replied
    Why Pakistani Army surrendered in 1971?
    The PA believed the americans would keep india from intervening in bangladesh from the beginning.

    India too knew that the amercians would intervene unless it can get russia to back india

    I. K. Gujral, the prime minister of india, speaking in 97-98
    1971 for the first time proved(to india) what we were suspecting earlier. We were suspecting that there were certain commitments on the part of Americans with Pakistan's defense. We were also feeling that the arms being given to Pakistan were necessarily meant for in, against India and not for anything else. 1971 proved both the things.
    It(bangla genocide) was not a sudden development. And we had at our hand ten million refugees in India. And Mrs. Gandhi was going from one capital of the world to the other trying to persuade to tell them, "Please do something now. It'll be difficult otherwise." But it was happening. And...was in a very benevolent, I'm sorry. Very belligerent mood. Also we were seeing that the American strategy was adverse to us. And now we were trying to find, trying to see that not only that the Americans were giving arms to Pakistan, that if need be they were willing to confront India. Threats there had been given to us by Kissinger and others. And I can tell you in retrospect because I'm privy of this information that we really went into negotiation for a treaty with Soviet Union after we were convinced of the belligerency of the other super power. '71 proved it conclusively when we got a direct threat of seventh fleet intervention.
    You will recall that when the Bangladesh crisis was at its height Kissinger came here and we tried to explain to him what we were faced with. Kissinger went from here to Pakistan. And a day later we learned that he had gone to Pakistan to fly over to China secretly. Because all the time via...they were negotiating with China. So therefore that explained how strategically Pakistan was important to Washington despite whatever was happening in Bangladesh. Now we were faced with a new reality. We saw that a new alliance growing between the three once again. We also knew of the threats that were being given to us. And that really activated our talks for signing a treaty of friendship with Soviet Union. I think it helped our security at that critical moment.
    So finally with russian backing, india intervened in bangladesh. The americans didn't want to test indiras will. The PA never expected russia to intervene in the beginning. They knew they were done and surrendered. The americans probably communicated with the PA and advised them to surrender in return for some kind of immunity pledges.

    Leave a comment:


  • Agnostic Muslim
    replied
    Originally posted by Cactus View Post
    Indeed. However, do remember that for a mutation to become a true adaptation and a step in the evolutionary process, the mutated have to reproduce and continue spreading the mutation until they become a sustainable population. Maybe you should encourage the erstwhile rulers of China, the Manchus, to secede... and they can take their old-time supporters, the Uighurs and the Tibetans, with them
    Pakistan (and India) were themselves examples of the continued 'adaptation, reproduction and spread' of the 'evolution' in governance, namely Parliamentary democracy, and a sense of 'nationhood' based on Western models, with 'modifications' to the model based on their particular circumstances.

    Pakistan did not 'secede' from the current nation-State of India, so I fail to see how 'encouraging the Manchus, Uighurs, Tibetan's etc.' to secede from their respective nation-States fits in with the Pakistani model - your 'suggestion' is a better fit for the Bangladesh model.
    Last edited by Agnostic Muslim; 25 Dec 14,, 20:06.

    Leave a comment:


  • bolo121
    replied
    Originally posted by Bigfella View Post
    Something would have existed without the British, but it wouldn't have been India. it would have been something quite different. There would have been Muslim ruled states too. They might have been bigger or smaller then modern day Pakistan and Bangladesh. They wouldn't have been Pakistan or Bangladesh, however.

    In both cases something would exist in the same geographic space with some of the same people, but it wouldn't be the same thing.
    My personal view is that India would have ended up as a smaller version of Africa.
    Several kingdoms and sultanates allying and invading each other with foreign countries and companies pushing and pulling to suit their own agendas.

    Leave a comment:


  • Bigfella
    replied
    Originally posted by Cactus
    Yes, you are:



    I am saying India would've existed even without the British, and Pakistan would probably not have existed without the British.
    Something would have existed without the British, but it wouldn't have been India. it would have been something quite different. There would have been Muslim ruled states too. They might have been bigger or smaller then modern day Pakistan and Bangladesh. They wouldn't have been Pakistan or Bangladesh, however.

    In both cases something would exist in the same geographic space with some of the same people, but it wouldn't be the same thing.

    Leave a comment:


  • Bigfella
    replied
    Originally posted by Cactus
    The European idea of a "nation" is ethnicity and language focused; India is an empire (for the lack of a better word) governed as a democratic republic.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nation..._diversity.jpg
    This is drifting further from the OP.

    India is a colonial construct governed as a republican democracy - like Indonesia, the Philippines etc. Just because the modern concept of 'nation' had European origins doesn't mean India or Indonesia didn't adopt & adapt the concept to their own circumstances. If you want a genuine Empire turned republican (sort of) democracy then Ethiopia is the best example.

    European nations forged those identities from what had been Imperial and occasionally colonial constructs and European nations enforced languages before & during the transition to the modern nation state. Sometimes the ethno/linguistic groups that created these states were large majorities, sometimes small ones, sometimes minorities. Usually the 'national' language was that of the national capitol or governing group. There wasn't a 'one size fits all' model.

    Leave a comment:


  • Cactus
    replied
    Originally posted by Agnostic Muslim View Post
    Nothing wrong with evolution ...
    Indeed. However, do remember that for a mutation to become a true adaptation and a step in the evolutionary process, the mutated have to reproduce and continue spreading the mutation until they become a sustainable population. Maybe you should encourage the erstwhile rulers of China, the Manchus, to secede... and they can take their old-time supporters, the Uighurs and the Tibetans, with them

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X