From: banerjee@hsc.usc.edu (Samit Banerjee)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.bangladesh,soc.culture.indian
Subject: Re: Victory Day in Bangladesh (what about India?)
Date: 22 Dec 1992 09:46:57 -0800
Organization: University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA
NNTP-Posting-Host: hsc.usc.edu

In article <SAHMED.92Dec21120707@occs.cs.oberlin.edu> sahmed@occs.cs.oberlin.edu (Saif Ahmed) writes:

>>1. 10,000 Indian soldiers were killed and more than twice that many injured.
>
>Can you please cite your source for the figures? 10,000 armed men
>seems a bit much for a 2 week engagement.

There were two fronts and some of the heaviest fighting was from the Western
side especially the Akhnoor sector (which is the strip of land resembling a 
chicken's neck that joins Kashmir with the rest of India). As usual, Pakistan
was trying to grab Kashmir and some of their heaviest fortifications and 
bunkers were in that region with the hope that cutting Kashmir off from the 
rest of India would ultimately lead to it's independence. 

I have quoted sources in a previous article. Also, any library would have
clippings from the NYT, Washington Post and Time magazine from that period.
Time magazine in particular had an issue with Mujib on the cover, that had 
details of the war. To the best of my knowledge, the 10,000+ figure I quoted
above, is correct.

One last thing. Even in a limited engagement like Sri Lanka, the IPKF lost
between 2000-3000 men fighting a guerilla outfit, albeit over an extended
period of time.  A trained, armed and highly motivated army can inflict
greater damages.


>Wouldn't they have spent the money anyways, They were at war with
>Pakistan on the other front. The war in the east was merely an
>extension of that war and not a war started and fought for the love of
>the people of Bangladesh. It that were the case they would have
>marched their armies into Bangladesh in March.

The war started on the two fronts simultaneously. And while you are right 
in saying that the war was not fought on the basis of any new found kinship
with the Bangladeshi people, it is also true that the arrival in India of
millions of refugees and the consequent drain on our resources was the
primary motivating factor.  And while it is naive to expect a nation to send
it's men to war simply for altruistic reasons, the humanitarian overtones
of the 1971 war cannot be ignored or wished away. Whatever geopolitical
or hegemonistic reasons the policy planners in New Deli may or may not have 
had, it's importance was secondary compared to the genocide taking place 
across our borders.


>>3.  Money spent on housing refugees, most of whom went onto become
>>de-facto Indian citizens. Conservative estimates put this figure at around
>>100 million dollars ( 1984 GOI Report on the Dandakaryanya project presented
>>to the Lok Sabha).
>
>They have??? The pre 1971 immigrants haven't become Indian citizens
>yet (Operation push back) despite the fact that they have Indian
>papers. How do you deduce that the refugees have become citizens.

A ration card is pretty flimsy proof of Indian citizenship. And I wasnt even
talking of the move to deport illegal refugees in New Delhi. These people
came to India, post 1971.

All those who entered the country prior to 1971 were housed in camps and 
probably registered with some Government agency. There must be records 
available to that effect which would probably be enough to convince the GOI
of their status. Under the terms of the Assam accord that was signed, all
refugees prior to 1971 were granted Indian citizenship.

>Aside from the fact that India managed to sell some weapons (needless
>to say for a profit), I don't see how this would have anything to do
>with India at all. Unless India wants to go by the once popular theory
>that Mujib wanted to make Bangladesh into a state of India, in which
>case the death sentence was quite appropriate for treason.

Mujib may had his shortcomings - his overzealous idealism, his poor ability 
to govern and his lack of vision in setting your country on the road to
economic recovery. But a traitor he was not and I find it hard to believe
you have that opinion of a man who gave you Independence.  

Secondly, you have your facts mixed up. India did not sell any arms to
Bangladesh. Mujib insisted that the Indian Army pull out of BD within six 
months and the joint command be dissolved. That is what happened but in the
process several arms and weapons including APC's and tanks remained behind 
since our soldiers did not get an oppurtunity to recover them. 
If you want an example, look at Somalia. Exact the same scenario.

Thirdly, Mujib's killing by Indian weapons on India's independence day was more
than symbolic. It marked a repudiation of the Indo-BD friendship and BD went
from being a secular, tolerant nation to an Islamic country. And while I have
no problems with that, it did seem that successive Governments in Dacca had
an anti-India axe to grind. It may be argued that they were playing to a 
largely domestic audience but even that seemed to fly in the face of a
very discernible anti-India foreign policy stance.

>1) Since you raised the issue of the water sharing, it should be noted
>that the Indian government never kept their promise of providing the
>minimum amount of water they agreed to provide in the dry season. 

The accord signed by the Janata Government in 1978 gave the Calcutta port
such a meagre share of the water that even fishing trawlers had difficulties
entering the port. And while going back on the agreement, did set a bad
precedent, it was the only way to save the Calcutta port from certain 
extiction. Today with Haldia being online, the Calcutta port
is of secondary importance, but back in the '80s, that was not the case.

The reason for the poor water flow in the Ganga is an increase in water
usage upstream, mainly in Bihar and UP. The solution lies in linking the 
Brahmaputra (which flows through areas having a much lower density of 
population) with tha Ganga and not by constructing a reservoir in Nepal 
(as theGOB has been proposing) so that the Farrakka barrage can be bypassed.


>2) Tin-Bigha corridor. This corridor was meant to be leased to BD in
>exchange of a similar plot of land in another part of the country. BD
>kept it's end of the deal which now India calls its own territory.
>Only this year has India decided to give the Tin-Bigha land on lease
>revokable at any time.

This had nothing to do with the GOI. The agreement was challenged in court
and the Indian judiciary not being the most efficient organisation in the
world (probably an understatement, that) the process took time as it wound
it's way through appeals and counter appeals. The political party involved
(the BJP) was looking to stir up enough passions in West Bengal, which would
hopefully help it during the elections.


>Despite the fact that BD and India should have been friends there are
>many reasons on both sides for tension. One can only hope that they
>will be settled and we can live in peace with our neighbour which has
>assumed super-power status and doesn't fail to impress it on its
>neighbours. 

I will second that appeal. It will be sad if BD and India with so much
shared heritage and history, cannot find grounds to live amicably.

Samit
















Xref: sparky soc.culture.bangladesh:7207 soc.culture.pakistan:18989 soc.culture.indian:42431