Talk:Bangladesh Liberation War/Archive 11

Archive 5

←

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 18 March 2021

103.120.38.20 (talk) 06:36, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

ccvvvvvxxv

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 06:38, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 22 April 2021

27.147.224.171 (talk) 16:40, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Bangladesh Liberation war was not indo,pak conflict or cold war of indo,pak, what you wrote top of the photo, please remove it. It was not indo,pak conflict

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:48, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Number of Pakistani troops is wrong

The number of Pakistani troops in East Pakistan was 30,000 at that time,the rest were pro-Pakistani civilians,biharis,cooks,waiters and staff Not ISI (talk) 00:03, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 22 August 2021

The "strength" section of the infobox is confusing. It mentions the Indian Army's strength on the eastern front but mentions the total size of the entire Pakistani (Western + Eastern) army. The Indian Army's total strength should be mentioned or the Pakistani Army's total strength should be removed.

Moreover, the Pakistani Army's strength on the Eastern front is unsourced, and most sources put it at 35,000-40,000. It looks like someone added Pakistan's casualties to the total amount of PoWs captured (which includes non combatants) to get 97,000, and that's WP:OR. Cipher21 (talk) 13:04, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Kautilya3 (talk) 23:27, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Kautilya3, the Pakistan Army's strength in the infobox should be changed to 35,000-40,000. Cipher21 (talk) 07:06, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. I am afraid that is not a valid edit request because it contradicts the information currently present in the article (93,000 PoWs). The source you provide is not strong enough to contradict the sources used in the article. You need to establish WP:CONSENSUS before making an edit request. Kautilya3 (talk) 07:19, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Kautilya3, I'm not asking for the PoW count to change, and the sources provided in the article do not mention 97,000 regular soldiers. However, I'll try to establish consensus for changing the strength. In the meantime, could you at least remove the Pakistan Army's combined strength (365,000) on both fronts? It seems to be there for no reason, while the combined strength of the Indian Army (860,000) isn't mentioned. Cipher21 (talk) 09:13, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Global Village Space is not a reliable source and I am unable to accept your claims. TrangaBellam (talk) 18:36, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

 Note: Closing request while under discussion. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:36, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

References

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 7 September 2021

Please hyperlink "Bangladesh" when it is first mentioned. Jayxmn (talk) 20:59, 7 September 2021 (UTC) Jayxmn (talk) 20:59, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

 Done — IVORK _Talk 00:03, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 15 October 2021

In the Bihari clarification needed part, use https://www.nytimes.com/1971/12/22/archives/bengalis-hunt-down-biharis-who-aided-foe.html as source and remove the clarification needed tag. Clarify by saying "Urdu-speaking Biharis in Bangladesh (an ethnic minority) also supported the Pakistani military as a local radical religious group.Greatder (talk) 11:53, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

@Greatder: That's a high quality newspaper article, and a good effort at clarification, but it falls short. UserNumber, who added the clarify tag gave as a reason "Was every Bihari a Pakistan-supporter? Sounds like scapegoating to me." For events that took place 50 years ago, it would be better to rely on books written by historians than on a newspaper article written just one week after the end of the war. Books such as:

• Christian Gerlach (2010). Extremely Violent Societies: Mass Violence in the Twentieth-Century World. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-1-139-49351-2.
• Yasmin Saikia (2011). Women, War, and the Making of Bangladesh: Remembering 1971. Duke University Press. ISBN 978-0-8223-5038-5.
• Tan Tai Yong; Gyanesh Kudaisya (2000). The Aftermath of Partition in South Asia. Routledge. ISBN 0-415-17297-7.
• Salil Tripathi (2016). The Colonel Who Would Not Repent: The Bangladesh War and Its Unquiet Legacy. Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0-300-21818-3.
• Myron Weiner, ed. (1993). International Migration and Security. Westview Press. ISBN 978-0-8133-8774-1.

Does recent scholarship published by reputable academic publishers qualify how many of the community were loyal to the government with words like "all", "most", "many"?

Changing from "were also in support of Pakistani military" to "also supported the Pakistani military" is an improvement, but I don't think adding "as a local radical religious group" helps here. Although the newspaper article claims "most were fanatic anti Hindus", have labels like "radical" or "fanatic" been borne out by history, and are they used in books like the above? Didn't Biharis' tendency to side with West Pakistan have more to do with their shared tongue, Urdu, and persecution they had suffered from Bengalis? --Worldbruce (talk) 14:41, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

I am sure the books say close to most of the Biharis were and are pro-Pakistan. Articles that are published nowadays in support for Bihari right to citizenship and living still well cite they collaborated with tge army. A memoir written by a Bihari"Menne Dacca Dubne Dekha" type title(I saw Dhaka fall), was formly in support of Pakistan and when Pakistan came to play in Bangladesh they wore Pakistan jersies. The problem is finding book source is that I don't have access to any legal full-text search engine or know a good historian books. Can you tell how to find such type of books? Note that some Pakistani's were in support of independence but I have never read any Bihari in support of independence.Greatder (talk) 05:08, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

@Greatder: Four of the five books listed above have free previews on Google Books. What you can see there may depend on your geographic location, whether you sign into a Google account, and how much you read. The ISBNs link to a wide variety of ways to read them online, borrow them from a library, or buy them. The subscription databases are accessible at libraries, with larger, more research oriented, university libraries offering the most access (although you may have to visit their physical location if you aren't a student or faculty member there).

After you reach 500 edits, you'll have automatic access to The Wikipedia Library bundle, which includes free access to books from DeGruyter, JSTOR, and Oxford (and others, but those are the ones I've found most useful for South Asian history). I believe you can apply for access to individual databases even before you become eligible for the full bundle. There are also databases outside the bundle that contain books, such as Cambridge University Press, Project MUSE, and Springer. --Worldbruce (talk) 23:04, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Actually just clarify that rajakar was the voluntary Bihari wing of P.army as per the second books glossary.Greatder (talk) 04:06, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

I think the main reason Bihari women's were never even mentioned is because of socio-economic barricade in the Muslim communities of those times that women shall not even be allowed to go to school type of thinking, and those that were educated of course fled to Pakistan.Greatder (talk) 04:20, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Badiul Alam

I am surprised Badiul Alam is not mentioned anywhere in this article, even in the freedom fighter section (Crack Platoon) He is one of the main heroes in this war and should be recognised as such. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ZubairAli85 (talk • contribs) 02:12, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Who?Slatersteven (talk) 09:59, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 24 October 2021

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

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

The discussion above 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.

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)

BGS

What do you have understand by our war of liberation 27.147.224.212 (talk) 05:33, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

I am unsure what you are asking, what edit or content do you wish to discuss?Slatersteven (talk) 10:44, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 15 February 2022

2.103.197.50 (talk) 17:46, 15 February 2022 (UTC)10,000 pakistani troops died in the war

Source?Slatersteven (talk) 17:47, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:07, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 13 January 2022

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)

From the RFC:

• Niazi, Amir Abdullah Khan (1998), The betrayal of East Pakistan / A.A.K. Niazi, Oxford University Press, p. 102 "I had only 45,000 regular and paramilitary forces from West Pakistan"
• 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?"
• 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) 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 [for troop strength]". 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 [Civil Armed Forces] 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, "[At a meeting on July 16] 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 [the Indo-Pakistani War of 1971] 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)

Per this article authored by Press Trust of India, More than 45,000 Pakistani soldiers and 45,000 civilian personnel were taken as POWs. Field Marshal Sam Manekshaw claimed I had almost 50:1 advantage. Cipher21 (talk) 07:02, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes, there are lots of mentions of the 45,000 figure and also a good number of mentions for the 70,000 figure. The bottom line is nobody really knows. I stick by my suggestion of "45,000–91,000". -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:52, 16 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)

And WP:RS put the Pakistan Military’s strength at 45,000-70,000. You could include nearly the whole population of East Pakistan on Bangladesh’s side by this vague logic. SpicyBiryani (talk) 08:18, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

It makes sense to settle on 45,000-70,000. SpicyBiryani (talk) 08:10, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

The strength of troops has surely been contested. Gen Niazi's was the commander at the time and has put forward the 45,000 figure . The 45,000 figures are also backed by Khan who seems to be independent of his figures. US documents also reveal figures close of 45,000 before recruitments. I see no problem in its inclusion, whether it comes off as a range.Truthwins018 (talk) 22:55, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

We can't rely on 45,000 figure as lower estimate, Gen Niazi has clear motives to downplay the strength, the book mentioned is more like blame game, where Gen Niazi repeatedly blaming Gen Tikka, Yahya khan, Bhutto for the defeat. Also the paramilitary forces of 30,000-40,000 Razakars was active during the peak of war, The Razakar force was formed by Tikka khan and under the command of Pakistan army.❯❯❯Pravega ^g=9.8 09:03, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

It's not just Niazi who provides this (45,000) figure, sources independent of him do as well - and clearly the fact that other sources cite it shows it has credibility. What if the Razakar's numbers (not the regular army's) gradually increased throughout the war and are the reason the strength figure went from 45,000 to 70,000? Even if the Razakar figure (do you have a source for it?) is included, it should be shown independently of the regular Pakistan Army. Cipher21 (talk) 06:00, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

@ScottishFinnishRadish: In the meantime, could you edit the page to clarify the fact that the figures shown for Pakistan are of both fronts combined, while India and Bangladesh's are just from the Eastern front? Cipher21 (talk) 06:00, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

I've added such a note to the infobox while this discussion continues, but further changes will be needed when consensus emerges. --Worldbruce (talk) 16:05, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

I see no problem in quoting the "45,000" figure. If objection is raised on Niazi being a military commander and his opinion is biased, it still remains only an opinion WP:OR and wikipedia doesn't work on opinions. It is an encyclopedia and is meant to present any authentic and official mentions. Niazi had claimed that 34,000 soldiers had taken part in the war with 11,000 para military which totals 45,000 from Niazi p. 52. Plus Khan has also established the 45,000 figure. It seems wise to start the lower range of estimates from 34,000 soldiers and that for paramilitary from 11,000. I am not sure if Cloughley is reliable. Just stating " A quarter" doesn't make sense and doesn't even seem authentic. If he stated the figures in real time directly and to the point. The 70,000 makes more sense. Plus if 91,250 were soldiers, that leaves room for only 1,750 other people which would include bankers, civil servants, barbers, cooks and many other people. Doesn't make sense WP:COMMONSENSE Truthwins018 (talk) 09:06, 22 January 2022 (UTC) Worldbruce I see no problem with adding the figures of 45,000 in the range till the time concensus is reached on the upper figures. It has plenty of sources from Niazi to khan as stated above and should be added till the time complete concensus can be achieved. Truthwins018 (talk) 17:45, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

References

 Not done Request started by a sock now blocked and largely supported by another sock (SpicyBiryani). Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 04:26, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

If someone came of as a sockpuppet, it doesn't mean that his discussion will not be of valid point of view. The change was agreed upon by RFC and the 45,000 citation has many reliable sources ranging from Niazi to Khan. It is not wise to pass judgements on your own. Truthwins018 (talk) 15:38, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 26 March 2022

Several external links are invalid. Please update. HBB19 (talk) 18:03, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:45, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Please include U.S.A in the list of countries opposed to Bangladesh Freedom and also include Soviet Union in the list of countries supporting Bangladesh — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.167.95.245 (talk) 02:28, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 3 April 2022

27.147.202.229 (talk) 14:16, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

You do have to tell us what it is you are asking, we cannot guess. Slatersteven (talk) 14:22, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:13, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 29 May 2022

Requesting to change the Pakistani troop number,It is listed as ~300,000 combining the two fronts while this is not the case for the Indians.The number should be 40,000 as listed by FM Sam Manekshaw,General Jacob and General Niazi 39.33.22.99 (talk) 11:02, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:25, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 30 May 2022

Please add M. A. Rab chief of staff of the Mukti Bahini. Ahmed al-Mansur (talk) 03:16, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Add M. A. Rab, chief of staff of the Mukti Bahini. Ahmed al-Mansur (talk) 03:17, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Add it where? ​ Happy Editing--IAmChaos 23:59, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. (It's appropriate in this case.) --N8_wilson 🔔 02:55, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Too Long?

On the top of the article, it states that the text is too long. What would the solution be then? To summarize the information, or delete some? Thepanthersfan201 (talk) 19:54, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

@Thepanthersfan201: The tag hereby says "This article's lead section may be too long for the length of the article." That means the article should be extended substantially and then the lead may be summarized thereby. Regards — Meghmollar2017 (UTC) — 14:59, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

P.S. Oops! @ZetaFive: pinged correctly. Please modify your signature according to your new username. — Meghmollar2017 (UTC) — 15:02, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 1 September 2022

The figure of 280,000 Pakistani paramilitary forces in the infobox is misleading and should be removed; as the reference itself notes, these are figures for the entire military on both fronts combined, while the article (and the rest of the strength figures) are about the Eastern front alone. Joooshhh (talk) 19:44, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:08, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 30 August 2022

Twice across the article, once each in the June–September and October–December subsections, the term BOP is used. The use of the term Border Outpost in October-December makes it clear this is the intended meaning, but this follows the first use of BOP and is not correctly linked to the abbreviation when it does occur. Per https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Abbreviations the term should be expressed as "Border Outpost (BOP)" in its first use in June-September and the use of Border Outpost in October-December should be changed to BOP, though it would be reasonable to simply replace both uses of BOP with Border Outpost given that it is not a commonly used abbreviation and only occurs twice in the article. Acthsb (talk) 01:18, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

 Done Thanks Acthsb. --N8_wilson 🔔 01:01, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 11 September 2022

add Lt. Gen. Tikka Khan to the commanders and leaders section PreserveOurHistory (talk) 04:45, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Aaron Liu (talk) 11:53, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

why do you want a source? Or are you unaware of this war? PreserveOurHistory (talk) 02:42, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

why arent you adding it? Why do you insist on wasting my time for a source? PreserveOurHistory (talk) 07:41, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

if you dont have a clue about this war why are you the one in charge of the article? PreserveOurHistory (talk) 07:42, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

I really don't have to waste my time with your mental deficiency. Add the edit. PreserveOurHistory (talk) 08:03, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Surrender of 93000 soldiers is wrong.

The citations mentioned to verify this information of largest surrender of 93000 soldiers don't have any information of numbers. One link does not exist and the other bbc one doesn't mention the 93000 number. It is a propaganda with no valid source. Asim truth finder (talk) 14:15, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

The link to the Daily Times article has been repaired. It says, "After the Simla Agreement of 1972, India returned all the 93,000 Pakistani POWs." The BBC News source also contains numbers. It says, "The Pakistani army surrendered at Dhaka and its army of more than 90,000 became Indian prisoners of war."

Numerous academic sources support the figure of 93,000 POWs, although Bose disputes the ratio of military to civilian prisoners, and several authors assume all the POWs were soldiers, which is sloppy.

• Burke, S. M. (1974). Mainsprings of Indian and Pakistani Foreign Policies. University of Minnesota Press. p. 216. ISBN 9780816607204. ... continuing deadlock over the release of some 93,000 Pakistani prisoners of war, including 15,000 civilian men, women and children, captured in East Pakistan (the few hundred prisoners captured by each side on the Western front were exchanged on December 1, 1972).
• Bose, Sarmila (2011). Dead Reckoning. p. 174. ISBN 9780231701648. According to Gen. Niazi: "The strength of the Pakistani Army was 34,000 troops; Rangers, scouts, militia and civil police came to 11,000, thus the grand total came to 45,000. If we include naval and air force detachments and all those in uniform and entitled to free rations, e.g., HQ MLA, depots, training institutes, workshops, factories, nurses and lady doctors, non-combatants like barbers, cooks, shoemakers, and sweepers, even then the total comes to 55,000 ... The remaining were civilian officials, civilian staff and women and children." So it appears that while the total figure in Indian custody is about right, to state that '93,000 soldiers' were taken prisoner is wrong.
• Raghavan, Srinath (2013). 1971. Harvard University Press. p. 235. ISBN 9780674731295. India took around 93,000 prisoners of war
• Avari, Burjor (2013). Islamic Civilization in South Asia. Routledge. p. 243. ISBN 9780415580618. The surrender of 93,000 of their elite troops on 16 December 1971, led to complete humiliation of Pakistan.
• Jalal, Ayesha (2014). The Struggle for Pakistan A Muslim Homeland and Global Politics. Harvard University Press. p. 174. ISBN 9780674052895. But the surrender of 93,000 soldiers without a whimper on December 16, 1971, highlighted the magnitude of the defeat suffered by the Pakistani Army at the hands of its primary rival.
• Jaffrelot, Christophe (2015). The Pakistan Paradox. Oxford University Press. p. 218-219. ISBN 978-0-19023-5 18-5. On 16 December Islamabad was forced to sign a humiliating ceasefire under which terms India held prisoner the 93,000 soldiers captured in the net around Dhaka.
• Braithwaite, John; D'Costa, Bina (2018). Cascades of Violence. ANU Press. p. 335. ISBN 9781760461898. India took this West Pakistan territory as damages after holding 93,000 POWs until 1973.

--Worldbruce (talk) 15:02, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 2 December 2022

replace the flag icon next to 'Yahya Khan' in the commanders and leaders section with this: because the flag icon shown that is being shown on the page is the MODERN Presidential flag made only 2 decades ago. PreserveOurHistory (talk) 12:54, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: If we were to argue that, we'll also have to talk about how this war happened in 1971, 3 years before that flag was adopted. Aaron Liu (talk) 23:41, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

its not indo pak war .

its not indo pakistani war, yourcsource of info is quite wrong 103.76.45.78 (talk) 06:45, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Then provide a source that contradicts it (see wp:or). Slatersteven (talk) 10:32, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 22 March 2023

Please add the strength of India's paramilitary forces (greater than 280,000) to the infobox Solblaze (talk) 12:27, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

References

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. That source is from 20 years ago and therefore outdated. Do you have more recent sourcing for this? Actualcpscm (talk) 12:08, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

US involvement

US supported diplomatically and with huge amounts of weapons the PAK govt. This is not specified in the sidebar, unlike USSR on the Mukti Bahini/India front. 2.198.18.57 (talk) 18:15, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

See Talk:Bangladesh Liberation War/Archive 5#RfC: Is the United States relevant in the supporters of Pakistan? The argument against including the US which participants found most convincing was that the US was not a belligerent, and "supporters" don't belong in the infobox. Nothing in Template:Infobox military conflict/doc suggests that "supporters" should be the infobox. On that basis, the USSR probably shouldn't be listed in the infobox either. --Worldbruce (talk) 18:56, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Please fix grammar re: United Bengal

The text currently reads: "A proposal for an independent United Bengal was mooted by Prime Minister Huseyn Shaheed Suhrawardy in 1946, but opposed by the colonial authorities." This is nonsensical. If it was mooted, then the opposition of colonial authories becomes...wait for it...moot! Line should probably read: "A proposal for an independent United Bengal was opposed by colonial authorities and was mooted by Prime Minister Huseyn Shaheed Suhrawardy in 1946." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 35.129.184.56 (talk) 09:51, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

moot: verb "raise (a question or topic) for discussion; suggest (an idea or possibility)" [from Oxford Languages].

So the text uses "mooted" correctly. There are other, perhaps more common meanings for moot, which may be the source of your consternation. --Worldbruce (talk) 21:30, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Paramilitary Force Number is Unknown but still featured on the infobox

It is not known how much Paramilitary forces were there, but a source tells us 280,000 on the West Pakistan and East Pakistani Collaborators, we don't know how much were in this conflict, but the whole number 280,000 has been put up. RevolutionaryPatriot (talk) 00:50, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

not sourced - agenda push

India joined the war on 3 December 1971, after which Pakistan launched preemptive air strikes on northern India

This is not sourced , should be removed Afv12e (talk) 00:01, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Again, WP:LEAD need not be cited if it merely restates material from the article body, which is what the lead is supposed to do. This statement agrees with the body, where it is supported by the Time ref. And it agrees with the cited Indo-Pakistani War of 1971 that is linked. And it's also the well-cited Operation Chengiz Khan article about the operation itself. DMacks (talk) 03:21, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

What the lead used to say, agreeing with the body of the article, and what Time supports, is "India joined the war on 3 December 1971, after Pakistan launched preemptive air strikes on North India." In rewriting the lead on 25 October 2022, XTheBedrockX added an extra word, "India joined the war on 3 December 1971, after which [emphasis mine] Pakistan launched preemptive air strikes on northern India." I assume it was inadvertent, not some "agenda push", but it changed the meaning by putting the events in the wrong order. Therefore, I've removed the word "which". --Worldbruce (talk) 04:13, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Thank you!

Yes these topics has sentences which is twisted and placed in wrong order, which will mislead and give another view of the events Afv12e (talk) 04:40, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Suggestion

Add this movie at section In popular culture because is the only one I was able to find in English and watched Pippa (2023) Link: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pippa_(film) KnowledgeKeeper161 (talk) 05:52, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 6 August 2024

Change "Although, East Pakistan" to "Although East Pakistan" in Political differences section of Background. Heybulldog2 (talk) 04:01, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

 Done Left guide (talk) 04:56, 6 August 2024 (UTC)