Talk:Bangladesh genocide/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Useless attempt to disruption

User:Pravega Kindly comply with WP:NEGOTIATE. You cannot just change something with established concencus without any clear reasoning. Kindly contest with reasoning your edits changing an old lower range estimate figure "200,000" to "300,000" and stop creating this into an edit war Truthwins018 (talk) 11:32, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

I already explained my edits on your talk page. You better explain this wilful disruption and disingenuous conduct on the article inasmuch as only latterly you were clamoring for the same change on the 1971 talk page by adducing to the same NewYorker article, which a consensus of editors patently discounted at [1]. Having failed to elicit a positive response, you turned to engendering disruption here, edit warring to restore the same discounted and rejected source. You need to explain why your disruption and WP:STONEWALLING should be condoned. ❯❯❯Pravega ^g=9.8 13:51, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

The figure of "200,000" has been around for about an year. To change it, you need strong reasoning as it is a controvertial topic. You cannot just edit and explain it over history. The figures are believed to be neutral ones and had gained concencus long time back . The Newyorker source has been cited multiple times on the article. Offcourse the "200,000-3,000,000" range doesn't make sense at all but wikipedia is an encyclopedia and we have to respect that. It has to be allowed to show any figures as long as it is not objectionable. Also edit warring was never an intention. The 1971 war page is seperate from this genocide page. I raised my concern on 1971 war page showing "300,000" and then also citing this genocide page for the figures. It was creating confusing as the page the figure was citing has diffirent lower estimate for the range.Truthwins018 (talk) 14:52, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Edit warring and conduct

I have warned both Truthwins018 and Pravega for their edit warring here. Both users are also recommend to tone the rhetoric and to focus on facts. Moreover, Pravega needs to understand that the place to explain their edit is on this talk page and not on any individual user's talk page. Jeppiz (talk) 14:42, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

@Jeppiz: Conduct issues are resolved on user's talk page and this issue is largely conduct related that's why I preferred the user's talk page. The crux of the case is that Truthwins could not get a consensus for lowering the lowest estimate of the deaths during the genocide at the 1971 talk page and instead a consensus of editors determined that the source advanced -- the Newyorker -- did not support the figure and was discounted. He resorted to edit warring to restore the same edit here and has refused to even touch on this point. He is also adding the meaningless sentence "according to Bangladeshi and Indian sources " and has never explained why he is doing so. That he is stonewalling is not rhetoric but a matter-of-fact representation of his approach to this. ❯❯❯Pravega ^g=9.8 05:20, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

I don't understand from where you keep on referring " according to Bangladeshi and Indian sources" from. I have definetely not talked of this on the "1971 Bangladesh genocide" page. No matter what you think, opinions have no place on wikipedia. If you want to change the lower estimate figures of 200,000, contest it properly according to wikipedia rules. I have already mentioned why it is an accepted figure and also referred to old talk page section under archive 5 under "the Info box" section and "US estimates" section. Learn to contest properly and removing any controversial figures will not be without a proper explanation. Truthwins018 (talk) 16:57, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

That means you don't even read what you are reverting. I see no one agreed with you on Talk:1971_Bangladesh_genocide/Archive_5#Sarmila_Bose_again, yet you think your half-baked opinion is somehow correct. Given your WP:INCOMPETENCE you should really refrain from throwing misleading lectures and focus on content for which you have no explanation other than WP:IDONTLIKE. ❯❯❯Pravega ^g=9.8 11:19, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

This '200k' figure never had consensus. Also read Talk:1971_Bangladesh genocide/Archive 5#US estimate. Capitals00 (talk) 15:35, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

I am not sure if you are aware of how wikipedia works. You just seem to be focused on disrupting this article. To make an edit, you have to contest it on article talk page with the reasons. I don't have a problem with 200k or 300k, but you better explain why you think the 200k figures are wrong and gain proper consensus for the change. Truthwins018 (talk) 06:39, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

User:Pravega It seems you are not much aware on the working of wikipedia. To change any figures that are controvertial, you have to explain your reason on the article talk page. Kindly put forward your reason for the change. This is cause the 200,000 figures were there since long on this page and suddenly you decided to change them, adding 100,000 people. Obviously 200,000 or 300,000 to 3 million figures never made sense as they are all over, but you have to be respectful for the wikipedia rules. Explain your reason for changing the figures before proceding to a reverting rampage and disrupting the page. You cannot explain your side on the reverting summary. I am not the one who is bringing change in the Article. You need to show concensus and put proper logic for the change to proceed ahead. Truthwins018 (talk) 09:34, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

User:Jeppiz I would kindly like to bring to your attention that the user is constantly reverting an edit without giving any proper reason for his change.Not anywhere on the article talk page is it visible, the reason he wants to change an old 200,000 figure to 300,000. It just seems that the user is adament to pursuing the reverting pattern. I have explain multiple times to keep the page with the original figures, and the user can explain the reason for his change on the article talk page and gain concensus. But the user keeps contesting with the article edit summaries and seems to think of it as concensus. This is a controvertial change the user is bringing and the user seems to not understand that it is to be contested via. talk page WP:DISPUTE Truthwins018 (talk) 09:43, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

References

What is the proof of rapes by Indian Army in 1971 Bangladesh genocide?

In this article it is mentioned that other "perpetrators where Mukti Bahini and Indian Army" regarding rapes in 1971 Bangladesh.

Without any substantial proof, I request you to take down the name of Indian Army because it maligns them forcefully. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Parasshahpvs (talk • contribs) 02:05, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

@Parasshahpvs: Where it is this written? If it's unsourced it have to eliminate immediately. Success think (talk) 04:25, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

The source cited is: Saikia, Yasmin (2011). Women, War, and the Making of Bangladesh: Remembering 1971. Duke University Press. p. 3. ISBN 978-0-8223-5038-5. Men representing the armies of Pakistan and India, as well as the Mukti Bahini (a Bengali militia created with Indian support) and pro-Pakistani Bengali and Bihari civilians who volunteered in the paramilitary forces of Al-Badr and Al-Shams, raped, looted, killed, and terrorized noncombatants in East Pakistan. --Worldbruce (talk) 05:45, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 April 2022

"The perpetrators also included Mukti Bahini and the Indian Army, which targeted noncombatants and committed rapes, as well as other crimes" This sentence is not reliable, there no proof or logic in this sentence since Mukti Bahini and the Indian Army were working side by side and the whole reason for this war was the war crimes committed by the Pakistani Army. https://www.hinduamerican.org/1971-bangladesh-genocide This source is well researched and reliable. Addu16 (talk) 06:11, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

The sentence doesn't imply that Mukti Bahini and Indian army were working side by side. The sentence is appropriately sourced to "Saikia, Yasmin (2011). Women, War, and the Making of Bangladesh: Remembering 1971. Duke University Press". If you wish to dispute its reliability, you would need to say why. Hemantha (talk) 17:25, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Genocide Denial

"however, there are some scholars and authors who deny that the killing was a genocide" - As the content was so written it didn't reflect the theme of the scholarly article "The politics of genocide scholarship: the case of Bangladesh" and the reference was used to put undue weightage on such fringe view of Genocide denial, exactly opposite of which the reference says. The article vehemently criticizes such denial and hence the same should also get reflected in the Wikipedia page rather than putting greater than deserving weightage on such fringe view. I have changed the content to be more appropriate as per the reference. Anyone having disagreement can contest. Nanpofira (talk) 10:53, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

You are correct that the fragment you quoted doesn't capture the essence of Beachler's article. The lead isn't intended to summarize Beachler, but to summarizes the body of the Wikipedia article. Beachler is cited because he writes, "Some scholars and other writers have denied that what took place in Bangladesh was a genocide". That directly supports the fragment.

Instead of focusing only on the fragment, step back and consider the entire sentence: "There is an academic consensus that the events which took place during the Bangladesh Liberation War constituted a genocide; however, there are some scholars and authors who deny that the killing was a genocide." Taken as a whole, that's a fair summation of Beachler. He says the mainstream academic consensus is that it was a genocide, but there's a minority view that it wasn't.

I'm open to improvements in phrasing, but have reverted your change for now because (a) the language you tacked on ("and he described the same as an epitome of Genocide denial and have attributed the reason thereof on 'The politics of genocide scholarship'") is not clear and well-written, (b) if we go into more detail about Beachler's opinions, that should be done in the body of the article, not in the lead's high level summary, and (c) inline attribution to Beachler is unnecessary for his statement that deniers exist. He isn't expressing his opinion there, but simply reviewing the literature on the subject. --Worldbruce (talk) 04:37, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

@Hemantha:, in your edit comment while reverting my edit you have mentioned "unnecessary attribution". I would like to draw your kind attention to WP:WIKIVOICE which says Usually, articles will contain information about the significant opinions that have been expressed about their subjects. However, these opinions should not be stated in Wikipedia's voice. Rather, they should be attributed in the text to particular sources, or where justified, described as widespread views, etc. For example, an article should not state that "genocide is an evil action" but may state that "genocide has been described by John So-and-so as the epitome of human evil.". Do you think your revert is in line with this guideline? Regarding your impression about Saikia being secondary, please be aware that Saikia's majority of the work is based on the testimony of the witnesses of the event , that make her work definitely primary as it is a written testimony of the event hence it must be used with caution as per WP:PRIMARY. I hope you will restore my edits while concurring with my explanations. --Nanpofira (talk) 17:39, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

@Worldbruce:, Do you really think the current presentation of the fact is appropriate per WP:DUE when it comes to this sentence: There is an academic consensus that the events which took place during the Bangladesh Liberation War constituted a genocide; however, there are some scholars and authors who deny that the killing was a genocide. If I am not mistaken, there is a mention about minority view in your comment, but do you think despite lacking such qualification (i.e. minority view. Although Politically motivated minority view would be a better phrase if we follow Beachler's work), the current presentation is a fair summation of Beachler? Also, I would be grateful if you elaborate what you meant by passing your valued observation that my edit wasn not clear and well-written. -- Nanpofira (talk) 17:47, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

In your own comment, you have stated that Saikia's majority of the work is based on the testimony of the witnesses of the event, which literally means that that work is secondary (witnesses are primary, work based on them is secondary). And yet you continue to insist, right after such a sentence and in clear opposition to policy that Saikia is WP:PRIMARY.

And again, on the one hand you want Saikia, a top-notch WP:HISTRS source, to be attributed on Indian Army without bringing a single source which disputes her account. On the other, you are questioning, as WP:UNDUE, the proper weighing of sources on the label of genocide.

Both these show that you haven't actually read any of the policies you are throwing around. Until you do, any discussion is meaningless. Hemantha (talk) 02:15, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

@Nanpofira: I'm traveling now and have very little ability to edit, let alone engage in a lengthy discussion, but remind me in a week, when I'll be home and able to reply properly. Worldbruce (talk) 03:37, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

@Hemantha:, I do understand where you are coming from. I do agree now that Saikia is secondary source. I don't have any problem in acknowledging any lack in understanding (if there is anything at all) and I hope the same is the case with you. Would you mind saying which policy exempts secondary sources from being attributed? WP:HISTRS is not a policy, not even a guideline but just an essay thus can be well contested.

I do see that you have carefully avoided my primary question which was referring to the Wikipedia policy (WP:WIKIVOICE) that says attribution is always preferred (be the content is contested or not). So what exactly made you think attribution is unnecessary and is still making you stick to that such a view as there is a clear violation of what you propose and what that policy suggests?

Regarding the WP:DUE query, I hope @Worldbruce: would be able to answer sometime soon, until then we can wait. Nanpofira (talk) 08:28, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

@Hemantha: and @Worldbruce:, the reluctance as it can be seen to be part of any fruitful discussion along with the prevailing silence actually speak a lot here. If several experienced editors think that the present article represent the historical event faithfully, then so be it. Unfortunately or fortunately, Wikipedia is no longer considered an authoritative source when it comes to specifically academic information and historical events. The reason can be extended to such kind of articles in a great extent. Being a description of Genocide, this article is of very serious nature, but may be it doesn't deserve that much attention as it had happened in a so called a backward region of the world. I have lost any willingness to engage in any form of further dialogue with disinterested editors who are just willing only to impose their whims. Nor I have any wish to edit the page since I anticipate that my edits will be reverted though there is no consensus yet. The good part is, people usually consult authoritative sources when they need information about history. If they see Wikipedia is written in a biased manner or is factually incorrect, they will simply reject Wikipedia as a source and its authority will go on diminishing, which is already happening and that is the sad part. -- Nanpofira (talk) 07:21, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Avoid stating facts as opinions. Uncontested and uncontroversial factual assertions made by reliable sources should normally be directly stated in Wikipedia's voice.

WP:WIKIVOICE, Bullet 3

You need to understand that Wikipedia is a volunteer effort and nobody is entitled to anything. Commenting only on my involvement here, I saw you initially arguing about WP:primary with such poor understanding of the policy that I wondered if you were really interested in being a part of any fruitful discussion or were only trying to push a, particularly obvious, POV.

On your WP:WIKIVOICE quotes, have you read the subsequent lines there, which I highlight in the adjacent box?

I understand that you might be contesting the assertion, but reliable sources are needed really. Without them, I don't see any point in discussing this. Hemantha (talk) 08:13, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

References

Title Name Change

Change title from “1971 Bangladesh genocide” to “1971 Bengali genocide” Thotianaa (talk) 15:50, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Why lead this article with such high numbers?

The numbers are disputed and the number ranges given by different academic and non-academic accounts vary enormously. Why does this article lead with the least conservative death toll of 3 million, when in section "Estimated Killed" the numbers of most academic accounts differ and suggest a much lower death toll? Notably, the studies on death tolls by Gerlach, who in 2010 dedicates several pages to the death toll discussion and in 2018 an entire chapter, strongly and very plausibly suggest (based in part on Bangladesh, not Pakistan, data -- i.e. the country that otherwise uses the maximum death toll of 3,000,000 -- as well as a number of independent sources, including much more reliable demographic data used to examine famines in parts of East Pakistan/Bangladesh that give a clearer picture of excess mortality) a different death toll of likely higher than 500,000 but very unlikely more than 1,000,000. Other sources under "Estimated Killed" do not examine the various death toll data with even nearly the same degree of scrutiny as Gerlach does! It's a bit silly to use news sources (e.g. Aljazeera, which in turn uses the official Bangladesh figure of 3 million) for citing death tolls when other sources are available (and also when observing journalists at the time gave death tolls in the hundreds of thousands but not in the several millions, see Gerlach for this).

Furthermore, in the "Estimated Killed" section the Alston source (Women and Climate Change in Bangladesh) is used as a separate source for the 3 million death toll, even though she in fact cites Debnath, in Totten (2009), and Debnath is already listed as a source. The Debnath source is in fact credited wrongly in two ways (at least in the 2009 edition of the book edited by Totten): 1) the page number given (p. 55) does not mention any death count, the page number that does give a death count is p. 47; 2) the death count Debnath gives is not 3 million, but in fact 1 million. Debnath does not give any sources for her numbers and just notes that they are disputed in the corresponding footnote (fn 2). Why a random social psychology source is used to support any death toll estimate is rather mysterious and seems to me only explicable as an attempt to ramp up the numbers of sources supporting a preferred death toll estimate. In short, neither Alston nor Debnath nor Jahan (in the other book, cited in this article, edited by Totten in 2009, Century of Genocide) in fact do any estimating themselves, they merely pass on a number given by someone else (and in the case of Debnath do not give a source for that number). To quote Ben Kiernan (who said this wrt Etcheson's exaggerated death toll of Khmer Rouge deaths in Cambodia) "Exaggerating a horrific death toll [...] contributes to the ethnic auctioneering of genocide research” (Kiernan 2003, p. 587)!

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.226.236.6 (talk) 16:31, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Brushup of 'Violence against Biharis' section

The following paragraph has been omitted as I find it irrelevant --

In May 2003, a high court ruling in Bangladesh allowed 10 Biharis to obtain citizenship and voting rights. The ruling also exposed a generation gap amongst Biharis, with younger Biharis tending to be "elated" with the ruling, but with many older people feeling "despair at the enthusiasm" of the younger generation. Many Biharis now seek greater civil rights and citizenship in Bangladesh. On May 19, 2008 the Dhaka High court approved citizenship and voting rights for about 150,000 refugees who were minors at the time of Bangladesh's war of independence in 1971, and those who were born after would also gain the right to vote.

--— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sabih omar (talk • contribs) 15:01, 23 December 2009

Requested move 21 December 2018

'

1971 Bangladesh genocide → Bangladesh genocide of 1971 or Bangladeshi genocide of 1971

---

The move is to make the title more resemble other genocide and massacre articles like the Indonesian mass killings of 1965–66.

Article should be named the Bangladesh massacres

Since its still disputed widely that if the bangladesh killings in 1971 was a gonocide or not this article should be named the 1971 Bangladesh Massacres instead of "Genocide" to avoid spreading anti pakistan propaganda. After all there are sources which state the number of deaths are "over exagerrated" and according to them numbers still lower. Like the one that states deaths around 13,000. 203.175.72.22 (talk) 19:55, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Can you share said sources? OkLs (talk) 02:25, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

All the sources are mentioned and authentic. Pakistan army did a genocide,face the reality. 103.165.22.18 (talk) 08:47, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Hi. There is no citation to the first paragraph anywhete. It seems like a commentary or narrative of someone. Was that you who wrote this.

The introductory paragraph before the table starts doesnt have anything.

Would you at least add citation there of any sort. Like one of your Indian authors books that you usually use in such articles. Add something there? 85.76.151.80 (talk) 20:22, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

//There is an academic consensus that the events which took place during the Bangladesh Liberation War constituted a genocide; however, many Pakistanis disagree that the killing was a genocide.//

Can you please add citation here? Should be easy to find said academic consensus. 85.76.151.80 (talk) 20:29, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

Motive: "Racism"

Hello, I've viewed the Motive as "Racism" and it is quiet ridiculous. Whatever the word is for quelling separatists and crackdown on populations is much more appropriate, in fact racism as a motive might need to be removed entirely. Thank you PreserveOurHistory (talk) 16:26, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

The main motive was Racism and treating bengalis as second class citizens with respect to west Pakistanis that alienated them and hence they started a movement for their independence against racist and colonialist Pakistani government.

That's the reason,face reality 103.165.22.18 (talk) 08:50, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 9 January 2023

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 18:50, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

---

1971 Bangladesh genocide → Bangladesh genocide – Most domestic and international sources refer to the genocide without the year, similar articles regarding genocides which occurred in Rwanda, Cambodia, Armenia etc omit the year so it seems unnecessary to have the year in the article title.--AMomen88 (talk) 02:11, 9 January 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. >>> Extorc.talk 17:00, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Support I don't know of another event referred to as the "Bangladesh genocide". CJ-Moki (talk) 19:12, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

• Support as more concise. - excarnateSojourner (talk | contrib) 20:55, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

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.

Bangladesh

103.139.145.34 (talk) 21:08, 14 September 2023 (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. Cannolis (talk) 22:34, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Needs edits for bias

The article is definitely unbalanced and needs a move and major edits. I don't think it's the case that the Bangladesh war is generally accepted as a genocide, per reliable sources:

• "Thus, the governments of Nigeria and Pakistan rejected the genocide claim leveled by Biafran and East Pakistan (Bangladesh) secessionist movements in the late 1960s and 1971 respectively, insisting that they were confronting internal rebellions that were no business of the international community. Most members of the UN agreed.. None of these cases [Biafra, Bangladesh, Burundi, etc.] became generally recognized as genocide; they rarely appear in university syllabi and textbooks on the subject."

(t · c) buidhe 23:09, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

I can't talk about Biafra-Nigeria but non-recognition by states is irrelevant (especially from perpetrators which is commonplace) and low visibility in western academic curriculum does not mean there isn't an academic consensus that it was a genocide in scholarship about this topic. MrMkG (talk) 15:51, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

But there is also problem with mischaracterization and it does need major edits but not in this way. MrMkG (talk) 16:05, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

I'd dispute that—this is listed as a genocide in Chapter 21 of Volume 3: Genocide in the Contemporary Era, 1914–2020 of The Cambridge World History of Genocide (published in June 2023). Malerisch (talk) 10:41, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

The ellipsis in User:Buidhe's citation also hides a statement that would otherwise undermine this argument: Most members of the UN agreed, despite widespread public support for the independence cause and acceptance that genocidal violence was taking place. Malerisch (talk) 01:02, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

References

Organized vandalism by far-rights from India

I have noticed that all the Wikipedia articles related to the Independence movement of Bangladesh have been vandalized by Far-right activists from India. If you look at the user page of Shaan Sengupta , you'll find the admiration of radical Hindutva ideology.

It is true that Bengali Hindus faced harsher treatment compared to Bengali Muslims, but the primary motive for the genocide was no to exterminate Bengali Hindus. They were subjected to harsher treatment, because most of them largely supported Awami League in 1970 Pakistani general election.

I'm adding another Wikipedia page to show how systematically they carry out their vandalism: BJP IT Cell. Such spreading of internet misinformation by them have been ruing the wikipedia platform for years. 203.76.222.248 (talk) 15:36, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Someone trying to do defame me knowingly? Editing while logged out? Anyways should I term this as a violation of Wikipedia:No Personal Attacks? Shaan Sengupta^Talk 01:17, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Shaan Sengupta It's funny you say that, your history of edits shows what OP claimed is true. This whole wikipedia page has been vandalized by some far-right activists, and when asked, they immediately threatens other contributors. Arfaz (chat) | 09:08, 9 December 2023 (UTC) Note: WP:SOCKSTRIKE

@Wiki.arfazhxss Although I am out of this page allover now and didnt wanted to come back. But since you have tagged me I shall once again give my last comment here. I have left this page behind me and don't care what others do. So better not to tag me here. Secondly regarding this charge against me. I would advise you to read it carefully. Here the IP has not only termed far-rights as vandals but specially pointed out to me. So I replied to that. And you going a step further say that my edit history shows that what he said is true. So let me tell you, there are admins and others to decide this. I won't want a certificate from a month old. If you still want something then please report me to admins and let them decide. And if they find me non-guilty of any abuses then you apologise to me. Any further comments won't have a reply until its worth. Also if you think you want to discuss it sensibly, we can do so on either of us talk oage bcoz this has got nothing to do with this article. ShaanSengupta^Talk 16:06, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

@Shaan Sengupta Excuse me, I am Bangladeshi Hindu, saying here, I understand, you are concerned about the Attack on Hindus during our liberation war in 1971. However, why are you debating with with our people, who knows about our wear history better than you, and why not respect us, who are trying to provide truth and evidence about the war.

Also, would I be honest, what you are doing, cheery picking, information, including just hindus, and ignoring important roles by our very great freedom fighters, and scholars, and students, and protesters, who were killed for supporting our war?

Also, by doing this, you have giving huge disrespect to your fellow ancestors, who fought with us, they supported us. they know, not just hindus were killed. I know, it is large number, but still, lots of people, freedom fighters and protesters were killed, who were not hindus.

So, please listen to our people, if you have respect of those Indian fighters, who gave life for us during our war? 64.229.49.146 (talk) 22:18, 9 December 2023 (UTC) Note: WP:SOCKSTRIKE

This is a Wikipedia article. Here nothing is mine or yours. And as I said I have left this article all together. I am no longer interested in doing anything here. You can see that in the history of the page. I just came back to reply to this charge against me. I am not going to make any edits to this article. ShaanSengupta^Talk 01:21, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Shaan Sengupta you have already vandalized major parts of this page, this was systematic to begin with. You are responsible for a lot of the vandalism here. Now we have to pick up the pieces and fix this. I am looking over the page for now, so please don't try to make edits from socks.

Arfaz (chat) | 01:28, 10 December 2023 (UTC) Note: WP:SOCKSTRIKE

@Wiki.arfazhxss Would be more civil if you tone down a bit and be gentle while discussing. If only you have good eyes you could have seen that I have not made any major changes and my edit count on this page is nearly 5, maybe less than that too. And let me tell you I don't do socking. Rather I am smelling that some people who recently have been here have either abandoned their old account and are contributing with new or are editing with their account as well as while being logged out. I have been successful with some reports on socks. Just one good clue and I shall report the one who is under scanner. ShaanSengupta^Talk 02:14, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

is this some kind of threat? I think this is a major violation of Wikipedia:No Personal Attacks. Are you feeling threatened by my allegations? Why did you make it personal? I have decided to report this interaction to Administrator Attention. I have already made a Vandalism Report of this in the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents and included your username. I will consider further violations of such as a form of physical threat.

Arfaz (chat) | 02:38, 10 December 2023 (UTC) Note: WP:SOCKSTRIKE

This is a Wikipedia article. Here nothing is mine or yours

Then why you keep editing them back to your narrative? Also, you are not Bangladeshi. So it is not polite and very disrespectful, as you did edited some country History, that isn't yours? This is offensive.

This is downplaying the important roles of our freedom fighters, even heroic fighters from your country. I am sure, if they "Indian fighters, who helped us." saw your edits, they would be very ashamed about you. 64.229.49.146 (talk) 04:08, 10 December 2023 (UTC) Note: WP:SOCKSTRIKE

I keep editing. Really. Please check the edit history and tell me when was the last time I edited this page. I left this page more than a month ago. I came back only when @Wiki.arfazhxss tagged me. Anyways this is my last reply here. One last comment will be at bottom of this discussion. Don't accuse me of something I haven't done. Bye here. ShaanSengupta^Talk 04:12, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Can you report Shaan Sengupta? This individual is alleging that we are socks and have made physical threats. Arfaz (chat) | 02:39, 10 December 2023 (UTC) Note: WP:SOCKSTRIKE

This person Shaan is showing behaviours, such us, being so knowledgeable, manipulative, gaslighting, when he did all those vandalism many years ago in 2014, with his team, which went unnoticed for many years by us. This is what helping this person being trustworthy, cause why his actions weren't debated for many years?

This is why, We all seriously need to bring necessary attention to Admins.

Admins, can you pls listen to us Bangladeshis? we know our history, and why listen to someone who isn't from our country? 64.229.49.146 (talk) 03:52, 10 December 2023 (UTC) Note: WP:SOCKSTRIKE

@Wiki.arfazhxss I never said you are a sock. I said I am smelling traces of some sock. You took it on yourself. And Wikipedia allows every editor to edit every page unless someone is barred or the page is protected. This person Shaan is showing behaviours, such us, being so knowledgeable, manipulative, gaslighting, when he did all those vandalism many years ago in 2014, with his team, which went unnoticed for many years by us. This is what helping this person being trustworthy, cause why his actions weren't debated for many years? What an irony, I only joined this in May 2023, so don't know how I did something in 2014. Anyways, this is my last reply. The next discussion will be if you people want to report me for the accusation you have against me. I am not giving any more of my time to a project page/talk page I am no longer interested. Goodbye. Let's meet at the report if you or anyone else wants. ShaanSengupta^Talk 04:15, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 19 December 2023

Action-1

In the "see also" section, please delete the bullet numbers 1 to 8 (already included in the "List of massacres in Bangladesh" below) and replace those with more comprehensive following

• Bangladesh Genocide Remembrance Day
• Human rights in Bangladesh
• List of massacres in Bangladesh

Action-2

Either in the "article lead" or in the "Pro-Pakistan islamist militia" section please add the following:

During the war, the Pakistani Military and several militia organizations created by the Pakistani military violated Geneva Conventions of War by partipcating in numerous massacres of civilians, committed genocide, operated concentration camps, and used rape as weapon of war against Bengali Muslims, Hindus and Buddhists minorities. Active collaborators of Pakistan Military in perpetratuation of genocide and ethnic cleansing in Bangladesh include the Al Badr, Al Sham, East Pakistan Central Peace Committee, Razakars, Muslim League, Jamaat-e-Islami, and the Urdu-speaking Biharis.

Thank you. 119.74.238.54 (talk) 07:21, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit extended-protected}} template.  Spintendo  00:21, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

^{This is Done for now} 64.229.49.146 (talk) 05:47, 9 January 2024 (UTC) Note: WP:SOCKSTRIKE

References

Primarily Bengali Hindus as target?

 Note: Moved here from User talk:MrMkG

---

Hello @MrMkG. Please be gentle and follow WP:CIVILITY because I don't want to get into a conflict like last time. Try to keep your reply to the point and short.
You recently made an edit at Bangladesh genocide in Revision as of 11:03, 25 October 2023 and said that targetting of Bengali Hindus is nowhere mentioned in the source. I quote your edit summary The source doesn't say this, one can say disproportionate (still many problems, negationist) but not primarily But I just read 1-3 pages and can see it being mentioned and explained after that too. Can you explain your claims? Shaan Sengupta^Talk 09:55, 25 October 2023 (UTC)  Note: WP:SOCKSTRIKE

Mr. Sengupta please do not follow me to other articles, it is very unpleasant. Now that you are here once again, read the source again and understand it. It does not say it was Bengali Hindus primarily killed. It says the Pakistani administration saw Bengalis as having been "corrupted" by "Hindu culture" (one of the reasons for the prejudice) and killed them indiscriminately.

Of those killed most were naturally Muslims as they were the majority of Bengalis in Bangladesh. The source mentions sub-categories of victims as "intellectuals", "university students", "members of Awami League", "urban poor", "Hindus", "police personnel" and "anyone with the capacity to rebel". It is therefore very wrong to say "primarily Bengali Hindu" as it denies recognition to all others. It should either be "Bengalis" as it is the primary category or all the sub-categories. Since sub-categories are complex, it is preferred to mention solely the primary category in the infobox. Please understand that this is a sensitive topics.

I plan on editing this article in the future. There are many things wrong with it. As an example the lower estimate is being taken from rejected work of Sarmila Bose (who denies the genocide) and CIA figures (who shared complicity). Do you plan to revert me at every step I make? If so I am unable to proceed. MrMkG (talk) 17:51, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

First of all I have no interest in following your or some others actions. I am sure you would have made more edits at different pages. But this is just the second time we are discussing about something. I have been to pages of Sheikh Mujibur Rahman recently and I got here from there. Anways you are free to think as you want. I can't change your thoughts and insecurities. I would want you to only focus on this. Now I am quoting the things from that reference pdf. I am striking it all down because these are copyrighted materials. I have quoted it here just to show it to you.

Page 1 Moreover, more than two decades of co-habitation had not diminished the condescending attitudes that the West Pakistanis had for their Bengali compatriots—the latter were seen as “low lying people of a low lying land” whose commitment to Pakistan was polluted by Hindu culture and a large Hindu minority.

Page 3 Hinduphobia. Secondly, the military leadership saw a need to destroy what it saw as the pernicious Hindu influence over Bengali society that had both corrupted Bengali Muslims and fuelled secessionist impulses (and also acted as a fifth column for India). They calculated that purifying East Pakistan, by cleansing the population of the Hindus, by killing them or forcing them to neighbouring India, would supplant its Bengali national identity with an Islamic one18.

Page 3 While all Hindus were killed, lives of Muslim women and children were generally spared. But rape was commonplace, and both Hindu and Muslim women were subjected to sexual violence by soldiers and razakars.

Page 4 While many of the operations were focused around Hindus, the pattern of killings was indiscriminate.

Page 7 It was genocide. Beachler uses Robert Melson’s definition of partial genocide 43 to argue that “there was no attempt to eliminate the entire population of East Pakistan”. While this is accurate if Bengalis as a whole are taken as the targeted group, it can be argued that the genocide was total with respect to East Bengali Hindus: around 70% of the 10 million refugees in India were Bengali Hindus. In other words around 70% of East Pakistan’s Hindu population (of about 10 million) had been expelled.

The first two quotes show that Hindus were targeted. Third fourth and fifth shows that every Hindu was killed and lives of Muslims was spared. What conclusion do you draw from this. Shaan Sengupta^Talk 01:54, 26 October 2023 (UTC)  Note: WP:SOCKSTRIKE

It's obvious that you followed me here when you revert right after I edit it and don't be passive aggressive with talk of "insecurities" or whatever.

Are you unable of understanding the very quotes? What do you think the fourth quote "While many of the operations were focused on Hindus, the pattern of killings was indiscriminate" means?

Read the entire thing and not just do a search find for "Hindu" to cherrypick parts that refer to Hindus. Here I will help you, here is a quote specifying who the targets were in its entirety.

Who were the victims? The army set out to exterminate not only those Bengalis who, in its view, had the intention to move the east wing towards secession, but also those who had the capacity. In other words, both existing and potential votaries of Bangla Desh were targets for killing. The first category included Awami League members and supporters, including Bengali intellectuals, university students, the urban poor. Also in this category was the Hindu minority. Among those in the second category were Bengali members of the armed forces and police who were automatically marked out as targets despite having loyally served Pakistan. This category came to include young men who were seen as potential recruits for the insurgent groups fighting Pakistani rule.

And here is the a quote specifying the primary justification.

Why did the military government decide to use firepower against its Bengali citizens? Firstly, it was faced with a scenario where, at best, the government would fall into Bengali hands, and at worst, would lead to a break-up of the country. General Yahya and the more hardline members of the army’s top leadership decided to terrorise the east wing into submission. Even if they had wanted to, it would have been almost impossible for the army to control a hostile population of 75 million Bengalis using gentler tactics. Instead, they calculated that the Bengalis, who they saw as weak, non-martial and cowardly would give up their rebellion out of fear.

What do I have to say to your quotes?

• The first quote is exactly about what I said, that "Hindu influence" was seen as "polluting" all Bengalis.
• The second quote is more of the same but also highlights their justification for targeting Hindus, there are similar justifications for other sub-categories.
• The third quote is in the context of genocidal rape, that they killed the Hindus who were raped by them but left alive the Muslims who were raped by them (presumably so that their children will be Muslim but not be of a purely "Bengali character", not mentioned in this source but you can find it in others in the article).
• I have already mentioned the fourth quote, it refutes your own point and directly contradicts the "primarily Bengali Hindus" wording by saying that the killings were indiscriminate overall.
• The fifth quote is just discussing arguments of a particular scholar around definitional issues. As I said, "Bengali Hindus" being a disproportionate number of the victims is accurate but "primarily Bengali Hindus" is simply not as the sheer majority of the victims in numbers were "Bengali Muslims".

And don't be foolish, quoting for discussional purposes can't be a copyright violation and if it were then "striking it" wouldn't prevent it from still being a copyright violation as the content can still be clearly seen and read. MrMkG (talk) 07:08, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

@MrMkG I told you to be gentle. If you dont want to follow WP:CIVILITY, then I am not interested in discussing anything with you. Calling someone foolish is a violation of WP:NPA. And your choice of words is very rude. I am leaving it here. Others with the reference of my concerns will take the right action. Once again I have no interest in following your actions. One more harsh word from your side and I will report you at ANI (and this is not a threat). Secondly, just to tell you those lines are strcuk so that it can be revdeled when it is over. Goodbye! Shaan Sengupta^Talk 10:49, 26 October 2023 (UTC)  Note: WP:SOCKSTRIKE

Ok goodbye. If you don't want to discuss anything with me then don't revert me where ever I go. If a hypothetical other person wants to object they can do it themselves. MrMkG (talk) 12:07, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

As a Bangladeshi, the historical vandalism by a BJP supporter from India is quite concerning. The primary target of the genocide was not Hindus. Pakistan has its own hindus to this day, they had no concern with erasing them. The target of the genocide was Bengalis who supported Bangladesh's independence, which was primarily Muslims, because the secession is what Pakistan was trying to prevent. Documentaries and articles even by western journalists at the time state that all the mukti bahini and most of the victims of genocide they had come across were Muslims and that it was in fact the Pakistani propaganda that was labelling these Muslims as Hindus in order to make the war look like a Muslim vs Hindu war as opposed to an ethnic war. Strange how the RSS supporter is using the propaganda of the genociders as his talking points. CorrectionalFacility101 (talk) 01:46, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

• @MrMKG, your unsourced POV additions have been reverted. The main target of the Pakistan Military and Razakars were only Bengali Hindus, this is well documented in the sources. The reason why this is called a genocide is because there were targeted massacres of Hindus with a motive to exterminated the Hindu population in the country. There were some Muslim victims as well but Hindus were the overwhelming majority among the victims. Note that Razakars were Bengali Muslims so it would be illogical to say that they had genocidal intentions against Bengali Muslims. A.Musketeer (talk) 22:11, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

  Hello User A Musketeer. You have just removed and changed many things not just my edits. You say "unsourced POV additions"? Hmmmmm. What? The argument was over a source but sure sure.

  Weird half denial going on. The claims you make are untrue and sources don't say what you say. These topics are not so simplistic. Please learn to understand and empathize. I'll give you more sources.

  About genocide, source - Totten, S., Parsons, W.S., & Parsons, W.S. (Eds.). (2004). Century of Genocide (2nd ed.). Routledge. Chapter 7. Genocide in Bangladesh. p 256. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203495698

  The victims of the 1971 genocide were, thus, first and foremost Bengalis. Though Hindus were especially targeted, the majority of the victims were Bengali Muslims—ordinary villagers and slum dwellers—who were caught unprepared during the Pakistani army’s spree of wanton killing, rape, and destruction. As previously mentioned, the Pakistani ruling elites identified certain groups as their special enemies—students and intellectuals, Awami Leaguers and their supporters, and Bengali members of the armed forces and the police. However, many members of these targeted groups went into hiding or into exile in India after the initial attack. As a result, the overwhelming majority of the victims were defenseless, ordinary poor people who stayed behind in their own houses and did not suspect that they would be killed, raped, taken to prison, and tortured simply for the crime of being born a Bengali.

  About razakars, source - Explained: Who were the Razakars, accused of horrific crimes during the 1971 Bangladesh Liberation war? Written Raghu Malhotra. 21 July 2022. Indian Express https://indianexpress.com/article/explained/explained-global/razakars-accused-horrific-crimes-1971-bangladesh-liberation-war-8062174/

  Razakars mostly consisted of Urdu-speaking Bihari Muslims and religious parties that opposed the separation of East and West Pakistan, like Jamaat-e-Islami, Al Badr and Al Shams.

  MrMkG (talk) 10:07, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

@MrMkG: You just said this topic is not simplistic and yet you are cherry-picking weak sources from google. Have you gone through a single verdict of the International Crimes Tribunal? How many Muslim victims do they talk about? And how many Biharis do you see accused? Can you name at least one Bihari leader from the Razakar forces? I would request you to first study the topic adequately before making any significant changes to the article. The main scholarly consensus is that these killings and rapes constitute a genocide because they were specifically targeted at Hindus in order to exterminate their population. Denying this fact would be equivalent of genocide denial. A.Musketeer (talk) 12:05, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Weak sources? I showed you a scholarly source on genocide. It is in fact genocide scholarship particularly. You couldn't get a better source for this topic even if you tried. The sources in the article validate it too.

Main scholarly consensus? Preposterous. You show no sources. Scholarly, non-scholarly, nothing. It is your peculiar and incorrect viewpoint which you masquerade as "main scholarly consensus".

User A.Musketeer, beware I am well informed on the scholarly discourse around this topic and be very very careful throwing your accusation of genocide denial. It would in fact be applicable to someone claiming that only one sub-group (Bengali Hindus) was the victim and worst yet implying that others (Bengali Muslims) were prepetrators when both were the victims. A peculiar and insidious form of denialism.

ICT never said the things you do. The estimated deaths is 3 million Bengalis (not Hindu, not Muslim, simply Bengali). It must also be also kept in mind that they couldn't go after most perpetrators and had to do with those who couldn't get away to West Pakistan in time so that is the context they're operating out of. They only prosecuted some of the militia leaders and particular judgements should never to generalized to the full phenomena.

ICT in its most generalised comment said -

the auxiliary forces acted and collaborated to pursue a policy and plan not of their own but of a ‘State or group policy’ and consciously knew and actively associated themselves with that common ‘policy and plan of annihilating the pro-liberation Bengali civilians’.

It is true that the Pakistani Martial Administration had some Bengali collaborators in the Islamist parties who wanted to crush the pro-independence sentiment widespread among Bengalis. I assume that is the point you're trying to make to. It does not mean Bengali Muslims were not victims of the mass killings and mass rapes by the Pakistani Army (who were the primary perpetrators and who escaped prosecution) and the militias too. These people in fact had very similar views of general Bengalis as their West Pakistani counterparts. I will say this again that these topics are not so simplistic as you may imagine. MrMkG (talk) 14:16, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Hi @MrMkG: Can you revert your edits? I can do them for you if you want. This article seems to have a lot of unbiased sources, and POV-Pushing. Arfaz (chat) | 14:25, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

The razakars were primarily Urdu-speaking Bihari Indians not Bengalis. Secondly, documentaries and articles at that time state most mukti bahini amd victims of genocide were bengali muslims who supported Bangladeshs independence. Strange how the Indian RSS supporters try to push the propaganda of the pakistani genociders about the target being hindus in order to further their own disgusting goals. Western sources from the time on the ground themselves state that the victims were bengali muslims amd pakistan had declared them hindu in order to make it look like a muslim vs hindu issue. CorrectionalFacility101 (talk) 01:49, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Is there a Bangladeshis community in Wikipedia that can moderate this page from vandalism? It’s appalling that the Wikipedia page has been hijacked and 1971 genocide of Bengalis (irrespective of their religion) is being politicized by Indian right-wing mob to push their agenda. It’s common knowledge to any Bengalis that can visited 71 museum and went to school that the genocide and liberation movement was against Bengalis by Pakistani military army. This article read as if genocide was against Bengali Hindus and Bengali Muslims participated in it and Indian army came in protected Bangladesh and resulted in liberation of Bangladesh. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.153.65.143 (talk) 09:50, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

There is an ongoing discussion below, which you are free to participate in. Malerisch (talk) 15:58, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Disruptive edits by Lionel Messi Lover

@Lionel Messi Lover please do not add unsourced content or unreliable sources. This is a history article so we only rely on scholarly sources. I would recommend you to read Bass, Gary J. (2013a). The Blood Telegram: Nixon, Kissinger, and a Forgotten Genocide. and MacDermot, Niall (June 1972). "The Review" (PDF). International Commission of Jurists. Both very clearly say that Hindus were the only target of the genocide. You can also check the quotations provided from these sources in the article. Please stop your disruptive edits. A.Musketeer (talk) 06:21, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

• @Lionel Messi Lover, your source [2] your source rather contradicts your claim. The source states "Therefore, it can be generally assumed that religion has played an influential role in the genocide. Our study suggests that only Hindus were targeted and killed in 23 cases". Furthermore, the 42% figure is about the Hindu population, stating 42% Hindus in Est Pakistan were killed in the genocide. Please do not misrepresent sources to push your POV. A.Musketeer (talk) 15:32, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

  @User:A.Musketeer, I'm may have misunderstood of the target but killing of 1,111 intellectuals in Dacca University a case of Anti-intellectualism, and why was that removed! Lionel Messi Lover (talk) 13:00, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

Lionel Messi Lover all the editors here are disagreeing with your edits yet you are continuing with the same disruption. You have been told several times to discuss your edits on the talk page and reach a consensus. Please note that refusal to listen to others is a form of disruptive edit and can even get you sanctioned considering the nature of this article. Nomian (talk) 08:13, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

What is disruptive here?

I'm only adding the following info from reliable source. Why have you reverted it?

The attack was led by Tikka Khan, who was given the name, ‘Butcher of Bengal’ by the Bengalis. On 27 March 1971, he declared: “I will reduce this majority to a minority". He also reportedly claimed that he would kill four million men in 48 hours and thus have a ‘final solution’ to the Bengal problem. Lionel Messi Lover (talk) 10:09, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

References

This looks like a self-published source from efsas.org, not a WP:RS. Nomian, can you please edit the first line of the article and change "ethnic cleansing of Bengali Population" to "ethnic cleansing of Bengali Hindus", reflecting what the sources say? A quotation has also been provided in the next citation, the source being The Blood Telegram: Nixon, Kissinger, and a Forgotten Genocide. Thanks. A.Musketeer (talk) 13:35, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Regardless of the very few resources presented here suggesting a "Hindu" genocide, it is crucial to assert that, in no academic context, is the events of 1971 accepted anywhere as a religious war or genocide. Bengali nationalists, regardless of their gender and religion, fell victim to brutal killings. While there was certainly discrimination against the minority and a concerted effort by the occupying force to vilify the entire Bengali culture as influenced by Hinduism, it's crucial to avoid concluding that these atrocities were motivated by religious factors alone, it wasn't. My own family from Feni and Noakhali experienced the tragic loss of 18 members who were murdered in a school solely due to their affiliation with their activities in the national movement. Any attempt to manipulate this narrative into a religious conflict will be categorically unacceptable. I intend to thoroughly examine this article in the coming days, scrutinizing the sources provided, as there appears to be a consistent pattern of edits by individuals, notably of Indian nationality, aiming to depict a different narrative. I urge everyone to refrain from engaging in such alterations.

Arfaz (chat) | 14:18, 8 December 2023 (UTC) Note: WP:SOCKSTRIKE

Wiki.arfazhxss you are removing huge chunk of sourced contents just because you don't agree with them. Some of the citations even have full quotations to verify. You do need to be aware of the policies like WP:V, WP:OR and WP:BRD. You haven't stated anything that can support the removal of such a large sourced content. I would suggest after you are done with scrutinizing the article, propose your changes on the talk page, achieve a consensus and then edit the page. Nomian (talk) 20:42, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

I don't think I am, in the page Bangladesh Genocide, there seems to be a huge amount of mentions of hindus being killed, and this whole article seems to be only about hindus. This needs to change. I am aware of policies, and I don't think I am pushing any side here: only neutralizing the excessive mentions of Bengali Hindus -> Bengalis. Again, this wasn't a religious warfare.

Arfaz (chat) | 00:11, 9 December 2023 (UTC) Note: WP:SOCKSTRIKE

Wiki.arfazhxss and Nomian: There appears to be a dispute as to whether Bengalis as a whole or just Bengali Hindus should be considered the target of the genocide. As the following quote from Gary J. Bass (the author of The Blood Telegram and absolutely a high-quality WP:RS) in The Cambridge World History of Genocide shows, neither are entirely wrong: while Bengalis as a whole were victims, Bengali Hindus were especially targeted. Because many Bengali Muslims were also killed, I think it's probably most accurate to say that Bengalis were the main target; however, it's wrong to scrub the article of any mention of the targeting of Hindus, which certainly played a large role.

Today in Bangladesh the term genocide is generally understood as being against the Bengalis as a whole. At the time, the Indian government, too, spoke of genocide against the Bengalis. After all, many Punjabis in West Pakistan scorned Bengalis, Muslim as well as Hindu, as weak, cowardly and debased. 'This is a war between the pure and the impure', one Pakistani major told the Pakistani reporter Anthony Mascarhenhas in June 1971. 'The people here may have Muslim names and call themselves Muslim. But they are Hindu at heart.' Yet in addition, the Hindu minority among the Bengalis were singled out by the Pakistan army. As Mascarhenhas reported, 'I saw Hindus, hunted from village to village and door to door, shot off-hand after a cursory "short-arm inspection" showed they were uncircumcised.' Even though Mujib and other leading Awami League politicians were Muslims, and the Hindus did not comprise a cohesive military body, West Pakistanis had a tendency to see Bengali secessionism as a product of a Hindu influence that was traitorous and pro-Indian.

The Pakistan army's extremists contended that East Pakistan needed to be purified by driving the Hindus into India where they belonged. Sydney Schanberg of the New York Times risked his neck reporting from Faridpur, where he found Muslims had daubed signs on their homes and shops: 'All Moslem House.' As Schanberg reported in July 1971, 'The campaign against the Hindus was – and in some cases still is – systematic. Soldiers fanned through virtually every village asking where the Hindus lived. … Although thousands of "antistate" Bengali Moslems have been killed by the army, the Hindus became particular scapegoats as the martial-law regime tried to blame Hindu India and her agents in East Pakistan for the autonomy movement.' Pakistan's official post-war Hamoodur Rehman commission of inquiry on the war would later note that the chief of army staff and chief of general staff 'were often noticed jokingly asking as to how many Hindus have been killed'. A Pakistani lieutenant colonel testified to the Commission, 'There was a general feeling of hatred against Bengalis amongst the soldiers and the officers including generals. There were verbal instructions to eliminate Hindus.'

In the minds of some Pakistani perpetrators, the categories of Bengali and Hindu blurred. Even Muslim Bengalis were seen as Hinduised and therefore unfit for Muslim Pakistan. In 1967, Pakistan's military dictator, General Ayub Khan, had sneered that his country's Bengalis were 'under considerable Hindu cultural and linguistic influence'. As Schanberg reported, 'army commanders in the field in East Pakistan privately admit to a policy of stamping out Bengali culture, both Moslem and Hindu – but particularly Hindu'.
— Gary J. Bass, Chapter 21: Bangladesh, 1971, The Cambridge World History of Genocide (2023)

Unfortunately, as Christian Gerlach states in Chapter 6: East Pakistan/Bangladesh 1971–1972: How Many Victims, Who, and Why? of The Civilianization of War (2018), there is a lack of data for the total number of Bengali Hindu versus Muslim victims: Figures are lacking about important population groups such as Hindus and Bengali Muslims.

Personal anecdotes are not reliable sources. Malerisch (talk) 22:05, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for putting this out. I am happy to go over the article and change/revert back to edits that supports the original source. I am a Bangladeshi myself, and my entire education would be a lie if the contents in this article were true. Arfaz (chat) | 00:18, 9 December 2023 (UTC) Note: WP:SOCKSTRIKE

• Malerisch I get your point that there are victims from different religions but according to the sources, the target has always been Hindus, that's what the quotations are saying unless someone can prove me wrong. And I think that is what the article is also claiming, Hindus being the target of the genocide. Let's also wait for A.Musketeer's opinion who have major contributions to the article. Most importantly, I don't think it is constructive to remove such such large amounts of sourced contents from the article without any consensus, something which Wiki.arfazhxss is doing repeatedly. Nomian (talk) 06:23, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

  According to A.Musketeer's Editting History, they contributed to 1.28% of the page, so definitely not a "major contributor" as you mentioned. Instead, their contribution seems to indicate a major vandalism in trying to put Bengali Hindu as the sole victim of this and Bengali Muslims being the perpetrator too (the target was mainly the Hindus as per the sources and the perpetrators also included Bengali Muslims), what's this? The number of times there have been attempts to put Reliable Sources and Citations, all those attempts were either redacted and restored.

  I am all in for a consensus, but Nomian has repeatedly removed the contents, only took the "consensus" of Shaan Sengupta and A.Musketeer, and removed all the rest of the contents. There have been numerous attempts to challenge this, every time someone edits something, if that doesn't go with their narrative, it gets restored. Arfaz (chat) Note: WP:SOCKSTRIKE | 06:45, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

Nomian, I think there is a distinction between especially targeting Hindus and only targeting Hindus. I don't deny that Bengali Hindus were a primary target, but sources don't define the genocide's victims as only Bengali Hindus—for example, the quote from Bass above clearly shows that Bengali Muslims were also victims.

The first paragraph of the chapter by Bass defines the genocide as a massive slaughter of Bengalis:

On 25 March 1971, a military dictatorship in Pakistan embarked on a massive slaughter of Bengalis. Its consequences echo down to this day: one of the largest refugee flows in human history; a major war between India and Pakistan that ratcheted up the hatred between those two antagonists; and the traumatic creation of Bangladesh, which today is the eighth-largest population in the world.
— Gary J. Bass, Chapter 21: Bangladesh, 1971, The Cambridge World History of Genocide (2023)

Here are some other reliable sources that don't define the genocide solely as the murder of Bengali Hindus:

Pakistan's Islamic military regime murdered probably 300,000 and possibly 1 million fellow Muslims and minority Hindus in Bangladesh in 1971. This crime sprouted not from religious fanaticism but from a militaristic opposition to democracy in an ideological soil fertilized by racism, expansionist domination, and resentment of urban populations. The extraordinary violence and exemplary impunity of its perpetrators also scattered the seeds of a new crop of catastrophes.
— Ben Kiernan, Blood and Soil (2007) [3]

By some estimates, the mass killings in Bangladesh—at the time, East Pakistan—are on a par with the twentieth century's most destructive genocides. At least one million Bengalis, perhaps as many as three million, were massacred by the security forces of West Pakistan, assisted by local allies.
— Adam Jones, Genocide: A Comprehensive Introduction, 3rd edition (2017)

First and foremost, the victims of the 1971 genocide were Bengalis. Though Hindus were especially targeted, the majority of the victims were Bengali Muslims – ordinary villagers and slum dwellers – who were caught unprepared during the Pakistani army's sweeping spree of wanton killing, rape, and destruction. As mentioned, the Pakistani ruling elites identified certain groups as their enemies – students and intellectuals, Awami Leaguers and their supporters, and Bengali members of the armed forces and police. However, many members of these targeted groups went into hiding or in exile in India after the initial attack. As a result, the overwhelming majority of the victims were defenseless, ordinary poor people who stayed behind in their own houses and did not suspect that they would be killed, raped, taken to prison, and/or tortured simply for the crime of being born a Bengali.
— Rounaq Jahan, Centuries of Genocide, 5th edition (2022) [4]

Can you cite any sources to support your position? Malerisch (talk) 08:22, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

By the way, Nomian, this article consistently specified Bengalis, not Bengali Hindus, as the victims of the genocide for years until June 2023—when A.Musketeer started editing this article. The long-term consensus supports reverting back to Bengalis. Malerisch (talk) 09:20, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

I just checked, and Malerisch is actually right. Anyone can look into the recent edits by Nomian, A.Musketeer, Shaan Sengupta^Talk , Aman.kumar.goel has consistently removed/ reverted/ deleted my contributions, along with the contributions of MrMkG, Lionel Messi Lover, Wiki N Islam, AMomen88 the edits that contributors have made to this page. I am going to refer this to senior editors who have recently contributed to this article: Daniel Quinlan, Isabelle Belato, Worldbruce. I am raising this issue here, because my edits have been taken down multiple times, and I have been threatened to be reported if I restore my edits.

Arfaz (chat) | 09:46, 9 December 2023 (UTC) Note: WP:SOCKSTRIKE

I have explained this several times before but some editors seem to be too emotionally driven to understand the topic and the context. There were Hindu killings, there were killings of Muslims from Awami League, then there were killings of Muslim Mukti Bahini fighters. But you cannot just label every other murder or massacre as genocide because genocide has a specific definition. For a massacre to qualify as a genocide, there has to be a motive to partially or fully exterminate a particular community through targeted killings of unarmed civilian members from that community. Now the perpetrators included not only Pakistan Army but also their local collaborators, collectively known as Razakars, who were mostly Bengali Muslims. It would be as absurd as it sounds to think these "Bengali Muslim" Razakars would participate in exterminating their own Bengali community. Now this is not just my words, International Commission of Jurists, in their assessment of the atrocities during the war, concluded,

As far as the other three groups are concerned, namely members of the Awami League, students and Hindus, only Hindus would seem to fall within the definition of ' a national, ethnical, racial or religious group '. There is overwhelming evidence that Hindus were slaughtered and their houses and villages destroyed simply because they were Hindus. The oft repeated phrase ' Hindus are enemies of the state ' as a justification for the killing does not gainsay the intent to commit genocide; rather does it confirm the intention. The Nazis regarded the Jews as enemies of the state and killed them as such. In our view there is a strong prima facie case that the crime of genocide was committed against the group comprising the Hindu population of East Bengal.
— MacDermot, Niall (June 1972). "The Review" (PDF). International Commission of Jurists. p. 34.

This is also supported by Gary J. Bass in his breakhrough research on this topic, The Blood Telegram: Nixon, Kissinger, and a Forgotten Genocide where he mentioned it several times that the target of the genocide was specifically Hindus,

"The Nixon administration had ample evidence not just of the scale of the massacres, but also of their ethnic targeting of the Hindu minority—what Blood had condemned as genocide. This was common knowledge throughout the Nixon administration." p.198

.

This is the latest position of the relevant scholars on this genocide, following Gary J Bass's direction. The books that Malerisch quoted here are actually quite old, older than 15 years (newer editions of old academic books do not really change the contents). Also note that there were political motivations behind concealing the ethnic targeting of Hindus in the genocide at the time of the war which is also detailed in the book by Bass, which seem to have reflected in the studies by several scholars who refrain from mentioning the Hindu targeting.

There were a lot of Non-Jew victims of Nazi Germany but The Holocaust is specifically about the targeted killings of the Jews. The lead was written in this context, to reflect the targeting of Hindus to show the genocidal intent. But it looks like Wiki.arfazhxss and Lionel Messi Lover have completely turned this article into a joke without having any idea of the topic and the context. They have even removed the assessment of the International Commission of Jurists as well as all the evidences of the genocidal intent. Such edits just remind me how a lot of people in this world are actively involved in sophisticated genocide denial. If you want to keep this POV version, better move the article back to 1971 Bangladesh atrocities. A.Musketeer (talk) 20:21, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

• I can see not only they have removed well-sourced contents, they have even replaced them with self published sources like efsas.org. There are also lots of source misrepresentations since both Wiki.arfazhxss and Lionel Messi Lover are changing the contents at their will to suit their POV. I have never seen such blatant POV edits like these. A.Musketeer (talk) 20:58, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

A.Musketeer, it's entirely possible for one group to be both perpetrators and victims in a genocide; the most famous example of this is probably the Hutu in the Rwandan genocide. I think you're misreading the ICJ report—the paragraph immediately preceding your quote says this:

This does not mean, of course, that particular acts may not have constituted genocide against part of the Bengali people. In any case where large numbers were massacred and it can be shown that on the particular occasion the intent was to kill Bengalis indiscriminately as such, then a crime of genocide would be established. There would seem to be a prima facie case to show that this was the intention on some occasions, as for example during the indiscriminate killing of civilians in the poorer quarters of Dacca during the 'crack-down'.
— ICJ, East Pakistan Staff Study (1972)

In other words, this ICJ study never excluded the possibility that the mass killings of Bengalis as a whole is genocide; they just didn't analyze it in detail. I'll also note that this study isn't actually a legal finding of any sort, but rather just a staff study—it was never meant to be binding in any court of law. And since the report is contemporaneous with the genocide itself (it's over 50 years old!), it should be viewed as a WP:PRIMARY source—as WP:RSPRIMARY states, Wikipedia articles should be based mainly on reliable secondary sources. (Similarly, the 1945 Famine Inquiry Commission report for the Bengal famine of 1943 is also a primary source, as was pointed out in that article's FAC and later discussion.)

If you're looking for the opinion of an internationally recognized group, I'll point out that in 2023, the International Association of Genocide Scholars recognized that Bengalis as a whole were the victims of the genocide:

Therefore, the International Association of Genocide Scholars (IAGS) recognizes the crimes committed against the Bengali population in 1971 in Bangladesh as genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes; urges the international community, especially the Pakistani government, to recognise 1971 genocide and take necessary measures to address the issue in appropriate fora; requests proper reparations to the Bengali nation, and calls upon the United Nations to adopt a special resolution recognising the 1971 Genocide.
— International Association of Genocide Scholars, Resolution to Declare the Crimes Committed during the 1971 Bangladesh Liberation War as Genocide, Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes (2023)

I also consider Gary J. Bass to be a high-quality reliable source (I've cited The Blood Telegram myself elsewhere on Wikipedia). However, your quote from Bass reflects Archer Blood's opinion, who Bass points out isn't an expert on the definition of genocide. Bass himself makes clear that Hindus were especially, but not only, targeted:

This kind of deliberate ethnic targeting was the most reliable basis for the Blood telegram's accusation of genocide. But at first, Blood used the dread term more for shock value than precision. There was considerable confusion in the consulate about what exactly genocide meant, and what they meant by using the word. (Blood, no lawyer, at one point sloppily suggested that the "Webster's definition" could apply to the killing of Awami League followers.) Eric Griffel says that "probably it wasn't. Genocide implies to me a determination to kill a whole group of people. This was a determination to kill some people. I would differentiate it from Hitler or the Armenian massacre or even from Cambodia." This is somewhat muddled (under international law, "genocide" means persecution intended to wipe out a group in whole or in part), but the Dacca consulate was not at first clear on which victims they were talking about. Was this a genocide against the Bengalis, or against the Hindu minority among the Bengalis?

"There was clear targeting of Hindus," says Scott Butcher. "You might also talk about going after Bengalis as a racial or cultural group. It was an extraordinarily brutal crackdown." At first, in his hasty cable about "selective genocide," Blood had meant a genocidal campaign against the Bengalis overall, both the Muslim majority and the Hindu minority. (This was the same way that the Indian government used the word.) "The term ‘selective genocide,' you had an army crackdown on one set of people," says Butcher. "There was a racial prejudice between Punjabis and Bengalis. You'd hear snide remarks that these people are less religious, our little brown brothers." Some West Pakistanis scorned Bengalis—even the Muslim majority—as weak and debased by too much exposure to Hindus among them. As one of Yahya's own ministers noted, the junta "looked down" upon the "non-martial Bengalis" as "Muslims converted from the lower caste Hindus." In similar terms, Sydney Schanberg reported in the New York Times on the "depth of the racial hatred" felt by the dominant Punjabis of West Pakistan for Bengalis.

But there was mounting evidence that among the Bengalis, the Hindu minority was doubly marked out for persecution. From the first few days of the crackdown, Blood had noticed this. Many of the West Pakistanis seemed to blame Bengali nationalism and secessionism on the Hindus, even though the Bengali Muslims had overwhelmingly supported the Awami League. "There was much feeling against Hindus," says Meg Blood. "It was one way they whipped up their soldiers to do such abominable things." Butcher remembers that the Hindus were "seen as making them less pure as Pakistanis."
— Gary J. Bass, Chapter 5: The Blood Telegram, The Blood Telegram: Nixon, Kissinger, and a Forgotten Genocide (2013)

You've also omitted the fact that I quoted from Bass himself in 2023 in The Cambridge World History of Genocide, where he makes clear that both Bengali Hindus and Muslims were victims.

I see no reason to ignore the fact that later editions of books have been published, which would go against established practice on Wikipedia—one would presume that the authors would update their books if scholarly consensus changed. No justification has been provided to ignore these WP:RSes.

Again, I'm not arguing for scrubbing this article of any mention of the targeting of Hindus, which is clearly very relevant to the genocide—just that the genocide's victims weren't solely Bengali Hindus. Malerisch (talk) 22:36, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

Hi, I did noticed, this template, was there, Template:Persecution of Bengali Hindus. After removal, that template was still containing "Bangladesh genocide 1971". Which I did removed. And would you mind to review this article, as it is related to Bangladesh war 1971. Rape during the Bangladesh Liberation War 64.229.49.146 (talk) 23:53, 9 December 2023 (UTC) Note: WP:SOCKSTRIKE

Malerisch, with due respect, I don't think you are correctly interpreting both the sources and my argument. Firstly, I don't deny the fact that there were non-Hindu victims but there is no evidence that these killings were done with genocidal intent, could be political killings by Awami League's opponents, could be combatant deaths or could be collateral damage. There were even non-Bengali victims but still there is no evidence of genocidal intent. The genocidal intent becomes clear when studying the killings of Hindu civilians, that is why the sources are saying "Hindus were especially targeted" while talking about genocide specifically. You have quoted the preceding paragraph of the ICJ report but my quotation was the conclusion of the ICJ report where they specified that even though there non-Hindu victims, the target of the genocide were the Hindus.

Now talking about the Gary J Bass book, the reason why his book is considered a breakthrough research in this topic is that he steered away from the earlier notions of calling it a Bengali Genocide and concluded that although there were other victims as well, Hindus were the primary target of the genocide. I would request you to read the entire book to correctly interpret Bass. He even pointed out the political motivations of the then governments in the US, Bangladesh and India behind concealing the targeting of Hindus in the genocide.

The Indian government, from Indira Gandhi on down, worked hard to hide an ugly reality from its own people: by an official reckoning, as many as 90 percent of the refugees were Hindus.7 This skew was the inevitable consequence of Pakistani targeting of Hindus in East Pakistan—what Archer Blood and his staers had condemned as genocide. The population of East Pakistan was only 16 or 17 percent Hindu, but this minority comprised the overwhelming bulk of the refugees. India secretly recorded that by the middle of June, there were some 5,330,000 Hindus, as against 443,000 Muslims and 150,000 from other groups. Many Indian diplomats believed that the Hindus would be too afraid ever to go back.8

The first wave of refugees was made up of a great many Bengali Muslims, but as early as mid-April, one of Gandhi’s top officials noted, India decided that Pakistan was systematically expelling the Hindus. The Indian government privately believed, as this aide noted, that Pakistan, by “driving out Hindus in their millions,” hoped to reduce the number of Bengalis so they were no longer the majority in Pakistan, and to destroy the Awami League as a political force by getting rid of “the ‘wily Hindu’ who was supposed to have misled simple Bengali Muslims into demanding autonomy.”9

But the Indian government assiduously hid this stark fact from Indians. “In India we have tried to cover that up,” Swaran Singh candidly told a meeting of Indian diplomats in London, “but we have no hesitation in stating the figure to foreigners.” (Sydney Schanberg and John Kenneth Galbraith, the Kennedy administration’s ambassador to India, separately highlighted the fact in the New York Times.) Singh instructed his staff to distort for their country: “We should avoid making this into an Indo-Pakistan or Hindu[-]Muslim conict. We should point out that there are Buddhists and Christians besides the Muslims among the refugees, who had felt the brunt of repression.” In a major speech, Gandhi misleadingly described refugees of “every religious persuasion—Hindu, Muslim, Buddhist and Christian.”10

The Indian government feared that the plain truth would splinter its own country between Hindus and Muslims. India had almost seventy million Muslim citizens, and as Singh told his diplomats, the government’s worst fear was vengeful sectarian confrontations. By not mentioning the Bengali Hindus, India also avoided hinting to Pakistan that it might be willing to accept them permanently. And Indian officials did not want to provide further ammunition to the irate Hindu nationalists in the Jana Sangh party. From Moscow, D. P. Dhar, India’s ambassador there, decried the Pakistan army’s “preplanned policy of selecting Hindus for butchery,” but, fearing inammatory politicking from “rightist reactionary Hindu chauvinist parties like Jana Sangh,” he wrote, “We were doing our best not to allow this aspect of the matter to be publicised in India.”
— Gary J. Bass (2013): The Blood Telegram: Nixon, Kissinger, and a Forgotten Genocide, p. 165-66

If you don't agree with my interpretation, you can refer to this review of the book: Not Bengalis,Hindus were Pakistani targets in 1971 Bangladesh War,claims new book A.Musketeer (talk) 23:45, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

A.Musketeer in all honesty, please don't change my country's history and heritage into your interpretations of it. Arfaz (chat) | 23:53, 9 December 2023 (UTC) Note: WP:SOCKSTRIKE

Hi @A.Musketeer

Why you have changed this https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rape_during_the_Bangladesh_Liberation_War&oldid=1060323370 to Rape during the Bangladesh Liberation War?

Also added the template Template:Persecution of Bengali Hindus in all of our History about 1971?

Why? You need to provide this accurate reason do us, and committing falsifying of our History is huge disrespectful towards us. Please provide explained reasons. 64.229.49.146 (talk) 00:05, 10 December 2023 (UTC) Note: WP:SOCKSTRIKE

A.Musketeer has been trying to do this all over our Wikipedia history.

Arfaz (chat) | 00:10, 10 December 2023 (UTC) Note: WP:SOCKSTRIKE

Can we, report this person and his team to admin? Cause this kinds of actions is disgusting. And all those seemed to started since 2014, during Modi's elections (?? Not sure). 64.229.49.146 (talk) 00:20, 10 December 2023 (UTC) Note: WP:SOCKSTRIKE

Wiki.arfazhxss You are quite clearly editing without consensus, even both Malerisch and A.Musketeer are against these mass removals of sourced contents by you. I would suggest you to maintain status quo and reach a consensus before attempting to remove these contents. You haven't even given any proper reason for these removals. Nomian (talk) 07:37, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Nomian: If you have read the conversations thoroughly, you would have seen Malerisch stating the following:

By the way, Nomian, this article consistently specified Bengalis, not Bengali Hindus, as the victims of the genocide for years until June 2023—when A.Musketeer started editing this article. The long-term consensus supports reverting back to Bengalis. Malerisch

Nomian is reverting any changes made to the article and saying that this is the "status quo" Arfaz (chat) | 07:49, 10 December 2023 (UTC) Note: WP:SOCKSTRIKE

Wiki.arfazhxss This is what Malerisch said, "I'm not arguing for scrubbing this article of any mention of the targeting of Hindus, which is clearly very relevant to the genocide—just that the genocide's victims weren't solely Bengali Hindus." Everybody is against removing the contents that mention the targeting of Hindus which you are repeatedly removing without any consensus. Nomian (talk) 08:01, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

...and I too agree with this. This is not a consensus. Please reply to this thread from now on.

Consensus as of now:

For:

1 Arfaz yes

2 Lionel Messi Lover yes

3 MrMkG yes

4 Malerisch yes

5 64.229.49.146 yes

Against:

1 @Nomian

2 @A.Musketeer Arfaz (chat) | 09:16, 10 December 2023 (UTC) Note: WP:SOCKSTRIKE

A.Musketeer, no scholarly source that I've found says that the killing of non-Hindu victims was done without genocidal intent—neither the ICJ report nor Bass supports that conclusion. As I mentioned above, the ICJ report says that [t]here would seem to be a prima facie case to show that [the indiscriminate killings of Bengalis] was the intention on some occasions, which would constitute genocide, and Bass states that [e]ven Muslim Bengalis were seen as Hinduised and therefore unfit for Muslim Pakistan. On the contrary, I've supplied multiple sources above that define the genocide's victims as Bengalis.

The conclusion to the full ICJ report states the following:

These violations [of human rights] involved the indiscriminate killing of civilians, including women and children; the attempt to exterminate or drive out of the country a large part of the Hindu population of approximately 10 million people; the arrest, torture and killing without trial of suspects; the raping of women; the destruction of villages and towns; and the looting of property. The scale of these crimes was massive, but it is impossible to quantify them.
— ICJ, The Events in East Pakistan, 1971 (1972)

The International Association of Genocide Scholars quoted this paragraph from the ICJ report in its resolution declaring these crimes against the "Bengali population" (not just Bengali Hindus) to be genocide. This is a very well-recognized group—the Wikipedia articles for Armenian genocide recognition and Sayfo (a featured article) prominently mention their resolutions. I'd put much more weight on their evaluation of the ICJ report than your own personal interpretation.

As the title of Bass's book, The Blood Telegram: Nixon, Kissinger, and a Forgotten Genocide (2013), might suggest, the book's reputation comes from the fact that it provides the first extended account the role of Richard Nixon and Henry Kissinger in this genocide, not because it mentioned that Hindus were a primary target. The many awards that recognized this book, like the Pulitzer Prize for General Nonfiction [5], the Cundill Prize [6], and the Lionel Gelber Prize [7], consistently mention Nixon and Kissinger; none of the awards mention anything about Bengali Hindus. It was also hardly a secret before this book's publication that Hindus were targeted; for example, Ben Kiernan mentions Hindus in Blood and Soil (2007), and Sydney Schanberg's report about the targeting of Hindus (cited by Bass) was published in The New York Times in 1971 (you can even read it online: [8]).

Nothing in the Indian Express review actually justifies its title, so I can only assume that it's a misinterpretation of the book. Other reviews, like this one in the NYT, don't mention that Hindus were the only target.

I don't see how a previous cover-up by India is particularly relevant, considering that no one here is advocating for deleting all mentions of the targeting of Bengali Hindus. Instead, what might be more pertinent are inaccurate claims of genocide against Hindus:

Modi wants India to become a Hindu nation, in which India's religious minorities (about 20% of the population) are second-class citizens and Muslims especially (about 14% of Indians) are compelled to accept increasing majoritarian violence. … A key piece of the BJP's agenda involves twisting history to demonize Muslims … Sometimes Hindu nationalists falsely accuse the Mughals of committing a genocide.
— Audrey Truschke, How India's Hindu Nationalists Are Weaponizing History Against Muslims, Time (2023)

[I]t has become increasingly common … to resort to the term 'genocide' in order to claim that a very large number of people were systematically killed in the process of the Islamic conquest of [India] … a great deal of emphasis has rightly been placed in the last decades on the phenomenon of genocide denial … [b]ut it is also of some significance to note the symmetrical phenomenon of 'genocide invention,' which is equally a radical falsification of the historical record. Such inventions serve the function of 'red herrings,' drawing attention away in societies such as India (but also elsewhere) from the real acts of collective political violence that can be observed.
— Sanjay Subrahmanyam, Inventing a 'Genocide': The Political Abuses of a Powerful Concept in Contemporary India, The Journal of Holocaust Research (2023)

While [Modi's] supporters credit him with making India a presence on the global stage, his critics accuse him of fanning the flames of Hindu nationalism in India and abroad. At its most extreme, the nationalist movement seeks to create a Hindu India, perpetuating the narrative that Hindus are oppressed in the country, and abetting violence and discrimination against Muslims and other minority groups, experts told NBC News.

…

While their parents and grandparents might be susceptible to the WhatsApp forwards and overt-nationalist messaging, misinformation is packaged differently for millennials and Gen Zers who grew up in the U.S., Iswara said.

Instagram posts with clever wording and graphic design bring the same messages to a new generation. Images and text plastered on colorful backgrounds say things like Hindus are the "native people of Kashmir" or call the 1971 massacre of Bangladeshis by Pakistan an exclusively "Hindu genocide," which is untrue.
— Sakshi Venkatraman, What's fueling the rise in Hindu nationalism in the U.S., NBC News (2023)

Malerisch (talk) 12:44, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Hi Malerisch, thank you for your comment. I have reverted the changes made after May 2023. Can you make changes with correct information, wording, and citations? Arfaz (chat) | 13:17, 10 December 2023 (UTC) Note: WP:SOCKSTRIKE

Malerisch I apologize for failing to properly state my point but I think you are still misunderstanding my argument. The reason why I mentioned about the details on the cover up is because, as I stated earlier, this notion of avoiding Hindu targeting of the genocide was later picked up by several scholars. And the detailing of this cover up in Bass's book also further reinforces the position that Hindus were the primary target. He also mentioned the refugee figures to support this argument; 80-90% of the refugees were Hindus. I don't think we are in much disagreement here. You have said that you are not against removing the mentions about Hindu targeting from the article, neither me. Do correct me if I'm wrong, thanks. A.Musketeer (talk) 19:21, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

A.Musketeer, just because Hindus were a primary target does not mean that they were the only target. That there was a previous cover-up does not change this fact. Your statement that this notion of avoiding Hindu targeting of the genocide was later picked up by several scholars is uncited (The Blood Telegram describes a cover-up by the Indian government, not scholars, and the 1972 ICJ report mentions Hindus, as you pointed out), and even if true, is not relevant. Gerlach states that while most refugees to India were Hindus, most internally displaced persons were Muslims:

Mass migration as a survival strategy was enormous; ten million civilians fled to India, mostly Hindus, and 16 or 17 million were internally displaced, mostly Muslims.
— Christian Gerlach, Chapter 6: East Pakistan/Bangladesh 1971–1972: How Many Victims, Who, and Why?, The Civilianization of War, (2018)

Malerisch (talk) 22:00, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Nomian, I see that you've reverted the article back to Bengali Hindus. Do you still disagree that Bengalis were the target of the genocide? Malerisch (talk) 15:50, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

With all the discussion, it is quite clear that in this genocide pakistani army targeted Bengali (both Muslims and Hindus). Their primary target was hindus, students, Awami league supporters & intellectuals. I don`t understand why @Nomian & @A.Musketeer are changing it back to only "hindus".

is changing it continuously against valid seaes.

In my opinion it can be written as "The Bangladesh genocide (Bengali: একাত্তরের গণহত্যা, romanized: Ekāttorer Gôṇôhôtyā, lit. '71's genocide', Bengali: বাঙালি গণহত্যা, romanized: Bāṅāli Gôṇôhôtyā, lit. 'Bengali genocide') was the killing of Bengali people which was done by Pakistani Army and Rajakar & Al badar. Their primary target was Bengali hindus, students, Awami League supporters and intellects." Two Smoking Barrel (talk) 16:15, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

And among them, " only Hindus would seem to fall within the definition of ' a national, ethnical, racial or religious group '." as per the ICJ report. They further states, "there is a strong prima facie case that the crime of genocide was committed against the group comprising the Hindu population of East Bengal." The evidence of genocidal intent is clear only in the killings of Hindus. [9] A.Musketeer (talk) 23:43, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Is not Bengali an nation/ethnical group? All the targets are Bengali, they targeted Bengalis. Pakistani army targeted & killed intentionally Bengali people including Hindus, Muslims Are you arguing that bengali hindus are not Bengali? When you only say Bengali hindus, you exclude others. I think what are you trying to do is create divide, and downplay the effect of the genocide on general population. Two Smoking Barrel (talk) 06:51, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

From above conversation & sources you can clearly see from ICJ & Bass report the killing intention was toward Bengalis both Muslims & Hindus not only Bengali Hindus. Two Smoking Barrel (talk) 06:58, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Meat-puppetry notice

User:Wiki.arfazhxss has been recruiting editors on Reddit to edit this and other related articles as well as influence discussions and consensus building on the talk pages. Reddit link: [10]. In case, the page is deleted, here is an arhcive: [11]. LucrativeOffer (talk) 07:45, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

EDIT: There has been a series of Reddit threads posted by u/nerdiste (A.K.A User:Wiki.arfazhxss) to swing the consensus in favor of changing "Bengali Hindu" to "Bengali" in the lead. Links: [12], [13], [14]. LucrativeOffer (talk) 04:18, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

:Excuse me, are you aware, what country this article is about? It is Bangladesh. So, Bangladeshi Editors have right to make an editor teams to work together and improve articles.

However, it is disappointing that, Non Bangladeshi editors are trying to keep control of our country history on this article, with their own, narration, citations, infos. And We Bangladeshis were happy with what was written on this article before 2014, as far I can see.

However, when Bangladeshi editors such us, he the person who posted that reddit post, noticed some bias issues, he asked us to verify information there, and you will see, a lot of people were agreeing that, there's some bias issue.

And I as Minority, Hindu person, and proud of my country history and amazing freedom fighters, I felt disappointed with this, and decided to discuss my voice here. Of course, I know, and my family members, and know people did experienced some form of verbal harassment and decretory remarks about my religion from a specific extremist group of people.

However, I still not happy with what happened with this article, as it is painting whole event as "Just Anti Hindu, No Muslims, No Academics, No Students, No Protesters were attacked." Which is not accurate, as many of them were attacked, gave live, and fought with us, for protecting our Mother Language, "Bengali Language". Pakistani then government was oppressing and attacking us for 3 main reasons, 1st was "Banning Bengali Language", and 2nd is was, Killing Non muslims. Here in 2nd point, as there were large number of Hindus than Christians, Buddhists, Tribes. Who were attacked too. And this article painting it as "Anti Hindu" makes it wrong and inaccurate.

Also, needed to let you know, I am not that person's 2nd anonymous IP Address account. I dont have Wiki account, because, I usually dont work in Wiki articles. And this case about this article made me disappointed, which is why I decided to voice myself for temporary. And I urge you to verify that, I am not sock of any person.

I hope you understand, and take necessary steps, to protect this article get accurate information up.Thanks. 64.229.49.146 (talk) 17:38, 11 December 2023 (UTC) Block evasion. A.Musketeer (talk) 16:13, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

I’m also a Bengali Hindu. I was confused what’s been going on with this page because I realized now they removed how the main targets were Hindus on the top of the page. 2601:406:4101:3B0:5CFB:ACA6:9EEA:4E1E (talk) 10:02, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Name of the article

Shouldn't the name of the article be renamed as East Pakistan genocide since Bangladesh came into being as an independent country on 16 December 1971 whereas the genocide was committed throughout the year of 1971 from March to December of 1971 when the whole region internationally was called East Pakistan. 39.49.32.84 (talk) 09:59, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

It's true that the region was called East Pakistan at the time (although Bangladesh declared independence in March of 1971), but Wikipedia article titles use commonly recognizable names. "East Pakistan genocide" is not an especially common term compared to "Bangladesh genocide" according to Google Ngrams: [15]. (Technically, the region was unofficially called "Bangladesh" by some even before 1971.) Malerisch (talk) 10:14, 12 February 2024 (UTC)