Talk:Rape during the Bangladesh Liberation War

Editions to article

1. Yasmin Saikia is a researcher who has researched and written a book about the xperiences of both Bihari and Bengali women in this war, and rape is a strong topic in her book. I will be adding information from her book. I want @MBlaze Lightning to be informed, so that we may not have a dispute over the new added content.

The reference for her book is: Saikia, Yasmin (2011) Women, War, and the Making of Bangladesh: Remembering 1971, Durham: Duke University Press. 311 pages, ISBN: 9780822350385

A description of her book can also be found here: https://www.dukeupress.edu/women-war-and-the-making-of-bangladesh

Description Fought between India and what was then East and West Pakistan, the war of 1971 led to the creation of Bangladesh, where it is remembered as the War of Liberation. For India, the war represents a triumphant settling of scores with Pakistan. If the war is acknowledged in Pakistan, it is cast as an act of betrayal by the Bengalis. None of these nationalist histories convey the human cost of the war. Pakistani and Indian soldiers and Bengali militiamen raped and tortured women on a mass scale. In Women, War, and the Making of Bangladesh, survivors tell their stories, revealing the power of speaking that deemed unspeakable. They talk of victimization—of rape, loss of status and citizenship, and the “war babies” born after 1971. The women also speak as agents of change, as social workers, caregivers, and wartime fighters. In the conclusion, men who terrorized women during the war recollect their wartime brutality and their postwar efforts to achieve a sense of humanity. Women, War, and the Making of Bangladesh sheds new light on the relationship among nation, history, and gender in postcolonial South Asia.

About The Author(s) Yasmin Saikia is the Hardt-Nickachos Chair in Peace Studies and Professor of History at Arizona State University. She is the author of Fragmented Memories: Struggling to Be Tai-Ahom in India, also published by Duke University Press.

2. There isn't much information in this article about the rape of Bihari women. I will be adding this information. There is a lot on the topic of the rape of women by Pakistan Army and Bengali/Bihari razakar millitias. The Bihari suffering during the conflict also needs to be included. Remember, this was a human tragedy. Wikipedia should not be anyone's nationalist platform, rather it should give all details objectively. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TalhaZubairButt (talk • contribs) 03:44, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Before inserting the additional information, I had made the above post on Talk page. MBlaze Lightning has instead of replying to this, has undone my edit and asked for me to discuss on the Talk page,when this post is already here.TalhaZubairButt (talk) 09:26, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

I just noticed the WP:Primary allegation. Okay so what I have written is not my original research. I have taken info from a reliable academic book and added it into this article (in the inrto).

In the section on Biharis all info is from neutral sources, page numbers are given as reference..

Also Niazi's statements are from a Bangladeshi source.

There is no newspaper cropping. No image was posted. As for Anthony's quote, his criticism of Pak millitary action was also mentioned before his quote of anti-Bihari violence was mentioned.TalhaZubairButt (talk) 09:35, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

@SheriffIsInTown

I ask you to go through the sources and see if you think I am wrong for adding these additions. I feel like @MBlaze Lightning wants to have his own way on Wikipedia. TalhaZubairButt (talk) 09:48, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm going to remove the latest additions to this page. You are correct that Saikia states that all parties (Pakistan, India, Mukti Bahini, Razakars) were culpable but there are several issues that need to be sorted out before material based on her work can be added to the article. We need to work out what significance we should give to the work of one scholar (have other scholars supported her work, for example? Is the work peer reviewed?) and we need to work out the degree to which culpability is assigned. If, for example, rapes were largely carried out by Pakistani soldiers as the current version of the article suggests then we do need to separate that out from the article. The entire section that talks based on General Niazi's comments should be discussed separately. It seems undue to me and appears to be an attempt to explain away the rapes. I suggest, instead, assuming that the source is reliable, adding a single sentence in the paragraph that says that not all Pakistani sources supported the violence. --regentspark (comment) 12:47, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Not that I disagree with you, but a simple question; was the criterion that you have laid down for Saika now was also followed for all other sources from which this article had been build up to its current version?—TripWire ^ʞlɐʇ 18:41, 16 March 2016 (UTC)