Talk:Bangladesh Liberation War/Archive 2

Archives

• Talk:Bangladesh Liberation War/Archive 1 (05:35, 24 January 2005 — 22:24, 17 January 2006)

Genocide versus violence issue

I think it's non-biased to use the word genocide. Violence is too general and can have multiple interpretations. I am reproducing an excerpt that shows that the violence was indeed a planned genocide.

London, 6/13/71). The Sunday Times....."The Government's policy for East Bengal was spelled out to me in the Eastern Command headquarters at Dacca. It has three elements:
*The Bengalis have proved themselves unreliable and must be ruled by West Pakistanis;
*The Bengalis will have to be re-educated along proper Islamic lines. The - Islamization of the masses - this is the official jargon - is intended to eliminate secessionist tendencies and provide a strong religious bond with West Pakistan;
*When the Hindus have been eliminated by death and fight, their property will be used as a golden carrot to win over the under privileged Muslim middle-class. This will provide the base for erecting administrative and political structures in the future."

PS: Thanks for the ise to ize. I am a little obsessed with British (aka standard) English! :) Urnonav

This is a difficult issue, and similar to ones that have arisen on other articles. Most people agree genocide was in progress in 1971, but there is nothing that clearly removes all doubt such as a war crimes prosecution. Important, if self interested, players such as Pakistan and the United States strongly disagree with the genocide label. In general the best solution in these cases is to use more general language, but to give a detailed accounting of the facts so that the reader can decide themselves if the more specific label of genocide is applicable. This is also important as there is also dispute over the very meaning of the word genocide and different readers will have their own opinions of what is genocide. - SimonP 06:15, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)

Sounds sensible. I'll try to get some numbers and pictures. Sensible readers should be able to infer from a number like 3 million in 9 months (which is actually worse than the Jewish Holocaust of WWII!!!) Urnonav

Doesn't the plan for Islamization of the Bengalis prove that the Pak Army didn't want to exterminate the entire Bengali populace? Of course, there was ingrained hostility toward Hindus (AFAIK it had been this way since Indian independence and partition post-1948) and the 3 million number in 9 months does look genocidal just in terms of scale. But it seems more of a "cultural genocide" than anything, what with the Islamization plan and all, rather than a plan to exterminate the Bengalis. It is my understanding that the mass killings and torture were in the cities (including capital Dhaka) where pro-independence sentiment was strong. Anyone who is read-up on the subject, I'd appreciate your input because I only have basic knowledge of what went on.

Of course I might be using a rather strict definition of genocide here, I know that the UN often terms something "genocidal" just in terms of abnormally high numbers from massacres and the like, but I personally think the term is not correctly applied at times, such as in early '80s Guatemala and 1975-79 Democratic Kampuchea. J. Parker Stone 04:07, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

I think the issue was more of cultural, rather than Islamization. East Pakistan's 70 million Bengalis were 85% muslim already. True, the Pakistani Army was quite hostile to Hindu Bengalis, and also didn't consider Muslim Bengalis "muslim"-enough. I agree that they didn't want to exterminate "all" Bengalis (with 70 million people!!! even the biggest genocides didn't have that much in target). Also, the cultural factor seems to be the biggest issue in the genocide here. The rate of killings (1 to 3 million in 9 months) is definitely quite high.

I just want to clarify here that the killings were not only limited to Dhaka or other major cities, it was extended to almost all of the country (mass graves were unearthed in many places). The Bangladesh Government published a set of documents related to the independence war, but these are not probably online. I do have some book references, even some from Pakistan Army officers (Major Siddique Saliq, PR officer of Pakistan Army in Dhaka). I'll look up the appropriate references on the killings outside Dhaka. Anyway, Thanks for your comment. --Ragib 04:30, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Well didn't "genocide" only come into common usage post-WWII, and that was when Hitler had, in fact, tried to exterminate the entire Jewish populace in Germany and occupied Europe. But in subsequent conflicts such a strict definition hasn't been attached to the term, so I'm unsure where it should be applied.

BTW thanks for referencing the number of people within Bangladesh, I knew it was densely populated like the rest of the subcontinent but I didn't know specific numbers. Another question I have about the conflict, is how much of it was fighting, and how much of it was wanton brutality against Bengali civilians from the Pak Army. J. Parker Stone 04:43, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Well, I can't quote figures off hand, but the Mukti Bahini guerrillas numbered around 100,000 , so the majority of the dead must be the civilians. This website has some graphic images from the time, some of the killings in Dhaka and around the country. I wish I had the copyright info on the images ... Anyway, there are a lot of refernces there as well. Thanks. --Ragib 04:55, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Like Ragib said, many of the brutalities included civilians. The Hamoodur Rahman commision report compiled after the war by the Pakistanis revealed several brutalities like rape, torture, killings even by the officers of the Pakistan Army. However the "several" fails to give us an exact detail or the official number. It is assumed that the term genocide was used liberally to include the refugees who left the nation during the crisis as I believe the figures of 1 million is more or less to be accurate.

I want to add more to discuss 'genocide' here. Is what happened an incident of genocide. The George Washington University National Security Archives has some interesting declassified documents in this regard.Amibidhrohi 17:32, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I think that the mention of genocide in this article needs to be reviewed. At the moment it uses weasel words to put across the idea with sentences like: " In Bangladesh, and elsewhere, the Pakistani actions are referred to as genocide." and "On the other hand, though the figure of 3 million is without clear proof, many believe that the real number is still exceedingly high (more than 1 million) and the killing can clearly be termed a genocide. "

As the article "weasel word" makes clear: Who are the people who say ..., who are the people who knew the truth and who ought to have spoken up, and when are the times when it is difficult to do something about something? What has been decided by whom? The sentences should be rewritten to answer the questions in the "weasel word" article.

a sentence in the article states that "Among them, the infamous Blood telegram from the US embassy in Dacca, East Pakistan, stated the horrors of genocide taking place in East Pakistan" The reference describe the unlawful killing of many political and other opponents of the Government but the source does not claim that the actions are a genocide.

If no one has been found guilty of the crime of genocide from atrocities carried out during this war then the word must be qualified with Wikipedia: reliable sources which claim that it was a genocide (and preferably others which refute this). For example reference (PDF) The Tilt: The U.S. and the South Asian Crisis of 1971 National Security Archive Electronic Briefing Book No. 79 Edited by Sajit Gandhi, December 16, 2002; includes a link to what he refers to as (Document 8) A U.S. Consulate (Dacca) Cable, Dissent from U.S. Policy Toward East Pakistan, April 6, 1971, Confidential, 5 pp. Includes Signatures from dissidents who hold a minority view in the Department of State and includes the phrase "unfortunately, the overworked term genocide is applicable." --Philip Baird Shearer 22:18, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Care to explain why you didn't find the sentence "many are inclined to believe that the real number was still a far cry from the 3 million put forward by Bangladesh and other sources" as weasel words as well? --ppm 21:10, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

I added the reference to R. J. Rummel's well-referenced book. The figure of deaths is mentioned at 1.5 million, with detailed breakdown of deaths in different areas. What exactly do you miss here? Thanks. --Ragib 18:42, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you it could be better phrased BUT a source confirming the words is given in the paragraph: http://www.dawn.com/2005/07/07/nat3.htm --Philip Baird Shearer 18:49, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I believe Rummel's book "Statistics of Democide: Genocide and Mass Murder Since 1900", ISBN 3825840107, Chapter 8, table 8.1 provides a VERY detailed account of the work, and definitely it can be considered as a Scholarly analysis of the numbers. --Ragib 19:06, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

The International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia found in "Prosecutor v. Radislav Krstic - Trial Chamber I - Judgment - IT-98-33 (2001) ICTY8 (2 August 2001) found that Genocide had been committed. In Prosecutor v. Radislav Krstic - Appeals Chamber - Judgment - IT-98-33 (2004) ICTY 7 (19 April 2004):

• 8 It is well established that where a conviction for genocide relies on the intent to destroy a protected group "in part," the part must be a substantial part of that group. The aim of the Genocide Convention is to prevent the intentional destruction of entire human groups, and the part targeted must be significant enough to have an impact on the group as a whole. ...

1.5 million, or even 1 million is a significant number from ANY perspective. --Ragib 19:06, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

See below --Philip Baird Shearer 20:17, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

• 10 This interpretation is supported by scholarly opinion. The early commentators on the Genocide Convention emphasized that the term "in part" contains a substantiality requirement. Raphael Lemkin, a prominent international criminal lawyer who coined the term "genocide" and was instrumental in the drafting of the Genocide Convention, addressed the issue during the 1950 debate in the United States Senate on the ratification of the Convention. Lemkin explained that "the destruction in part must be of a substantial nature so as to affect the entirety."[16] He further suggested that the Senate clarify, in a statement of understanding to accompany the ratification, that "the Convention applies only to actions undertaken on a mass scale."[17] Another noted early commentator, Nehemiah Robinson, echoed this view, explaining that a perpetrator of genocide must possess the intent to destroy a substantial number of individuals constituting the targeted group.[18] In discussing this requirement, Robinson stressed, as did Lemkin, that "the act must be directed toward the destruction of a group," this formulation being the aim of the Convention.

See Operation Searchlight. Major Siddique Salik, who was the Public Relations officer of Pakistan Army in Dhaka, wrote a book "Witness to Surrender" which has details on the operation and the planned killings. --Ragib 19:06, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Not all planned killings plans to commit genocide. Although intent to commit genocide, and usually genocide, involves planned killings. --Philip Baird Shearer 20:17, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

• 11 Recent commentators have adhered to this view. The International Law Commission, charged by the UN General Assembly with the drafting of a comprehensive code of crimes prohibited by international law, stated that "the crime of genocide by its very nature requires the intention to destroy at least a substantial part of a particular group."[20] The same interpretation was adopted earlier by the 1985 report of Benjamin Whitaker, the Special Rapporteur to the United Nations Sub-Commission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities.[21]

Again, I ask, 1.5 million, or even 1 million is a substantial number in its own right, and it is supported by various references. --Ragib 19:06, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

See below --Philip Baird Shearer 20:17, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

• 12 The intent requirement of genocide under Article 4 of the Statute is therefore satisfied where evidence shows that the alleged perpetrator intended to destroy at least a substantial part of the protected group. The determination of when the targeted part is substantial enough to meet this requirement may involve a number of considerations. The numeric size of the targeted part of the group is the necessary and important starting point, though not in all cases the ending point of the inquiry. The number of individuals targeted should be evaluated not only in absolute terms, but also in relation to the overall size of the entire group. ...

As I mentioned above, 1 million out of 70 million of the population, IS a substantial number. --Ragib 19:06, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

See below --Philip Baird Shearer 20:17, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

The UN charter on genocide specifies that genocide covers "national, ethnic, racial or religious group". Given the population of Bangladesh at the time of the War would the most inflated number of dead meet the "substantial part of a particular group"? Is there any evidence that an alleged perpetrator of the alledged genocide intended to destroy at least a substantial part of a protected group? --Philip Baird Shearer 18:49, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

National/ethnic->Bengalis. Religious groups->both minorities and muslims. As for "substantial numbers", 1.5 million people IS a substantial number. Thanks. --Ragib 19:06, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Killing 1.5 million is mass murder and most probably a crime against humanity, but killing 1.5 million out of a total population of 70 million which is 2% of an available target population is not genocide, unless it can be shown that the intent was "directed toward the destruction of a group" (see above) in this case the population of Bangladesh. How do I know it is not a genocide because the Appeals Chamber above says so. To explain how the Srebrenica massacre was a genocide, it said that one had to look at the total available population available to the perpetrators of the genocide. That it was only a genocide because not all of the 1.5 million Bosnian Muslims were accessible to the Bosnian Serb Army "From the perspective of the Bosnian Serb forces alleged to have had genocidal intent in this case, the Muslims of Srebrenica were the only part of the Bosnian Muslim group within their area of control.". Because of the nature of the society killing the men had an impact on 40,0000 Bosnians which as it happens makes up about 2% of the total Bosnian Muslim population. Therefore 2% is not under international law a "substantial part of the targeted group". It is in the words of the Appeal Chamber "Although this population constituted only a small percentage of the overall Muslim population of Bosnia and Herzegovina at the time, ..." --Philip Baird Shearer 20:17, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

---

This discussion is unnecessary. The point is that *many* scholars in and beyond Bangladesh believe that genocide has been committed in Bangladesh, and wikipedia has a responsbility to report that. The article can do with more citations, but the claim is NOT that genocide has been committed, but that there is widespread conviction that it has been committed. It is funny that one needs to look up definitions and such to report that. --ppm 19:41, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

"Still less familiar to most will be the 1971 genocide in Bangladesh, notable for the systematic use of mass rape as an instrument of war and the deliberate targeting of educational and cultural elites for destruction. " From a review of: Century of Genocide: Eyewitness Accounts and Critical Views Samuel Totten, William S. Parsons + Israel W. Charny (editors) Garland 1997

Atrocities against humanity during the liberation war in Bangladesh: a case of genocide Wardatul Akmam

Journal of Genocide Research
 	Publisher:  	Routledge, part of the Taylor & Francis Group
 	Issue:  	Volume 4, Number 4 / December 01, 2002
 	Pages:  	543 - 559
 	URL:  	Linking Options
 	DOI:  	10.1080/146235022000000463

Just for example. Again, our job in wikipedia is not to *prove* genocide or otherwise, but to report that it is a widespread belief among many scholars that genocide has occurred. Let's not be the judge, but the reporters. This is independent of the citation situation, that must be improved. But again, we don't need to check any definitions of genocide (clearly widely debalted), to report a widespread claim.--ppm 20:00, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

This discussion is necessary. If the word genocide is to be used in the text then the names of the most prominant groups and scolars should be mentioned in the same sentence. eg sentences like this:

On the other hand, though the figure of 3 million is without clear proof, many believe that the real number is still exceedingly high (more than 1 million, or 2% of the population) and the killing can clearly be termed a genocide [no citation given].

Needs changing to

On the other hand, though the figure of 3 million is without clear proof, Professor foo-bar has stated that that the real number is still exceedingly high (more than 1 million, or 2% of the population) and the killing represents a genocide [citation given].

--Philip Baird Shearer 20:17, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

If *that* is your contention, then I can't agree more. If you are saying that we lack citations, lets find them. However, we should figure out what do u do if have 5000 professors making a claim (on either side)? This is not an issue where 5 academics have ever written things, again, on either sides. We might put in 10 citations, but by no means that means that 10 people have claimed that there was genocide, or otherwise. Though we should add many more citations, giving the impression that only 10 source claim the occurrence of a genocide (or not) is simply *wrong*. I don't know if you are aware of the sheer volume of work on this subject, not readily quotable as they are often in non-english languages.

Also, you still failed to clarify what a centain definition of genocide has to do with all this, which was my main point (I accepted the lack of citations).--ppm 22:16, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Certain genocides are genocides by a process of international law and as such are not open to differing POVs. For example one can say that an international tribunal has found that the Srebrenica massacre was a genocide. No such statement can be made about this alleged genocide. The best one can do is state that so & so thinks it was a genocide and why they think it was a genocide. There is no need to stack up references, one only needs the most suitable ones. For a start any neutral organisation is preferable to a party to the conflict. Something like the Genocide#Netherlands court case for Frans van Anraat for supplying chemicals to Iraq, is preferable to an academic paper peer-reviewed paper, which in turn is preferable to an NGO web-site, because NGOs often have their own POV to push.

Also IMHO any opinion that does not take into account the recent judgements by the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia and the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda on genocide, is of less use than those which do take account of these judgements, because the judgements help to clarify what under international law is a genocide. For example the clarification of what is a "substantial part" of a population. --Philip Baird Shearer 23:17, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

As for none English sources: The most respected international peer-reviewed journals on political science are in English. As this is an English Encyclopaedia if the subject is important enough to have peer-review in journals than there should be plenty of English sources. --Philip Baird Shearer 23:24, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Let's say an international tribunal finds that genocide occurred in Bangladesh. Do we say on wikipedia that "Genocide happenned in Bangladesh"? NO. That is *still* POV. We must report *who* is is making that claim, and it is up to the reader to believe it or not. The FACT that the current version of the entry is trying to report (perhaphs less than perfectly) is that there is widespread belief that genocide has taken place. Nothing more or less. I don't see why we must endorse the view that something decided by an international tribunal is of more value. I don't know how many examples I need to give. Zahir Raihan made a documentary called "Stop Genocide" in 1971. Does that prove genocide? Is it as reliable as an international tribunal set up in 3000AD? these are up to the reader!

"Also IMHO any opinion that does not take into account ... is of less use" ... interesting. So any opinion about events far in past formed before such reports are garbage. --ppm 18:55, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I am not a expert of genocide definitions, and frankly don't know why this is an issue, but what about this: BBC. Indictment for genocide committed for killing 7 thousand men.--ppm 19:11, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I am curious, has the definition on this page been overridden since 1948 Defn?--ppm 19:24, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

The reference I put higher up this page (prosecutor v. Radislav Krstic - Appeals Chamber) is the appeal judgement of case the BBC is referring to it explains in detail why killing just 8,000 men could be a genocide. It has to do (amoung other things) with access of the perpetrator to the victim population (think of it as fox in a hen house. If there are 10 houses and the fox only has access to one, if the fox kills all the hens in the first house, then it can be credibly argued that the fox had "intent to destroy" all the hens if it could have gained access to them).

It is not that the definition has been overridden since 1948 but the recent genocide tribunals, the first since the coming into force of the CPPCG, have had to interpret the meaning of the treaty in a court of law. This mean for example defining what "intent to destroy" and "in part" mean for a court trying someone for genocide. With each case, whether the defendant is found guilty or innocent, the legal meaning of the term becomes refined and clearer.

I would agree with your first statement, the format should be it that the XYZ international tribunal found Mr Mass-murderer guilty of genocide in Bangladesh. However you summation of my opinion shows that you misunderstood what I wrote. I am sorry that I did not make myself clear. To reiterate: opinions that do not take into account the recent UN sanctioned tribunals' judgements are of less use than those which do, because the judgements help to clarify what under international law is a genocide.

A person who says "I could murder a beer", does not usually mean that one can literaly murder a beer, it is a figure of speech. Often people use terms like "war crime" and "genocide" as figures of speech. Meaning they think which was done was morally reprehensible. This does not mean that they think the act was literaly and legaly the phrase they have used. As the topic is contriversial a mention on this page that "there is widespread belief that genocide has taken place" needs a source stating this, and it needs to be worded in such a way that it is clear who is stating this. The source needs to be "publish material that is verifiable with reference to reliable, published sources". --Philip Baird Shearer 20:36, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Basically, we are looking at a unreadably long section. so be it.--ppm 04:11, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

One thing seems clear. No number by itself proves or rules out the possibility of a genocide, as the BBC news clearly shows. So the claim of genocide should reflect that fact, namely, the Pakistani claim of 26000 killed has *no bearing whatsoever* on whether or not genocide was committed in Bangladesh. I'll get to these soon.--ppm 04:17, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

In my opinion the numbers do matter. As the Government had access to the whole population even if they killed 3,000,000, (and from a quote in the article that was the target number even if that many were not killed) that would not be a genocide because "in part" was not substantial. If the targets were selected for social-economic reasons then that is not genocide (Thank the Soviet Union for that one). Philip Baird Shearer

My point was that as both 3Mil and 26thou are "insubstantial" (I don't know, but I'll assume that's the case), proof of genocide depends on other factors and neither number strengthens or weakens such claims. I cannot believe you did not get my point.--ppm 19:15, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

What about a discussion of definitions of genocide incorporated in this text? There seems to be lot of scholarly argument about the definition, I just came across a paper in The American Political Science Review (written in English, it seems to me) arguing against the definition that we seemingly ought to belive without question. This would be nice as well.--ppm 04:34, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

No discussion of the definition of genocide is should be incorporated in this the text, that is what links are for. However that article could be useful in the genocide page, because at the moment the criticisms section in the genocide article is not sourced. --Philip Baird Shearer 09:36, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Philip, I don't know how familiar you are with the various mass killings that took place during the liberation war. That you contest the use of the word "genocide" in this context is reprehensible. Here is what constitutes genocide according to the UN:

1. United Nations Genocide Convention (in force 12 January 1951)

Article 2: In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

     (a) Killing members of the group;
     (b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
     (c) Deliberately infliciting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
     (d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
     (e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group. 

As for your "1.5 million isn't a significant number" statement, remember that the Pakistanis never voluntarily ceased the killing. The killing of Bengalis was only stopped by the millitary intervention of the Mukhti Bahini and the Indian military. There is ample evidence that shows the Pakistani massacres were aimed at the general populous with the intent to 'destroy' the 'in whole and in part'. You can see this when you note the targeting of the intellectuals and of university students (I take it you know of the cases where the Pakistanis locked in female students in their dormitories and then burned the whole building down with them inside?). As for the use of the term "genocide" by US diplomats in the region, see here: [1] . The word is used frequently in the documents collected by the National Security Archives, you'd have found quite a few incidences if you'd look with some sincerity. Amibidhrohi 20:10, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Did you read what I have written above? I thought I made it fairly plain that I am familiar with the text of the CPPCG. Please read what I wrote above, particularly "Killing 1.5 million is mass murder and most probably a crime against humanity ...".

The current text says According to the journalist Robert Payne on February 22, 1971 Yahya Khan told a group of generals, "Kill three million of them, and the rest will eat out of our hands". This would suggest that although brutal the intention was "only" to kill 3 million. 3 million out of the total available population would probably not fulfil the genocide requirement of the substantiality requirement of the phrase "in part" (see above for a more details).

See my comment above on the Soviet Union and the targeting of social economic groups. That some US diplomats used the term Genocide, is I think undisputed, and if you wish to include it in the text then providing it is properly sourced I have no objections to that, providing it is balanced with Nixon rejecting that assertion so that the text has a WP:NPOV.

Leaving aside the legal issue of whether it was clear cut case of genocide, there is also the question that Wikipedia text should have a WP:NPOV and controversial assertions need a source which must be "publish material that is verifiable with reference to reliable, published sources".

Changing a heading from Atrocities to Genocide is inaccurate, all Genocides are atrocities, but not all atrocities are genocides. The section covers more than the alleged genocide. Further as the term genocide is not near universally accepted for the behaviour of Pakistani forces, it is a non NPOV statement. --Philip Baird Shearer

I've read your comments, and they don't hold water. To know more about what constitutes genocide, check this out: [2]. In layman terms, what constitutes a genocide is the intent to destroy ALL OR PART of a people. Genocide has nothing to do with attempting to make a people of a group extinct, and therefore the fact that 3 out of 75 or so million people were actually killed is not a determinant of whether or not the term is applicable. The targeting of a population of a particular ethnicity or race or religion simply because that population is of that ethnicity or race or religion is enough to meet that requirement. Personally, I don't believe the UN definition should be adhered to anyway. The UN poorly funded organization when considering the magnitudes of the tasks it's burdened with; and as such the UN tends to adopt stringent definitions of such events simply to avoid having to do something about the event, and thus put more pressure on its challenged bodies..As such, the UN definition of genocide is not NPOV at all. Within Bangladesh, the term genocide is precisely the term used by all intellectuals. It's been used by NGOs as well as outside publications as well. Since we cannot agree on calling the atrocity 'genocide', my suggestion is a section titled "Genocide" that documents all the various publications and personalities that have used the term 'genocide' to describe this 'atrocity'. Amibidhrohi 05:40, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Please see the Appeals Chamber explanation of genocide rather than a pressure groups interprtation of what the tribunals say is genocide: Prosecutor v. Radislav Krstic - Appeals Chamber - Judgment - IT-98-33 (2004) ICTY 7 (19 April 2004). It explains how the tribunal interprets the words "in part" in the CPPCG.

You are of course entitled to your opinion about international law and whether the term genocide as interpreted by international tribunals is a non NPOV. But in the future if anyone is tried for genocide it will be using the definitions which have come out of the two international tribunals trying people for genocide not on what you (or anyone else) thinks is a better definition of genocide. The only serious debate on the issue is if the local courts can not try a genocide case, that they will be tried by an adhoc international tribunal (as the US wants) or by the ICC.

When placing claims in this article about an alleged genocide, because it is not at all clear that the actions of the Pakistani government met the legal definition of genocide, any claims should be worded shuch that it reflects a NPOV, and backed up with "publish material that is verifiable with reference to reliable, published sources". For example in the last couple of days I have expanded the Rummel entry to include a quote from him that it was a genocide. Ideally this should be balanced with another POV criticising his assertions. --Philip Baird Shearer 10:13, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

current sources for the genocide

The current text says: "Among them, the infamous Blood telegram from the US embassy in Dacca, East Pakistan, stated the horrors of genocide taking place in East Pakistan." -- but the source given: http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB79/BEBB1.pdf does not describe the actions as genocide instead it uses terms like "reign of terror", "systematically eliminating" "systematically attacking" and "murdering". Unless it is an incorrect link the wikipedia text should be changed to reflect the source. --Philip Baird Shearer 19:13, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Oh, now I see the problem with the sentence. I agree, that particular sentence is out of place. I've removed it. Thanks. --Ragib 19:19, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Wrong sentence :-( --Philip Baird Shearer 20:19, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Atrocities

The start of the section does not have a reference for most of the opening paragraph. It it is to remain in the article in its current format then it needs citations. In most cases the first half of the sentence, or frist of two short sentences, are probably undisputable, but the second half of the sentence, or second sentence, need sources: Eg "at a level that Bangladeshis maintain is one of the worst genocides in history".

To quote from the policy document WP:V "Information on Wikipedia must be reliable. Facts, viewpoints, theories, and arguments may only be included in articles if they have already been published by reliable and reputable sources. Articles should cite these sources whenever possible. Any unsourced material may be challenged and removed." --Philip Baird Shearer 23:47, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Bangladesh War

I think a better and less POV title for this article is Bangladesh War this is also the most common name on Google:

• about 32,800 English pages for "Bangladesh War" -wikipedia
• about 11,500 English pages for "Bangladesh Liberation War" -wikipedia
• about 14,200 English pages for "Bangladesh War" 1971 -wikipedia
• about 982 English pages for "Bangladesh Liberation War" 1971 -wikipedia

To break those figures down a little, "Bangladesh War of" returns:

• about 9,090 English pages for "Bangladesh War of independence" -wikipedia
• about 370 English pages for "Bangladesh War of Liberation" -wikipedia
• about 211 English pages for "Bangladesh War of 1971" -wikipedia

If a disambiguation problem with "Bangladesh War" the the name "Bangladesh War of Independence" carries less POV --Philip Baird Shearer 12:02, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Why is google god? --ppm 19:11, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

It is not but it is an indicator of common usage which is part of Wikipedia:Naming conventions. --Philip Baird Shearer 14:31, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

If this is POV, so is American revolutionary war.--ppm 04:36, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

See my comments on Talk:American Revolutionary War#American_Revolutionary War vs. American War of Independence --Philip Baird Shearer 11:04, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

What is it adding to this topic? You seem to be suggesting to call it "American war of independence", which seems equally POV. Also, I googled "bangladesh war" and it returned numerous links that actually use the words "independenc" or "liberation" in them. Google is a very good engine.--ppm 01:20, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Your raised ARW as an example. Why do you think that "American War of Independence" an equally POV title and what is it equal to? --Philip Baird Shearer 09:59, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Officially the govts. of Bangladesh and India call it "Bangladesh Liberation War" or "Liberation War of Bangladesh". So I don't see any issue. Idleguy 05:02, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

It does not matter much what the Bangladeshi and Indian governments call it officially, what matters on Wikipedia is that the name does not have a one sided POV and the common English language usage. What is the war called in Pakistan and what is it called by organisations which are disinterested? --Philip Baird Shearer 11:04, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

The US Library of Congress talks in detail about this war under "liberation war" which was one of the sources used. The Russians obviously call it something like that as an ally of India then. Though officially Pak calls it as civil war - a nomenclature justification included in the article - it is NOT the way how the majority remember this war. The word "liberation war" is used in many media and historical accounts from Pakistan as well as since then. The UN refers to this as liberation war so I don't see any POV issue for an official name. Idleguy 05:05, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Please could you direct me to the Library of Congress source because I could not find it with a quick search of the article. I had missed out a Google search of ["Bangladesh War" -wikipedia] above so I have added it, and it is 3 times a common as "Bangladesh Liberation War" but because it could refer to more than one one (not sure which other one) was the reason I added 1971 for a secondary search. Doing a seach of gov.uk only returns one page, a search of ac.uk does not return many pages, but it does return more with the name "Bangladesh War". It is a similar case with the domain ".edu":

• about 49 English pages from ac.uk for "Bangladesh War"
• about 219 English pages for "Bangladesh War" site:.edu
• about 14 English pages from ac.uk for "Bangladesh Liberation War" site:.ac.uk
• about 44 English pages for "Bangladesh Liberation War" site:.edu

Doing a search of the Amazon.com site on books returns nearly twice as many book titles "Bangladesh War" as "Bangladesh liberation War" (76 to 41). Can you show me any more UN page which calls it the "Bangladesh Liberation War" because when I google for the phrase including (site:un.org) I get:

• 1 English pages from un.org for "Bangladesh Liberation War"
• 1 English pages from un.org for "Bangladesh War"

and for site:unhcr.org

• 4 English pages from unhcr.org for "Bangladesh War"
• "Bangladesh Liberation War" site:unhcr. - did not match any documents.

It seem to me that by any seach I do over a number of different criteria that "Bangladesh War" is more common than "Bangladesh liberation War" and IMHO "Bangladesh War" carries less POV than "Bangladesh Liberation War". I would be interested to hear any arguments that the title "Bangladesh Liberation War" does not carry more POV than "Bangladesh War" --Philip Baird Shearer 09:59, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Britannica seems to use "The Bangladesh war (from India)" as a page title. [3] At first glance it seems reasonable to me to omit the "liberation" part from the name but my opinion is pretty irrelevant since I've never edited this page and know nothing about the topic :) - Haukur 19:43, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Both Amazon and Google are sites that use English in their searches. The west is particularly advanced when it comes to using the internet to create pages or discuss things. Amazon is obviously dominated by goods and books retailed in the Western countries. Therefore the results you get back disproportionately represent the opinion of the West. Most westerners have little or no knowlege of the event, save the famine that followed in 1975, so it makes sense that they'd defer to the most simplistic title for the event, namely the "Bangladesh War". To use popular search engines and shop sites like Amazon to determine the title of the article is rather unencyclopedic.

Bit of an off-topic...Is it POV to called what happened to Jews during WW2 a holocaust? POV doesn't mean we presume all sides equal at the cost of accurately depicting history. A neutral eye over what happened in East Pakistan prior to and leading to the war, and all that's happened since pretty much supports the phrase "War of Independence" or "War of Liberation", even from a neutral perspective. Amibidhrohi 17:32, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

IMHO "BD Liberation War" isn't POV at all. It is simply more informative, and I don't see why it is POV or supportive of any side. Someone might opine that Independence of Bangladesh was an awful thing, but it has nothing to do with the FACT that that was the goal of the war! Descriptive names are good for other reasons, as Countries tend to have many wars (not that I want or expect BD to have any more of those) --ppm 04:19, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

pakistani army

i think pakistanis are either too stupid or too barerous like cavemen.well if mass murdering and gangrapes doesnt account o genocide,what else corresponds to genocide from the pakistani point of view?something even more worse? true,the pakistani army doesnt know how to fight,they only know how to butcher innocent civilian populations like those in bangladesh and balochistan.and another thing they are famous for is raping, especially punjabi pakistanis. 93000 soldiers surrendered unconditionally,what else is required to show that pakistani army is a worthless army.and even more so,the present "president"as mr pervert musharaf calls himself was among those 90000 soldiers who surrendered to mitro bahini,a allied force of mukto bahini and indian army.--Jayanthv86 04:27, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

clueless as usual

What is this? Wikipedia or a soapbox for the Indians to stand on and lecture people?? How about you deal with the genocide of Kashmiris before claiming others to be stupid.

Secondly, this 90,000 soldiers is a common BS mistake used by the Indians all the time. There were a total of 3 Pakistani Divisions in East Pakistan and some independent brigades. Combined, their numbers do not come close to 50,000. If you had a clue about the structure and size of Divisions in Pakistani and Indians armies, you would get an idea as to how shoddy your biased claim here is. The rest of the 90,000 included civilian Pakistani administration in East Pakistan that included police etc. of West Pakistani origin (these were not combatants). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.211.163.213 (talk • contribs)

Bangladesh Liberation War is not a soapbox nor a lecture pulpit for anyone. It was an atrocity commited by a government against its own people. Bengalis were as much Pakistanis as the pakistanis for west pakistan. Anyway, the 90,000 number has been referenced in a lot of sources. Instead of handwaving, if you provide some solid proof, that would work better. Civilian Pakistani administrators count as 40,000!!! Wow, isn't that stretching facts too much? Not even today, the Bangladeshi Govt has that much police force!! Thanks. --Ragib 06:03, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Tag

Anon 136.159.235.56 (talk · contribs) continues to add the POV tag almost on a daily basis, without any explanation for that. Since no explanation is given for the tag, I am removing it. Thanks. --Ragib 21:48, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Once again, the anon 136.159.243.25 (talk · contribs) from the University of Calgary continues the daily POV tag addition routine ... please add your points here rather than continuously inserting the tag. It is always better to have a discussion. Even if you feel there is a POV, we can work on it through discussion.

Thanks

--Ragib 03:47, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Population of Bangladesh

Is anyone aware of the Bengali population during the war? CJK 02:37, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't have the exact figure, but it is close to 78 million. Thanks. --Ragib 02:42, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Ok, here is the census from 1974: 76,398,000. Considering the growth rate of 2 years, plus portions of the people killed (1-1.5 million), and the minority refugees of war who stayed back in India (at least 1 million?) the population of 1971 should be somewhat close to 75 million. Thanks.

OK, thanks. I think should be incorporated. CJK 18:04, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Interesting

It was interesting to read the discussion. By the way, when the War was being fought, I was a student of Patna University, India. The situation was really grim. In my state of Jharkhand, thousands of the troops of the Pakistani Army who had surrendered to the Indian Army were lodged. They were kept in camps in Ramgarh (headquarters of the Sikh Regiment) located about 30 km away from my hometown Ranchi. --Bhadani 14:04, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Atrocities on women and minorities

I have added an Unreferencedsect to this section. After the first paragraph which does have references there are a lot of specific facts and allegations for which there are no citations. --Philip Baird Shearer 16:42, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Would you please add the citationneeded tag to the specific sentence for which you are seeking references? Marking the whole section as "unreferenced" seem quite ambiguous as several references are already there. So, mark the particular sentences. Thanks. --Ragib 09:07, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I feel I have added enough reference to support almost every sentence of this section. I hope you are satisfied now. Many of these references are taken from US State department briefs or Senator Edward Kennedy's report to the Senate Judiciary committee. I have a ton of references, but for saving space, I added only these now. In case this still isn't enough, let me know. Thanks. --Ragib 10:04, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

It is much better. The reason I did not put [citation needed] tag before was that almost every sentence needed one. Now that you have given references for the majority of the section, I have put [citation needed] on those sentences which are not yet covered. Some of them like the undressing do not seem unreasonable, but if there is not an easily available source, then removing such sentences or parts of sentences will not affect the overall tone of the section. --Philip Baird Shearer 12:19, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

10 days have passed and there text with "[citation needed]" it would be better if citations can be found rather than having to delete the text. --Philip Baird Shearer 22:31, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Killing of intellectuals

I have added an Unreferencedsect to this section. It makes lots of statments for which there are no citations. For example "Some of the current leaders of Islamic parties like Jamaati-i-Islami were directly involved in carrying out these killing missions." --Philip Baird Shearer 16:42, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

The two references added are a start but they by no means cover all the assertions made by this section . Eg the first two sentences "The Pakistani ruling class had long had a distaste for Bengali intellectuals and students. They viewed them, correctly, as among the main proponents of the rise of Bengali nationalism in East Pakistan" are not covered by either of the articles.

The first reference has language like this "intellectuals martyred by the selective killing regime of the occupation forces" is not the language of a dispassionate NPOV article I am not sure it qualifies as: Wikipedia:reliable sources.

The second article contains quaified information like "The blue print of crippling the intelligentsia is said to have been chalked" and "The armed cadres of al-badr, a para-military force, is alleged to have executed" etc. The wikipedia article does not reflect this type of qualification --Philip Baird Shearer 23:52, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I understand your point. I do have proper references, and am getting the books from the library to have very specific citations. In particular, there are several books written by foreign journalists, (Lawrence Lifshultz, Anthony Mascarenhaas) which focus on these areas. I'd add the citations as soon as I get the books.

There are plenty of very detailed refernces in Bangla language books as well. I'd try to add other refs to support enhance this section. Thanks. --Ragib 23:58, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

More than a week has passed since the last edit on the section (17 March 2006 by Amibidhrohi). I would like to see this section fully citated or the uncited text removed. --Philip Baird Shearer 22:37, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

I removed the uncited text. As for the rest of it, enough citations are there. Thanks. --Ragib 00:02, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Wording on Jamat involvement was POV, but the fact that there are such allegations is true. A couple of English references:

The Liberals and the Religious Right in Bangladesh, M. Rashiduzzaman, Asian Survey, Vol. 34, No. 11. (Nov., 1994), pp. 974-990.
Bangladesh at the Crossroads: Religion and Politics, Partha S. Ghosh, Asian Survey, Vol. 33, No. 7, South Asia: Responses to the Ayodhya Crisis. (Jul., 1993), pp. 697-710. --ppm 19:12, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

I'll eagerly wait to see which of the active editors put these into the article.--ppm 19:17, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

United State's Seventh Fleet

Shouldn't we put in something under US and USSR about the US sending its Seventh Fleet into the Bay of Bengal? That seemed pretty important. Shayon 22:44, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

References for women and minority section (English)

Reference for allegation of circumcision checks, death of women by forcing bayonets between their legs, gang rape, "leaving of seed" by Pakistani Army

Rape as Genocide: Bangladesh, the Former Yugoslavia, and Rwanda
Lisa Sharlach
New Political Science
Publisher:Routledge, part of the Taylor & Francis Group
Issue:Volume 22, Number 1 / March 1, 2000
Pages:89 - 102

Reference for "Systematic rape as a war tool" in 1971 Bangladesh
THE TRAUMA OF WAR RAPE: A COMPARATIVE VIEW ON THE BOSNIAN CONFLICT AND THE GREEK CIVIL WAR
History and Anthropology
Publisher:Routledge, part of the Taylor & Francis Group
Issue:Volume 14, Number 1 / March 2003
Pages:41 - 44

I hope editors will incorporate them. --ppm 19:28, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Also,, notice a certain word in the 1st reference. --ppm 19:35, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Killing of non-Bengali citizens

I had added the following sentence to this article: "A smaller number of non-Bengali citizens were also killed in clashes with the Mukti Bahini." It was removed, probably considering a POV. I would definitely learn a thing or two about wikipedia's contribution policy, if someone could please tell me why the above sentence was considered inappropriate. Thanks. Mokal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.69.36.44 (talk • contribs)

I did not remove it but a citation would be nice to have. --Philip Baird Shearer 01:34, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Some points in your article "Bangladesh Liberation War"

I do not have any leanings or any favourites in Bangladeshi politics and I find it demeaning and disturbing when different parties re-write history for self glorification. Here are just a few points even though I would like to give a longer lecture. 202.52.205.130 23:26, 16 April 2006 (UTC) Raqta

First

"East Pakistanis noticed that whenever one of them, such as Khawaja Nazimuddin, Muhammad Ali Bogra, or Huseyn Shaheed Suhrawardy were elected Prime Minister of Pakistan, they were swiftly deposed by the largely West Pakistani establishment." Quoted from the article.

I do not know how far the above mentioned "heroes" can be called one of them(Bangladesh's own). 202.52.205.130 23:26, 16 April 2006 (UTC) Raqta

note

On 27th January, 1952, Khaja Najimuddin betrayed his commitment and again declared Urdu as the only State Language.

Hmmm does not sound like he is one of Bengal's own. 202.52.205.130 23:26, 16 April 2006 (UTC) Raqta

note

In 1954 the United Front of Maulana Abdul Hamid Khan Bhasani, A. K. Fazlul Huq and Hussein Shuhrwardi won the elections. Huq became the Prime Minister. In 1957 Shuhwrardi was the Prime Minister (instead of Bhashani who was the main popular force in the grand electoral victory of '54.)

Bhashani wanted total autonomy for East Bengal (Bangladesh) at the historic Kagmari conference, '57, but Prime Minister Shuhrwardi and Sheikh Mujibur Rahman went the opposite way thus forcing Bhashani out of the party he created -- The Awami League. (This paved the way for Sheikh Mujibur Rahman to come to the centre of Bengali politics later in the 60s.) This event shows the betrayal of East Bengal by (at least) Shuhrwardi (even if we let Mujib off the hook since he was not the Prime Minister).

So IS Shuhrwardi really one of Bengal's own...

(Source: 1 Shadhinata Sangramey Bangalee (Liberation Struggle of The Bangalees) An Album of Photographs by Aftab Ahmed. Third Edition 2nd Poush 1405 (16th December 1998); Published by Aftab Ahmed Barna -Sagar Prokashani, 63 West Rampura, Dhaka 1219. Translated by Mofidul Hoque. 2 Lest We Forget: Moulana Bhasani -- the leader of the oppressed by Engr. M. Inamul Haque. Published by the Daily Star, Dhaka, Monday, November 18, 2002) 202.52.205.130 23:26, 16 April 2006 (UTC) Raqta

Second

"Close ties existed between East Pakistan and West Bengal, one of the Indian states bordering Bangladesh," Quoted from the article.

Well Duh! For millennia it was the same country (Banga, Gongahridoy, etc)... the same people... relatives on both sides of the dividing border... SO OBVIOUSLY they will have close ties. They are one people... separated by a line drawn on the map by the British and drawn in hearts by religious bigots. 202.52.205.130 23:26, 16 April 2006 (UTC) Raqta

Third

"He urged "his people" to turn every house into a fort of resistance. He closed his speech saying, "The struggle this time is for our freedom. The struggle this time is for our independence." This speech is considered the main event that inspired the nation to fight for their independence." Quoted from the article.

A. This speech is considered the main event inspiring the nation to fight by Awami League adherents and may be, the Communist Party of Bangladesh adherents which at that time was allied to Awami League. I do not consider any one event as the main event that inspired the nation. The notion is rather simplistic. There were people who wanted to fight for independence as early as 1962... (Taherer Osomapto Biplob) and yes they were organised. There was an army called the BLF (Shahjahan Siraj) and there were other Maoist guerrilla armies that were preparing for a Pakistani onslaught well before the speech. The students were also far ahead of Sheikh Mujibur Rahman.(Swadhinota Juddhe Bamponthider Bhumika) 202.52.205.130 23:26, 16 April 2006 (UTC) Raqta

B. "his people" Quoted from the article.

Not all in the 7th March rally or the country were "his people". As Fakir Alamgir said on Trityo Matra, on Channel I, he and his allies (the leftists) had brought the masses to the rally... and had made it the mammoth rally that it was. I have spoken to non Mujib supporters who had attended the rally. The picture that Awami League wants to portray is that all the work was done by their Great LEADER Mujib and the article seems to speak for Awami League here. Be more neutral. 202.52.205.130 23:26, 16 April 2006 (UTC) Raqta

Fourth

"They failed to secure permission from higher authorities to broadcast the message. They crossed Kalurghat Bridge into an area controlled by East Bengal Regiment under Major Ziaur Rahman." Quoted from the article.

I urge you to verify the fact. Was that the area controlled by Ziaur Rahman? I would refer you Belal Mohammed, the person who is the hero who organized the rebel radio. If Zia was in command... well and good but do verify... for this could only be BNP's "TRUTH". 202.52.205.130 23:26, 16 April 2006 (UTC) Raqta

fifth

"At 19:45 on 26 March 1971, Major Ziaur Rahman broadcast another announcement of the declaration of independence on behalf of Sheikh Mujibur which is as follows." Quoted from the article.

This is misinformation. The declaration was made on the 27th March not 26th. Ask Belal Mohammad for verification since he convinced and brought Zia to the radio station to make the declaration. 202.52.205.130 23:26, 16 April 2006 (UTC) Raqta

sixth

"Though smaller maoist style paramilitary bands started emerging, the Mukti Bahini were becoming increasingly visible. Headed by Colonel Muhammad Ataul Gani Osmani," Quoted from the article.

Well actually they were small only according to Awami League and pro Awami League sources. According to Col. Osmani own statements, he commanded only about 80 thousand muktis (men)... (From Osmani's interview) I do not remember the exact figure, but Siraj Sikdar's force (a Maoist style paramilitary as you call it) was larger (please verify). (Refer to, "Role of the Leftists in the Liberation War of Bangladesh) There were other such forces around the country. From what I have found out... 202.52.205.130 23:26, 16 April 2006 (UTC) Raqta

Seventh

Conclusion (sort of)

Awami League accuses the BNP of manipulating history and itself is probably guilty of the same crime. Please write a balanced history without exaggerations or deletions AND without misinformation. Verify everything... If I am wrong, I will accept correction... if you are wrong... Please make necessary corrections.

The history in this article does not mention Maulana Bhashani, the creator of Awami League and the person who has pushed the country towards independence. The article does not talk about Sirajul Alam Khan, Siraj Shikdar, Huq, Toaha, Rashed Khan Menon, Colonel Taher, Belal Mohammad, Abul Bashar, Shahjahan Siraj, Abdur Rab, Makhan, Siddiqui, Abdul Matin (the main Language Movement leader) and others. I do not care what party they belong to or support but their roles are undeniable and must be mentioned.

Many of these leaders are alive ... why not interview them.... interview the closest associates of those who have died. Get a thorough picture of the war.

Also refer to Col. Osmani's interviews and you will find out many things. For one Osmani claims that he was not told that the Pakistanis were surrendering (refering to the 16th December). He says it was a deliberate act and he was distracted and kept out of the way by an Indian officer. There was also an attempt on his life ON THE 16th OF DECEMBER, 1971. (Also from his interview.) 202.52.205.130 23:26, 16 April 2006 (UTC) Raqta

Thank you for your suggestion! When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make whatever changes you feel are needed. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit any article by simply following the Edit this page link at the top. You don't even need to log in! (Although there are some reasons why you might like to...) The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. --Ragib 01:38, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

merge suggestion

I've removed the suggestions for merging it with Indo-Pakistani War of 1971, the reasons of which are as follows:

• See Bangladesh_Liberation_War#Indo-Pakistani_War_of_1971
• Bangladesh Liberation War was not fought between India and Pakistan, it was fought by Bangladeshi rebels and Pakistan
  • Between 26th march-16 december
  • India did not even recognize Bangladesh as a nation until Dec 3, 1971
  • Though India provided arms and tranining, it never officially joined the war. No Indian army units ever participated in fighting in Bangladeshi soil before Dec 3.
• Indo-Pakistan War of 1971 began on December 3, 1971.
• Both wars' last portions overlapped, but the wars were totally different.

Thanks --Ragib 17:43, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

How are they so unrelated? Esentially, they were the same war. India came in to help Bangladesh, not just to fight Pakistan, and I think it's under the guise of two different wars. I'm not an expert in this topic, so let's see how others think about this. Stallions2010 17:49, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Casualty figure POV

The section on casualties as written now seems to indicate that the number 300,000 is more accurate than 3 million. The truth probably lies somewhere in between, but way too much is written in favour of the 300,000 figure included a vast number of so-called scholarly citations. Am I the only one who feels that the article seems to conclude that 300,000 is the actual figure instead of doing its (the article's) job of illucidating that it is just one more estimate - one provided by the accused? I personally would want to go ahead and rewrite some of this to make it more balanced, but I would like to hear others' comments. Thanks -- urnonav 00:55, 26 May 2006 (UTC)