Talk:Bangladesh Liberation War/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Genocide versus violence issue

TEST saved.........

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). —The preceding unsigned comment was 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 States 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. —The preceding unsigned comment was 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)

Verify

Can someone verify the sentence regarding Mr. Hannan being the first person to broadcast the declaration of independence. Also, the "Political climax" section ought to be expanded, is it not the crux of the whole article? Regards, ImpuMozhi 16:44, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Hannan's claims are controversial, and so is attempts to say Zia declared the message on the 26th. My parents were in Chittagong the whole time, and almost no one heard Hannan's broadcast, but almost everyone heard Zia's, but on the 27th. References are available either way. So, Hannan's being the first is most likely true, but isn't without controversy. --Ragib 17:04, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Shamsher Chowdhury quote

I'm removing the following from the main page because by a perusal it is not clear whether this is according to the Dawn or some other source. Also, it seems to hint that the 3 million figure is clearly wrong. Although I can't find it now, I seem to remember reading somewhere that this attribution was actually warped during printing.

Ambassador Shamsher M. Chowdhury acknowledged that Bangladesh alone cannot correct this mistake and suggested Pakistan and Bangladesh should form a joint commission to investigate the 1971 disaster and prepare a report. "Almost all scholars agreed that the real figure was somewhere between 26,000, as reported by the Hamoodur Rahman Commission, and not three million, the official figure put forward by Bangladesh and India."

If anyone feels the need to reinstate it, please discuss here and do so. Thanks,

urnonav 23:30, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Agartala Conspiracy Case

I think Agartala Conspiracy Case should be mentioned briefly in this article since it is considered as an important event that led to the eventual seperation.Bharatveer 05:25, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

May be briefly in the history/background section ... --Ragib 05:27, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Blanking by User:cripipper

Please do not blank cited information. I don't see why information well referenced from various sources qualifies as Original research. If you feel something is wrong, please mention it here first. Thanks. --Ragib 17:14, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

To add to the point, if you feel something is original research, please mention it here so we can work on it. Removing citation from reliable sources claiming original research is not acceptable. Thank you. --Ragib 17:22, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

• Blanking is the deletion of text leaving a blank space; that is not what I did, so for starters it is not blanking. But if you want the problems with this section piece by piece here they are:

• 1)<ref name="enterprise">Goldschmidt, Brian P., ''Making a U.S.-India Strategic Partnership Work'', Masters Thesis, US Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey, California, December 2001</ref>. Enterprise arrived on station on [[December 11]], [[1971]] A master's thesis is not an acceptable or verifiable souce reference. To use it as a citation is original research. What's more, it is not needed since moving the Enterprise was publicly known at the time and referenced in a great number of academic works on the subject.

• 2)Several documents released from the Nixon Presidential Archives <ref name="nixonarchive">Gandhi, Sajit (ed.), [http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB79/ The Tilt: The U.S. and the South Asian Crisis of 1971: National Security Archive Electronic Briefing Book No. 79]</ref> <ref name="SelectiveGenocide">Blood, Archer, [http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB79/BEBB1.pdf Transcript of Selective Genocide Telex], Department of State, United States</ref>.By introducing primary source material it makes it read like original research. Quote or cite an authority on the subject; the release of the documents themselves are not worthy of a mention in an encyclopdia entry.

• 3)Notwithstanding this, Nixon, backed by Henry Kissinger, wanted to protect the interests of Pakistan as they were apprehensive of India. Archer Blood was promptly transferred out of Dhaka. As revealed in the newly declassified transcripts released by the US State Department <ref name="statedept">Smith, Louis J. (ed.), Keefer, Edward C. (general ed.), [http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ho/frus/nixon/xi/index.htm "Foreign Relations, 1969-1976, South Asia Crisis, 1971"], United States Government Printing Office</ref> President Nixon was using the Pakistanis to normalize relations with China. This would have three important effects, viz., opening rifts between the Soviet Union, China and North Vietnam, opening the potentially huge Chinese market to American business and creating a foreign policy coup in time to win the 1972 Presidential Elections. Since Nixon believed the existence of Pakistan to be critical to the success of his term he went to great lengths to protect his ally. This section contains the selective use of primary source materials, which again is original research, and is riddled with factual inaccuracies and uncited claims. Furthermore, if you are going to cite original source material such as in FRUS you cannot simply cite an entire volume - you must cite the documents. But you shouldn't be doing that anyway, because that is original research.

• 4)After the war, the U.S. maintained a largely pro-Pakistani position, against world opinion. This is an unverifiable and POV statement.

• 5)After the USA had failed to act decisively in a manner that would not draw world condemnation to itself, it sought to rope the People's Republic of China into the conflict. The plan was to attack India on two sides with the help of China and thus stopping the attack on West Pakistan. Kissinger's meeting with the Chinese was with this intention. In fact, China was the only permanent member of the UN Security Council that was supportive of such an attack, and even provided economic and military assistance. But the support was limited to protecting West Pakistan in the face of a threat from India, and not aimed directly at the internal conflict. It was also suspicious that the U.S. did not want to dirty its hands. The Chinese government wanted a strongly worded UN Security Council resolution after which the PRC would help Pakistan. It however did not materialise due to the Soviet veto and China did not intervene in the war. This entire section is POV, factually incorrect and uncited.

• None of the changes I made involved blanking; they removed original research and corrected factual inaccuracies. The changes did not change the core meaning of anything previously written, they merely tidied up several violations of POV, NOR and corrected erroneous statements. This entire section has clearly been written by someone doing research of the internet. Cripipper 17:36, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

This is a good step in the right direction -- spelling out the issues in the talk page for discussion. I'll go through your points shortly. Thanks. --Ragib

I'm short on time, but I'll just respond to a selected few ones. Cripipper mentions that the section on China is factually incorrect. Unfortunately the original cite for that para seems to have been lost somewhere, but here is another link [4] among many on the subject that tells that China supported Pakistan militarily. Also please take some time to read UN resolutions of 1971 and you will find that Soviets did veto the proposal for a ceasefire. There are also lots of information on the internet and if u prefer researching it offline, then again you'll find sources that clearly tell u that point 4 raised by u is also not entirely true. USA was one of the last countries to recognize Bangladesh and though that line itself doesn't add much value, the basic idea is correct. Idleguy 17:40, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

• It has been known for thirty years that China supported Pakistan militarily - you don't need a source for that info. The article in its current form states that. I did however remove some of the more outlandish and POV claims.
• The Soviet veto is pretty much the only factually correct statement in the paragraph in question.
• Editors who primarily do their research online when contributing generally have little in-depth knowledge of the subject. I am much more comfortable with properly cited peer-reviewed academic works.
• It is perfectly ok to say the U.S. was one of the last countries to recognize Bangladesh: POV nonsense about 'going against world opinion' is not. Cripipper 02:08, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

In-depth? Ragib is from Bangladesh, thats like asking me about George Washington and the Revolutionary War.Bakaman _Bakatalk 18:44, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Quotes section

I propose that some of the important quotes from the main characters in the war be moved to a subsection titled "Quotes" to ensure that the article reflects the war as with other Wikipedia articles on war and ends with quotes. Speeches and quotes by Sheikh Mujibur, Yahya Khan, Niazi, Indira Gandhi, Nixon et al can be included there. Idleguy 14:20, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea to me. Cripipper 18:24, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Yayha Khan quote

I removed the Yayha Khan quote again: the point is not the veracity of it, which seems in little doubt, but its appropriateness in a section on casualties. According it such status in this section, in an effort to align it with the 3 million dead figure is an apparent attempt to create both cause and effect and give justification to the latter - he said kill 3 million so they did, which is of course preposterous as war does not work that way. I actully think that the article would benefit from being expanded with a specific section on genocide, in which such issues could be teased out aside from the casualty figures. That way the first half of Rummel's quote could be moved to there as well, leaving the section on casualty figures to deal with just that, and another section to discuss their origin. Cripipper 18:45, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Please read the section #Genocide versus violence issue higher up this page. Please note what I wrote there:

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).

For that reason the quote should stay in--Philip Baird Shearer 21:20, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

• Alas I dissent. I fail to see the connection. The quote is out of place and in appropriate, unless the section is expanded to explain why it is relevant. As it stands it is out of place and adds nothing to the paragraph; if you wish to expand the quote to give it context and relevance, that would be fine, but as it currently stands it appears to me that it was inserted by someone (?) to make a point about whether it was genocide or not, and the contextual qualifications have subsequently been lost. By all means turn the quote into something useful; at the moment, however, it is completely out of context and actually detracts from the sense of the section, rather than adding anything to it. Cripipper 22:34, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Then you an I disagree lets see what others think. But as it was already in the article for some time in its current state and it is has WP:V citations, please leave it there until there is a consensus to remove it. --Philip Baird Shearer 22:45, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

• The question is not whether it is verifiable, it is whether it is relevant or useful. I have explained why I think it shouldn't be there, you have yet to offer a justification of why you think it should (other than the fact you put it there and it has been there for a while). Cripipper 22:49, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

There is a ream already written on it on this talk page. As I said you an I disagree lets see what others think so that we can build a consensus on if it should stay as it is go or be edited. But as it has been there for some time it should remain until a consensus emerges. --Philip Baird Shearer 07:04, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

The quote is definitely relevant. This provides insight into the mindset of the Generals who pressed on with the bloody war. Yahya wasn't just another guy, he was the head of the military junta that planned the whole operation, and continued the 9 month long war despite huge number of civilian deaths. So, the quote must stay, as Philip mentioned above. --Ragib 07:08, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

• There is certainly a place for the quote, just not in the section on casualty figures, which should deal just with casualty figures. Your rationale for keeping it is is different from that of Mr. Shearer, who appears to want to keep it to prove that it was not genocide. The section on casualty figures is not the place to demonstrate "the mindset of the Generals who pressed on with the bloody war..." In its current positioning it reeks of very sloppy history. Cripipper 15:15, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

What ever our motives, two people have requested that you do not remove the quote. It does not seem that you have a consensus to do so, ao unless you can persuade us that your view is the correct one and it should be deleted, please do not delete it again.

If you wish to move it to another place in the article lets talk about it here, before it is moved. Personally I think it is just fine at the end of the paragraph where it sits. One inference that a reader might draw is that as the quote was well known at the time, that his opponents used the 3M number against him. This is one possibility for how the 3M number became common currency in Bangladesh. Or it might be that they kept to the plan and really did kill 3M. Either way putting the quote there gives the reader some information which if we delete it they will not have. --Philip Baird Shearer 18:22, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

• Well-written history should not leave the reader to infer anything. Was it well known at the time? If so then state this fact and state that it could be a reason why the three million fact gained currency. The idea that there was a plan with amry units keeping tally charts to fill their quota of three million is ridiculous. At the moment there is no visible justification to a lay reader why that quote belongs in that paragraph. Cripipper 00:37, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Mujib and 3 million

The two sources that are given in this for Mujib repeatedly using the three million figure are not acceptable sources. They are unsourced and uncited repetitions of second-hand information. These are not verifiable sources and are in breach of WP:V. They are not acceptable sources. The problem with much of this article, and which I addressed in the foreign intervention sections in which I have a certain degree of expertise, is that most of this article has been written by people primarily trawling google for info and citing anything they can find to back up their argument. Very few of these conform to the standards of verifiability for Wikipedia, which requests that "Articles should rely on credible, third-party sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. For academic subjects, the sources should preferably be peer-reviewed." Badly-written and poorly cited history articles in wikipedia are one of its weakspots and damage its credibility; the content of the individual articles outside of my expertise (except for howlers and general bad-writing) is not my issue. However, I fully intend to flag up weak citations or no citations at all, and unfortunately this article is full of them. I have left the weak ones (newspapers etc, but you really should start getting out some academic works on this as reference: there is only one single peer-reviewed academic work or publication referenced in this entire article), but fully intend to remove non-credible ones, such as Mr. Hossain's website and correspondance with the GBWR.Cripipper 00:49, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Represent the truth

Represent the truth

Whether it was 3 million or not, does that matter? The actual figure can be more than that as indicated by many foreign journalists during the war before Mujib said something. Wikipedia, please acknowledge the truth. Tell about the dark episodes created by the Pakistan Army against the people of Bangladesh aided by United States and China. Tell about the heroic war of resistance put by the Mukti Bahini. Speak up.

Parvez Monon Ashraf Dallas, USA

Huuh?

"...the West Pakistani establishment came up with the "One Unit" scheme, where all of West Pakistan was considered one province." Is this right? Wouldn't this make West Pakistan less powerful? Clarityfiend 21:04, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

No, because individual provinces in WP had low populations, by combining them together into one unit, the combined unit had more population and more represenation in the federal assembly. There might be better explanations of this too. --Ragib 21:09, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree more detail would help. I think this was a bloc voting system where a single party won all the seats for WP, but EP was divided into little districts. Mujib had to carry about 90% of the EP seats to win the election.-- Randall Bart <wiki@randallbart.com> 07:22, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Economic exploitation

I've just read both the article and this talk page from beginning to end. First off, Crippiper has a valid point. This article is a little too stridently pro-Bengali for NPOV. However, Crippiper is going way too far in just trying to censor the parts he doesn't like. This is the first time I have heard that you can't cite original research. I was always told that when you write a report you look for first hand sources. Sumbuddy should go through this and make it a bit more neutral. However, when something is non-neutral but true, I don't waste my time working on it.

I only see one thing that's false or grossly distorted: Economic exploitation. One of the big problems with partitioning British India was the inequality of economic development. West Pakistan included some of the richest areas, while East Bengal was very poor, with very poor infrastructure especially after separating it from Calcutta. The figures say that 46.4% of the national budget went to EP in the early 1950s. I cannot believe that EP was paying anywhere near 46.4% of the taxes. (If they were, this article would cite the unfair tax rates.) I am sure that 46.4% was a subsidy not exploitation. Even 31.7% in the late 1950s might still be a subsidy. I could see EP being only 25% of the total GDP. Even if the late 1950s was truly exploitation, those numbers over 40% look like subsidy again. A rich man failing to give money to a beggar is not theft, and the rich province failing to subsidize the poor province is not exploitation.

If I am wrong, come up with a cite to prove me wrong. Otherwise, that section should be removed or recast to show the actual economic situation. It's likely that people perceived this as exploitation. Separatist leaders in Quebec and Slovakia have appealed to similar misperception. It's possible that both East and West Pakistan suffered economically from union. WP was dragged down by subsidizing EP, while EP wasn't getting foreign aid that it could have gotten as an independent country. -- Randall Bart <wiki@randallbart.com> 07:22, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your message. Actually, East Pakistan started earning huge foreign exchange right from the early 1950s. The reason? Korean War broke out and it caused a huge demand in Jute-fiber bags, and the Jute mills saw a huge surge in demand. Therefore, the economic data is reasonable.

As for Crippiper's comments, I didn't have time to reply to him but you are exactly right. Wikipedia's No original research principle is there to prevent WP from becoming the primary source of a fact. But, here, the original, primary sources are the Declassified US Govt documents, from a neutral source (George Washington Univ), and citing them as the source for information taken off those documents is perfectly OK. Otherwise, there would be NO research in the world at all ... :) --Ragib 07:33, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

For economic exploitation data, please refer to the research paper "Who Pays for Development?

Rehman Sobhan Pakistan Forum, Vol. 1, No. 4 (Apr. - May, 1971), pp. 6-7 doi:10.2307/2569066". [5]. This shows that,

• Between 1948-49 and 1968-69, almost $2.6 billion worth of resources were transferred from East Pakistan to West Pakistan.
• During 1950-1970, East Pakistan earned 50-70% of Pakistan's export earnings. However, it received only 25-30% of the imports.
• 55% of the population of Pakistan lived in EAst Pakistan, but only 16% of the civil service, and 10% of the military were from East Pakistan.

West Pakistan's development in the 1950-1970 perdiod was financed by external resources. Domestic resources covered only 15% of the investements in WP ... during the 2nd 5 year plan, WP only was able to finance 5.3% of its investments. Whereas East Pakistan funded its investments entirely upto 1960. During the 2nd 5 year plan, it financed 45% of its investments.

During 1950-1955, 22% of West Pakistan's fixed investment was funded by resources taken from East Pakistan. During 1955-60, the transfer of resources rose to 37% of all fixed investment in West Pakistan.

There are more references supporting the economic exploitation of EP by WP. But I hope you get at least some idea from these stats. Thank you. --Ragib 08:11, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

POV for Prelude to War

I flagged the Prelude to War section for several reasons:

• that other imaginative constitutional innovation, the "one unit scheme."
• These so-called "Government Passengers"
• The overall tone of the article puts Pakistan in the light of being an evil aggressor

I don't know much about this conflict at all; please don't think I have a pro-Bangladesh or anti-Pakistan agenda here. For all I know, my third objection could be completely problem-free. Nyttend 03:51, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

To address your concerns, I have copyedited the first two comments (removed "that. imaginative", "so-called"). The third point, as you said, is really not a problem here. So, I have removed the POV tag. Thanks. --Ragib 05:55, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Bangladesh War (2)

see #Bangladesh War

• about 39,700 English pages for "Bangladesh War" -wikipedia
• about 12,900 English pages for "Bangladesh Liberation War" -wikipedia
• about 100 English pages for "Bangladesh Independence War" -wikipedia
• about 251 English pages for "Pakistani Civil War" -wikipedia.

• about 20,200 English pages for "Bangladesh War" 1971 -wikipedia
• about 9,530 English pages for "Bangladesh Liberation War" 1971 -wikipedia.

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

• about 451 English pages for "Bangladesh War of independence" -wikipedia ( I must have made a mistake)
• about 251 English pages for "Bangladesh War of Liberation" -wikipedia
• about 237 English pages for "Bangladesh War of 1971" -wikipedia.

So by far the most common name a year ago was "Bangladesh War" and it still is. The name "Bangladesh Liberation War" carries a none WP:NPOV which is not juistified by common English Language usage. So I am moving the page --Philip Baird Shearer 18:00, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Let us have a discussion before making the move. Thank you. --Ragib 20:20, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

There has been a discussion see #Bangladesh War. --Philip Baird Shearer 21:32, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

The discussion you refer to is 1 year old, and inconclusive. We should have more discussion on this topic. Until then, please refrain from moving the article unilaterally. I'll reply to your comments soon. Thanks. --Ragib 21:36, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I again request Philip to give me some time to present my arguments. Moving unilaterally is bad. Please get a consensus and at least some discussion before making the move. As mentioned before, I'll respond to you ASAP. Thank you. --Ragib 21:45, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I am not sure I understand the statistics — "Bangladesh War of independence" -wikipedia returns 21000 hits as far as I can see--ppm 22:34, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I was puzzled by that one as well because it was way different from the number I got last year. I was using google.co.uk which must have a broken index on that particular search because when I use google.com I get:

• about 38,700 for "Bangladesh War" -wikipedia
• about 13,100 for "Bangladesh Liberation War" -wikipedia
• about 122 for "Bangladesh Independence War" -wikipedia
• about 1,120 for "Pakistani Civil War" -wikipedia.

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

• about 21,900 for "Bangladesh War of independence" -wikipedia
• about 296 for "Bangladesh War of Liberation" -wikipedia
• about 331 for "Bangladesh War of 1971" -wikipedia

However using google.com about 961 for "Bangladesh War of" -wikipedia and about 9,860 for "Bangladesh War of" I don't believe that there are 9,000 wikipedia pages with the term, and I don't see how "Bangladesh War of" returns less pages than "Bangladesh War of independence" unless the indexes are broken!

I would be happy to have the article at either "Bangladesh War" or "Bangladesh Independence War" but I think that "Bangladesh Liberation War" fails both WP:NPOV and WP:NC common usage. --Philip Baird Shearer 23:04, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Let's analyze the results presented by Philip above:

• "Bangladesh War of independence" -wikipedia: 21700 or so google hits
• "Bangladesh Liberation War" -wikipedia: 13000 hits
• "Bangladesh War" -wikipedia : 40k hits or so, but lets look into what we see starting with the first page:
  • First link (what you'd get if you hit "I'm feeling lucky" is www.subcontinent.com/1971war/1971war.html Where exactly on the page do you see the text "Bangladesh War"? I can't find it.
  • 2nd link: http://www.virtualbangladesh.com/history/independence.html "Bangladesh War of Independence"
  • 4th link: BBC Article: "Bangladesh war secrets revealed" Note that the word war isn't used here to imply "Bangladesh War", rather it's part of "war secrets". Nothing in the article about the term "Bangladesh War"
  • 7th link: www.regiments.org/wars/20thcent/71indopk.htm "Bangladesh War of Independence"
  • 8th link: www.bharat-rakshak.com/IAF/History/1971War/ "The fourteen day Bangladesh War in 1971 marked a decisive victory for Indian Arms". Didn't you realize that it is about the Indian Army vs. Pakistan Army 14 day war, (in other words. Indo-Pak War of 1971, not *this* war?)
  • 10th link: www.iisg.nl/collections/bangladesh/d29-928.php "Posters from Bangladesh - War on Independence - 1971"
  • 12th link: http://www.historyguy.com/india-bangladesh_2001.htm About the 2001 border conflict between India and Bangladesh.

I could go on and on, but the above analysis of the first page or so shows that your argument about "Bangladesh War" being the most common term is quite invalid. "Bangladesh War" often turns up in google hits because the article has constructs like "Bangladesh. War <something in the next sentence>" rather than being the term for the war.

Even then, 39k vs (21k+13k for the war of liberation/independence) isn't a big difference to show absolute favor for "Bangladesh War". And if we count that many of the 39 k are actually part of "Bangladesh War of Independence" or "Bangladesh War of Liberation" , then your numeric argument falls apart.

In any case, google hits are not an absolute measure of something. Yes, if you could have shown a 10 to 1 or 40 to 1 ratio, that would be convincing, but here the number of hits are too close to warrant a ranking of popularity.

As for NPOV concerns, the war's official name is "Bangladesh Liberation War", as used by Bangladesh and India and a lot of books/publications. Besides, would you consider American Revolutionary War aka American war of independence a POV term? That's well established in media and scholarly documents, yet by your argument, it would be a pov title.

Therefore, I strongly oppose any unilateral move of the article, based on some mistaken interpretation and misquotation of google hit statistics. Thanks. --Ragib 23:18, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I have to agree with Ragib here—I've heard the term "Bangladesh Liberation War" many times, but never "Bangladesh War". ¿ςפקιДИτς! ☺ ☻ 23:56, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Ragib your so called official name is a POV name that is used by only one side that fought the war. Why should a Wikipedia article use a non NPOV name when it also fails common usage? What I am putting forward the same argument that is put forward in Wikipedia:Naming conventions (events). The analogy with the American war of independence/American Revolutionary War is not pertinent to this: (1) because justifying a name for this article because another has a biased name is not an argument for a breach of the NPOV policy; and (2) although it could be argued that term "American Revolutionary War" is not a NPOV, it is a much finer point to argue, and it is the most commonly used name in the English speaking world to describe the war, so it passes the common usage which "Bangladesh Liberation War" does not.

Of course there will be some pages in "Bangladesh War" which are not about the war but most of them are. It has the advantages that as it does not need a disambiguation, It will show up in searches like those done above and it is neutral, but as I said before I would be happy with the page name of Bangladesh War of Independence if you think that the name "Bangladesh War" is not precise enough. --Philip Baird Shearer 00:17, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

The #1 and #2 exemptions from the naming convention for commonly used term apply here. As for "most of the pages in Bangladesh War are about the war", well, the results I get from Google doesn't really convince me about this argument and this ambiguous term. --Ragib 15:47, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I find this article to be very POV and using quite a few un-encylopedic words. Particularly, the "Fourth Stage of fighting in Bengladesh" it sounds like original research, is very POV, and speculates on motives without evidence or citation. There are also constant references to "shameful" actions of the Pakistanis, and many other poor word choices that make this article little more than propaganda. Whoever rated this a "B" article is sorely mistaken. This is one of the most POV articles I've seen. I know very little about the controversies or the background information, but was purely curious about this war when I saw a reference to it in another article. Whether or not the Pakistanis were evil, shameful, deceptive etc. is not up for Encyclopedia articles to decide.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.35.124.187 (talk • contribs) 00:33, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

"Bangladesh War" is not a name given to this conflict by any historians; moving it to there would be a very stupid thing to do. Cripipper 21:57, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Cripipper please explaine to me your source for "Bangladesh War" is not a name given to this conflict by any historians" when a search of Google Books returns:

• 1580 pages on Bangladesh-War
• 66 pages on Bangladesh-War-of-Independence
• 94 pages on Bangladesh-Liberation-War
• 68 pages on Pakistani-Civil-War

As a check take the term Bangladesh-War and remove the term Bangladesh-War-of-Independence gives “1510 pages on Bangladesh-War -Bangladesh-War-of-Independence” or slightly more than the 66 above mentioned above. --Philip Baird Shearer 09:48, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

If the most popular name "Bangladesh War" is not accaptable then what about using "Bangladesh War of Independence" as it is at least a common (and probably more so) and does not have the problems of non NPOV that "Bangladesh Liberation War" has. --Philip Baird Shearer 23:24, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Please cite me some scholarly articles or books on the subject that call it the "Bangladesh War". Cripipper 13:44, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

There are hundreds to choose from in the list: “1510 pages on Bangladesh-War -Bangladesh-War-of-Independence” but taking just two from the first page:

• The India-Pakistan Conflict: an enduring rivalry - Page 62
• South Asia in World Politics - Page 194

Hope that helps, but if you look thought the list then I am sure you will find books which you think are more appropriate --Philip Baird Shearer

If you care to note, references to the "Bangladesh War" are within the context of Indo-Pak wars, i.e. to differentiate them from the wars over Kashmir (and a great many - I haven't read enough of them to be able to call it the majority - refer to the 'Bangladesh war, not the Bangladesh War.) Thus, within an article on Indo-Pakistani wars, there is an argument for calling the "Indo-Pakistan War of 1971" the "Bangladesh War". However, there is no argument for calling this article "The Bangladesh War", since historians do not refer to it as that. There is a very strong case for calling it the "Bangladesh War of Independence", but none for "The Bangladesh War". Renaming an article is not something that should be done on a whim, as you appear to believe. Unless a consensus can be reached the article should remain as it is. Cripipper 00:10, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

OK, I just checked the numbers on google. "Bangladesh Liberation War" returns about two-thirds of what "Bangladesh War" returns even when "Bangladesh War of Independence" hits are taken into account. A lot of the returns for Bangladesh War are actually a shortening of the full name "Bangladesh Liberation War" in spoken quotes. Some others are what Ragib mentioned: references to the Eastern front Indo-Pak War. Add to that the cases of Bangladesh <random punctuation mark> War cases and the fact that most of the returns are non-academic in nature and you get the idea that the numbers are not as significant when put in perspective.

However, I would like to ask Cripipper's question but slightly rephrased: what historical or NPOV reasons do you (Philip) propose for this intended move? I believe it would help us understand your perspective. The second point, which I have quite adamantly held against Wikipedia policies in some cases, is that knowledge, unfortunately, doesn't go by democracy. Just because most people at one point believed the Earth is stationary did not stop the Earth from rotating. An encyclopaedia's job is to give right, not necessarily popular, information.

urnonav 22:21, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I will concede that the term Bangladesh War can also be used for the events involving India (which in Wikipedia is termed Indo-Pakistani War of 1971) and that will skew the search. However the term "Bangladesh War Independence" is at least as common, and probably more so than the term "Bangladesh Liberation War", and BWI does not carry the non-NPOV that BLW. The term liberation implies that the nation was is a state of subjugation before the liberation. It may or may not be true, but to including the term in the title carries a none neutral point of view, which is a breach of the Wikipedia:NPOV policy. As I said above if BWL was overwhelmingly used, then there would be some justification with using it, but this is not the case so the title should be changed to a more neutral one. --Philip Baird Shearer 12:05, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I am fine with moving it to 'Bangladeshi War of Independence' as that is how I have seen the conflict referred to by most non-Bangla/Indian historians and reference works. Cripipper 15:32, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

As shown above, that is not the only common name used for the war. Having a few thousand more google hits doesn't make a thing common and general. --Ragib 06:31, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

A quick perusal tells you that 'Bangladeshi War of Independence' is the name used by the BBC, Time magazine, the Routeledge Guide to World History Since 1914, Niall Ferguson, Global Security, The Guardian... these are hardly obscure or ignorant sources. Outside of South Asia, Bangladeshi War of Independence appears to be the more common term. Cripipper 08:46, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Sources on Rahman 3 million claim

Please stop reinserting these crap sources - they in no way show that Rahman made the 3 million claim. They do show that there is a widespread belief that he made the claim, but they do nothing to verify the fact that he did. One is some loon's personal correspondance with the GBWR, and the other is an unverified assertion in a thesis. You would hardly see them referenced in the Encyclopedia Britannica, would you...? Cripipper 22:05, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, I have already shown newspaper references from the time period, showing that the 3 million claim was made by Sheikh Mujibur Rahman (unless you have deleted that reference too). As for calling another person names, please remember that it is akin to libel to do so, so stop "sharing" your personal attitudes like this. Thanks. --Ragib 22:52, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Cripipper, the first source is a "Doctoral Dissertation topic" (which was accepted) so what is the problem with using that as a reliable source? The second on it's own I would agree would not be acceptable on its own but in addition to the other two it does no harm and is informative. --Philip Baird Shearer 22:56, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

• I am afraid they do do harm as they seem to indicate that the article is written by people whose knowledge of the subject extends little beyond doing a google search. If it's not verifiable or credible, leave it out. Cripipper 13:49, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

What exactly do you mean? Philip has correctly mentioned that the first reference is fine. Yet you reverted this. Please don't do this on a whim. Thank you. --Ragib 14:17, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

This is not a whim. The first reference is not fine, in that the claim is not verifiable, i.e. there is no source given for it in the footnote. I have read plenty of accepted doctoral dissertations that have mistakes. There is already one acceptable and verifiable reference, it does not need inferior quality ones obtained through google. There is already an acceptable reference there, why do you need to include inferior material that detracts from the quality of the article. These references contribute nothing - why insist on putting them in? Cripipper 14:40, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

• Just for added clarity - here is the relevant section from WP:V (emphasis added):

Self-published sources (online and paper)

Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources.

Self-published material may be acceptable when produced by a well-known, professional researcher in a relevant field or a well-known professional journalist. These may be acceptable so long as their work has been previously published by reliable third-party publications. However, exercise caution: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so."

SO, just to clarify: personal websites are not acceptable sources, ruling out the second of the two. The thesis is unpublished, and is not written by a historian, but by someone who works in the field of education - not a relevant field. Cripipper 15:09, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Casualty section quote from USSD conference

The Office of the Historian of the United States State Department held a two-day conference in late June 2005 on U.S. policy in South Asia between 1961 and 1972. The State Department invited international scholars to express their views on declassified documents recently published in the Foreign Relations of the United States series. Acording to a newspaper report published in both Pakistani and Bangladeshi newspapers, Bangladeshi speakers at the conference stated that the official Bangladeshi figure of civilian deaths was close to 300,000, which was wrongly translated from Bengali into English as three million. Ambassador Shamsher M. Chowdhury acknowledged that Bangladesh alone cannot correct this mistake and suggested Pakistan and Bangladesh should form a joint commission to investigate the 1971 disaster and prepare a report. "Almost all scholars agreed that the real figure was somewhere between 26,000, as reported by the Hamoodur Rahman Commission, and not three million, the official figure put forward by Bangladesh and India." [27][28][29]

I have two questions here:

• Which Bangladeshi newspaper? Could we get some citations or names? Otherwise, I am going to remove the bolded part a week from now.
• The second bolded part is wrong grammatically. Between has to have a structure like "Between x and y". However, in this case, there's no y. Does anyone know what he actually said?

In general, I have an issue with this section. Most of this is US justification to not intervening in the war. As far as Bangladeshi sources are concerned, from what I recall, the papers seem to treat the speakers as being selectively picked for some ulterior motives. There are numerous conferences held everyday with speakers. Why quote numbers from them? It's not really a reputed academic source, is it, especially given USSD's involvement in the War?

urnonav 22:03, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

The Four Phases

I haven't read the whole article, but I have to say, I feel there may be just a tad bit of bias here...

"The Pakistani Army was in a dreadful condition and gradually lost the will to fight because most of their major fortresses had fallen to the allied Bengali-Indian forces. It was a matter of shame for the Pakistani High Command that a well-trained army was losing the war to the common Bengali civilians, who were barely trained and had outdated weapons. To conceal this shameful matter they launched an air attack near the Indian border on December 3 so that the real facts would remain unknown to the common people and people would say that Pakistani Army did not lose to the Mukti Bahini but to more powerful Indian armies. This led India to announce war against Pakistan officially and they started attacking near the Pakistan-India border from the 6th of December. All-out war between Bangladesh-India and Pakistan began. The agility and strategy of the Mukti Bahini, aided by Indian forces, overwhelmed the Pakistani forces and within 10 days of India's joiníng the war, the Pakistani Army was compelled to an unconditional surrender on December 16, 1971."

The phrasing is pretty slanted. The "shameful act?" "So that the real facts would remain unknown to the common people." This needs to be cleaned up.

Agreed. How about this?

The Pakistani Army was in a dreadful condition and gradually lost the will to fight because most of their major fortresses had fallen to the allied Bengali-Indian forces. It launched an air attack near the Indian border on December 3. This led India to announce war against Pakistan officially and they started attacking near the Pakistan-India border from the 6th of December. All-out war between Bangladesh-India and Pakistan began. The Pakistani Army was soon defeated at many fronts and was compelled to an unconditional surrender to Mitra Bahini on December 16, 1971.

--Ragib 01:52, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

VANDALISM

This needs to be reverted at once. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 76.193.169.229 (talk) 02:32, 22 February 2007 (UTC).