Talk:Pakistani Instrument of Surrender

Picture

There is a picture on the Jagjit Singh Aurora page of the Instrument being signed ... I think that it should be included in this article ... any objections ???

--Saggod 11:30, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with File:1971 surrender.jpg

The image File:1971 surrender.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --01:10, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

What happened the people who surrendered?

Were they repatriated? --AW (talk) 06:33, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, according to Simla Treaty. --Ragib (talk) 06:53, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

East Pakistan surrender is NPOV

The "surrender of East Pakistan" sounds like the Surrender of Japan or Surrender of Germany. The people of East Pakistan declared independence on March 26 and became Bangladesh. According the Instrument of Surrender, the Pakistan Eastern Command surrendered in Bangladesh. There was no such thing as East Pakistan on December 16!--ArmanJ (talk) 20:30, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

That IP was yours? Feel free to edit through your username! :p Faizan (talk) 11:15, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Picture of Instrument of Surrender

Good Day

1. I am Major Shameem Ibne Moin, currently posted as a General Staff Officer Grade 2 in Armed Forces Division, Prime Minister’s Office, Government of the Peoples’ Republic of Bangladesh. I would like to put forward an observation regarding an article published in Wikipedia named ‘Instrument of Surrender (1971)’.

2. The Instrument of Surrender 1971 was a written agreement that enabled the surrender of the Pakistan Armed Forces in the Bangladesh Liberation War 1971. Lieutenant-General A A K Niazi, joint commander of the Pakistan Armed Forces of East Pakistan contingent, and Lieutenant General Jagjit Singh Aurora, joint commander of the Bangladesh-India Allied Forces, signed the instrument. The ceremony was witnessed by Air Commodore A. K. Khandker (the then Group Captain), Deputy Commander-in-Chief of the Bangladesh Armed Forces, who was the lone representative of Bangladesh Government amongst the attendees of the ceremony.

3. Number of still photographs was taken to record this historical moment and was subsequently published in various newspapers, websites, journals, war museums, ceremonial brochures etc. One of these photographs is published in your website as well (under Surrender ceremony sub-head). Under this subheading it is mentioned, ``On behalf of Bangladesh, Air Commodore A.K Khandker acted as witness to the surrender.” However this particular picture does not include Air Commodore A. K. Khandker, who was standing (in civil dress) at the left of Lieutenant General Jagjit Singh Aurora as seen in the picture. Certain portion might have been cut from the picture to accommodate it within the webpage. As a result, the picture does not contain the only representative of Bangladesh Government present in the ceremony. It is to be further mentioned that the picture on surrender ceremony preserved in the Bangladesh Liberation War Museum also include the image of Air Commodore A.K Khandker.

4. In this context as the surrender picture is partially published, we think the visual depiction of the historical moment may not be comprehensive to the readers. Therefore, we recommend the publication of the picture in full including Air Commodore A. K. Khandker, who was the lone representative of Bangladesh Government as mentioned above. We would like to inform you that we possess the photograph and can be e-mailed to you if necessary.

5. Your response in this regard will be highly appreciated. Regards.

                                                                              Major Shameem Ibne Moin
                                                                              General Staff Officer Grade 2
                                                                              Government of the Peoples Republic of Bangladesh 
                                                                              Prime Ministers Officer
                                                                              Civil and Military Relations Directorate
                                                                              Armed Forces Division
                                                                              Email Address- shameem7068@yahoo.com
                                                                              Cell Info 01769014378  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.97.142.118 (talk) 03:14, 17 May 2014 (UTC) 

 Contacted via email by Rahat (Talk * Contributions) 19:40, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

POW civilians

@MBlaze Lightning: You are very well aware of the discussion at Talk:Indo-Pakistani War of 1971. Civilians being part of POWs were discussed there. You reverted me saying that word "officials" cover family members of military personnel. I disagree with you on that. I am not sure if this should be even a discussion point and I am not sure which English do you use but the English I use does not describe kids of a military personnel as "officials". You were also notified about WP:ARBIPA which says that you are supposed to assume good faith towards other editors when you are working on Pakistan/India topics and calling other people POV pusher is opposite of assuming good faith. You need to cut down on the habit of calling others as POV pushers. Also, Please explain, why do you think that Bangladesh Liberation War is more relevant compared to Indo-Pakistani War of 1971 when describing instrument of surrender? Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 22:31, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

@SheriffIsInTown: No problem, I'm willing to go for a self-revert but you cannot just use word "civilian" since majority of them were razakars beside members of pakistan soldiers family, perhaps. MBlaze Lightning (talk) 22:52, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

@SheriffIsInTown: because the Pakistan forces surrendered in the east pakistan which ultimately led to the creation of independent Bangladesh as as a new country, thus Bangladesh Liberation War is more relevant! MBlaze Lightning (talk) 23:09, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

I don't think so, I think they surrendered as a result of direct Indian intervention. It was combined affect of Indian and Provisional Bangladeshi forces but I think we should go with the sources. However sources describe it, we should describe it the same way. Also, you seem to be adopting two different point of views on two different pages. Your recent reverts at Indo-Pakistani War of 1971 show that you are not letting people include Provisional Bangladeshi forces as a victorious party of that war but here you are adopting completely opposite point of view. If the surrender ended Bangladesh Liberation War then what ended Indo-Pakistani War of 1971? Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 23:50, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

@SheriffIsInTown: Obviously they surrendered because of the Indian troops. And, no different point of view, Indo-Pakistani War of 1971 covers all areas of wars including the western sector while Bangladesh Liberation War includes only eastern sector and that's why i added it but its OK, I'm restoring "Indo-Pak article" And, It was not Bangladeshi victory according to every sources that have been listed in the Indo-Pak article. They don't have any victory with them. Indo-Pak war was between India and Pakistan so winner will be India or Pakistan, that's what the sources mentioned in the article say, they all cite Indian Victory. Name of Mukti Bahini or Bangladesh/or Allies along with India is the thing to write in result section of Bangladesh liberation war (already written tho). Moreover, the IP who is adding Bangladesh again and again in the result section is an apparent sockpuppet of Xtremdood who started this all first. You can see the discussion at talk page, -RFC section and below, consensus was reached long ago. And, the reason I'm not reverting the IP because I don't wanted to get block for violating 3RR. I have left that for the other users, they will certainly revert him in accordance with the talk page consensus, you can do that too. MBlaze Lightning (talk) 00:41, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

I see that RFC's result was to include the information. Exact words of the result are "The consensus is that the information should be included." Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 01:17, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

@SheriffIsInTown: How about you care to look little below the RFC section (Revisions by Human3015), as i mentioned "RFC-and below? MBlaze Lightning (talk) 01:31, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 05 September 2016

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

The result of the move request was: Procedural move. Name is reverted to longstanding title. Discussion can take place from there if desired.  — Amakuru (talk) 15:58, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

---

Pakistani Instrument of Surrender → Instrument of Surrender (1971) – The official name of the document is "Instrument of Surrender", hence the original and preferred title per WP:COMMONNAME. In any case, the current name was moved without prior discussion so it'd be helpful if the article could be moved back to the original, and any future move be performed after discussion on the talk page. – Mar4d (talk) 12:44, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

This is a contested technical request (permalink), considering the moves on 15 August. Ping Akib.H. — Sam Sailor 15:18, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with * '''Support''' or * '''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move 6 March 2017

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

The result of the move request was: page moved. (non-admin closure) TonyBallioni (talk) 18:14, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

---

Instrument of Surrender (1971) → Pakistani Instrument of Surrender – Disambiguating the title with year is Absurd and misleading. Who!? surrendered here!? for what!? The official name of the document is "Instrument of Surrender"- YA YA THE Japanese and German documen was also named simple as "Instrument of Surrender". If we have Japanese Instrument of Surrender & German Instrument of Surrender; Why we can´t have a Pakistani Instrument of Surrender! Just because of some Pakistani editor said Wikipedia:I just don't like it!! 87.79.176.237 (talk) 15:47, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

• Support Move - per nom. - Mar11 (talk) 20:22, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
• Support Move - per Wikipedia:Article titles #Use_commonly_recognizable_names- Gaurh (talk) 13:31, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

support Yes please. Pakistan surrendered in 1971. The page title doesn't tell me anything about which nation. In Bangla we always use the term Pakistan when we talk about the surrender. But as I am biased so I can understand if Pakistani editors dont like this title. I firmly believe that wiki should not take sides. If this title is not neutral then maybe we can use Instrument of surrender (Bangladesh liberation war). After all, it happened in the Bangladesh liberation war so it is perfectly fine to call it so. My preference is still to call it Pakistani instrument of surrender.Kiwigravity (talk) 09:56, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

• I'm going to have to object to the move, as this clearly should've had broader input. "Instrument of Surrender (1971)" is the longstanding title of the page and it is clearly disambiguated by the year in brackets. The term "Instrument of Surrender" is the name of the document itself, a terminology on its own, and is used in academic works written on the war [1]. There clearly isn't any confusion which Instrument the article is referring to (as claimed by nom.), as there is only one Instrument of Surrender from 1971. The current title adds a descriptor that isn't the real name of the document to begin with, and also does not meet WP:COMMONNAME. Lastly, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and WP:IDONTLIKEIT isn't even grounds for a move. Given this was a non-admin move, and knowing that broader consensus wasn't formed for the reasons presented, I'm going to have to restore the title to the status quo. It would be highly appreciated if the issue is discussed through WP:RFC or a medium facilitating a larger number of editors, and if third party editors are preferably involved in the consensus. Cheers, Mar4d (talk) 13:03, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Start RFC first and don't move the article unilaterally as it controversial now. Take a look at Japanese Instrument of Surrender

The Japanese (left) and Allied (right) copies of the Instrument of Surrender

& German Instrument of Surrender

The first instrument of surrender signed at Reims on 7 May 1945.

first. the name of the both documents on original picture "Instrument of Surrender". longstanding title doesn't mean eternal unchangeable —Gaurh (talk) 22:01, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

@User:Mar4d: is it a fun or you don't care Wikipedia:Requested moves!? User:TonyBallioni is not an Admin but has right to do so as User:Mar11 and Kiwigravity also involved! show some respect and start a new move discussion first! —Gaurh (talk) 22:38, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

• The consensus established in the RM above was that the page should be moved. I considered that a move was previously opposed and procedurally reverted when weighing the arguments, and ultimately decided that the arguments and consensus here were clear enough for a move under WP:RMCI and the policies cited, namely the WP:RECOGNIZABLE argument. The sources in the article itself also don't support the assertion that the former title of the article is either the official name or the common name [2]. While I would agree that the users above did not express Wikipedia policy like a Wikilawyer, their arguments were rooted in the considerations that Wikipedia policy and conventions tell us to look at when making a close. I don't have any strong attachment to this article's title, but the arguments for a move are in line with Wikipedia policy, and were the consensus during the RM listing period. An RM is the equivalent for an RfC for a move, and is advertised community-wide and on the page itself. I don't see any reason to reopen the past RM, but you or any editor is free to take it to a move review or start another RM seeking to move it back because of sources found that were not raised previously. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:46, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

45,000 real figure. 93,000 exaggerated

• I have added 45,000 soldiers figure which was given by Gen AAK Niazi himself and cited in many sources. The 93,000 soldiers is an exaggerated figure as said by sharmila bose ::::*Bose, Sarmila. 2011. Dead reckoning: memories of the 1971 Bangladesh War. New York: Columbia University Press. p.173: "One of the most notable ‘numbers’ of 1971 in circulation is the assertion that ‘93,000 Pakistani soldiers’ were taken prisoner by India at the end of the war. This statement has been repeated, virtually unchallenged, in practically every form of publication. It is a number about which one expects a certain precision—after all the number of POWs in India had to be an exact figure, not an approximation. Yet it turns out that 93,000 soldiers were not, in fact, taken prisoner...How did 34,000 army personnel plus 11,000 civilian police and other armed personnel, a total of 45,000 men, more than double into 93,000 soldiers’ who were reported taken prisoner by India in December?"

Truthwins018 (talk) 20:42, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

• I had made a change to the 93,000 soldiers claim being displayed on the opening paragraph of the article. This was reverted by আফতাবুজ্জামান. I am surprised that this figure has been allowed to be kept while anyone familiar with the subject will definetely negate it as 93,000 prisoners and soldies have a difference. It has been clearly stated by Gen AAK Niazi who was the commandar of the eastern command that he was commanding only 45,000 soldiers . It is even mentioned on the 1971 indo pak war article that 93,000 soldiers figure is absolutely baseless and no official Pakistani representative has mentioned it. The dawn news source gives no reference to its original source and seems WP:CIRC.

• Bose, Sarmila. 2011. Dead reckoning: memories of the 1971 Bangladesh War. New York: Columbia University Press. p.173: "One of the most notable ‘numbers’ of 1971 in circulation is the assertion that ‘93,000 Pakistani soldiers’ were taken prisoner by India at the end of the war. This statement has been repeated, virtually unchallenged, in practically every form of publication. It is a number about which one expects a certain precision—after all the number of POWs in India had to be an exact figure, not an approximation. Yet it turns out that 93,000 soldiers were not, in fact, taken prisoner...How did 34,000 army personnel plus 11,000 civilian police and other armed personnel, a total of 45,000 men, more than double into 93,000 soldiers’ who were reported taken prisoner by India in December?"
  
• Faruqui, A., 2001. Failure in Command: Lessons from Pakistan's Indian Wars, 1947—1999. Defense Analysis, 17(1), pp.31-40. "the Pakistani army surrendered in thirteen days with more than 45,000 soldiers still fighting"
• Khan, T.H., 2018. What Kinds of Variables Allow War to Create a New State? The Case of Bangladesh’s Secessionist War. Journal of Indian Studies, 4(1), pp.65-84. "The Eastern command had roughly 45,000 soldiers"
• Hossain, Kamal, 2013. Bangladesh: Quest for Freedom and Justice, pp.129. "The army's strength in East Pakistan was well under 20,000. To cope with the expected popular reaction to the action planned by the regime, the troop strength was raised to about 45,000, the number which surrendered on 16 December 1971."
  
• Jabbar, Javed, 2020. Dawn News article by former federal minister and senator " There were only about 34,000 combat soldiers out of about 45,000 troops deployed."
  

A historical document under FOREIGN RELATIONS OF THE UNITED STATES, 1969–1976, VOLUME XI, SOUTH ASIA CRISIS, 1971 from a meeting chaired by Henry A. Kissinger and including people from Defense, CIA, JCS and NCS also state "There are 20,000 loyal West Pakistani troops in East Pakistan" which was cited in the book of sharmila bose as the strength before Pakistan calling in more strength growing up to 45,000 of which 34,000 were soldiers.
This should be done to maintain WP:NPOV.The best we can do is to change the "soldiers" to "prisoners" or mention the most authentic source from the commander himself of 45,000 soldiers in a range with 93,000 figure.Truthwins018 (talk) 17:19, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

There are 100s of Bengali/English WP:RS (from BBC to Daily Star (Bangladesh)) which mentions it was 93K. I'm not going to flood this page with citation. If you search on google, they will come up (for Bengali if you search "৯৩ হাজার পাকিস্তানি" they will come up). You're saying like they all agreed to lie or something.

Anyway, If have no objection to maintain WP:NPOV. In that case, i'm ok with writting this as "POWs" insted of "soldiers". --আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 18:35, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

• Anyone with a little knowledge on this topic will find it absolutely hilarious to mention "93,000 soldiers". I agree that some sources have mentioned this, but no Pakistani official statement has agreed to possessing 93,000 soldiers. That means that the surrender was only of soldiers and no policemen, barbers, bank employes, civil servents etc. Officially the Pakistan army has declared that it commanded 3 divisions comprising 34,000 soldiers and 11,000 other servicemen comprising police forces etc. It has also been said by many Pakistani army officers . The BBC article you are referring to is an opinion piece and not liable for a citation. Bengali sources come under the category of WP:CIRC. Right now it seems fine to change "soldiers" to " POW" untill some compromise is reached on how to establish the 45,000 figures to maintain WP:NPOV as the figure has complete citations, primary and secondary and thus cannot be challenged.Truthwins018 (talk) 11:15, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
• I have change "soldiers" to "POWs"Truthwins018 (talk) 11:45, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

References

A new (July 2023) account, Jee Fateh, tried to change what it said in the lead as follows.^[3] আফতাবুজ্জামান has reverted to the previous version.^[4]

Previous version	New account-holder's version
The surrender of 93,000 Pakistani soldiers was the largest surrender in terms of number of personnel since the end of World War II.	The surrender of 93,000 POWs out of which 34,000 were combatant troops, 11,000 were non-combatant troops and remaining 55,000 were the civilians; which was one of the largest surrenders in terms of numbers since the end of World War.

There ought to be a section in the main body of the article dealing with this. This needs to express what is generally said, which is 93 thousand, using sources including military history books; though the retrospective by The Hindu is a good source and should be retained. Since the numbers are disputed, it should explain what other sources say. The lead should merely summarise this.-- Toddy1 (talk) 13:06, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

References