1971 war: history
This is a collection of articles archived for the excellence of their content. Additional information may please be sent as messages to the Facebook community, Indpaedia.com. All information used will be gratefully acknowledged in your name.
This is a collection of articles archived for the excellence of their content. |
Contents |
The liberation of Bangladesh
A summary
Jayant Prasad, Dec 3, 2021: The Times of India
Bangladesh was the product of the ineptitude of Pakistan’s military establishment, the selfishness of West Pakistan’s political elite, the liberation struggle of the people of Bangladesh, and India’s brilliant military campaign.
India’s leadership was clear that the thrust of the effort in the liberation of Bangladesh had to be internal, even if the Indian army delivered the final coup de grace. The chief martial law administrator and commander of the eastern command of the Pakistan army, Lt Gen AAK ‘Tiger’ Niazi, surrendered to the joint command of the Indian army and the Mukti Bahini on the afternoon of December 16, 1971, almost to the hour on the 13th day of the War of Liberation of Bangladesh.
The diplomatic front
Indian MPs scored
CHAKSHU ROY, May 25, 2025: The Indian Express
The government has put together seven all-party parliamentary delegations to visit 30-plus countries to convey India’s zero-tolerance policy towards terrorism. The delegations have 59 sitting MPs. Baijayant Panda, Kanimozhi Karunanidhi, Ravi Shankar Prasad, Sanjay Kumar Jha, Shashi Tharoor, Shrikant Eknath Shinde and Supriya Sule are leading these delegations.
IPU is an association of national parliaments started by a British and French parliamentarian in 1888. It began with a British and French parliamentarian organising a meeting of their fellow parliamentarians in Paris in 1888. The first meeting had nine English and 25 French MPs who believed in arbitration in resolving international conflicts. The next meeting saw MPs from other European countries attending, and the group formalised its functioning. The IPU co-founders went on to receive the Nobel Peace Prize.
The Indian Parliament joined IPU in 1948-49 when 40 other parliaments were in the group. IPU now has parliaments of 181 countries as its members. The CPA is a smaller body, with its members being parliaments that were part of the British Commonwealth. It started in 1911 when a British parliamentarian suggested that the legislatures in the colonies should send a delegation to London to be present at the coronation of King George V. This body started as the Empire Parliamentary Association and its name changed to CPA in 1948.
Both IPU and CPA work in a similar fashion. They hold meetings where parliamentarians from around the world convene to discuss international matters and issues relating to democracy and legislatures. These meetings are key forums where India puts its viewpoint in the community of nations and where our MPs build ties with their counterparts in other countries. But there is one key difference. In IPU deliberations, assembled members adopt resolutions through voting, while in CPA, resolutions are not adopted. Conversations at these meetings shape international opinion and result in invitations to parliamentary exchange between countries.
Indian MPs in Turkey, China
For example, one of the earlier parliamentary delegations that visited India was from Turkey in 1953. In 1956, a 24-member delegation of Indian MPs visited China, where the group also met Chairman Mao Zedong. Later that year, India invited Chinese Premier Chou-En-Lai to address Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha MPs in the Central Hall of Parliament.
Foreign affairs and diplomacy are the domain of the government. Therefore, in the initial years of the Republic, neither the government nor the MPs took parliamentary diplomacy seriously. Some MPs viewed participation in foreign delegations as a reward, and an Opposition MP sarcastically observed, “…when foreign delegations and important committees are formed, MPs, who have observed the rule of silence and who have not worried themselves about the debates, are normally accommodated. Perhaps it is recognition of their impenetrable inertia!”
But this attitude changed in 1971. A year earlier, the first general elections in Pakistan resulted in Sheikh Mujibur Rahman’s Awami League winning 160 (all in East Pakistan) of the 300 seats. These results led to a brutal crackdown by the Pakistani Army in East Pakistan. The killings of innocent civilians in Bangladesh reverberated in the Indian Parliament.
Interventions by MPs such as Samar Guha, Atal Bihari Vajpayee and others would lead Lok Sabha to speak in one voice: “This House records its profound conviction that the historic upsurge of the 75 million people of East Bengal will triumph. The House wishes to assure them that their struggle and sacrifices will receive the whole-hearted sympathy and support of the people of India.”
The government’s subsequent diplomatic offensive is well documented. What has received less attention is India’s parliamentary diplomacy. In September of 1971, India had two opportunities to focus international attention on the genocide in East Bengal by the Pakistani army. The first was the IPU meeting in Paris, and the second was the CPA meeting in Kuala Lumpur.
A diplomatic triumph in Paris
The IPU conference in Paris was a golden opportunity – 500 parliamentarians from 60 countries (Pakistan was not an IPU member) and 200 observers from 10 international organisations such as the UN, ILO, UNESCO and the Red Cross participated. An added advantage was that the Indian Parliament was conversant with the nitty-gritty of IPU functioning. It had hosted the conference in Delhi in 1969, and Lok Sabha Speaker G S Dhillon chaired the proceedings.
Dhillon would lead the Indian delegation of 10 MPs to Paris. Before reaching France, he stopped in Afghanistan and Iran to garner support for India’s position on East Bengal. His delegation had MPs such as Jyotirmoy Basu, Dr Shankar Dayal Sharma, P M Sayeed, Sheila Kaul, K P Unnikrishnan and Pranab Mukherjee. Many of them would go on to hold key ministerial and constitutional positions. From the start of the week-long Paris conference, the Indian delegation wanted the East Bengal issue on the agenda.
The United States delegation, in its report, observed, “The most lively issue at the conference was the situation in East Pakistan and the problem of Pakistani refugees in India. At the opening of the session the conference decided after considerable debate to accept the request of the Indian delegation that the problem of East Pakistan refugees be placed on the agenda. The Indian request included a draft resolution, entitled ‘Bangla Desh’, with a strongly political orientation, including condemnation of the actions of the Pakistan military government.”
In the end, the Indian MPs got the IPU member countries to pass a unanimous resolution urging their governments “to encourage the steps required to create the political, economic and social conditions for the safe return of the refugees to their homeland…” The unanimous passage of this resolution was one of India’s diplomatic wins during the Bangladesh crisis. The delegation’s work did not end there; they fanned out to other European countries to put forth India’s position. Speaker Dhillon would then travel to Malaysia, where another Indian contingent would successfully get the East Bengal issue highlighted at the CPA conference again.
The efforts of MPs combined with the diplomatic outreach by the government would contribute to several countries sending parliamentary delegations to India. These visiting delegations got a first-hand view of the crisis created by Pakistan and ensured the tilting of international opinion in India’s favour.
The writer looks at issues through a legislative lens and works at PRS Legislative Research
India wanted early recognition of Bangladesh; Indira’s letter to Nixon
Aug 1, 2025: The Indian Express
How it all unfolded
Historian Srinath Raghavan, in his book Indira Gandhi and the Years that Transformed India, writes that by March 19, 1971, preparations for a military crackdown were underway in East Pakistan (present-day Bangladesh).
Mrs Gandhi was aware of the considerable “parliamentary and public pressure on the government to do something” and met Opposition leaders on the evening of March 26 to explain her thinking. “She also requested that the government’s policy on the matter should not become a subject matter of public debate,” Raghavan writes.
Parliament was tense in the following days. Minister of External Affairs Swaran Singh informed Parliament about the situation in East Pakistan, telling both the Houses that the government.was “gravely concerned” about the situation and “our hearts go out in sympathy to the people who are undergoing suffering”, Raghavan writes.
But he came under sharp criticism, with several MPs, many from Bengal and with roots in Bangladesh, expressing concern about the situation. The PM had to intervene and assure Parliament that “we are fully alive to the situation”.
Raghavan writes that there was huge pressure to recognise Bangladesh. “Several political parties passed resolutions demanding immediate recognition of Bangladesh. Legislative Assemblies in Uttar Pradesh, Bihar, Assam, Nagaland, and Tripura adopted resolutions urging the Central government to formally recognise Bangladesh … More uncomfortable was the demand for recognition from the Congress’s principal ally, the Communist Party of India. These calls were echoed in the press and lent credence by Pundits.”
Veteran leader Jayaprakash Narayan, who would later take on Mrs Gandhi during the Emergency, also pushed the government for action.
According to Raghavan, the PM felt that since the international community believed East Pakistan was Pakistan’s internal matter, India could face pushback. Her strategy was to support the guerrilla movement in the neighbouring country. This was the stance till May 7, when she held another meeting with the Opposition. While supporting the guerrilla campaign, she said that “we cannot contemplate armed intervention at all”.
But the refugee crisis soon arrived, with almost 1 lakh refugees landing up in India, according to some estimates. Raghavan writes that Mrs Gandhi reached out to Atal Behari Vajpayee, then a leader of the BJP’s precursor Jana Sangh, to “request him to not politicise” the issue as it would “help Pakistan portray the refugee problem as a Hindu-Muslim and India-Pakistan problem”.
Mrs Gandhi changes her mind
Within days, there was a shift in the PM’s stance. On May 24, she spoke in Parliament about the extent of the refugee crisis.
“…So massive a migration, in so short a time, is unprecedented in recorded history. About three and a half million people have come into India from Bangla Desh during the last eight weeks. They belong to every religious persuasion – Hindu, Muslim, Buddhist and Christian… They are not refugees in the sense we have understood this since Partition. They are victims of war who have sought refuge from the military terror across our frontier,” she said.
She added that India had not tried to “interfere with the internal affairs of Pakistan, even though they have not exercised similar restraint”.
“And even now, we do not seek to interfere in any way. But what has actually happened? What was claimed to be an internal problem of Pakistan, has also become an internal problem for India. We are, therefore, entitled to ask Pakistan to desist immediately from all actions which it is taking in the name of domestic jurisdiction, and which vitally affect the peace and well-being of millions of our own citizens. Pakistan cannot be allowed to seek a solution of its political or other problems at the expense of India and on Indian soil.”
By mid-October 1971, there was a growing sense within the government that it had to fully support the rebels. To shore up international support, the PM travelled to Moscow in September to persuade the leadership. She also visited key Western capitals, which only “elicited only a modicum of sympathy and support”. Her meeting with US President Richard Nixon was “frosty”, writes Raghavan.
“The consequences of military action, Nixon warned, were ‘incalculably dangerous’. Nixon’s Secretary of State and National Security Advisor Henry Kissinger held a meeting to take stock of the situation. It was here that Nixon remarked that Mrs Gandhi was being a ‘bitch’ and Kissinger replied that ‘Indians are bastards anyway’. Mrs Gandhi held a meeting with the President that same afternoon. ‘She did not bring up the South Asian crisis at all. Instead, she probed Nixon about US foreign policy across the globe. Her attitude, Kissinger would later write ‘brought out all of Nixon’s latent insecurities’,” Raghavan writes.
On December 3, after Pakistan launched an airstrike, India declared war. Two days later, Mrs Gandhi wrote to Nixon to apprise him of the situation. “I am writing to you at a moment of grave peril and danger to my country and my people. The success of the freedom movement in Bangla Desh has now become a war on India due to the adventurism of the Pakistan military machine,” she wrote.
“In this hour of danger the Government and the people of India seek your understanding and urge you to persuade Pakistan to desist forthwith from the policy of wanton aggression and military adventurism which it has unfortunately embarked upon. May I request Your Excellency to exercise your undoubted influence with the Government of Pakistan to stop their aggressive activities against India and to deal immediately with the genesis of the problem of East Bengal which has caused so much trial and tribulations to the people not only of Pakistan but of the entire sub-continent,” she told the US president.
After an almost two-week campaign, the Pakistan Army surrendered on December 16. Mrs Gandhi immediately rushed to Parliament after Dhaka fell, declaring it was now a “free capital” of a “free country”. “The parliament erupted in acclamation and every line of hers was cheered to the echo. In the days ahead, Indira Gandhi would be praised in Parliament with awe bordering on veneration… She was compared to Durga…,” Raghavan writes.
Pakistani prisoners of war
How Indian Army treated them
Man Aman Singh Chhina, Dec 30, 2024: The Indian Express
After the 1971 war, 93,000 Pakistani prisoners were imprisoned for nearly three years in POW camps spread over India, well away from the border.
The 93,000 Pakistani prisoners taken at the end of the 1971 war always find prominent mention in every remembrance event held to mark the anniversary of the war. However, not much is available in the public domain on how the humongous administrative and logistic exercise of boarding, feeding and guarding these thousands of prisoners was undertaken by the Indian Army.
In this week’s column, we take a look at what kind of treatment the Pakistani prisoners of war (POWs) received at the hands of the Indian Army while they were imprisoned for nearly three years in POW camps spread over India, well away from the border with Pakistan.
The camps
The POW camps were located across India, including in Ranchi, Agra, Gwalior, Roorkee and Jabalpur. Senior Pakistan Army officers, including Lt Gen A A K Niazi, the GOC Eastern Command in East Pakistan, were held in Jabalpur. Apart from the officers and soldiers held in these camps, their parents, wives and children were also in captivity. Therefore, separate arrangements had to be made for these civilians regarding their welfare and medical needs. In fact, many children were born to Pakistani prisoners in the initial days of captivity in 1972. One camp that held civilian internees reported the birth of six children in 1972.
Clothing and food
A scale of rations similar to that of military personnel was established for the Pakistani POWs. For the winter season, each POW received either three blankets or one quilt and one blanket. Each POW without a Pakistan Army pullover was given either a woollen pullover or shirt. In some camps, leather jackets without sleeves were issued. One pair of socks was distributed to all the POWs. Some women refused the army pullovers as unsuitable, requesting shawls that were not available.
A daily distribution of fresh fruits was made among the children detained in the civilian camps, with each child aged 1 to 17 years receiving a banana daily. One thousand bottles of multivitamin syrup were handed over to a Pakistani doctor in charge in one camp, who organised the distribution. POWs who had Indian currency deposited in the camp could use it for purchases in the canteen.
Freedom of religion
No complaints were made in any of the camps regarding freedom of worship to the inspecting authorities, including independent ones like the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC). Prisoners who died while trying to escape or due to illness were buried in a Muslim cemetery a short distance away from the POW camps in clearly marked graves that ICRC teams could identify.
In one camp where some POWs had been killed during an altercation with sentries, the windows of all the barracks were fitted with iron bars, and the POWs were locked in their barracks at night. However, during Ramzan, they were provided with all necessary facilities for praying and eating at night. In one of the camps, the camp authorities spent Rs 5,000 to help POWs celebrate Eid al-Adha and allotted Rs 1 per head for the Christian POWs for Christmas.
The group commander of several camps assisted the Shia POWs in celebrating Muharram. Quran and Bible translations in Urdu were widely available in the camps.
For Christmas, a priest visited the Christians, who were given some delicacies and a special menu. The Shi’ites assembled in one block for the Muharram observances. A mullah, interviewed without witnesses, expressed satisfaction at the respect shown for religious activities.
Newspapers and other facilities
Many POWs complained in the initial days that postal or money orders sent from India or abroad had not been remitted to them. It was explained that only civilians were authorised to receive money orders. Money or postal orders sent to POWs were therefore returned to the senders.
In each block, POWs received one newspaper in Urdu and four in English daily. Once a week, they received two copies of the Illustrated Weekly of India. Each block had a small library, with most books in Urdu.
The POWs could listen to daily radio broadcasts, including a half-hour bulletin from 6.30 am to 7 pm on Pakistan News, a bulletin from 3 pm to 4 pm on Indian News, and an Indian entertainment programme at 8.30 pm. Officers among the POWs had personal transistors, junior commissioned officers had one transistor per barrack, while officers of other ranks had one per block. On average, two films were shown monthly to the POWs.
Sports, games and musical instruments
As far as outside games were concerned, POWs practised common physical exercises in their courtyard. There was a volleyball ground in each enclosure, and inter-camp volleyball tournaments were organised.
For indoor games, the POWs had a few decks of playing cards, one chess board and two carrom boards per block.
One harmonium, four tablas, one Indian drum and ten flutes were usually available in the camps, provided as gifts by the ICRC. These instruments, purchased from the local market, were to stay in each block for three days before being passed on.
Radio messages for families in Pakistan
A team from All India Radio visited the camps to record personal family messages to be broadcast to relatives in Pakistan. On average, three correspondence forms were distributed to the POWs for writing letters. Some POWs complained that letters sent to or from Pakistan took two to three months to reach their addressees.
Punishment to POWs
A few POWs were given terms of confinement, usually at the request of a POW officer or the senior POW non-commissioned officer of the block. Some POWs faced fines amounting to 50 per cent of their advance pay as a consequence of breaking military discipline.
In all camps, a punishment register was maintained, noting all details. All punishments were administered in compliance with Articles 89 and 90 of the Third Geneva Convention.
Strict orders were given to the sentries to remain calm and not to shoot inside the camp in case of trouble or fights. It was noted that the Pakistani POW jawans frequently fought among themselves, which officers attributed to the mixing of units, frustration and congestion in the barracks.
POWs shot dead while escaping
There were escape attempts by the POWs and while some were successful, others resulted in deaths. One Capt Riaz-Ul-Haq of the 26 Frontier Force escaped from Camp 32.
In Camp 95, there was an attempted escape by Mohd Ishaq of the 48 Baluch, who was placed in detention for 15 days. Afterward, the Camp Commander sent him to the Camp Hospital for a few days since he was in a state of depression.
Two POW camps in India were the scene of incidents in October 1972. The first incident, at Dhanna on 3 October 1972, resulted in eight deaths and numerous casualties; the second, at Allahabad on 13 October, cost the lives of six prisoners.
In one camp in Uttar Pradesh, 16 POWs including six officers were being transported in a closed van to the military hospital for routine dental and eye treatment. At the destination, two prisoners—Lt M I Rizvi and Capt Abdul Wahid—started running in different directions. The escort and the driver chased them. Lt Rizvi was caught by the driver but freed himself and continued running. He was repeatedly challenged but kept running, resulting in the escort opening fire, which led to his death. Capt Abdul Wahid was also shot and wounded.
In another incident, a group of POWs in Uttar Pradesh attempted to attack and overpower the sentries to snatch their firearms. They succeeded in taking possession of one rifle and shot at one of the sentries, wounding him. Another group of POWs rushed towards the sentries at the gate, while several others began climbing the watchtower. The sentries on duty opened fire in self-defence to control the situation, resulting in the deaths of six POWs.
Medical facilities for POWs
Pakistan Army medical personnel were employed to run medical facilities supervised by Indian Army doctors at several locations. In one such hospital, Pak Army Lt Col M Anwar, pathologist; Lt Col A R Minhas, dental surgeon; Lt Col M Akhtar, ENT specialist; Maj Magbool Shah, GDMO; Maj M A Hamid Khan, EDMO; Maj Khadim Hussain, eye specialist; Maj H M Butt, anaesthetist; Capt M.A. Kiani, surgeon; Capt K D Mirza; Capt M A Qamar, medical specialist; Capt Ashur Khan; Lieut I H Bajwa; and Lt Col M S Bhatti, dermatologist, were responsible for running medical facilities for the POWs.
