English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

True there was insurgency in Mizoram at that time. But there were no military targets in Aizawl. So why were they bombing it for two days? Those who suffered were peaceful civilians. Isn't this the kind of thing Saddam Hussein was guilty of?

And to top that, Indira Gandhi denied the bombing even took place, saying the planes only dropped rations and supplies. Well, those rations must have been extra spicy coz the whole place burned down.

2007-03-06 17:13:42 · 4 answers · asked by XMan 2 in Politics & Government Military

This was denied at the time, until 2 members of the Assam Legislative Assembly went to see for themselves and broke the news to the outside world

2007-03-09 02:31:35 · update #1

4 answers

BY MISTAKE

2007-03-07 05:56:34 · answer #1 · answered by Don 1 · 0 0

don't think the government denied this, read this article :

In the Lushai hills of Assam in the early sixties, a famine broke out. A relief team cried out for help from the Government of India. But there was little help. The relief team organized themselves into the Mizo National Front (MNF) and called for an armed struggle, " to liberate Mizoram from Indian colonialiasm." In February 1966, armed militant groups captured the town of Aizawl and took possession of all government offices. It took the Indian army one week to recapture the town. The army responded viciously with air raids. This is the only place in India where the Indian Security Forces actually aerially bombed its own civilian population. The armed forces compelled people to leave their homes and dumped them on the roadside to set up new villages, so that the armed forces would be able to better control them. This devastated the structure of Mizo society. In 1986, the Mizo Accord was signed between the MNF and the Government of India. This accord was identical to the Shilong Accord made with the Nagas earlier. The MNF agreed to work within the Indian Constitution and to renounce violence.

The Government of India's primary interest in the North East was strategic, and so was its response to the problems. A series of repressive laws were passed by the Government of India in order to deal with this uprising.
http://www.hrdc.net/sahrdc/resources/armed_forces.htm

2007-03-08 02:54:56 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1 0

Where did you get this story from ? sounds like fiction to me.

2007-03-07 01:36:18 · answer #3 · answered by funnysam2006 5 · 0 0

I was one. So I don't know.

2007-03-07 01:54:25 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers