Replies

In hindsight, it’s a good thing that Nixon and Kissinger failed.

The problem was that Indira Gandhi chose, for whatever reason, to side with the USSR, perhaps in part because of the Chinese threat to India’s northern borders, perhaps in part from lingering resentment of the British colonization. That pretty much forced the U.S. to side with Pakistan in response, even though it is clear that India is a far more civilized country with far more in common with us than Pakistan.

Indira Ghandi appointed herself as leader of the “Third World” in the UN. The first and second worlds were the U.S. and Europe vs Russia and the Communist states. But in most instances, Indira Ghandi stood with the USSR, and persuaded numerous other third world countries to stand with her and vote in the UN against U.S. interests.

So, the Nixon-Kissinger policy is understandable—if regretable. We sided with Pakistan because (as I thought at the time) second best was the only choice we were offered.

The Russians supplied India with armaments when America refused to sell them, and even forced Britain to stop such sales - one of the Soviet premiers famously gave India’s Nehru tours of Russian aircraft factories with promises of supplying India with the latest of Russian weaponry - at a time when the West refused to entertain any such efforts. If I recall correctly, that was what irked India enough to cause the tilt, although no basing rights were given to the Russians by India.

The American bet was on a religiously “cohesive” Pakistan to survive over the long term, in comparison with what was thought to be a very unstable, secular India. On top of that, the Russians quite early on shored up support for India in booting out French and Portuguese territorial claims from within her territory - especially Goa.

Things turned out quite differently, for all parties, through the years. India, no doubt, acted in India’s interests and stuck with it.

As for India itself, the Nehru-Gandhis were extremely close with Britain all through the time.

You are totally wrong. Indira Gandhi first came to power in 1966. By then, US-Pakistan military alliance was well established. Pakistan was part of SEATO and CENTO in 1954-55. US supported Pakistan in the 1965 Indo-Pak war, one year before Indira Gandhi came to power. And Indira Gandhi didnt appointed herself as leader of the “Third World”. India was the founder member of NAM and being the largest democracy India was the most influential among the post colonization, newly independent third world countries.

You need to do a little more research before piling it all on Indira Gandhi. US never considered India to be best choice back then. Pakistan-China seemed much better choice .

Not for whatever reason. The administrations before Nixon also sided with Islamic Republic of Pakistan. I think we should curb this penchant of trying to justify every action using some moral argument. Why not admit mistakes and realize that we have no business interfering in other countries.

The most foolish policy was to arm Osama bin Laden. Don’t give me the line about fighting Soviets because (a) it is insulting to the soldiers when you claim that American soldiers are all incompetent and so we need to go seek the help of some camel rider to save us, (b) it is still immoral to support Taliban and the terrorists and arm them, and (c) you imply that 9/11 attacks were justified because it was some sort of collateral damage that occurred as a result of fighting the Soviets.

Times and alliances change. India was on the side of the Soviets, while preaching "non-alignment", more or less continuously from Independence and the breakup with what became Pakistan until the assassination of "the bitch", as Nixon apparently called Indira Ghandi (in many ways an apt description). The US and what we used to call "Red China" were on the Pakistani side. The "Great Game" of South Asia has been going on for more than two hundred years now. The names of the countries change, the leaders change, and they even change sides in the game. But it never really stops.

At that time Pakistan had a pro-western government run behind the scenes and sometimes overtly by their military. It was smaller but richer and more "advanced" by far than Socialist India and the Islamic element were kept in their mosques. That ALL changed in 1979 when the Soviets invaded Afghanistan (long recognized like Mongolia as a backwater part of their "sphere of influence"). While we had already (thanks, again, Jimmy, you worthless POS) lost our greatest ally in the region besides Israel (Iran) we assisted the Afghan Mujahadeen (Holy Warriors) with Paki cooperation and Saudi money in resisting the Soviets trying, successfully in the end, to give Russia a Viet Nam of her very own and offset what looked like a Soviet march to warm water and oil.

Then the madrassas in Pakistan released their tens of thousands of young indoctrinated "scholars" ("Taliban") across the border to overthrow what was left of a Russian puppet government, they won all but a small fraction of the country, instituted a reign of religious terror that made China's Cultural or the French revolution look benign, nurtured and supported a rich Saudi who had fought with them through the Soviet years by the name of Osama bin Laden, and the rest as they say is history.