Posted on 11/11/2011 11:20:49 AM PST by ravager
NEW DELHI: A set of freshly declassified top secret papers on the 1971 war show that US hostility towards India during the war with Pakistan was far more intense than known until now.
The documents reveal that Indira Gandhi went ahead with her plan to liberate Bangladesh despite inputs that the Nixon Administration had kept three battalions of Marines on standby to deter India, and that the American aircraft carrier USS Enterprise had orders to target Indian Army facilities
The bold leadership that the former PM showed during the 1971 war is well known. But the declassified documents further burnish the portrait of her courageous defiance.
The documents show how Americans held back communication regarding Pakistan's desire to surrender in Dhaka by almost a day.
That the American establishment had mobilized their 7th Fleet to the Bay of Bengal, ostensibly to evacuate US nationals, is public knowledge. But the declassified papers show Washington had planned to use the 7th Fleet to attack the Indian Army.
They also show that Nixon administration kept arming Pakistan despite having imposed an embargo on providing both Islamabad and New Delhi military hardware and support.
They suggest that India, exasperated by continuing flow of American arms and ammunition, had considered intercepting three Pakistani vessels carrying war stores months before the war. The plan was dropped against the backdrop of the Indian foreign ministry's assessment that the interception could trigger hostilities.
The pro-Pak bias of the then US President Richard Nixon and his Secretary of State Henry Kissinger is vividly brought out by their decision to keep three battalions of Marines on standby: a decision which has so far not found mention in any record of the 1971 war.
Documents blame Richard Nixon for Pakistan tilt
A six-page note prepared by India's foreign ministry holds then American president Richard Nixon responsible for the pro-Pakistan tilt during India's 1971 war with her neighbour.
"The assessment of our embassy reveal (sic) that the decision to brand India as an 'aggressor' and to send the 7th Fleet to the Bay of Bengal was taken personally by Nixon," says the note. The note further says, the Indian embassy: "feel (sic) that the bomber force aboard the Enterprise had the US President's authority to undertake bombing of Indian Army's communications, if necessary." As early as June 1971, New Delhi weighed the possibility of intercepting three Pakistani ships loaded with US weapons. This leaves only two other courses regarding interception: That India may intercept the ships before they reach Karachi, or impose a blockade of the Bay of Bengal. Either of these might involve the use of force and would be treated as acts of war, wrote the director (legal and treaties) of MEA.
On December 14, Gen A A K Niazi, Pakistan's military commander for erstwhile East Pakistan, told the American consul-general in Dhaka that he was willing to surrender. The message was relayed to Washington, but it took the US 19 hours to relay it to New Delhi. Files suggest senior Indian diplomats suspected the delay was because Washington was possibly contemplating military action against India.
“India genuinely wanted to keep both superpowers at bay without antagonizing either. It didn’t quite work out.”
One of the key reasons it did not work out was:
because the “non-aligned movement” continued to serve the purposes of it’s Soviet designers, which was not “non-alignment” but “NOT alignment with the U.S.”;
because the “non-aligned movement” continued to serve the purpose of its Soviet designers, which was as an “anti-U.S. movement”;
because the “non-aligned movement” continued to serve its intended purpose, as a tool of (aligned with) Soviet foreign policy aims.
“From Indian perspective, America had an exaggerated sense of righteousness that US represented the free world and every country must join her lead. Nothing wrong with that, except India (and countries following India’s lead)just wanted to stay out of it. And that caused enormous chagrin for the US.”
America’s sense of its place in the world was not exaggerated (1945-1989); it was handed its place by what remained after WWI and WWII, and its “lead” was never about itself; its “lead” was about its senior role in the partnerships of nations that shared its values; nations it had rescued from war, nations it had subdued in war and reformed in its aftermath, nations seeking to build on the same paths of essential freedoms, democracy and free enterprise.
The U.S. was never chagrined by India wanting to chart its own path; a “separate” path.
The U.S. WAS often chagrined by India taking a simplistic view (”correct view “ by Soviet terms) that taking a separate path required taking a path always contrary to the U.S.; as if simply and always being contrary to the U.S. was an essential to being “separate” (not alone in this and often acting as part of the political correctness that dominated the “non-aligned movement”). It was not a “separate” path, but one enjoyed by many and celebrated for the mere fact that it was “anti-American”.
A right idea (a ‘separate path’) based on all the wrong reasons (simply to be contrary to the U.S.) leads to many partnerships with phony allies who share nothing with your essential interests other than that they too are “anti-American”.
It hurt India far more than the U.S., by keeping Indian foreign policy locked in simple anti-Americanism for no good purpose.
Yet, anyone being honest with themselves, then or now, know that it was never U.S. intentions that its aid to Pakistan be used to suppress the separatist movement in East Pakistan in the brutal manner as was done by Pakistan; and, in another matter of honesty, those who knew the situation at time know that India was not 100% absent when it comes to the formation of the desires of East Pakistan to be independent.
“Status-quo was unacceptable to India.”
The status-quo ante I am referring to was simply the status-quo ante of the essential balance of power on the subcontinent; that neither Pakistan or India would think itself so all-powerful (and the other so terribly weak) as to attempt to initiate all-out war with the other.
The refugee issue during the East Pakistan-West Pakistan conflict, and even the Kashmir issue, were flash-points that could (and were) contained or resolved, even if some conflict was involved, without the general balance of power being undone.
“As for US military intervention not taking place....there are a lot of factors to consider such as Leonid Brezhnev threatening Nixon. Indo-Soviet friendship treaty would have got Soviet directly involved in the war in case of US military invasion on India. Secondly US military was already overstretched and losing the fight in Vietnam. Very unlikely they would initiate hostilities against a larger country like India with growing opposition to war back home. Lastly Indian military action was swift and decisive, it did not give any window of opportunity to US to hold off or retaliate against Indian forces.”
You ave followed the Soviet policy line very well - and that’s all it was at the time and all it remains.
Any “threat” from Brezhnev to Nixon was meaningless and served only Soviet foreign policy aims to secure its place with India, for no real material threat from the U.S. existed.
......And you accuse me of psychobabble.
India didn't join NAM. India founded NAM. And looking back.... yes it DID serve India's purpose. India preserved her sovereignty, strategic & political independence and successfully kept both superpowers off her turf. That was a huge benefits. As for your claims about Soviets pulling lever and benefiting from the agenda, I don't quite see any of that.
India was colonized by Great Britain and also France and Portugal. Sri Lanka was colonized by the Dutch. India went into a short war with Portugal over Goa in 1961. So yes it was the “West”.... but of course you wont know because you are quite ignorant of facts.
“The cold-war “hot bed” contexts of Korea or Vietnam had no parallels with, or in India;”
Nope. It could have very well been India's fate were it not for the strong military, stable democracy &political system and good international diplomacy. People forget there is a significant section of India that is fighting to bring communism. You may not like the Gandhi-Nehru legacy for your obvious bias but fact is they kept a delicate balance. The world was very much polarized by the two super power and their battle for influence and it was mostly the third world that bore the brunt. The threat for India was very real but it was difficult for US to see from her moral high horse.
” if she was believing in that phantom she was getting lots of help and influence for such beliefs from both China and the Soviet Union; “
India had nothing to do with China. India fought a war with China in 1962, that is another fact you are ignorant of. If India was believing in “phantom” it was a good phantom to believe in as worked well for India. Fear is what keeps you alive.
“If anything, India was simply playing geopolitical realpolitic - playing one (or more) foreign power off against another; for her own totally domestic self-interest,”
Yes India WAS playing one power against another. That is what smaller countries do to hold back larger aggressive countries. Nothing wrong with that. You make it sound like only US is right in pursuing her self-interest and other countries are wrong when they refuse to be a sacrificial pawn in America's righteous struggle for the free world. Self preservation is self interest.
First - Britain, France and Portugal = Britain, France and Portugal; individually or even together Britain, France and Portugal does not = “the west”.
Second - France and Portugal were minor players, compared to Britain, in terms of colonization on the sub-continent. The primary actor was Britain.
And with respect to “Nope - It could have very well been India’s fate were it not for the strong military, stable democracy &political system and good international diplomacy.”
Nope - it was never to be India’s fate (as a “Korea” or “Vietnam” type situation). As I said, India never contained the same situational context as either Korea or Vietnam as to the causes of the military situations there.
Neither India’s strong military, international diplomacy or its stable democracy were material to India not being in a “Korea” or “Vietnam” situation - as important as those things are, on their own, to India in general. Regardless of those things, there was no context and no threat of India being in a similar context - in terms of international security issues - as Korea or Vietnam. The threat of that never existed.
“India had nothing to do with China. India fought a war with China in 1962, that is another fact you are ignorant of. If India was believing in “phantom” it was a good phantom to believe in as worked well for India. Fear is what keeps you alive.”
I am not ignorant of the war between India and China in World War II.
I am also not ignorant of indigenous political factions in India with fraternal connections to the Soviets in some cases and to the Communist Chinese in others; and the fraternal influence those factions held and with which they were inspired to help move and support Indian anti-American sentiments, for their (the Marxists) benefit in international issues in the “cold war”.
“If India was believing in “phantom” it was a good phantom to believe in as worked well for India. Fear is what keeps you alive.”
That belief - to the extent it was held - had nothing to do with India not obtaining an either Korea or Vietnam type context; because the threat of such a context never existed.
“Yes India WAS playing one power against another. That is what smaller countries do to hold back larger aggressive countries.”
Yet, it was never the case that it was “U.S. aggression” that hung in the balance, with respect to India. India was simply playing one or more power against another, for what she could gain for herself from it, not because she was threatened by the U.S. if she didn’t.
Maybe you don’t know or realize how much support for India has always existed in this country, in official and unofficial circles, in spite of her participation in the so-called “non-aligned” movement, and the frequency with which she supported mere anti-Americanisms, internationally, most often driven not by Indian self-interest as international Marxist self-interest. Americans still championed India’s great democracy in a part of the world that needed democracy more.
But, if believing in non-existent threats works for you and makes you feel better, then by all means go ahead.
And what values did America share with countries like Saudia Arabia, Yemen, Jordan, Egypt, Pakistan, Turkey? The line you just parroted perfectly reflects the kind of hyperbole and exaggerated righteous vanity I was referring to. Especially given the enormous contradictions, bending of rules and plain double standards existent in American foreign policy.
“The U.S. WAS often chagrined by India taking a simplistic view (”correct view “ by Soviet terms) that taking a separate path required taking a path always contrary to the U.S.; as if simply and always being contrary to the U.S. was an essential to being “separate” (not alone in this and often acting as part of the political correctness that dominated the “non-aligned movement”). It was not a “separate” path, but one enjoyed by many and celebrated for the mere fact that it was “anti-American”.”
I think your perspective is very tainted by your flawed perception of the Soviets being something of an omnipotent and all pervading influence. While its true that Soviets got a little more mileage by their soft-touch against American haughty righteous-arrogance, it is plain nonsensical to attribute Indian (and NAM) assertiveness to an all pervading and omnipotent Soviet influence. America not being as tactful as the Soviets was the main cause for American chagrin.
“A right idea (a ‘separate path’) based on all the wrong reasons (simply to be contrary to the U.S.) leads to many partnerships with phony allies who share nothing with your essential interests”
.....And America would know nothing about phony allies who don't share any core values or interests right?
“It hurt India far more than the U.S., by keeping Indian foreign policy locked in simple anti-Americanism for no good purpose.”
There was someone in India who once said....
“Chiang Kai-shek, Van Thieu, the Shah, Mobutu, to Mubarak: the US always betrays its friends. Be glad Pakistan is among them.”
Looking back...Indian foreign policy didnt turn out to be so bad after all. Its wasn't exactly “anti-Americanism” as you choose to call it out of your own stubborn bias. It was just Indian assertiveness in favor of her self- interest.
“yes it DID serve India’s purpose. India preserved her sovereignty, strategic & political independence”
It may have served many things, but I don’t believe participation in the NAM was a factor in sustaining India’s sovereignty or her strategic and political independence; none of which were seriously threatened in my opinion; not even in the midst of wars with China or Pakistan.
Peace may have been threatened at times, but I do not think India’s sovereignty and independence were ever seriously at stake.
You are not making a very convincing case by just merely stating that the threat never existed while providing no firm basis or factual evidence to support your claim. I say the threat was very real because there were Soviet boots in Afghanistan, there were CIAs and some US military presence in Pakistan. There was US naval presence in Diego Garcia whose biggest strategic target was India. And with Pakistan's help US was opening up another strategic channel with China with was another enemy of India.
If the US could feel threatened by communist presence in Vietnam which was on the other side of the globe, you think India had no threat to justify when there were far larger bellicose powers very close to her door step and have been regularly pitching up rhetoric against India. Your claim that the threat never existed just plain bogus.
What support are you talking about? Maybe you haven't heard the type of commentary Nixon and Kissinger used to spew against Indian people.
“Indians are “a slippery, treacherous people”, said president Richard Nixon. “The Indians are bastards anyway. They are the most aggressive goddamn people around,” echoed his assistant for national security affairs, Henry Kissinger. “
http://www.indiatoday.com.au/yourstory-bastardindians.htm
“While she(Gandhi) was a bitch, .......We really slobbered over the old witch,’ Nixon says, on tape.
http://www.rediff.com/news/2005/jun/30nixon1.htm
“The Pakistanis are straightforward and sometimes extremely stupid. The Indians are more devious, sometimes so smart that we fall for their line” -Nixon
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/4633263.stm
About that time American press and American politicians were vitriolic against India. Doesn't quite sound like “support” to me.
US, China, Pakistan and the Islamic world had ganged against India on sensitive issues like Kashmir, East Pakistan and the border disputes. India had very few friends in her immediate neighborhood and there is no such thing as the Hindu world. NAM leadership was one area where India earned global respect, solidarity and support for her stand at the UN general assembly. So yes, NAM participation had some benefits especially when it came to standing up to American and Chinese bullying.
“India was simply playing one or more power against another, for what she could gain for herself from it, “
And what can India gain from it? Care to elaborate?
Another reason why Vietnam and Korean parallels did apply to India.....
Korea, Vietnam and India were occupied by foreign imperialist powers (Japanese, French and British). All three of the Imperialist powers were downright brutal in their treatment of their colonies). All there countries were forcibly divided by colonial/foreign powers mostly against their will. All three countries faced brutal wars with their other half which was for most part an extension of the cold war between USA and USSR by proxy. Rather then the big powers nuking each other, they let the smaller countries do the fighting and killing.
So yeah there was an clear cut parallel between India and Korea/Vietnam.
Try to see it from Wuli’s point of view—American Governmental policy is frequently not on the same wavelength as American public opinion. Wuli is referring to American public opinion—from this point the feeling is that democracy lost an opportunity to evolve instead of just rigorously defending the core principles when India didn’t join Democracy’s, not America’s Goals.
I personally believe Americans should be supported by Indians, not necessarily American Governmental agencies but Americans themselves because for better or worse many Americans do believe in freedom of faith and open discussion of ethics—something which is very Dharmic and hopeful for future generations on this small planet.
Having said that I think maybe the problem is caused by Indian leadership seeing the west, with all its history, when maybe they should see America as itself.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
