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.
Governmental policy not being on the same wavelength as public opinion isn't unique to only America. However that isn't quite the case here. Outside of the usual stereotype, American public is by and large indifferent and ignorant about India so the case for American public opinion being positively oriented towards India in contrast to their govt didnt quite exist. India was just another unknown, far away place most people didn't understand. Things have mostly changed only after the recent IT, outsourcing and immigration boom that brought American public in direct contact with Indian people. But otherwise American attitude towards India for a long time was at best indifferent and at worst US treated India with disdain.
Was Indian's opinion about America tainted by her historical colonial baggage from the past? Yes perhaps. But American patronizing, paternalistic and at times bellicose attitude towards India only helped reinforce that viewpoint.
india's operation was quick -- in and out in a matter of weeks and primarily to STOP the massacres that the Pakistanis were committing on the Bangladeshis
Bangladesh may have been a beggar nation, but if India hadn't intervened there would have been more massacres and there were millions of bangladeshis fleeing INTO India -- the indians didn't have much of a choice
little ray -- liberation worked out pretty well for Bangladeshis -- they were being massacred by the PAkistanis and denied political power to make changes.
yes, Bangladesh is better off than Pakistan today primarily because Bangladesh has an identity — it is the land of the Bengali speaking moslms. Pakistan has no such identity — it is only “not india” and it is inherently stable because of this “negative reasoning”
the reason for Pakistan’s collapse are many but one is glaringly apparent — arrogance. For a long time they believe that they (the Pakist) were a tough, martial race and they could easily defeat the “weak hindoos”. They didn’t prepare well enough and underestimated the enemy — always a cardinal error.
ideologically and politically, and of course morally, it would have been shattering for the US
militarily the US marine corps battalions were technically far superior to India's. However, they would have been fighting on unknown territory and against Indians who knew how to work with systems etc. that didn't work
They would have gone home in caskets, but seriously damaged india's war making ability. This would have been too late to save pakistan's army getting crushed.
Net result would have been anarchy with all of the sub-continent's military forces in shambles.
And the blame would have been completely put on the US. This would have been a political and moral disaster. The US would have had no moral standing to oppose the USSR.
Thank God it didn't happen.
Wuli is correct. For india's point of view, even today it makes sense to cultivate BOTH Russia and the USA.
Russia is critical as it serves as a counter-balance to China -- india would never make Russia an enemy, however thanks to Bush india now stays silent on US-Russia spats
The USA and India share a lot of key interests and it makes sense for them to be friends.
in fact they could have stayed friends as they were during the Eisenhower and Kennedy years.
But Nixon decisively moved towards China and India decisively stuck to its failed middle path (NAM)
True -- yet remember that this was the same thing that happened to Athens, eventually it was perceived as hubris
you are partially correct that the US was INITIALLY not chagrined by India wanting to chart its own path; a “separate” path. -- this was the Eisenhowever-Kennedy doctrine. nixon changed that.
India tried to take the simplistic "Oh, we are a saintly Gandhi nation" view, shunning realpolitik
and you are correct that It hurt India far more than the U.S., by keeping Indian foreign policy locked in simple anti-Americanism for no good purpose. -- it took a GREAT President like Dubya to change that.... and it's taking a LOSER like Obambi to tear down this relationship
the problem is that you make sense in a MAD world - a world driven by logic and common sense like between the US and USSR.
however pakistan, and every other islamic state is not driven by common sense,rather by madness
Pakis believed that they had the right to rule over the "pagan hindoos" and as I've said above, their entire philosophy of who they are is based on a negative "we are NOT india" so their entire existence is defined by constantly opposing India
Pakistan realised in 1971 that it could not oppose india in a direct war, so it started its jihadi training activities -- which led to 9/11 etc. etc.
there was no war between india and china in WWII. WWII ended in 1945, while the Indo-Chinese war was in 1962 when China attacked India
It is amazing how so many don’t understand the truly existential struggle that was in play during the Cold War years, and how that affected foreign relations in every sphere.
Ravager -- you cannot compare the actions of the British with the Japanese or even the French.
British interest in India was trade-based. The French tried to make their colonies 'France overseas' and japan made slave colonies.
A vast difference
India's division was not a "forcibly done by the British" -- one can argue that British policies over a century of divide and rule had led to this, but the intent and the PUSH was purely by the Jinnah Moslem league.
Moslems clearly stated that they feared living in a Hindu dominated India
the Indo-Pak wars were not due to the USA-USSR rivalries, rather it is the centuries old attack of Islam that predates communism by millenia.
There is zero parallel between india and Vietnam or Korea.
Incorrect. India dumped Gandhi in favor of realpolitik right after the Indo-China war when Indian started the military build up and nuclear program.
“It hurt India far more than the U.S., by keeping Indian foreign policy locked in simple anti-Americanism for no good purpose.”
Wrong again. It did not hurt India at all. India turned out to be a strategic winner (Militarily, politically and economically) in the long run. Pakistan was quick to sell out to the US. They lost.
Even Obama’s tough love is not going to hurt India even one tiny iota. India's fate is not dependent on US.
A vast majority of people in the subcontinent (even Muslims in Pakistan and Bangladesh) believe that the Partition was forced upon India by the British. Volumes of books and articles have been written by many famous personalities very knowledgeable about the subject who have very clearly articulated that the Partition of India was purely a British design.
Muhammad Ali Jinnah was a nobody. He didn't even win the elections, he didnt have the popularity vote even among Muslims at the time.
“Moslems clearly stated that they feared living in a Hindu dominated India”
It wasn't Muslims who said that. It was Jinnah.
Those were all baloney created by the British. The Muslims in Punjab, Sindh and Bengal who supported the idea of Partition were basically promised a booty of land and property that would be left behind by Hindus and Sikhs who would have no place in Islamic Pakistan.
There is zero parallel between india and Vietnam or Korea.”
The parallels I made between India and Vietnam /Korea have nothing to do with India-Pakistan wars. I have very crealy articulated the connection, please read my posts again.
If Islam alone was the reason for India-Pak war then India would have been at war with Bangladesh, Afghanistan and Iran/Uzbekistan as well. India does not go around picking fights with Islamic countries because India feels the need to settle historical scores.
Pakistan's bellicosity and military belligerence was(and still is) fed by US military and financial largess not by Islam.
No, India did not take up realpolitik after 1962 -- explain Shastri and Morarji Desai.
Indira wanted to concentrate power and her vision was a socialist one, not a gentle socialist vision like Nehrus but a strong-arm one.
Realpolitik in the late 60s would have meant being friends with the US, closer than what india was at that time
post 1971, however and nixon's gaffe, yes, india played realpolitik
Pakistan made its own mistakes separate from its relationship with the US and pakistan is also islamic
In contrast look at the US allies like Thailand or Singapore -- better positioned.
The time for india to have abandoned socialism was the late 70s, early 80s - prior to that, it made sense for India to manage change slowly to prevent disintegrating
that's because indians are taught that. Pakis and Bangladeshis -- no, they believe they wanted the partition and they were correct.
This was not forced on them, the Moslems wanted their own pure Moslem land
you can state it was only Jinnah, but if it was only Jinnah, there would be no Pakistan.
You talk like Indians are taught some BS propaganda nonsense like they do communist countries. I don't care what they are taught. I am talking about FACTS. Jinnah lost the Muslim electoral votes.....that's is a FACT. Muslim league lost the election .....that is a FACT. Bangladesh reject the two nation theory. Muji-ur-Rahman of Bangladesh called partition a terrible mistake......that is a FACT. The very popular Mohajir Leader Altaf Hussein called Pakistan a mistake......that is a FACT. Maulana Abdul Kalam Azad was against creation of Pakistan.....that is a FACT. Please make your arguments based on facts not your own opinion or perceptions.
Explain what? Why dont you explain what you thought was unrealpolitik about them?
“Indira wanted to concentrate power and her vision was a socialist one, not a gentle socialist vision like Nehrus but a strong-arm one.”
Where exactly are you getting with that? Are you trying to suggest that being inclined to socialism is in direct opposition to realpolitik? Because that would be ridiculous. Socialism or Capitalism had nothing to do with it. Indira Gandhi was a hardcore practical politician. She allied with Soviet Union when necessary and play both side when needed, shook hands with US President and when necessary openly defied US, pioneered global nuclear disarmament and at the same time carried out nuclear tests. You don't get a better example of a person of realpolitik.
“Pakistan made its own mistakes separate from its relationship with the US and pakistan is also islamic”
No. One of Pakistan's great downfall was her alliance with the US. US has been like an addiction that Pakistan cant live with or without.
“In contrast look at the US allies like Thailand or Singapore — better positioned.”
Better positioned for what? Thailand's neighbor Cambodia was also a US ally at a point in time. We all know what happened with Cambodia. Same with Iran.
“The time for india to have abandoned socialism was the late 70s, early 80s - prior to that, it made sense for India to manage change slowly to prevent disintegrating”
Abandoning socialism does not automatically mean alliance with US. I think you are muddying the water by confusing a lot of things here. Fact is.... India is neither socialist nor capitalist but trying to find her own balance undergoing a process of learning (sometimes the hard way) what policies work and what doesn't. India is opening up her market but at the same time still has some regulations that you don't even see in Communist China. It would be wrong to view India from the prism of Socialism or Capitalism. It is a mistake people in the US often make about India. Its not all black and white.
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.