It is worth keeping in mind that, at that time, India was practically a client state of the USSR despite their claims of being “non-aligned.” That’s why they still have piles of Soviet and Russian hardware.
And liberation worked out soooooo well for Bangladesh didn’t it?
It actually did. They are doing WAY better then Pakistan.
“India was practically a client state of the USSR despite their claims of being “non-aligned.” “
Consider this a good thing that common sense prevailed on US side and they didn't attack India. In that picture you see above, it may well have been an American general signing the instrument of surrender and defeat along with the Pakistani.
It only makes sense to get the world’s oldest democracy and the world’s largest democracy to work together.
And speaking of women leaders, Indira Gandhi, Margaret Thatcher & Golda Meir were all tough as nails.
Do you think they'd be better off still under Pakistani control? Their grievances were real, and when they tried to make their case, the Pakistanis came down on them like a ton of bricks. The estimates of Bangladeshis massacred before India intervened run to the millions.
Indian-Soviet ties were very close back then. Talk to any Indian engineer or software consultant over age 50 and the odds are pretty good he did some graduate studies in the USSR.
And whose client was Pakistan? Their primary allegiance was to China, not the US.
About liberation working for Bangladesh, it’s considered a success story given its history compared to most Muslim nations. Besides if it weren’t for 1971, the world would have to deal with two Pakistans, one of them with nukes pointed as far as Singapore and Sydney.