1971 Indo-Pak War and foreign involvement

neo29

Senior Member
Joined
Dec 1, 2009
Messages
1,284
Likes
30
Everyone knows how opportunistic the US is. During 1971 war they did bring their aircraft carrier close to us. Nixon even tried to convince China in controlling India, it did not work due to heavy winter.

It is a good thing we splitted Pakistan in 2. Imagine in todays scenario how volatile it would have been to have hostile nuclear weapons state on 3 sides.

China is doing and will everything possible to fund and invest in Pakistan. For them Pakistan is like a watch dog to check India. US wants India to become a watch dog to check on China.

We have a Mexican standoff in the region for years.
 

civfanatic

Retired
Ambassador
Joined
Sep 8, 2009
Messages
4,562
Likes
2,572
US special forces knows the specific locations?? They may have the missiles and warheads unassembled in separate locations?? Or stored in
Saudi Arabia,China or North Korea??US special forces would also be gambling with a failed state that might be willing to use them to become
martyrs and heroes in their eyes(to the islamic world). Even if the gamble succeeds what's to stop China from looking out for their interests
and giving them more nukes?? USA has already demonstrated their diminishing influence with China when they were unable to stop the Pak-China
nuclear deal(a deal between 2 of the biggest nuclear proliferators in the world).
The threat of Pakistani nuclear profileration following a political collapse of some sort is extremely overrated, mainly because Pakistan itself is exaggerating it to obtain concessions from the West.

It is FAR easier to obtain nukes from one of the former Soviet republics. There were over 40,000+ nukes built under the USSR. Did all of them get safely dismantled following the Collapse? How about the ones that were left behind in now-volatile republics like Uzbekistan?

There are a lot more loose nukes out there than people can imagine.
 

AOE

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 29, 2011
Messages
437
Likes
23
Lethalforce: Who knows if they do? This is all a hypothetical situation. If Pakistans nukes are disassembled and stored in other countries, then that would be incredibly difficult for them to bring them back to Pakistan without some intelligence agency noticing it, let alone them assembling it in time to martyr themselves. China also would have difficulty getting nukes to Pakistan in this scenario since this is a discussion built off the possibility that the current US presence (agents, drone attacks, etc...) is intentionally destabilizing and Balkanizing the country. Pakistan split up into seperate states would not be able to field the resources or organization to make such a transfer possible, unless China decides to launch a nuke at Pakistan; free of charge of course, lol. Bonus points if the nuke is another cheap copy-cat Chinese invention, and if it causes international drama. :p

Although if we concede the point that a collapsing Pakistan will not have a possible nuclear threat looming, then we have little to worry about.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Feb 16, 2009
Messages
29,911
Likes
48,660
Country flag
AOE breaking up Pakistan into 2 states would make things much easier for USA in many ways. Let's take the hypothetical scenario that USA wants to liberate the Baluchis and give them their Baluchistan.

1. It would put a positive spin on the war in Aghanistan in a sense it would be a diplomatic victory.
2. It would fragment on another age old division similiar to the Hindu/muslim division the Shiite/Sunni division.
3. It would give US access to the resources of Baluchistan (Oil etc...)
4. It would hand the Chinese a strategic blow and prevent them from any futher expansion into Central Asia
5. It would give US a strategic place with access to Arabian Sea,Iran,Afghanistan,Pakistan and Central Asia ( streched to Russia,China,India)
6. It mat prevent any further empowerment of the anti NATO alliance of SCO
7. It would keep control of the Persian Gulf and Arabian Sea
8. It would put permanent pressure on Iran
9. It would give USA access to a new future port
10. It would give US a way to get the oil out of Central Asia
11. It woud give USA the green light to pursue the Central pipeline projects(caspian pipelines) more aggressively.

These are just some of the few reasons it might make more sense for USA to pursue this avenue than the continued war against the Taliban with the al-queda ally Pakistan as a partner.
 

AOE

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 29, 2011
Messages
437
Likes
23
Hmm... well those are strong arguments that I agree with LF, but there is a problem with point two; while it may open up a divide between Sunni/Shia, Iran might get involved at least in a similar way to how it's meddling in Iraq. I suppose during a split, the US could put conditions on Baluchiustan becoming independent; particularly on the points you made.

If Pakistan is split four ways, then perhaps India could annex Sindh, Punjab, Pakistani part of Kashmir, etc...
 

civfanatic

Retired
Ambassador
Joined
Sep 8, 2009
Messages
4,562
Likes
2,572
If Pakistan is split four ways, then perhaps India could annex Sindh, Punjab, Pakistani part of Kashmir, etc...
Pakistan-occupied Kashmir will be reunited with Indian Kashmir, but Sindh and especially Punjab will be liabilities more than anything. It's best to let those states become independent, albeit with a pro-Indian government in charge.
 

AOE

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 29, 2011
Messages
437
Likes
23
Are they liabilities for economic or social reasons? Setting up pro-Indian governments would seem like a good idea, but that wont guarantee prosperity for the people in those regions, and we all know what islamism does to a country that isn't prospering and that was once greatful for a previous intervention (i.e; Bangladesh).
 

civfanatic

Retired
Ambassador
Joined
Sep 8, 2009
Messages
4,562
Likes
2,572
Are they liabilities for economic or social reasons?
Both.

India is a secular democracy, and Indian law, flawed though it may be, is based on these principles. But many Pakistanis want rule under Shar'ia, Islamic law, and a quasi-fundamentalist government. This is especially true for the less priveliged Pakistanis, who happen to make up the majority of the population. Indian and Pakistani societies may have been similar in the 1940s, before Partition, but since then they have evolved in very different ways. I think that, as of today, Indian and Pakistani societies are largely incompatible, and reversing Partition would be a very bad idea as of now.

That's just the social aspect. The economic aspect is more of a concern. India already has 1.2 billion people, and having such a large population puts a major strain on resources and services. Why should we take care of 180+ million more people, many of whom dislike India anyways? Keep in mind that Pakistan's per capita income is even lower than India's.


Setting up pro-Indian governments would seem like a good idea, but that wont guarantee prosperity for the people in those regions, and we all know what islamism does to a country that isn't prospering and that was once greatful for a previous intervention (i.e; Bangladesh).
In order for economic growth to occur, you first need a stable sociopolitical environment. And neither today's Pakistan nor a proposed reunified India will bring that stability. It seems the best way to stabilize Pakistan is to balkanize the country along ethnic lines and give each ethnic group in Pakistan its own nation to work with, just as the erstwhile East Pakistanis were given Bangladesh. The pro-Indian governments would be placed primarily for security reasons. But of course, stable and economically advancing nations in the place of Pakistan would also give the emerging Indian economy a valuable market and place to invest.

I think balkanization is the best solution for both India and for the average Pakistani. The only groups that really lose are the Pakistani Punjabi upper class and Pakistani military (which happens to be almost excluively Punjabi).
 

AOE

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 29, 2011
Messages
437
Likes
23
I know that for economic growth to occur, you need a stable sociopolitical environment. That is what I meant; Pakistan has barely any sociopolitical progress worth noting. Splitting Pakistan into four ethnic states doesn't guarantee that they will further stabilize, if anything they're more at risk of destabilizing due to religous extremism, and some groups wanting to bring about Sharia. It would be far too risky to try and set up pro-Indian governments in any of these areas, not just in the Punjabi area, but also Baluchistan which might have Iran meddling in the process and an American oil pipeline running through it. It has the potential to go pear-shaped fairly fast, which would mean economic progress in those areas could diminish.
 

civfanatic

Retired
Ambassador
Joined
Sep 8, 2009
Messages
4,562
Likes
2,572
I know that for economic growth to occur, you need a stable sociopolitical environment. That is what I meant; Pakistan has barely any sociopolitical progress worth noting. Splitting Pakistan into four ethnic states doesn't guarantee that they will further stabilize, if anything they're more at risk of destabilizing due to religous extremism, and some groups wanting to bring about Sharia. It would be far too risky to try and set up pro-Indian governments in any of these areas, not just in the Punjabi area, but also Baluchistan which might have Iran meddling in the process and an American oil pipeline running through it. It has the potential to go pear-shaped fairly fast, which would mean economic progress in those areas could diminish.
Obviously, the future cannot be predicted, and a million things could go wrong with balkanization, as they have with other cases of balkanization around the world. The one certain thing, however, is that Pakistan in its current form cannot last. Something has to change. We are living in interesting times; the next ten years will have ever-lasting effects on the AfPak region as well as South Asia as a whole.

As for Iran, it may surprise you that Indo-Iranian relations are excellent and have traditionally been very positive since the 90s. It is actually in Iran's interest to see a stable Balochistan, as Iran also has a large Baloch population and suffers from Baloch terrorism in the form of Jundallah. It is very much possible to have a government in an independent Balochistan that serves the interests of both India and Iran.
 

AOE

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 29, 2011
Messages
437
Likes
23
Hmm... that does ring true. Indeed, Pakistan cannot last and something does need to be done about it, I suppose it would be the best of all possible options at present.

Iran is a country that I admire on a historical and civilizational level, although I am of the camp of thought that the Iranian regime needs to go and be replaced by a secular, democratic one. It's the same view I have about China in general; great history and culture, insane government running the joint. Regime change in Iran seems like a near-future possibility, but as for China; who knows?
 
Joined
Feb 16, 2009
Messages
29,911
Likes
48,660
Country flag
1971 war: Hasina expresses gratitude to India

1971 war: Hasina expresses gratitude to India

Dhaka: Bangladesh Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina on Monday expressed deep gratitude to India for its key role in the country's 1971 'Liberation War' during a meeting with visiting Indian Army Chief General VK Singh.

General Singh, who is on a five-day official visit to Bangladesh, on Monday called on Hasina at her official residence.

The Awami League leader recalled with deep gratitude the active cooperation of the Indian government, people and military during the 1971 Liberation War.



Hasina, who mentioned the special sacrifice made by the Indian army, said such visits would help strengthen bilateral ties.

General Singh, who took part in the 1971 Indo-Pak war that led to the creation of Bangladesh, presented the prime minister some rare photographs from the historic visit of Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman to India and events related to the country's independence war.

The top commander, who is here at the invitation of his Bangladeshi counterpart General Mohammed Abdul Mubeen, will be the chief guest at the passing-out parade at Bangladesh Military Academy on June 22 in southeastern port city of Chittagong.

"This is an honour the Bangladesh Army is offering to the visiting Indian army chief and 1971 war veteran, General Vijay Kumar Singh, who also fought for our independence, while India showed the same gesture when our then army chief General Mohammad Mustafizur Rahman visited India 13 years ago," an army spokesman said.

General Singh, who arrived here yesterday, placed wreaths in memory of the martyrs of the Liberation War at the Dhaka cantonment on Monday.
 
Joined
Feb 16, 2009
Messages
29,911
Likes
48,660
Country flag
Indo-Pak Conflict and the Role of External Powers

Indo-Pak Conflict and the Role of External Powers

The Indian subcontinent, by virtue of its geo-strategic location and population, for many years has been a central area of the Great Power struggle for influence. In the course of time, the Cold War rivalry between the two Great Powers percolated down to South Asia. Both the United States and the former Soviet Union have vied with each other for gaining a foothold in the South Asian region. India and Pakistan in the course of their foreign policy utilised the superpowers' rivalry to their advantage. For example, Pakistan's willingness to accommodate the American interests not only brought the external power into the subcontinent but also strengthened its confrontationist anti-India stance. Eventually, the Indian act to seek aid from the former Soviet Union brought both the protagonists of the Cold War into the region. The major powers have played a major role in South Asia--in its politics as well as in its economic development. They have created tensions here, and have also helped in resolving some tensions; they have created problems but have kept them from escalating into unmanageable propositions. This paper tries to study the presence of the external powers in the region and their association with India and Pakistan.

Regional Wars or Proxy Wars

The freedom of India and Pakistan from the British rule was the beginning of another era filled with chaos, confusion, hatred, conflict. The people of the two countries feared the social and political turmoil which they had undergone. To make the situation worse, new political, social and economic problems erupted, straining relations between the two countries. For example, the dispute on the sharing of the Indus River waters, immediately after partition, was taken to the World Bank.

However, the most notable feature after partition was Pakistan's fear of India's strength which outclasses it in every comparison. Pakistan feared India retaliation for its dissent from the latter whereas India feared the ideological threat from Pakistan which was claiming to be the champion of the Muslims. This was also evident in its claim on Kashmir, Junagarh and Hyderabad. In continuation of its theocratic ideology, Pakistan started pressurising the Maharajah of Kashmir who was undecided about joining either India or Pakistan, to join Pakistan. In 1948, Pakistan sent Waziri and Mansud tribals from the North-West Frontier to free Kashmir from the Hindu Maharajah. India not only countered the attack militarily but also lodged a complaint with the United Nation's Secretary General on December 30, 1947, against the Pakistani invasion on Kashmir. This led to the appointment of a United Nation's Commission on India and Pakistan (UNCIP) which proposed ceasefire, demilitarisation and plebiscite by its resolutions of August 13, 1948, and January 5, 1949. Both sides agreed to the ceasefire line in 1949. This 700-km-long line running from Chammb in the south to Ladakh at NJ 9842 point after which there is glacier, provided the future battleground between the two countries in the glaciers. Through the war, Pakistan acquired 5,000 square miles of India's territory and nearly one million people under its control.

Pakistan wanted to counter the alleged Indian threat by building up its military strength and was not averse to maintaining relations with the Great Powers.1 This was evident when in 1954 it entered into a Mutual Security Pact with the US which changed the whole context of the problems existing between India and Pakistan. Pakistan proved useful to the US in its policy of Containment of Communism in the region. The US gave Pakistan the first high performance jet aircraft, including F-86 Sabres and 12 F-104 interceptors and hundreds of World War I and Korean War vintage tanks.2 Prime Minister Nehru was against the involvement of external powers in the bilateral regional issues which would otherwise bring the Cold War politics into the region.3 The US arms aid to Pakistan became a lasting and irritating issue in Indo-Pak relations, and in response, India started purchasing arms from non-American sources. Moreover, India had inherited only 15 Ordinance Factories from the British in 1947 and the machinery and equipment in these was obsolete and worn out. Hence, for the supply of weapons, reliance on outside suppliers, mainly the UK and later France, had to continue. The UK was the first on the preference list of the suppliers of weapons as the existing arms and equipment were mainly of British origin and it was logical to replace the spare parts from the original source. India's dependence on England can also be attributed to its non-aligned policy of keeping out of the Cold War politics and it thus avoided purchase of arms either from the USA or the former USSR.

The political stability of South Asia got shaken when the American U-2 spy plane was shot down by the Soviets in May 1960.4 The plane had reportedly taken off from a Pakistani base. The Soviets constantly issued protest notes to Pakistan that the US air bases in Pakistan had a direct bearing on their security. This increased the Soviet interest in the South Asian region, particularly with India which was less rigid about accepting arms from the Soviet Union after the US arms aid given to Pakistan. The Indo-Soviet relations coincided with the deteriorating Sino-Soviet and Sino-India relations. The Tibetan uprising in 1959 led India to buy transport planes and helicopters from the Soviet Union as the Soviets were prepared to accept payment in Indian currency. In October 1960, an Indian delegation went to Moscow to negotiate and finalise the deal for the purchase of aircraft and communications equipment. The Chinese attack on India in 1962, however, placed the USSR in a delicate position as it was difficult for it not to support a Communist state, Hence, Moscow adopted a neutral position. The US, on the other hand, sent twelve C-130 Hercules transport planes with the crews to help India in transporting its men and materials on the mountainous borders.5

Pakistan was agitated by the Kennedy Administration's limited military aid to India during the Sino-India War. President Ayub was convinced that this would upset the Indo-Pak military balance and India might use the arms provided by the US against Pakistan. Pakistan had foreseen the utility of developing relations with China and it declared India as the aggressor against China in 1962.6 Pakistan treated China as a shield to protect itself from any possible Indian attack. Thus, the Indo-Pak politics took a new turn, with new allies, which brought added tension in the subcontinent.

In the northern front, Kashmir was once again posing a problem. Pakistan had planned to organise a "Kashmir Revolt Day" on August 9, 1965, to mark the twelfth anniversary of Sheikh Abdullah's arrest and on the same day its forces were to reach Srinagar with machine guns, mortar and other heavy equipment. India retaliated and a full-fledged war erupted which lasted till September 23, 1965.7 The Indian authorities informed the US about the use of American weapons by the Pakistani forces. Pakistan was under an obligation under the Mutual Security Act, not to use American weapons in aggression against any other country. This led the US government to impose an arms embargo on both the belligerents on September 8, 1965. On the following day, the State Department declared US neutrality in the Indo-Pak conflict.

The arms embargo fell heavily on Pakistan as it was dependent on American supplies. Pakistan felt let down by the US which should have extended help to them as per the assurances given to them when Pakistan joined the South-East Asia Treaty Organisation (SEATO) and Central Treaty Organisation (CENTO). The neutral stand taken by the US during the September 1965 War further infuriated Pakistan as it had expected the US to use its influence to stop the Indian invasion across the international line which threatened Pakistan's independence.

In order to avoid dependence on one supplier, Pakistan gradually moved towards China. In March 1965, Ayub Khan visited China and secured not only Chou-en-Lai's assurances of support to Pakistan in the event of an Indian aggression but also military supplies. The interest shown by China in the Indo-Pak subcontinent became a matter of concern to the American policy makers. Therefore, the US lifted the arms embargo partially in 1967 and agreed to sell non-lethal weapons to both India and Pakistan.

During the 1965 War, the Soviet Union adopted a neutral stand and offered its good offices for a peaceful settlement between the two warring states. The Prime Ministers of India and Pakistan met at Tashkent on January 3, 1966. The conference lasted from January 4-10, 1966, at which they agreed to create good relations in accordance with the UN Charter, to promote understanding and friendly relations and a total pull-out of troops before February 25, 1966 to their pre-war positions.8 Russia emerged as a peace-maker at a time when the US was involved in the Vietnam War.

After the war, the economy of the warring countries was shattered. The attention of the respective governments was diverted towards their internal issues. In Pakistan, troubles mounted in East Pakistan. The elections in Pakistan in December 1970 resulted in the total victory of the Awami League in East Pakistan. The Awami League destroyed the dominance of the Pakistan People's Party at the central level and this was not acceptable to the ruling elites of West Pakistan. On March 1, 1971, following the replacement of the civilian Governor of East Pakistan by the Martial Law Administrator and the adjournment of the opening of the Constituent Assembly, riots broke out and many Biharis were massacred. On March 25, fresh riots broke out, resulting in the migration of East Bengalis towards India. The Indian government opened its border at the eastern sector for the refugees whose numbers had reached approximately ten million. The increasing numbers of refugees were a great concern to India because of its social and economic fallout.

In order to mobilise the opinion of the world leaders, Prime Minister Indira Gandhi sent letters and emissaries to various Asian and Western governments. On August 9, 1971, the Treaty of Peace, Cooperation and Friendship was signed between the Soviet Union and India. The treaty formalised the Indo-Soviet friendship assuring the former of solid support in and outside the UNO.

The Indo-Pakistan War started on December 3 which also witnessed the active involvement of the Great Powers. The US sent "Task Force 74" headed by the nuclear powered carrier Enterprise and half a dozen other ships into the Bay of Bengal through the Straits of Malacca. An amphibious assault ship, the Tripoli, with a battalion of 800 Marines, three guided missile escorts, four destroyers, a nuclear attack submarine, and an oiler were sent by the US to support Pakistan to change the outcome of the war. Subsequently, the Soviets despatched a force of six vessels to the Indian Ocean. At one time, it looked as if a direct confrontation between the two external powers would take place in South Asia. For the first time, the two superpowers were directly involved in the Indian Ocean over the Indo-Pak conflict.9 The crisis ended abruptly when Pakistani forces in Dacca unconditionally surrendered to the Indian forces on December 16.

Meanwhile the Indo-Pak conflict was being discussed at the United Nations. The Soviet Union supported the Indian argument that Pakistan had failed to renounce the policy of repression and had not released Sheikh Mujibur Rahman with the intention of finding a solution according to the will expressed by the people of East Pakistan in the elections. Thus, the Soviet Union vetoed all the resolutions in the Security Council which did not aim for ceasefire and recognition of the will of East Pakistan's population. The American government argued that Pakistan had agreed for the establishment of political autonomy of the Eastern sector after the American mediation in November 1971. In the United Nations, on December 22, 1971, an Argentinian resolution demanding a ceasefire in Kashmir was adopted by thirteen votes without any opposition, though the former Soviet Union and Poland abstained from voting.

After the war, the Government of India tried to resolve the differences with Pakistan on a new and firm basis. In March 1971, India sent a formal note to Pakistan desiring a summit between Prime Minister Indira Gandhi and President Bhutto. Five-day Indo-Pak Summit talks began on June 28, 1972, at Simla. Both sides presented different priorities of items on the agenda but later they agreed to a mutually acceptable draft for the agenda. Agreement was reached on the recognition of the actual line of control of 1971 as the new international boundary between India and Pakistan.

The significance of the Bangladesh War on India's national security, apart from being militarily strategic, lay in the political and diplomatic spheres. India's role as a regional power was asserted.

The Indo-Pak subcontinent experienced a rise in defence expenditure soon after the war. India tried to give emphasis on self-reliance in armaments. Pakistan also tried to achieve self-reliance in armaments. It also tried to accumulate weapons from all the available sources. In 1973, the US decided to modify its policy of arms embargo on Pakistan by permitting the sale of non-lethal equipment and spare parts. In 1975, the US lifted the embargo on the supply of arms to Pakistan under the pretext that the Soviet Union had dumped excess arms in India. American fears and assumptions became more intense when India exploded a nuclear bomb in May 1974. This enabled Pakistan to persuade the US to lift the arms embargo. The US had been giving aircraft and airfield equipment to Pakistan under the pretext that India had obtained sophisticated weapons from the former USSR whereas Pakistan had inferior weapons from China and a small quantity from the US. America had been constantly supplying weapons to Pakistan in pursuance of its policy of the Containment of Communism which was further aggravated by the presence of the Soviets in Afghanistan and the collapse of its Iranian ally.

While the withdrawal of the Soviet forces from Afghanistan did not reduce the shared interests between the US and Pakistan, it changed the tenor. Instead of containing Russian influence in the subcontinent, the US is more anxious about containing the growing influence of China, both economically and militarily, in East Asia. The significance of Pakistan in helping to stabilise the internal stability of Afghanistan cannot be ignored which is essentially not only for the peace and tranquillity of the region but also for the vast resources of oil and natural gas in Central Asia which can traverse to Pakistan through Afghanistan.10 Simultaneously, Indo-US relations improved because of the economic compulsions. India was gradually opening up its market and liberalising its economy and the US companies could accrue benefits from the large Indian market. The Russian policy towards the subcontinent also underwent some changes. Though it had pledged to respect the Treaty of Peace and Friendship with India, it also made efforts to develop relations with Pakistan. Russian Vice-President Alexander Rutskoi visited Pakistan in December 1992 where both sides agreed to cooperate in the field of defence.11

China is still a key player in providing arms to Pakistan. As Pakistani dependence on US arms reduced after the 1971 War, the Chinese became willing participants in the proposed military collaboration and technology transfers not only to establish military links with Pakistan but also because it helped subsidise their own Research and Development programme.12 Though Sino-India relations have been moving towards normalisation, China's weapons supply to Pakistan remains a major concern for India.

Indo-Pak Relations: The Nuclear Gambit

The Indo-Pak relations have reached a new threshold where the arms race has led to modernisation of their weapons and development of nuclear capabilities.

The Indian nuclear programme was given a practical shape in 1948 when an Atomic Energy Commission was set up to advise the government on nuclear issues. The Tata Institute of Fundamental Research took the responsibility to ensure a constant supply of scientists and engineers. In the Ministry of Natural Resources and Scientific Research, a separate Department of Atomic Energy was created in 1954. India strived towards attainment of self-sufficiency in the nuclear programme but this was not possible for a newly independent country to achieve on its own. Negotiations were held with the UK, France, Belgium, Canada and the US for equipment and materials to develop Indian resources. In 1956, India's first research reactor, Apsara, was commissioned at Trombay which received uranium from the UK. However, Nehru had publicly opposed India developing nuclear weapons and had asserted that nuclear energy would be used for power production.

The Indian nuclear policy underwent changes after the Sino-Indian War in 1962 and the first Chinese bomb explosion in 1964 which forced Prime Minister Lal Bahadur Shastri to dilute the policy of Nehru. Prime Minister Shastri said in Parliament: "I cannot say that the present policy (of nuclear pacifism), is deep-rooted, that it cannot be set aside and that it would not be changed." This was the first declaration by the Indian government favouring nuclear weapons.13 Indian anxiety over the Chinese nuclear programme had never diminished since 1964; in fact, with the launching of China's first nuclear missile in October 1966, Indian concerns became more critical.14 The Indian debate on the bomb became more intense when China launched its first satellite in 1970. The Indian victory in the Indo-Pak War of 1971 gave a powerful boost to the development of nuclear capabilities. It was believed that the Indian nuclear weapons would compel China and Pakistan to change their attitude of hostility towards India. In May 1974, the Atomic Energy Commission conducted a nuclear explosion at Pokhran in the Rajasthan desert. Though the world community took note of the Indian nuclear capabilities, it was Pakistan which reacted immediately.

Pakistan's nuclear programme began in the mid-1950s when the Pakistan Energy Commission was set up under the Chairmanship of Nazir Ahmed. The Pakistan Institute of Science and Technology established at Nilore, near Rawalpindi, in 1965, provided research and training facilities for scientists and technicians in the country. In the same year, the Pakistan Atomic Research Reactor was established with the help of the USA and it functions under the safeguards of the International Atomic Energy Agency.

The Pakistani nuclear programme received a momentum by Zulfikar Ali Bhutto. He recognised India as the primary threat and India's nuclear programme as directly against Pakistan, which became more pronounced in the Pakistani perception after the Pokhran explosion. Pakistan pronounced its nuclear option as a defensive measure to forestall the nuclear blackmail and hegemony of India.15

The Pokhran explosion had led the US to think about matters of proliferation. In 1977, the US enacted the Symington Amendment, which prohibits aid to countries with uranium enrichment facilities. Simultaneously, on April 6, 1979, the US cut off military and economic aid worth $90 million to Pakistan. Since the Pakistani nuclear programme is being substantially funded by Saudi Arabia and Libya, the Pakistani bomb acquired an "Islamic" or anti-Israeli character. Pakistan's nuclear linkage with the Arab countries started around 1973 when an agreement was signed with Libya to finance Pakistan's acquisition of nuclear weapons.16 Pakistan's need was purely economic. But the Arab nations wanted an Islamic country with nuclear weapons that could deter Israel. Pakistan kindled in the Arab world the feeling that only the Islamic world does not have a nuclear bomb.

With the presence of the Russian forces in Afghanistan the significance of Pakistan as a frontline state for American interests was once again established, and in the process, the Symington Law was removed in May 1981 for six years and again in 1987 for two years.17 The US arms sales and military assistance to Pakistan was resumed under the pretext that it would provide a sense of security vis-a-vis India and the US would be able to stall Pakistan's nuclear efforts.

The US policy towards the region is guided by its own interests. America is opposed to the Indian and the Pakistani moves to go for the nuclear bomb as it could encourage other countries to go nuclear, thus, leading to a breakdown of the existing international nuclear order. The Indian nuclear programme was considered as a weapons programme and the focus was concentrated on stockpiling of fissionable material that the US claimed India was building. Though critical of the Pakistani attempt to develop nuclear capability, the Reagan policy was more favourable towards Pakistan because of the growing crisis in Iran and Afghanistan. The US is critical of the Chinese transfer of technology to Pakistan to manufacture nuclear weapons, and components to make M-11 intermediate range ballistic missile in violation of the Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR). However, during President Clinton's visit to China in July 1998, the issue was not raised for discussion.

China's technical assistance to Pakistan in its nuclear programme is of special concern to India. Reiterating the Indian security concerns, the Indian Minister of State for External Affairs, Vasundhara Raje, said in Parliament that the government has communicated its apprehensions to various countries, including China, at a bilateral level about the defence cooperation between China and Pakistan, including supply of materials and technology.18 Starting with the transfer of technology for building the reprocessing plant at Nilore in 1965 to agreeing to supply heavy water in May 1976, the nuclear cooperation between the two countries has evolved considerably. The Chinese scientists have been visiting Kahuta and China has provided a design of one of its own atomic bombs and enough highly enriched uranium for two bombs.19 The Chinese technological assistance to the Pakistani nuclear programme is to counter-balance India's dominance in the region. Much to the liking of China, Pakistan's role in engaging India on its western border is not diminishing.20

The year 1998 is crucial for both India and Pakistan which openly expressed their nuclear capability by conducting nuclear tests. On May 11, 1998, India conducted three nuclear tests at Pokhran to be followed by two more sub-kiloton tests on May 13.21 The international response was critical. The US and Japan imposed economic sanctions. Japan has cut aid worth $26 million to India. The UN Security Council deplored the tests and urged India to refrain from further tests.22 Chinese President Jiang Zemin accused India of blaming China and Pakistan for their nuclear tests whereas the nuclear cooperation between the two countries is "strictly peaceful in the area of technology of nuclear reactors and all installations concerned are under the control of the International Atomic Energy Agency."23 He hoped that Pakistan would not respond to the Indian action but a few days later, Pakistan also conducted six nuclear tests on June 28 and 30. Pakistan claimed that the threat from India propelled it to conduct the nuclear tests. The unsettled Kashmir issue was raised as the bogey of Indian threat and Pakistan's yearning to acquire nuclear capability. Both countries declared a moratorium on further nuclear tests; however, the focus shifted from the nuclear issue to the Kashmir issue--which has been an irritant since partition in 1947--and the signing of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT). Pakistan's former Foreign Minister Gohar Ayub said that the Kashmir issue can lead to a nuclear war between India and Pakistan. He said, "The real flashpoint in the world, as Pakistan has always been saying, is Kashmir where 600,000 Indian forces are carrying out human rights violations."24

The Kashmir Issue

The Kashmir issue is the legacy of India's partition in 1947 when the princely states were asked to join either India or Pakistan. The state of Jammu and Kashmir remained independent during partition and agreed to merge with India when the armed tribesman from Pakistan infiltrated into the state. Since then, Pakistan has raised the issue as a champion of the rights of the Muslim Kashmiris. For Pakistan, the Kashmir issue is not only crucial for its religious ideology of being a protagonist of the Muslims but is also useful in raising the external threat of India ready to wage an armed conflict because of Kashmir. To India, Kashmir is an integral part of its Union. Its integration is important not only because of its strategic significance but also because its disintegration would have a spillover effect on other states leading to the balkanisation of the Indian Union.25

Pakistan maintains that Kashmir is the prime contentious issue with India and unless it is resolved, cooperation in other areas is not possible. Foreign Office spokesman Tarar Altaf said that unless the root cause (Kashmir) is discussed, the agreed agenda of talks which includes peace, security and confidence building measures would remain ineffective.26 For India, Kashmir is an unfinished "agenda of partition" which can be fulfilled only after the areas of Pakistan Occupied Kashmir, Northern Gilgit and Baltistan are integrated with India.27 Pakistan's effort to internationalise the Kashmir issue is not appreciated by India. As discussed earlier, the external powers were indirectly involved in the regional wars (through arms aid) and actively involved in the Security Council, thus, exacerbating the already existing tensions. India wants the Kashmir issue to be resolved bilaterally but Pakistan wants a third party mediation. In fact, the global pressure to resolve the Kashmir issue increased after the nuclear tests by both the regional actors. The US had supported Pakistan in the Security Council, and in 1957, had attempted to introduce a United Nations Force for Jammu and Kashmir which did not come into effect because of the Soviet veto. Britain also supported Pakistan in the Security Council. The Western support to Pakistan over Kashmir was a clear manifestation of their global policy to support the countries willing to counter the Soviets.28 The US position has been to resolve the Kashmir dispute on the basis of the Simla Agreement. However, after the conduct of nuclear tests by both countries, the American Secretary of State, Madeleine Albright, said that the US was "re-examining the underlying political problems between India and Pakistan including Kashmir."29 Hitherto, India had been supported by the Soviet Union in the Security Council. However, after the nuclear tests conducted by both India and Pakistan, Russian Foreign Minister Yevgeny Primakov extended a three-point proposal including the P-5 mediation on Kashmir. The Russian statement is a deviation from its earlier official stand that the Kashmir issue should be discussed between India and Pakistan under the Simla Accord.30

China had supported Pakistan on Kashmir which had acted as a second front against India with whom it had a border demarcation problem leading to war in 1962. China has always considered it the sovereign right of any nation to develop its own nuclear weapons.31 However, after the nuclear tests conducted by India, China reacted strongly and urged the US to take stringent measures against India. Pakistan's efforts to utilise the support of the Arab world has also not met with much success because, India's relations with the Arab world are cordial and its economic ties are expanding.32

Pakistan feels that once the Kashmir dispute is resolved, there would be no more contentious issues with India. However, once the issue is resolved, another issue would erupt, keeping Pakistan's hostile posture against India alive,33 since this is necessary for its domestic consumption where the people are fed on anti-India slogans. Efforts have been made by Pakistan to link the Kashmir issue with the issues of nuclear non-proliferation and Siachen.

As discussed earlier, the ceasefire line between India and Pakistan stops at Point NJ9842; beyond the point lies the Siachen Glacier after which the border between India and Pakistan has not been demarcated. The glacier opens at the Nubra Valley in Ladakh and can provide access to inimical powers to enter Ladakh in Jammu and Kashmir. In 1984, India occupied the commanding heights of the glacier. Since then, Pakistan has been asking Indian forces to withdraw from their positions and accept the boundary as was acceptable in 1972, whereas India insists that Pakistan accept the Saltoro Ridge as the line of control.34 The contentious issue persists.

Pakistan has also linked its reluctance to sign the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and CTBT because of the Indian reservations on the treaties. India finds the NPT discriminative between the nuclear haves and have-nots. Until recently, Pakistan was prepared to sign the treaty provided India did so.35 However, in July 1998, Pakistan delinked its reasons for not signing the treaty from India and stated its own security compulsions as the guiding force. This gives an independent status to the Pakistani threat perceptions which need not be guided or propelled by India.

Low Intensify Conflict

The Cold War tensions between India and Pakistan resulted in three wars over Kashmir. However, Pakistan realised that conventional wars would not serve its purpose to bring Kashmir under its fold, and it needed another strategy to counter India. Hence, Pakistan started aiding and abetting a low intensity war against India to liberate Kashmir. Arms and ammunition flow from Pakistan Occupied Kashmir (POK) towards Jammu and Kashmir. It is said that President Zia-ul-Haq had put into action a three-phase plan for the liberation of the Kashmir Valley. The plan was codenamed "Topac" after Topac Amru, an Inca prince who fought an unconventional war against the Spanish rule in 18th century Uruguay. In phase one, low level insurgency in India was advocated which included planting people at key positions like police, financial institutions, etc; armed groups to be trained to meet the paramilitary forces; the lines of communications to be disrupted between Jammu and Kashmir; and exacerbation of anti-India feelings. Phase two advocated more intense engagement of the Indian Army in Poonch or Siachen in order to keep them away from the valley, and destroy their base depots, airfields, radio stations and block the Banihal tunnel and Kargil-Leh highway with the help of Afghan Mujahideen from POK. In the third phase, Kashmir had to be liberated from India and an independent Islamic state was to be set up.36

The Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) is the main agency to supply weapons, finance, and guidance to the Kashmiri militants. There are nearly 105 training camps in POK and nearly eight on the Pak-Afghan border, handled entirely by the Pakistan Army and the ISI. It is said that the money generated through smuggling of narcotics is used to keep terrorism and insurgency alive. India has been both the target and the transit point for the narcotics. It lies in the middle of the Golden Crescent (Aghanistan, Iran, Pakistan) and the Golden Triangle (Burma, Thailand, Laos) and is also a victim of militancy in Kashmir, the north-east, and, earlier, Punjab.37 Arms and ammunition are provided from across the border to the Kashmiri militants. However, with greater vigilance by the Indian armed forces on the western borders, Pakistan began to search for new avenues to carry out its activities--like Nepal—to enter India. The Pakistan Embassy in Nepal is reported to be providing financial assistance and transit facilities to the Kashmiri militants. Pakistan has also been cultivating relations with the Muslims of the Terai and India through setting up Muslim organisations which not only impart training and religious education but also foment anti-India activities. The Muslim organisations are funded by Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, etc.

The US government acknowledges Pakistan's involvement in aiding international terrorism but it also pronounces the violation of human rights as a problem in Kashmir. Russia and China are concerned about the rising militancy and Islamic fundamentalism in Pakistan. The spread of fundamentalism in Pakistan, Afghanistan and Jammu and Kashmir can spread to China's areas lying close to them and exacerbate its already prevalent ethnic problem in the Xinjiang province.

Conclusion

The disputes between India and Pakistan, though regional in nature, were exploited by the Great Powers in their Cold War politics. The root of the Indo-Pak confrontation stemmed from the communal antagonism which was deep-rooted in the demographic distribution of their territories. The national urge to occupy areas with prominent Muslim demographic pattern, notably Kashmir, is one of the primary aims of Pakistani foreign policy and military strategy.

The geo-strategic location of Kashmir with a predominant Muslim population was the paradise and asset that Pakistan was determined to gain. With this strategic view, the war of 1948 was waged in which Pakistan occupied parts of Kashmir. The 1965 War opened with a Pakistani revanche to win over Kashmir and Rann of Kutch. Pakistani diplomacy and military strategy were harnessed to seek active Western assistance, notably the US aid, by projecting the border dispute as a possible Indian hegemonic design abetted by the forces of Communism. After the US arms embargo during the war, Pakistan aligned with China to pursue its national interest of becoming militarily strong to counter India. The Indo-Pak War in 1971 witnessed direct intervention by the US and the former USSR. The main support of the superpowers was displayed in the United Nations. America agreed to the Pakistani demand of plebiscite in Kashmir. The Soviet Union accepted the Indo-Pak partition as legitimate. The superpowers gave the adversaries the needed assistance to go for war with the intention to transform this regional war into a proxy war. The US presence in the Indian Ocean brought in the Soviet naval presence. The 1971 War had witnessed the Bay of Bengal and the Arabian Sea as the theatre of war. Hence, India and Pakistan started building their naval strength which has become a commendable force.

The disintegration of the Soviet Union brought an end to the Cold War politics and a shift in the policies of the US, Russia, and China towards the region. With the global emphasis on geo-economics, the Sino-India and US-India relations have improved which could be affected by the nuclear explosions conducted by India. However, through diplomatic efforts, India has been trying to negotiate with China. The strong business lobby has urged the US not to impose sanctions against India.

Despite the possession of nuclear weapons by India and Pakistan, there is a realisation that the nuclear weapons have only deterrent value and war is not the solution to any problem in the region. Only cooperation can help in fostering peace and cooperation in the region. The intervention of the outside powers has only exacerbated the conflict which can be solved through trust and confidence in each other.
 
Joined
Feb 16, 2009
Messages
29,911
Likes
48,660
Country flag
Nixon's opening to China: the dark side

Nixon's opening to China: the dark side


With the recent release of a new batch of Nixon tapes, once again we got to see the amoral side of how Nixon and Kissinger practiced statecraft. I happened to mention in polite conversation– with a GOP apparatchik who once campaigned for Nixon– the dark side of Nixon's foreign policy. Specifically that even the crown jewel of his foreign policy, the opening to China, came at the cost of turning a blind eye to one of the most horrific genocides of the 20th Century, in Bangladesh. Of course my GOP friend accused me of exaggeration and revisionism, so for those ignorant or skeptical about this claim, let's open the vault.

However one myth should be put to rest. Many Nixon detractors like to suggest that the only reason Nixon went to China in 1972 was for cynical political reasons. But in fact, Nixon as a private citizen had written in 1967 an essay "Asia After Viet Nam," which explored a possible thawing of Sino-American relations. So whatever faults the man had, which were many, an opening to China was a legitimate intellectual turnabout for a man who once accused Democrats of near treason for suggesting the same thing a decade previously.

Richard Nixon was able to pull off his opening to China by way of Pakistan– in particular by dealing with that country's ruler General Yahyn Khan. Both Nixon and Kissinger hated the Indian leader, Indira Gandhi and India in general. Kissinger once infamously referred to Gandhi as "the bitch" and the Indian people as "bastards." Nixon, not to be outbid in any sort of ethnic bashing, called the Indians, "slippery, treacherous people." So the administration clearly was going to lean toward India's primary antagonist, Pakistan, in foreign relations. Nixon and General Khan first met on October 25, 1970. Nixon broached the subject of using Khan as a go-between with the Chinese. Kissinger's previous attempts to open backdoor channels with China by way of Romanian contacts and his friend, Jeane Sainteny, had failed, so Khan's agreement was music to Nixon's ears.

At what price were Nixon and Kissinger willing to go to keep General Khan as their silent emissary? On July 19, 1971, Kissinger briefed the President and members of the White House staff on the upcoming trip to China. Kissinger laughed toward the end and said: "The cloak and dagger exercise in Pakistan arranging the trip was fascinating. Yaha hasn't had so much fun since the last Hindu massacre."

In fact General Khan had unleashed Operation Searchlight, a genocidal plan which the general and his army had been planning for months, to end once and for all their "troubles" with East Pakistan (now Bangladesh). One year before, the Awami League, which represented East Pakistan, won a majority of seats in the National Assembly, giving them a chance to end the domination of West Pakistan over East Pakistan affairs. This was something that General Khan refused to tolerate and thus planned to end the influence of East Pakistan once and for all by murdering the intellectual, cultural and political elite. Khan told his supporters, "Kill three million of them and the rest will eat out of our hands."

The Pakistan military got their buckets of blood for their general. Although estimates of the number killed have varied widely, Time magazine reported: "Most counts of the genocide arrive between 1 million and 3 million people killed." Nearly 10 million refugees crossed into India. Hindus were singled out– which makes Kissinger's "joke" especially shocking. Conservative estimates are that nearly 200,000 women were raped.

American counsel general to East Pakistan Archer Blood and others in the State Department were appalled with what was going on in Pakistan: wholesale murder, rape and ethnic cleansing while the United States was silent. This prompted Blood to send the famous Blood telegram through the dissent channel to the State Department:

Our government has failed to denounce the suppression of democracy. Our government has failed to denounce atrocities. Our government has failed to take forceful measures to protect its citizens while at the same time bending over backwards to placate the West Pakistan dominated government and to lessen any deservedly negative international public relations impact against them. Our government has evidenced what many will consider moral bankruptcy,("¦) But we have chosen not to intervene, even morally, on the grounds that the Awami conflict, in which unfortunately the overworked term genocide is applicable, is purely an internal matter of a sovereign state. Private Americans have expressed disgust. We, as professional civil servants, express our dissent with current policy and fervently hope that our true and lasting interests here can be defined and our policies redirected.

Blood had no idea who he was pleading with. Nixon and Kissinger were not about to be swayed by ethics and morality. Several weeks after receiving the Blood telegram, Nixon wrote on a memo from Kissinger that in no way was the USA to "squeeze" General Khan or Pakistan over their genocide. Blood would soon be transferred out of his position to prevent him from being a further thorn in General Khan's blood-soaked paw.

One month after Operation Searchlight had begun, Kissinger sent a note to General Khan thanking him for his "delicacy and tact." Kissinger historian Walter Isaacson describes Kissinger's note as an "odd description" for a ruler in the midst of murdering millions.

Meanwhile India was in a state of emergency as millions of refugees came across their border from East Pakistan fleeing almost certain death from the Pakistan military. Humanitarian groups began to raise money to aid East Pakistan. Nixon and Kissinger were furious that they may have to slobber (Nixon's words) over Gandhi to keep India from attacking West Pakistan. When Nixon learned that former Beatle George Harrison was teaming up with Indian singer Ravi Shankar to have a "Concert for Bangladesh," he asked Kissinger: "So who is the Beetle giving the money to- is it the goddamn Indians?"¦"¦"¦We have to keep India away."

Despite Nixon's "slobbering" over Gandhi at the White House at a state visit, she would have no more of General Khan's bloodbath and launched the Indian army into East Pakistan. Quickly the Indian army defeated Pakistan, and General Khan raised the white flag only after 10 days. India restored the democratically-elected leadership of East Pakistan. However, while the brief India-Pakistan war was underway, Nixon and Kissinger continue to supply Pakistan military aid (and lied to Congress about it), cut off economic aid to India and accused India of being the troublemaker in the region, not Pakistan. Nixon even sent the USS Enterprise to the Bay of Bengal to try and scare India, and tried to get the USSR and China to persuade India to back off.

The American ambassador to India, Kenneth Keating, was equally shocked at the callous statecraft Nixon and Kissinger were playing in appeasing General Khan at all costs. When Ambassador Keating pleaded with Nixon that India was the real ally and something needed to be done to stop the bloodletting, Nixon told Kissinger:

"I don't want him (Ambassador Keating) to come in with that kind of jackass thing with me"¦.Keating, like every ambassador who goes over there, goes over there and gets sucked in."

Kissinger responded:

"Those sons-of-bitches, who never have lifted a finger for us, why should we get involved in the morass of East Pakistan."

Of course the morass that Kissinger was speaking of was one that their Pakistani ally had got into in the first place. There would have been no war with Pakistan if it had not been for Operation Searchlight and millions of refugees coming across the Indian border. Amazing how two men who were supposed to be gurus of statecraft were unable to even acknowledge to themselves the consequences of General Khan's reckless murder spree.

So let's do a body count. The cost of having General Khan as their secret emissary to China was 1.5 million dead East Pakistanis, 10 million refugees and a war between India and Pakistan that took the lives of 14,000 Indians and 15,000 Pakistanis.

On February 21, 1972, Air Force One landed in China and Nixon and Kissinger would get the foreign policy coup that they had been working on since 1970. But those photo ops with Chairman Mao and Zhou Enlai came a terrible cost. The United States sacrificed its moral authority as it sided with a ruthless dictator who murdered hundreds of thousands and tried to undermine the largest democracy in Asia.

One has to wonder why these inconvenient facts are never presented to Dr. Kissinger when he appears on TV before the groveling sycophants who interview him.
 
Joined
Feb 16, 2009
Messages
29,911
Likes
48,660
Country flag
1971 India Pakistan War: Role of Russia, China, America and Britain | The World Reporter: News Opinion and Analysis



It was in the year 1971 when the two South Asian rivals declared war on each other causing a great loss to the lives, property and territory in case of Pakistan.

"As the topic sounds controversial, before we begin we would like to tell that every information in this article is sourced. The article was written after a detail analysis of various sources. All the relevant and immediate sources are listed at the end of the Article."



1971 India Pakistan War: Role of Russia, China, America and Britain



Background


Before 1971 Bangladesh used to be a part of Pakistan as East Pakistan. According to Najam Sethi, a well respected and honoured journalist from Pakistan, East Pakistan always complained that they received less development funds and less attention from the West Pakistan (Punjabi) dominated government. Bengalis in East Pakistan also resisted the adoption of Urdu as the state language. The revenue from the export, whether it was from the Cotton of West Pakistan or Jute of East Pakistan, was handled mainly by West Pakistan. Lastly, in an election conducted just some months before the war, the victory was gained by the East Pakistani leader and still he was not given the power, thus fueling the movement in East Pakistan.

Pakistani army started its operation in East Pakistan to contain the movement and anger among the Bengalis. It is reported that the army was involved in mass killing of public and mass rape of the women. India was aware of this and was only waiting for a trigger to start the war. India started receiving huge number of refugees which became unmanageable, pushing India to intervene in the situation.

In May, Indira Gandhi wrote to Nixon about the 'carnage in East Bengal' and the flood of refugees burdening India. After L K Jha, then the Indian ambassador to US, had warned Kissinger that India might have to send back some of the refugees as guerrillas. Nixon commented, 'By God, we will cut off economic aid (to India).'

A few days later, when the US president said 'the goddamn Indians' were preparing for another war, Kissinger retorted 'they are the most aggressive goddamn people around.'

US and China Connection, A Little Known Fact

(All Excerpts and Sources from 929 page long Volume XI of the Foreign Relations of the United States)

US sympathized with Pakistan, because of various reasons. Among them two reasons were that: firstly, Pakistan belonged to America led military Pact, CENTO and SEATO; secondly, US believed any victory of India will be considered as the expansion of Soviet influence in the parts gained by India with the victory, as India was believed to be a pro Soviet nation even though they were non aligned.

In a telegram sent to US Secretary of State Will Roger on March 28, 1971, the staff of the US consulate in Dhaka complained, 'Our government has failed to denounce the suppression of democracy. Our government has failed to denounce atrocities. Our government has failed to take forceful measures to protect its citizens while at the same time bending over backwards to placate the West Pakistan dominated government... We, as professional public servants express our dissent with current policy and fervently hope that our true and lasting interests here can be defined and our policies redirected in order to salvage our nation's position as a moral leader of the free world.'

This brought China in the picture. US needed help from China and the messenger was Pakistan. US very secretly approached China on this issue, who were more than welcoming as they believed that their relations with US could improve from this onward.

During the second week of July, 1971, Kissinger arrived in Beijing where he heard the words by then Chinese Prime Minister Zhou Enlai: "In our opinion, if India continues on its present course in disregard of world opinion, it will continue to go on recklessly. We, however, support the stand of Pakistan. This is known to the world. If they [the Indians] are bent on provoking such a situation, then we cannot sit idly by.' On this Kissinger responded that China should know that the US also backs Pakistan on this issue.

Indira Gandhi, the then Indian prime minister decided to tour most of the Western capitals to prove Indian stand and gain support and sympathy for the Bengalis of East Pakistan. On November 4th and 5th she met Nixon in Washington. Nixon straight forwardly told her that a new war in the subcontinent was out of the question.

The next day, Nixon and Kissinger assessed the situation. Kissinger told Nixon: 'The Indians are bastards anyway. They are plotting a war.'

The pressure increased in East Pakistan, which attracted Indian attention. Indians were preparing for war and were concentrated on the Eastern front. To divert the pressure, on December 3, in the dark of night, even before India could attack East Pakistan, Pakistan opened western front and air raided six Indian Airfields in Kashmir and Punjab.

The CIA reported to the US President that Indian Prime Minister believes that Chinese will never intervene militarily in North India, and thus any action from China would be a surprise for India and Indian military might collapse in tensed situation caused by fighting in three different fronts (East, North and West).

Hearing this, on December 9, Nixon decided to send the aircraft carrier USS Enterprise into the Bay of Bengal to threaten India. The plan was to Surround India from all four sides and force them to retreat and leave East Pakistan.

On December 10, Nixon instructed Kissinger to ask the Chinese to move some troops toward the Indian frontier. 'Threaten to move forces or move them, Henry, that's what they must do now.' China feared any action on India might attract Soviet aggression. At this, US assured China that any action taken by Soviet Union will be countered by US to protect China.

Pakistani army had somehow maintained their position and resisted Indian advancement, they believed China is preparing to open the Northern front which will slow down or completely stop the Indian advancement. In fact, the myth of Chinese activity was also communicated to Pakistan's army to boost their moral, to keep their will to fight and hope alive. Lieutenant General A A K Niazi, the Pakistani army commander in Dhaka, was informed: "NEFA front has been activated by Chinese although the Indians, for obvious reasons, have not announced it." But Beijing never did.

In Washington, Nixon analysed the situation thus: 'If the Russians get away with facing down the Chinese and the Indians get away with licking the Pakistanis...we may be looking down the gun barrel.' Nixon was not sure about China. Did they really intend to start a military action against India?

Soviet Union / Russian Role in the Indo Pakistan 1971 War.


As India had decided to go with the war, and Indira Gandhi had failed to gain American support and sympathy for the Bengalis who were being tortured in East Pakistan, she finally took a hard move and on August 9, signed a treaty of peace, friendship and cooperation with Soviet Union.

The State Department historian says, 'in the perspective of Washington, the crisis ratcheted up a dangerous notch, India and the Soviet Union have signed a treaty of peace, friendship and cooperation.' It was a shock to America as this was what they feared, expansion of Soviet influence in South Asia. They feared that involvement of Soviet Union could sabotage their plan.

On December 4, just one day after Pakistan raided Indian airfields in Kashmir and Punjab declaring the war on India, America's proxy involvement in the war was becoming clear. Thinking that Soviet Union might enter the war if they come to know this, which could cause a lot of destruction to Pakistan and American equipment given to Pakistan, US ambassador to the United Nations George H W Bush [later 41st president of the United States and father of George Bush] introduced a resolution in the UN Security Council, calling for a cease-fire and the withdrawal of armed forces by India and Pakistan. Believing India can win the war and Indira Gandhi being determined to protect the interest of Bengalis, Soviet Union vetoed out the resolution thus letting India fight for the cause. Nixon and Kissinger pressurized Soviets to a very extent but luck did not support them.




Video Translated by : Ella Salomatina, The World Reporter.

On 3rd December, 1971, the World was shaken by another war between India and Pakistan. Pakistani airforce raided Indian cities and airstrips. The Indian PM, Indira Gandhi, brought the country in the state of emergency and ordered Indian army to reflect the aggression. Fierce military operations developed on the ground, in the air and in the sea.

Historic document: "Confidential. December, 10, 1971. Moscow. For the DM Marshal Andrey Grechko.

According to the information from our ambassador in Delhi, in the very first day of the conflict the Indian destroyer 'Rajput' had sunk a Pakistani submarine with deep bombing. On December, 4 and 9, the speed boats of India had destroyed and damaged 10 Pakistani battle ships and vessels by Soviet anti ship P-15 missiles. In addition 12 Pakistani oil storage were burned in flame."

Confidential - The Commander of the Military Intelligence Service Gen. Pyotr Ivashutin.

"The Soviet Intelligence has reported that the English operative connection has come nearer to territorial India, water led by an aircraft carrier "Eagle" [On December 10]. For helping friendly India, Soviet government has directed a group of ships under the command of contr-admiral V. Kruglyakov."

Vladimir Kruglyakov, the former (1970-1975) Commander of the 10th Operative Battle Group (Pacific Fleet) remembers:

"I was ordered by the Chief Commander to track the British Navy's advancement, I positioned our battleships in the Bay of Bengal and watched for the British carrier "Eagle".

But Soviet Union didn't have enough force to resist if they encountered the British Carrier. Therefore, to support the existing Soviet fleet in the Bay of Bengal, Soviet cruisers, destroyers and nuclear submarines, equipped with anti ship missiles, were sent from Vladivostok.

In reaction English Navy retreated and went South to Madagascar.

Soon the news of American carrier Enterprise and USS Tripoli's advancement towards Indian water came.

V. Kruglyakov " I had obtained the order from the commander-in-chief to not to allow the advancement of the American fleet to the military bases of India"

"We encircled them and aimed the missiles at the 'Enterprise'. We had blocked their way and didn't allow them to head anywhere, neither to Karachi, nor to Chittagong or Dhaka".

The Soviet ships had small range rockets (only upto 300 KM). Therefore, to hold the opponent under the range, commanders ran risks of going as near to the enemy as possible.

"The Chief Commander had ordered me to lift the submarines and bring them to the surface so that it can be pictured by the American spy satellites or can be seen by the American Navy!' It was done to demonstrate, that we had all the needed things in Indian Ocean, including the nuclear submarines. I had lifted them, and they recognized it. Then, we intercepted the American communication. The commander of the Carrier Battle Group was then the counter-admiral Dimon Gordon. He sent the report to the 7th American Fleet Commander: 'Sir, we are too late. There are Russian nuclear submarines here, and a big collection of battleships'.

Americans returned and couldn't do anything. Soviet Union had also threatened China that, if they ever opened a front against India on its border, they will receive a tough response from North.

The war ended with the surrender of Pakistani army as they missed American help due to quick Russians who blocked both America and China from preventing India to advance. With this, a new country named Bangladesh was formed, which was recognized by the whole world and by Pakistan next year on Shimla Agreement.


Source: 1971 India Pakistan War: Role of Russia, China, America and Britain | The World Reporter: News Opinion and Analysis 1971 India Pakistan War: Role of Russia, China, America and Britain | The World Reporter: News Opinion and Analysis
 
Joined
Feb 16, 2009
Messages
29,911
Likes
48,660
Country flag
US snooping worsened after 1971 Pakistan war - The Economic Times


US snooping worsened after 1971 Pakistan war


NEW DELHI: Having weighed in on the Pakistani side during the 1971 war, the Americans refused to relent on their anti-India stance, aggressively snooping on Indian Navy ships and submarines, declassified government files show. The scale of these hostilities, thus far unknown, could have jeopardized the sensitive security scenario.

Aggressive surveillance sorties from America's newly-acquired Indian Ocean base of Diego Garcia kept getting more and more frequent and hostile through the seventies and the declassified files give instances of US military planes provoking Indian vessels. On November 21, 1975, defence secretary D R Kohli wrote to foreign secretary Kewal Singh: "In the recent past there have been several incidents of snooping/buzzing by US Orions (MR/ASW aircraft) over our naval ships." He listed incidents in 1974-75 that the Navy perceived serious.

The note listed specific instances when US surveillance planes flew very close, trailing Indian Navy vessels. In one incident, "an aircraft orbited at a very low altitude of 200 feet for about 10-15 minutes as the submarines surfaced on completion of sonobuoy trials (sonar system dropped/ejected from aircraft or ships during anti-submarine operations). On being closed by Alize (naval aircraft) the US planes sped away..." The defence secretary notes: "This snooping seems to be serious."

Aircraft carrier INS Vikrant reported on July 15, 1975 that it was shadowed on a "passage from Bombay to Madras". INS Delhi reported at least three incidents of US snooping. In the first instance, a US Orion made "two runs over the ship at 150 feet" and flew off, Kohli said. Similar incidents were reported by INS Mysore, INS Magar and other ships.

The defence secretary wrote: "It is assessed that US Orion aircraft are operating from Diego Garcia" and are "subjecting our naval activities to surveillance, even up to Bombay". In some earlier cases, US planes operating from bases in Thailand had carried out such activities, he said.

Foreign secretary Kewal Singh wrote on November 11, 1975: "If unfortunately, news of such incidents becomes public, it can lead to controversy and difficulties..." On the foreign secretary's note, foreign minister Yashwantrao Chavan wrote: "We must certainly take up the matter with the (US) embassy...This is the first glimpse of their use of Diego Garcia."

T S Teja, joint secretary (Americas), subsequently summoned US deputy chief of mission David Schneider on December 3 and lodged a strong protest.
 

pmaitra

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2009
Messages
33,262
Likes
19,594
Russian vs. Americans in Bengal Bay, 1971. Ударная Сила.

Russian vs. Americans in Bengal Bay, 1971. Ударная Сила.

 
Last edited by a moderator:

Global Defence

Articles

Top