US promised India help if China attacked during 1971 Indo-Pak war

[asianobserve]

AsianObserve, let it go buddy! The US was firmly against India in 1971-72 Indo-Pak Bangladesh Liberation War. Period.

Here are the two belligerent groups:

Mukti Bahini + India + USSR (good guys) Pakistan + USA + PRC (bad guys)

So it maybe true that some people in your External MInstry are smoking pot... :shocked:

 

[utubekhiladi]

So it maybe true that some people in your External MInstry are smoking pot... :shocked:

you bet..........money buys many

 

[JAISWAL]

Liear!!!
.
According to this Time magazine article, at that time - The Nixon administration was looking at China as a friend at that time.


Ping Pong Diplomacy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

1971: Ping Pong Diplomacy

On 6th April 1971, the US table tennis team received a surprise invitation to take part in an all-expenses-paid trip to compete with teams in China; an invitation that was to see the first group of Americans granted entry to the country since the communist take-over in 1949. Acting as one of the first signs of improving U.S-China relations, nine players of the US team enter the Chinese mainland, ushering in an era of improved international relations. This event was shortly followed by a visit by President Nixon.

Followed by that PRC got the UNSC seat as a grant.

 

[asianobserve]

right now americans are eyeing for 120 billion dollars that India is going to spend on defense in next 8 years and market pie for american companies like walmart etc.. plus, they want to use India against china..

You may take comfort in the fact that your balance of trade with the US is in your favor.

 

[asianobserve]

Liear!!!
.
According to this Time magazine article, at that time - The Nixon administration was looking at China as a friend at that time.


Ping Pong Diplomacy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

1971: Ping Pong Diplomacy

On 6th April 1971, the US table tennis team received a surprise invitation to take part in an all-expenses-paid trip to compete with teams in China; an invitation that was to see the first group of Americans granted entry to the country since the communist take-over in 1949. Acting as one of the first signs of improving U.S-China relations, nine players of the US team enter the Chinese mainland, ushering in an era of improved international relations. This event was shortly followed by a visit by President Nixon.

Followed by that PRC got the UNSC seat as a grant.

The term used is "looking." They were not exactly friends already. The visit that sealed the reproachment happened the next year. The US until then was still courting avery coy India, although probably already very impatient. Note that the UN seat was offered to India (and spurned by it) way earlier...

BTW, it's "liar" not "liear."

 

[asianobserve]

Kissinger once called former Indian Prime Minister Indira Gandhi a "bitch" in conversation.. he personally hated india and our then prime minister Indira gandhi. kissinger even sent nuclear armed USS enterprise to strike india with devastating force so that america's ally pakistan can be saved during 1971 war. but due to russians comming to our rescue, USS enterprise made a 'U' turn with out making any contact.

Maybe she was acting like one during their conversation. I don't think such a consumate diplomat as Mr. Kissinger will knowingly throw out that expletive for no reason at all. Maybe by then the US was already so exhausted with the impossibility of Indian position against it that frustrations were already boiling over.

 

[asianobserve]

I think the strategic policies of India in the 50s, 60s and 70s were still largely shaped by the anti-imperialist leaders who ground their teeth in the anti-British movement of the 30s and 40s. That's why the reluctance, albeit hostility, against English speaking powers. The likes of Nehru and his daughter would rather dance with the Soviets since they view them as anti-imperialists. They could never have been more wrong...

 

[utubekhiladi]

Maybe she was acting like one during their conversation. I don't think such a consumate diplomat as Mr. Kissinger will knowingly throw out that expletive for no reason at all. Maybe by then the US was already so exhausted with the impossibility of Indian position against it that frustrations were already boiling over.

even if she was acting like one, that is no way to address a prime minister of other nation. so assuming what you are saying is true, do u really think that usa really would have wanted to help India during 1971? Kissinger used that word long before the 1971 war started.

you really do not know what happened back then... i highly recommend some history classes for you..

even sworn enemies India and Pakistan do not use that kind of language.

 

[Known_Unknown]

What do you think would have ahappened if India earlier accepted US overtures, it offered China's UN seat and 1962 assistance... Would the carrier task force diplomacy occured in 1971 if India and the US already had a relatively good strategic arrangement? The most the US could have done granting it still maintained relationship with Pakistan ws to declare neutrality. Note that the US reproachment policy towards China did not take place until 1971, and seriously in 1972. This was probably only after the US realised that its India engagement policies will go nowehere...

The Americans never look for "allies". They either look for slaves or subordinate partners. Every single "ally" of the US falls into these 2 categories. The US wanted to similarly cultivate such an "allied" relationship with India.

However, what they failed to understand is that India was for thousands of years prior a great power in its own right, and after independence, Indian leaders sought to restore the nation to great power status. Becoming slavishly dependent on US assistance or toeing US policies just so that the US would consider us an "ally" was out of the question. This strategic independence of India, including accepting assistance from the West as well as the USSR, forming the NAM, preaching non-interference of the great powers in the third world and supporting decolonization was totally opposed to US foreign policy, which was mentioned earlier was to cultivate slaves or subordinate partners.

The US' typical policy was to use its capital and business to capture a foreign, usually third world nation's resources, and then protect its business interests through threats or use of military force. The sad history of Latin and South America is replete with US sponsored coups, massacres and military dictatorships to protect American business interests.

India was naturally opposed to this exploitation of other third world countries, and in it's opposition, it found a partner: the USSR. The USSR was founded on the basis of the idea that private capital was a bad idea and that capitalists are the bane of civilization. In the US' actions, the USSR's ideological views were confirmed.

It was illogical to expect India to be on the same side as the US during the Cold War. India's policy was third-world solidarity and independence, US's policy was third-world enslavement for its economic benefit.

Also unlike Pakistan, India was not willing to become a US stooge either just to be a so-called "ally".

 

[asianobserve]

Another thing, the US policies in the 50s, 60s and 70s were largely shaped by rabid anti-commuism. That's why it was not foreign for them to court India than the communist Chinese who they went to war against in Korea. I firmly believe historical evidence support this line.

But the Nixon-Kissinger duo were much more prgmatic than their predecessors and the growing realisation of India's Soviet drift only drove the 1970s US strategy further into the Chinese camp. Mind you if India only accepted US trategic overtures Mr. Deng could not have easily implemented his modernisation scheme, which was heavily hinged on US' active participation. Maybe India would have been China now (of course the new rivalry is a different matter).

 

[asianobserve]

The Americans never look for "allies". They either look for slaves or subordinate partners. Every single "ally" of the US falls into these categories. The US wanted to similarly cultivate such an "allied" relationship with India.

Ah, the great Indian pride. I think the Chinese people must be very grateful that Zhou and Deng did not share your attitude.

 

[Known_Unknown]

Ah, the great Indian pride. I think the Chinese people must be very grateful that Zhou and Deng did not share your attitude.

China is a great example. They are referred to as "enemies" more than often by the vast majority of US strategic experts, media and even Congress. Chinese investments into the US are closely scrutinized and usually, banned.

If that's your example of "ally", it's a very poor one. China was merely a piece on the chessboard, a potential USSR ally which was captured by the US instead for the short term.

 

[utubekhiladi]

Ah, the great Indian pride. I think the Chinese people must be very grateful that Zhou and Deng did not share your attitude.

good for the Chinese,.. right?

 

[asianobserve]

China is a great example. They are referred to as "enemies" more than often by the vast majority of US strategic experts, media and even Congress. Chinese investments into the US are closely scrutinized and usually, banned.

If that's your example of "ally", it's a very poor one. China was merely a piece on the chessboard, a potential USSR ally which was captured by the US instead for the short term.

Obvioulsy you did not get my point. Let me elaborate, if Chinese leaders refused the US strategic offer in '71 because that would turn them into "subordinates" or "slaves" do you think they will be what they are at now? Don't let your emotions cloud your reason I think this is the best lesson that Zhou and Deng thought us.

 

[asianobserve]

good for the Chinese,.. right?

What do you think?

 

[W.G.Ewald]

Now this is news to me. AFAIK, quite the opposite happened. I think now that US is trying hard to impress the Indians sensing the strong distrust that lingers in the minds of Indians due to the covert hostile acts the US committed against India for the sake of Truman Doctrine and Cold War. This report is definitely a mark of lobbying and soft priming taken up by the US to sweeten the remaining hiccups that mar the further progress of Indo-US relationship.

Personally, I'd have a lot more respect for honest admission and excuses of pragmatic geopolitics than such pathetic attempts.

The newly declassified documents are from an Indian government ministry, not from Washington. How can it be US lobbying?

Based on a set of freshly declassified documents of the ministry of external affairs, TOI had in early November
reported that the US hostility towards India
during the 1971 war was far beyond what was
publicly known.

 

[asianobserve]

If that's your example of "ally", it's a very poor one. China was merely a piece on the chessboard, a potential USSR ally which was captured by the US instead for the short term.

Is China still a "piece on the cheeseboard" now? Now China can already claim of being a real "equal," a "peer."

 

[Tianshan]

Is China still a "piece on the cheeseboard" now? Now China can already claim of being a real "equal," a "peer."

no, i do not think that china can claim to be on equal footing to any superpower like the usa or the former ussr.

not for several decades more.

 

[W.G.Ewald]

Only a fool would believe Kissinger or this so called declassified paper.

The ground reality proved that Kissinger lies through his teeth!

Kissinger invented the declassified document to be released by GOI? I don't get it. The rest I agree with.

 

[Known_Unknown]

Obvioulsy you did not get my point. Let me elaborate, if Chinese leaders refused the US strategic offer in '71 because that would turn them into "subordinates" or "slaves" do you think they will be what they are at now? Don't let your emotions cloud your reason I think this is the best lesson that Zhou and Deng thought us.

China was part of a different game altogether, a game which India could not play. The US wanted to ensure a split between the USSR and China. They were willing to go to any lengths to get this done. Hence the US's soft and favourable policy towards China.

India was comparatively not that important from the US point of view. India was already a democracy, had no oil, and was not in a strategic location. Hence the US had no reason to compromise or to offer any concessions.