1971 Indo-Pak War and foreign involvement

[ant80]

Hi LethalForce,
US will look after its national/strategic interests. During the cold war, anti-soviet concerns dominated over everything else. Infact, one of the main reasons for Pakistan’s creation was because the Congress party had many communist sympathisers and was allied to the CPI. Congress leaders at that time naively though that they can pursue an independent foreign policy (which was admirable but not practical) This led the UK and US to align with MA Jinnah who promised full military co-operation and defence co-operation if Pakistan was created. And that is what happened. Pakistan from the 1950s has always been a US ally against Communism in the region. If the Congress leaders in the 1940s had allayed UK/US apprehensions that India would go against US interests and ally with the Soviet things could have been different but I’m not sure how they could have done that.

Now what we have to realise today is that unless we realise and cater for US interests in the region now, no matter what we say, the US will be the sole superpower for decades to come. Now the US is shifting from supporting a pliant military dictatorship in Pakistan with religious nationalist tilt to a more civil/democratic society where the military is secondary. They won’t do that in a hurry but the Kerry-Lugar bill is a step in that direction. So again, we have to have a foreign policy that caters and converges as much as possible with the US to avoid a 1971 like situation so that they see India as a threat. We can learn from the Chinese in this regard, and we have an edge over China here

Nehru, unfortunately for us, had communist leanings while Jinnah had capitalist leanings. Jinnah wanted to rule his way while Nehru wanted to rule the opposite way. Unfortunately for us, as fate would have it, Jinnah died in 1948, a mere one year after independence. Couldn't Nehru have kept that ego of his in check and let that selfish Jinnah have it his way? All it would've cost him was a mere 1 year. I suspect much of what you say is true. I have had similar thoughts for a while, though I hadn't verbalized it.

I am bitter. Very bitter. How unlucky have we been as a country? Disunited since 10,000 years ago, allowing foreign invasions that caused deep divisions within us. Allowing petty quarrels to get in the way of seeing the greater good. Allowing a small island-country halfway across the world to dominate us through their economic policies until our GDP declined from over 25% to less than 3% of the world's GDP.

Why did Gandhi have to call off the Non-cooperation movement after the Chowri-Chowra incident? Why didn't Gandhi and Azad put their foot down when Jinnah demanded Pakistan? Why did Nehru have to be so naive and short-sighted vis'a'vis China? Why didn't Nehru protest Tibet's conquest by China when we have long-standing cultural ties with them? Why didn't Nehru heed the level-headed advise of his fully competent Army chiefs? Why did Nehru politicize the military leading to our humiliating defeat? Why did America have to deceive us and side with the Pakistanis during 1971, eventually leading to West Pakistan remaining whole? Why didn't Vajpayee declare war on Pakistan in 1999 when Pakistan didn't have nuclear launch capabilities? How would our state be now if just one of those things had gone our way?

I'm ranting. I'll stop now.

 

[ejazr]

Hi ant80,

I suggest you read Narendra S. Sarila's excellent book "In the shadow of the Great Game". He has based his book on declassified documents of the British and US govt. in the 2005. It clearly shows what I mentioned about British and by extension American strategic interests. Mainly containing a communist Soviet Union and securing the wells of power in the middle east.

The Jinnah before late 1930s was definitely an Indian nationalist. But Gandhi and the Congress didn't give him enough importance which led to his alienation. Gandhi was a devout Hindu and he felt comfortable with similar devout muslims like Maulana Azad and Abdul Gaffer Khan. This led Jinnah to seek his own power niche to bargain politically with the Congress. After the 1940s the bigger mistake made was opposing the British in WWII. All Congress leaders were put behind bars which gave the communal organizations at that time a free hand to fan up tensions. The Congress leaders hardly had a year to canvass for elections in 1946.

But the 1946 Cabinet mission plan was a recipe for disaster in my opinion. Accepting it as it was not sustainable for a stable India. The conditions were just wrong and unjust and would have caused many problems. This link provides a lot of original sources. India's Constitutional Question - The Cabinet Mission Plan 1946 (CabinetMissionPlan)

One of Nehru's major mistake I think is that he agreed to give up NWFP even though there was a Congress govt. Some people would say that looking at the situation today, he was right. But I tend to think that under the leader ship of Dr. Khan Saheb and Abdul Gaffar Khan if these same pathans could have led a non-violent movement against the British, wouldn't things have been different today. These leaders gave priority to education and employment and were still devout muslims. Surely they would not have been neglected and used like pawns in the 80s against the Afghans in the 80s.

Also, even if you compare to the European continent, these people have fought among themselves for 1000s of years as well. The greatest killings in human history WWI WWII the Holocaust all happened on European soil. The Dark ages were dark ages for only the Europeans not for the Indians or Chinese or for that matter the Middle East where scientists and women were routinely tortured and murdered under witch hunts by the Church. Even the largest plagues cases in history were in Europe.

 

[LETHALFORCE]

Nehru, unfortunately for us, had communist leanings while Jinnah had capitalist leanings. Jinnah wanted to rule his way while Nehru wanted to rule the opposite way. Unfortunately for us, as fate would have it, Jinnah died in 1948, a mere one year after independence. Couldn't Nehru have kept that ego of his in check and let that selfish Jinnah have it his way? All it would've cost him was a mere 1 year.

The British were aware of Jinnah's health and the rushed the partition to make sure a separate muslim state was carved out of India, this state will be propped up by the West and used as leverage against India,they want to keep the subcontinent divided and always in a state of Chaos and constant war, This same policy is implemented today with all the free money and weapons given to Pakistan the guise of being used against the Taliban when it is really meant to be used against India.

 

[LETHALFORCE]

Hi LethalForce,
US will look after its national/strategic interests. During the cold war, anti-soviet concerns dominated over everything else. Infact, one of the main reasons for Pakistan’s creation was because the Congress party had many communist sympathisers and was allied to the CPI. Congress leaders at that time naively though that they can pursue an independent foreign policy (which was admirable but not practical) This led the UK and US to align with MA Jinnah who promised full military co-operation and defence co-operation if Pakistan was created. And that is what happened. Pakistan from the 1950s has always been a US ally against Communism in the region. If the Congress leaders in the 1940s had allayed UK/US apprehensions that India would go against US interests and ally with the Soviet things could have been different but I’m not sure how they could have done that.



Now what we have to realise today is that unless we realise and cater for US interests in the region now, no matter what we say, the US will be the sole superpower for decades to come. Now the US is shifting from supporting a pliant military dictatorship in Pakistan with religious nationalist tilt to a more civil/democratic society where the military is secondary. They won’t do that in a hurry but the Kerry-Lugar bill is a step in that direction. So again, we have to have a foreign policy that caters and converges as much as possible with the US to avoid a 1971 like situation so that they see India as a threat. We can learn from the Chinese in this regard, and we have an edge over China here

Ejaz I would not completely agree with this view that Indians were allied with Russians before independence that led to India being undermined, around that time India helped Mother England win ww1 and ww2 millions of Indians were involved and died for this victory, in ww2 Indians defeated Rommel in North Africa under Montgomery and the defeated the Japanese in Burma. Indians also made their way North with the allies into Italy. So this leaning by Nehru is irrelevant for the Indian contribution around that time. Also Chinese were communists that were close with the Soviet Union and they were allowed to annex Tibet and given a UNSC seat. India was leaning toward Russia more after 1962 when India was betrayed by USA in war against China when arms deliveries never came as promised. The bias is clear and to looking for theories as to why is difficult when the answer is obvious.

 

[LETHALFORCE]

India Pakistan 1971 War as covered by Time

The Bloody Birth of Bangladesh

The U.S. :
A Policy in Shambles
Section: The World, Page 28, TIME, Dec. 20, 1971

The Nixon Administration drew a fusillade of criticism last week for its policy on India and Pakistan. Two weeks ago, when war broke out between two traditional enemies, a State Department spokesman issued an unusually blunt statement, placing the burden of blame on India. Soon after that, U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations George Bush branded the Indian action as "aggression" -- a word that Washington subsequently but lamely explained had not been "authorized"

Senator Edward Kennedy declared that the Administration had turned a deaf ear for eight months to "the brutal and systematic repression of East Bengal by the Pakistani army," and now was condemning "the response of India toward and increasingly desperate situation on its eastern borders." Senators Edmund Muskie and Hubert Humprey echoed Kennedy's charges.



The critics were by no means limited to ambitious politicians. In the New York Times, John P. Lewis, onetime U.S. A.I.D. director in India (1964-69) and now dean of the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs at Princeton, wrote: " We have managed to align ourselves with the wrong side of about as big and simple a moral issue as the world has seen lately; and we have sided with minor military dictatorship against the world's second largest nation." In Britain, the conservative London Daily Telegraph accused Washington of "a blundering diplomatic preformence which can have few parallels."

Since March, when the Pakistani army staged a bloody crackdown in East Bengal, murdering hundreds of thousands of civilians and prompting 10 million Bengalis to flee across the Indian border, the U.S. has been ostentatiously mild in its public criticism of the atrocities and of Pakistan's military ruler, President Yahya Khan -- a man whom President Nixon likes. Washington wanted to retain whatever leverage it had with the Pakistanis. Moreover the Administration was grateful for Islamabad's help in arranging Presidential Adviser Henry Kissenger's first, secret trip to China last July. India was shaken by Washington's sudden gesture toward its traditional enemies, the Chinese, with whom it had fought a brief war in 1962. Behind the scenes, many State Department officials urged in vain that the Government take a harder line toward Yahya, for humanitarian as well as practical political reasons.

In the past five years, China has displaced the U.S. as Pakistan's chief sponsor. India, increasingly dependent on the Soviet Union for military aid, finally signed an important treaty of friendship with Moscow last summer. The U.S. was not solely responsible for driving the Indians into the Soviet camp; but its policy of not being beastly to Yahya convinced the Indians that they could not count on the U.S. for moral support. The result of the treaty: U.S. influence in India was virtually neutralized.

The Administration's current anger, however, stems from a more recent incident. During her trip to Washington last month, India's Prime Minister Indira Gandhi led President Nixon to believe that her country had no intention of going to war. Later, when the Indian army made what appeared to be a well-planned attack on East Pakistan. Washington officials concluded that Mrs. Gandhi's trip had been a smokescreen for massive war preparations. Richard Nixon was furious, and was behind the initial Government statements branding India the aggressor.



Last week, in an attempt to justify U.S. policy, Presidential Adviser Kissenger help a press briefing. (the remark were supposed to be for "background use" only until Senator Barry Goldwater blew Kissinger's cover by printing a transcript of the briefing in the Congressional Record. Kissinger insisted that the U.S. has not really sided with Pakistan, but had been working quitely and intensively to bring about a peaceful political solution. Indeed, at the time of the Indian attack, he claimed, U.S. diplomats had almost persuaded Yahya Khan and the Calcutta-based Bangladesh leadership to enter into negotiations. New Delhi had precipitated the fighting in East Pakistan. Washington believed, and refused to accept a cease-fire because it was determined to drive the Pakistani army out of East Bengal.

It can be argued, however, that Washington was guilty of an unfortunate naivete by believing that a political solution was possible after the passions of the Indians and Pakistanis had become so aroused. Given the continued existence of a power vacuum in East Bengal, it may have been unrealistic to expect the Indians to refrain indefinitely from dealing their archenemy a crippling and permanent blow as to have expected the Israelis to halt their 1967 advance in the middle of the Sinai.

It is true that the new U.S. policy toward China has further restricted Washington's room for maneuver with the Indians, but this hardly explains or excuses the Administration's handling of recent affairs on the Indian subcontinent. Because of blunders in both substance and tone, the US has
1.destroyed whatever chance it had to be neutral in the East Asian conflict;
2.tended to reinforce the Russia-India, China-Pakistan lineup;
3.Seemingly placed itself morally and politically on the side of a particularly brutal regime, which, moreover, is an almost certain loser; and
4.made a shambles of its position on the subcontinent.

 

[LETHALFORCE]

India Pakistan 1971 War as covered by Time

COVER STORY:
The Bloody Birth of Bangladesh Out of War,
a Nation Is Born
Section: The World, Page 28, TIME, Dec. 20, 1971

"Jai Bangla! Jai Bangla!" From the banks of the great Ganges and the broad Brahmaputra, from the emerald rice fields and mustard-colored hills of the countryside, from the countless squares of countless villages came the cry, "Victory to Bengal! Victory to Bengal!" They danced on the roofs of buses and marched down city streets singing their anthem Golden Bengal. They brought the green, red and gold banner of Bengal out of secret hiding places to flutter freely from buildings, while huge pictures of their imprisoned leader, Sheik Mujibur Rahman, sprang up overnight on trucks, houses, and signposts. As Indian troops advanced first to Jessore, then to Camilla, then to the outskirts of the capital of Dacca, small children clambered over their trucks and Bengalis everywhere cheered and greeted the soldiers as liberators.

Thus last week, amid a war that still raged on, the new nation of Bangladesh was born. So far only India and Bhutan have formally recognized it, but it ranks eighth among the world's 148 nations in terms of population (78 million), behind China, India, the Soviet Union, the U.S., Indonesia, Japan and Brazil. Its birth, moreover, may be followed by grave complications. In West Pakistan, a political upheaval is a foregone conclusion in the wake of defeat and dismemberment. In India, the creation of a Bengali state next door to its own impoverished West Bengal state could very well strengthen the centrifugal forces that have tugged at the country since independence in 1947.

The breakaway of Pakistan's eastern wing became a virtual certainty when the Islamabad government launched air strikes against at least eight Indian airfields two weeks ago. Responding in force, the Indian air force managed to wipe out the Pakistani air force in the East within two days, giving India control of the skies. In the Bay of Bengal and the Ganges delta region as well, the Indian navy was in unchallenged command. Its blockade of Chittagong and Chalna harbors cut off all reinforcements, supplies and chances of evacuation for the Pakistani forces, who found themselves far outnumbered (80,000 v. India's 200,000) and trapped in an enclave more than 1,000 miles from their home bases in the West.

There were even heavier and bloodier battles, including tank clashes on the Punjabi plain and in the deserts to the south, along the 1,400-mile border between India and the western wing of Pakistan, where the two armies have deployed about 250,000 men. Civilians were fleeing from the border areas, and residents of Karachi, Rawalpindi and Islamabad were in a virtual state of siege and panic over day and night harassment raids by buzzing Indian planes.

The U.N. did its best to stop the war, but its best was not nearly good enough. After three days of procedural wrangles and futile resolutions, the Security Council gave up: stymied by the Soviet nyets, the council passed the buck to the even wordier and less effectual General Assembly. There, a resolution calling for a cease-fire and withdrawal of Indian and Pakistan forces behind their own borders swiftly passed by an overwhelming vote of 104 to 11.

The Pakistanis, with their armies in retreat, said they would honor the cease-fire provided India did. The Indians, with victory in view, said they "were considering" the cease-fire, which meant they would stall until they had achieved their objective of dismembering Pakistan. There was nothing the assembly could do to enforce its will. There was considerable irony in India's reluctance to obey the U.N. resolution in view of New Delhi's irritating penchant in the past for lecturing other nations on their moral duty to do the bidding of the world organization. Similarly the Soviet Union, which is encouraging India in its defiance, has never hesitated to lecture Israel on its obligation to heed U.N. resolutions calling for withdrawal from Arab territories.


Hopeless Task
In any case, a cease-fire is not now likely to alter the military situation in the East. As Indian infantrymen advanced to within 25 miles of Dacca late last week and as reports circulated that 5,000 Indian paratroopers were landing on the edges of the beleaguered eastern capital, thousands fled for fear that the Pakistani army might decide to take a pitched stand. Daily, and often hourly, Indian planes strafed airports in Dacca, Karachi and Islamabad. Some 300 children were said to have died in a Dacca orphanage when a piston-engine plane dropped three 750-lb bombs on the Rahmat-e-Alam Islamic Mission near the airport while 400 children slept inside. [Pakistan claimed the plane was India's. Some Bengalis and foreign observers believed it was Pakistani, but other observers pointed out that the only forces known to be flying piston-engined aircraft were the Mukti Bahini, the Bengali liberation forces.] Earlier in the week, two large bombs fell on workers' shanties near a jute mill in nearby Narayanganj, killing 275 people.

Forty workers died and more than 100 others were injured when they were caught by air strikes as they attempted to repair huge bomb craters in the Dacca airport runway. India declared a temporary moratorium on air strikes late last week so that the runway could be repaired and 400 U.N. relief personnel and other foreigners could be flown out. It was repaired, but the Pakistanis changed their mind and refused to allow the U.N.'s evacuation aircraft to land at Dacca, leaving U.N. personnel trapped as potential hostages. The International Red Cross declared Dacca's Intercontinental Hotel and nearby Holy Family Hospital "neutral zones" to receive wounded and provided a haven for foreigners.

For its part, the Pakistani army was said to have killed some Bengalis who they believed informed or aided the Indian forces. But the reprisals apparently were not on a wide scale. Both civilian and military casualties were considered relatively light in East Bengal, largely because the Indian army skirted big cities and populated areas in an effort to avoid standoff battles with the retreating Pakistani troops.

The first major city to fall was Jessore. TIME's William Stewart, who rode into the key railroad junction with the Indian troops, cabled: "Jessore, India's first strategic prize, fell as easily as a mango ripened by a long Bengal summer. It shown no damage from fighting. In face, the Pakistani 9th Division headquarters had quite Jessore days before the Indian advance, and only four battalions were left to face the onslaught.

"Nevertheless, two Pakistani battalions slipped away, while the other two were badly cut up. The Indian army was everywhere wildly cheered by the Bengalis, who shouted: "Jai Bangla!" and "Indira Gandhi Zindabad! (Long live Indira Gandhi!)" In Jhingergacha, a half-deserted city of about 5,000 near by, people gather to tell of their ordeal. "The Pakistanis shot us when we didn't understand," said one old man. "But they spoke Urdu and we speak Bengali."


Death Awaits
By no means all of East Bengal was freed of Pakistani rule last week. Pakistani troops were said to be retreating to two rivers ports, Narayanganj and Barisal, where it was speculated they might make a stand or alternatively seek some route of escape. They were also putting up a small defense in battalion-plus strength in three garrison towns where Indian forces reportedly had encircled them. The Indians have yet to capture the major cities of Chittagong and Dinajpur. Neither army permitted newsmen unreserved access to the contested areas, but on several occasions the Indian military did allow reporters to accompany its forces. The three prolonged Indian pincer movement, however, moved much more rapidly than was earlier believed possible. Its success was largely attributed to decisive air and naval support.

Demoralized and in disarray, the Pakistani troops were urged to obey the "soldier-to-soldier" radio call to surrender, repeatedly broadcast by Indian army Chief of Staff General Sam Manekshaw, "Should you not heed my advice to surrender to my army and endevour to escape," he warned , "I assure you certain death awaits you." He also assured the Pakistanis that if they surrendered they would be treated as prisoners of war according to the Geneva convention. To insure that the Mukti Bahini would also adhere to the Geneva code, India officially put the liberation forces under its military command.

Pakistani prisoners were reported surrendering in fair numbers. But many others seems to be fleeing into the countryside, perhaps in hopes of finding escape routes disguised as civilians. "In some garrison towns stout resistance is being offered, " said an Indian spokesman, " and although the troops themselves wish to surrender, they are being instructed by generals: `Gain time, Something big may happen. Hold on.' " He added sarcastically that only big thing that could happen was that the commanders of the military regime in East Pakistan might pull a vanishing act.

All week long, meanwhile, the Pakistani regime kept up a running drum-fire about Pakistan's Jihad, or holy war, with India. An army colonel insisted there were no Pakistani losses whatsoever on the battlefield. His reasoning: "In pursuit of Jihad, nobody dies, He lives forever." Pakistani radio and television blared forth patriotic songs such as All of Pakistan Is Wide Awake and The Martyr's Blood Will Not Go Wasted. The propaganda was accompanied by a totally unrealistic picture of the war. At one point, government spokesmen claimed that Pakistan had knocked out 123 Indian aircraft to a loss of seven of their own, a most unlikely kill ratio of nearly 18-to-1. Islamabad insisted that Pakistani forces were still holding on to the city of Jessore even though newsmen rode into the city only hours after its liberation

Late last week, however, President Aga Mohammed Yahya Khan's government appeared to be getting ready to prepare its people for the truth: the east is lost. An official spokesmen admitted for the first time that the Pakistani air forces was no longer operating in the East, Pakistani forces were "handicapped in the face of a superior army war machine," he said, and were out numbered six to one by the Indians in terms of men and material -- a superiority that seems slightly exaggerated.

continued

 

[LETHALFORCE]

Sikhs and Gurkhas

As the fate of Bangladesh, and of Pakistan itself, was being decided in the East, Indian and Pakistani forces were making painful stabs at one another along the 1,400-mile border that reaches from the icy heights of Kashmir through the flat plains of Punjab down to the desert of western India. There the battle was waged by the bearded Sikhs wearing khaki turbans, tough, flat-faced Gurkhas, who carry a curved knife known as a kukri in their belts, and many other ethnic strains. Mostly, the action was confined to border thrusts by both sides to straighten out salients that are difficult to defend.

The battle have pitted planes, tanks, artillery against each other, and in fact both material losses and casualties appear to have run far higher than in the east. Most of the sites were the very places where the two armies slugged it out in their last war in 1965. Yet there were no all-out offensives. The Indian army's tactic was to maintain a defensive posture, launching no attacks except where they assisted its defenses.


Old Boy Attitude
The bloodiest action was at Chhamb, a flat plateau about six miles from the cease-fire line that since 1949 has divided the disputed Kashmir region almost equally between Pakistan and India. The Pakistani were putting up "a most determined attack," according to an Indian Spokesman, who admitted that Indian casualties had been heavy. But he added that Pakistani casualties were heavier. The Pakistanis' aim was to strike for the Indian city of Jammu and the 200-mile-long Jammu-Srinagar highway, which links India with the Vale of Kashmir. The Indians were forced to retreat from the west bank of the Munnawar Tawi River, where they had tried desperately to hold on.

Except for Chhamb and other isolated battles, both sides seemed to be going about the war with an "old boy" attitude: "If you don't really hit my important bases, I won't bomb yours." Behind all this, of course, is the fact that many Indian and Pakistani officers, including the two countries' commanding generals, went to school with one another at Sandhurst or DehraDun. India's commanding general in the east, Lieut. General Jagjit Singh Aurora, was a classmate of Pakistani President Yahya, "We went to school together to learn how best to kill each other," said an Indian officer.

"To an outsider," TIME's Marsh Clark cabled after a tour of the western front, "the Indian army seemed precise, old-fashioned and sane. `The closer you get to the front, the more tea and cookies you get,' one American correspondent complained. But things get done. Convoys move up rapidly, artillery officers direct their fire with dispatch. Morale is extremely high, and Indian officers always refer to the Pakistanis, though rather condescendingly, as `those chaps.' "


Abandoned Britches
On a visit to Sehjra, a key town in a Pakistani salient that pokes into Indian territory east of Lahore where Indian troops are advancing, Clark found turbaned men working in the fields while jets flew overhead and artillery sounded in the distance. "There are free tea stalls along the road," he reported, "and teen-agers throw bags of nuts, plus oranges and bananas into the Jeeps carrying troops to the front, and shout encouragement. When our Jeep stops, kids surround it and yell at us, demanding that we write a story saying their village is still free and not captured, as claimed by Pakistani radio.

"As we come up on the border, the Indian commander receives us. He recounts how his Gurkha soldiers kicked of the operations at 9 o'clock at night and hit the well-entrenched Pakistanis at midnight. `I think we took them by surprise,' he says, and an inspection of the hooch of the Pakistani area commanding officers confirms it. On his bed is a suitcase, its confusion indicating it was hastily packed. There are several shirts, some socks. And his trousers. Nice trousers of gray flannel made, according to the label, by Mr. Abass, a tailor in Rawalpindi. The colonel, it is clear, has departed town and left his britches behind."

South of Sehjra, Indian armored units have been plowing through sand across the West Pakistan border, taking hundreds of square miles of desert and announcing the advance of their troops to places that apparently consist of two palm trees and a shallow pool of brackish water. Among the enemy equipment reported captured: several camels. The reason behind this rather ridiculous adventure is the fear that Pakistan will try to seize large tracts of Indian territory to hold as ransom for the return of East Bengal. That now seems an impossibility with Bangladesh an independent nation, but India wants to have land in the west to bargain with.

continued

 

[LETHALFORCE]

Constant Harassment

Pakistan, on the other hand, has much to gain if it can wrest the disputed province, particularly and fabled Vale, from Indian control. Strategically, the region is extremely important, bodering on both China and Afghanistan as well as India and Pakistan. Moreover, Kashmir's population is predominantly Moslem.

Still, the war was beginning to take its toll on the people of West Pakistan. The almost constant air raids over Islamabad, Karachi and other cities have brought deep apprehension, even panic." TIME's Loius Kraar cabled from Rawalpindi. "It is not massive bombing, just constant harassment -- though there have been several hundred civilian casualties. Thus when the planes roar overhead, life completely halts in the capital and people scurry into trenches or stand in doorways with woo[ ]ls over their heads, ostrich-like. Because of the Kashmir mountains, the radar in the area does not pick up Indian planes until they are about 15 miles away.

"Pakistanis have taken to caking mud all over their autos in the belief that it camouflages them from Indian planes. In nightly blackouts, the road traffic moves along with absolutely no lights, and fear has prevailed so completely over common sense that there has probably been more bloodshed in traffic accidents than in the air raids. The government has begun urging motorists only to shield their lights, but peasants throw stones at any car that keeps them on. In this uneasy atmosphere, Pakistani antiaircraft gunners opened up on their own high-flying sabre jets one evening last week. At one point, the military stationed an antiaircraft machine gun atop the Rawalpindi intercontinental Hotel, but guests convinced them it was dangerous."


Soviet Aircraft
In New Delhi, the mood was not so much jingoism as jubilation that India's main goal -- the establishment of a government in East Bengal that would ensure the return of the refugees -- was accomplished so quickly. There was little surprise when Prime Minister Gandhi announced to both houses of Parliament early this week that India would become the first government to recognize Bangladesh. Still, members thumped their desks, cheered loudly and jumped in the aisles to express their delight. "The valiant struggles of the people of Bangladesh in the face of tremendous odds has opened a new chapter of heroism in the history of freedom movements," Mrs. Gandhi said. "The whole world is now aware that [Bangladesh] reflects the will of an overwhelming majority of the people, which not many governments can claim to represents."

There was little joy in New Delhi, however, over the Nixon Administration's hasty declaration blaming India for the war in the subcontinent, or over U.N. Ambassador George Bush's remark that India was guilty of "aggression" (see: The US: A policy in shambles). Indian officials were shocked by the General Assembly's unusually swift and one-sided vote calling for a cease-fire and withdrawal of troops.


Call for Armaments
Meanwhile, there was still the danger that other nations could get involved. Pakistan was reported putting pressure on Turkey, itself inflicted with internal problems, to provide ships, tanks, bazookas, and small arms and ammunition. Since Turkey obtains heavy arms from the U.S., it would be necessary to have American approval to give them to Pakistan. There was also a report that the Soviet Union was using Cairo's military airbase Almaza as a refueling stop in flying reinforcements to India. Some 30 giant Autonov-12 transports, each capable of carrying two dismantled MIGs or two SAM batteries, reportedly touched down last week. The airlift was said to have displeased the Egyptians, who are disturbed over India's role in the war. For its part, Washington stressed that its SEATO and CENTO treaties with Pakistan in no way bind it to come to its aid.

If the Bangladesh government was not yet ensconced in the capital of Dacca by week's end, it did appear that its foundations had been firmly laid. As Mrs. Gandhi said in her speech to Parliament, the leaders of the People's Republic of Bangladesh -- as the new nation will be officially known -- "have proclaimed their basic principles of state policy to be democracy, socialism, secularism and establishment of an egalitarian society in which there would be no discrimination on the basis of race, religion, sex or creed. In regard to foreign relations, the Bangladesh government have expressed their determination to follow a policy of non-alignment, peaceful coexistence and opposition to colonialism, racialism and imperialism."

Bangladesh was born of a dream twice deferred. Twenty-four years ago, Bengalis voted to join the new nation of Pakistan, which had been carved out of British India as a Moslem homeland. Before long, religious unity disintegrated into racial and regional bigotry as the autocratic Moslems of West Pakistan systematically exploited their Bengali brethren in the East. One year ago last week, the Bengalis thronged the polls in Pakistan's first free nationwide election, only to see their overwhelming mandate to Mujib brutally reversed by West Pakistani soldiers. That crackdown terrible toll: perhaps 1,000,000 dead, 10 million refugees, untold thousands homeless, hungry, and sick.

The memories are still fresh of those who died of cholera on the muddy paths to India, or suffered unspeakable atrocities at the hands of the Pakistani military. And there are children, blind and brain-damaged, who will carry the scars of malnutrition for the rest of their lives. As a Bangladesh official put it at the opening of the new nation's first diplomatic mission in New Delhi last week: "It is a dream come true, but you must also remember that we went through a nightmare."

continued

 

[LETHALFORCE]

Economic Prospects

How stable is the new nation? Economically, Bangladesh has nowhere to go but up. As Pakistan's eastern wing, it contributed between 50% and 70% of that country's foreign exchange earnings but received only a small percentage in return. The danger to East Bengal's economy lies mainly in the fact that it is heavily based on jute and burlap, and synthetic substitutes are gradually replacing both. But if it can keep all of its own foreign exchange, as it now will, it should be able to develop other industries. It will also open up trade with India's West Bengal, and instead of competing with India, may frame joint marketing policies with New Delhi. India also intends to help with Bangladesh's food problems in the next year.

One of the main conditions of India's support is that Bangladesh organize the expeditious return of the refugees and restore their lands and belonging to them. The Bangladesh government is also intent on seeking war reparations from Pakistan if possible.

What of West Pakistan? The loss of East Paksitan will no doubt be a tremendous blow to its spirit and a destabilizing factor in politics. But the Islamabad regime, shorn of a region that was politically, logistically and militarily difficult to manage and stripped down to a population of 58 million, may prove a much more homogeneous unit. In that sense, the breakup could prove to be a blessing in disguise. Both nations, moreover, might be expected to get considerable foreign aid to help them back onto their feet.


Leadership Vacuum
Last week Yahya announced the appointment of a 77-year old Bengali named Nurul Amin as the Prime Minister-designate for a future civilian government, to which he has promised to turn over some of his military regime's power. Amin figured in last December's elections, which precipitated the whole tragedy. In those elections Mujib's Awami League won 167 of the 169 Assembly seats at stake; Amin, an independent who enjoyed prestige as an elder statesman, won one of the two others. But he is essentially a figure head, and former Foreign Minister Zulfikar Ali Bhutto was appointed his deputy, which means that he will have the lion's share of the power. That may come sooner than expected. There were reports last week that Yahya's fall from power may be imminent. Bhutto is a contentious, pro-Chinese politician who was instrumental in persuading Yahya in effect to set aside the results of the election and to keep Mujib from becoming Prime Minister of Pakistan.

Bangladesh's main difficulty is apt to come from a leadership vacuum should Yahya refuse to release Mujib, the spellbinding leader who has led the fight for Bengali civil liberties since partition. All of the Awami Leaguers who formed provisional government of Bangladesh in exile last April are old colleagues of Mujib's and have grown accustomed to handling responsibilities since he went to prison. But running a volatile war-weakened new nation is considerably more difficult than managing a political party. The trouble is that none of them have the tremendous charisma that attracted million-strong throngs to hear Mujib. The top leaders, all of whom won seats in the aborted National Assembly last December by over whelming margins, are:
Syed Nazrul Islam, 46, acting President in the absence of Mujib, a lawyer who frequently served as the Sheik's deputy in the past. He was active in the struggle against former President Ayub Khan, and when Mujib was thrown in jail, he led party through crises.
Tajuddin Ahmed, 46, Prime Minister, a lawyer who has been a chief organizer in the Awami League since its founding in 1949. He is an expert in economies and is considered one of the party's leading intellectuals.
Khandakar Moshtaque Ahmed, 53, Foreign Minister, a lawyer who was active in the Indian independence movement and helped found the Awami League.
The most immediate problem is to prevent a bloodbath in Bangladesh against non-Bengalis accused of collaborating with the Pakistani military. Toward this end, East Bengal government officials who chose to remain in Bangladesh through the fighting are being inducted into the new administration and taking over as soon as areas are liberated. Actually, India's recognition came earlier than planned. One reason was to circumvent a charge reportedly budding in the U.N that India had joined the battle to annex the province to India. Another was to enable Bangladesh government to assume charge as soon as large chunks of territory was liberated by the army. Since New Delhi does not want to be accused of having exchanged West Pakistani colonialism for India colonialism, it is expected to to lean over backward to let the Bangladesh government do things its way.


The Walk Back
Is there any chance that the Pakistanis may yet engineer a startling turn of the tide, rout the Indians from the East and destroy the new nation in its infancy? Virtually none. As Correspondent Clark cabled: "Touts who are betting on the outcome between India and Pakistan might ponder the fact that two of the TIME correspondents who were visiting Pakistan this week [Clark in the West, Stewart deep in the East] were with Indian forces."

And so at week's end the streams of refugees who walked so long and so far to get to India began making the long journey back home to pick up the thread of their lives. For some, there were happy reunions with relatives and friends, for other tears and the bitter sense of loss for those who will never return. But there were new homes to be built, and a new nation to be formed. The land was there too, lush and green.

"Man's history is waiting in patience for the triumph of the insulted man," Rabindranath Tagore, the Nobel-prize winning Bengali Poet, once wrote. Triumph he had, but at a terrible price. With the subcontinent at war, and the newborn land still wracked by bone-shattering poverty, the joy in Bangladesh was necessarily tempered by sorrow.

 

[ejazr]

Ejaz I would not completely agree with this view that Indians were allied with Russians before independence that led to India being undermined, around that time India helped Mother England win ww1 and ww2 millions of Indians were involved and died for this victory, in ww2 Indians defeated Rommel in North Africa under Montgomery and the defeated the Japanese in Burma. Indians also made their way North with the allies into Italy. So this leaning by Nehru is irrelevant for the Indian contribution around that time. Also Chinese were communists that were close with the Soviet Union and they were allowed to annex Tibet and given a UNSC seat. India was leaning toward Russia more after 1962 when India was betrayed by USA in war against China when arms deliveries never came as promised. The bias is clear and to looking for theories as to why is difficult when the answer is obvious.

Yes, that's true, India was always pursuing a NAM approach, but the thing is about perception India under Congress was perceived to be pro-soviet. Nehru and other Congress leaders would always say that they would keep Indian interests paramount even above British and US interests. This was admirable, but in realpolitik not advisable. Jinnah understood this and wholeheartedly approved full British defense co-operation.

Also its true that a lot of Indians fought under the British, but these soldiers were mainly from Punjab and NWFP region. Rawalpindi was the GHQ of the British Armed forces and that is still the location of the PA GHQ as well.

However, Congress Quit India movement and resigning of ministries in WWII confirmed suspicions that according to them India will not take care of British regions in the subcontinent and that having a part of sub-continent under their control (i.e. Pakistan ) is necessary. Particularly the North West part which had strategic importance vis a vis ME oil well and close proximity to the then USSR.

That also one of the reasons why in 1971, Nixon was furious but ok to let East Pakistan go, but when Indira Gandhi wanted to finish of West Pakistan and the PA, he threatened to come on Pakistan's side and even said that he will get China to attack India as well and leave PA and West Pakistan as is.

 

[LETHALFORCE]

This threat was a motivating factor for the Indian atomic program, after these threats by Nixon India tested in 1974.

India's Nuclear Weapons Program - Smiling Buddha: 1974

 

[ant80]

I have one question for someone more informed. When were the secret Kissinger trip to China and Regan's overtures towards the Chinese revealed? I assume that during the war itself, the American public (or the general public, for that matter) didn't know about that.

 

[AJSINGH]

US did everything to corner india . USA tried to re route supplies to pakistan from iran ,china and also sent its aircraft carrier
The United States supported Pakistan both politically and materially. Nixon, backed by Henry Kissinger, feared Soviet expansion into South and Southeast Asia. Pakistan was a close ally of the People's Republic of China, with whom Nixon had been negotiating a rapprochement and where he intended to visit in February 1972. Nixon feared that an Indian invasion of West Pakistan would mean total Soviet domination of the region, and that it would seriously undermine the global position of the United States and the regional position of America's new tacit ally, China. In order to demonstrate to China the bona fides of the United States as an ally, and in direct violation of the US Congress-imposed sanctions on Pakistan, Nixon sent military supplies to Pakistan, routing them through Jordan and Iran,[27] while also encouraging China to increase its arms supplies to Pakistan.

The Nixon administration also ignored reports it received of the 'genocidal' activities of the Pakistani Army in East Pakistan, most notably the Blood telegram. When Pakistan's defeat in the eastern sector seemed certain, Nixon sent the USS Enterprise to the Bay of Bengal, a move which was a nuclear threat. The Enterprise arrived on station on 11 December 1971. On 6 December and 13 December, the Soviet Navy dispatched two groups of ships, armed with nuclear missiles, from Vladivostok; they trailed U.S. Task Force 74 into the Indian Ocean from 18 December 1971 until 7 January 1972. The Soviets also sent a nuclear submarine to ward off the threat posed by USS Enterprise in the Indian Ocean.[28]

According to a book written by an Indian Colonel, when the USS Enterprise reached the Indian Ocean, Soviet nuclear submarines surfaced without any kind of verbal warning or threat. There was no formal or informal dialogue between the USSR and the United States. As the United States were not ready to risk open nuclear warfare with the Soviets the Enterprise simply turned around and sailed back to the US.

American policy towards the end of the war was dictated primarily by a need to restrict the escalation of war on the western sector to prevent the 'dismemberment' of West Pakistan.[29] Years after the war, many American writers criticized the White House policies during the war as being badly flawed and ill-serving the interests of the United States.[30][10]

The Soviet Union sympathized with the Bangladeshis, and supported the Indian Army and Mukti Bahini during the war, recognizing that the independence of Bangladesh would weaken the position of its rivals - the United States and China. The USSR gave assurances to India that if a confrontation with the United States or China developed, it would take counter-measures. This assurance was enshrined in the Indo-Soviet friendship treaty signed in August 1971.

Indo-Pakistani War of 1971 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[AJSINGH]

for the same reason we should be very carefull when it comes to USA for defense euipment because as it is their forgin policy is very shaky ( they may remove their support anytime if they think its national interest is jeprody )

 

[johnee]

for the same reason we should be very carefull when it comes to USA for defense euipment because as it is their forgin policy is very shaky ( they may remove their support anytime if they think its national interest is jeprody )

Yep, we should be very careful when it comes to US. Whether it is strategic alliances, or defence equipment. But I wanted to make a small point, you said that the foreign policy of US is shaky, thats not right. US has always sided with Pakistan and Pakistan has always worked against India. There must not be any confusion on this aspect.

 

[dineshchaturvedi]

for the same reason we should be very carefull when it comes to USA for defense euipment because as it is their forgin policy is very shaky ( they may remove their support anytime if they think its national interest is jeprody )

I agree, but I think we are taking that care already. So far I have not seen us banking on US too much. At the same time we can leverage some of the advanced technologies offered by USA. A mix will not hurt us, taking no risk is the biggest risk in my opinion.

 

[AJSINGH]

Yep, we should be very careful when it comes to US. Whether it is strategic alliances, or defence equipment. But I wanted to make a small point, you said that the foreign policy of US is shaky, thats not right. US has always sided with Pakistan and Pakistan has always worked against India. There must not be any confusion on this aspect.

pakistan is one example , what about china( using china to help india in 1971) , afganistan( using mujahudeen to kick soveit out of afganistan now fighting them)

 

[johnee]

pakistan is one example , what about china( using china to help india in 1971) , afganistan( using mujahudeen to kick soveit out of afganistan now fighting them)

Well, for US, USSR/Russia has always been a bigger evil and they have used others to counter them. China was courtable as far as US was concerned as opposed to India which was seen as an ally of USSR. So, no shakiness there.

As for Afghanistan, US was thwarting USSR using Pakistan and their mujahideens. Even the war on terror that US carries on today is a paradox. Because they are not addressing the source: Pakistan(a universal secret). If US were serious about war in Afghanistan, they would be going after the Pakistan(ISI and PA). But instead, US is picking and choosing only those that are a threat to them and allowing Pakistan to protect those that will be used against India. So, again no contrast.

US has always supported Pakistan. China was used as off-set against USSR. Today, US depends on China in several ways, specially in this recession.

 

[dineshchaturvedi]

Well, for US, USSR/Russia has always been a bigger evil and they have used others to counter them. China was courtable as far as US was concerned as opposed to India which was seen as an ally of USSR. So, no shakiness there.

As for Afghanistan, US was thwarting USSR using Pakistan and their mujahideens. Even the war on terror that US carries on today is a paradox. Because they are not addressing the source: Pakistan(a universal secret). If US were serious about war in Afghanistan, they would be going after the Pakistan(ISI and PA). But instead, US is picking and choosing only those that are a threat to them and allowing Pakistan to protect those that will be used against India. So, again no contrast.

US has always supported Pakistan. China was used as off-set against USSR. Today, US depends on China in several ways, specially in this recession.

I do not agree with your assessment, USA is also pushing Pakistan inside Pakistan, ask any Pakistani and they will tell you. Also the Pakistan Military and US Military does not enjoy a good relationship.

USA has also pushed Pakistan on 26/11 and made sure Pakistan does not support attacks in India. Do you think it was mere luck that after 26/11 almost 11 months gone, no attack has happened in India.

About USA always siding with Pakistan, when they did not provided spare parts for F16 and other equipment to Pakistan when they needed most. How can you say that, also did they support Pakistan on Kargil.

I am not saying US is a trustful country, but at the same time it is not true that they always side with Pakistan. And yes you have to remember Pakistan follows their orders, so they will get some benefit. We are not following orders from US.

 

[Arun]

Well only one thing to say NO PERMANENT ALLIES ONLY PERMANENT INTERESTS.This is what they have been following for centuries,and this very reason is the success of that country.It doesn't matter we like it or not they are calling the shots now.

Hope we in the lights of newly found friends, doesn't get far away from our true allies.