1971 Indo-Pak War and foreign involvement

smartindian

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 17, 2010
Messages
614
Likes
59
Country flag
Ernesto is totally correct. we should not buy any weapon from them , we should go for Russian weapon system.
 
Joined
Feb 16, 2009
Messages
26,473
Likes
29,804
Country flag
I don't really understand what went wrong between bangladesh and india afterwards ? Did India neglect to keep up the goodwill or did the original pakistani traits show up in bangladesh once indians were no longer needed ?
maybe we should have made sure only pro Indian puppets came to power in Bangladesh??Or kept Indian agents afterwards??Made Bangladeshi currency linked to Indian Rupee,Some people have even proposed making Bangladesh another state of India, Many things India could have been done.
 
Last edited:

death.by.chocolate

Professional
Joined
Aug 1, 2009
Messages
300
Likes
97
Country flag
So, Americans are very dangerous in deed and now they are trying to convince INDIA that they are our friends. We INDIANS and The GOVERNMENT of INDIA should not believe these people.:emot154:


As for 1971, didn't Indira Gandhi discard India's Non Alignment policy and embed India firmly in Soviet camp?
Albeit in her defense the above was possibly a reaction to Pakistan's entry into CENTO and SEATO.
Which I believe was done to counter Soviet influence in Afghanistan..

The larger picture is consistent with cold war realities, when America and her NATO allies swept aside
all considerations in pointless competition with Warsaw. The difference between us and them was purely
ideological but its intensity resulted in escalation of regional conflicts forcing everyone to take sides.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

civfanatic

Retired
Ambassador
Joined
Sep 8, 2009
Messages
4,561
Likes
2,565
Before the 2000s India was considered an "unfriendly" country in U.S. foreign policy; it was also viewed as relatively unimportant, and not unrightfully so. India's pre-reform economy was dismal by any definition of the word, trade between India and the international community was virtually nonexistent, and India's influence was limited to a few friendly countries in South Asia. India was viewed as a large country but a weak one, and the U.S. viewed it no differently than sub-Saharan Africa. This competuous attitude resulted in humiliating scenarios, like the sanctions against India following our nuclear tests.

Recently however, the U.S. has been trying to woo India. The American public is now being told that India is a "rising economic giant" and a "future superpower" rather than a filthy hive of backwardness, illiteracy, and despair (which was the general American attitude towards India during the Cold War). The reason for this shift in paradigm is quite simple; the U.S. recognizes that with China's rapid rise to power, its influence in Asia is rapidly diminishing, and it wants to offset this by bringing the other Asian giant into its camp. In other words, it wants another Pakistan; just as Pakistan was acquired by the U.S. Foreign Policy to counter Soviet influence, the U.S. now wants to acquire India to counter Chinese influence.

This presents an extremely dangerous situation for India. Our diplomats need to walk the thin line between the two opposing camps in Asia, while at the same time asserting India's sovereignty and newfound power. That is no easy task.

With that all being said, I wholeheartedly support Indo-US relations, for the simple reason that the U.S. posseses technology that cannot be found anywhere else in the world, and it is in India's advantage to acquire this technology. However, this must be done without endangering Indian sovereignty.

America didn't become a superpower by being nice or running charities. They became a superpower by acquiring allies and discarding them whenever necessary, and ruthlessly exploiting any window of opportunity that presented itself. This is how all superpowers are created. If India wants to do business with America, we need to understand that.
 
Last edited:

dove

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 11, 2010
Messages
96
Likes
2
The assumption being that without being evil and ruthless one cannot be a superpower ?

I think the cause and effect is reverse actually. Countries become superpowers by having a large population and the necessary infrastructure and systems to make them highly productive. Once they start becoming powerful, they may start behaving like deranged mafia dons when dealing with other countries. Whether such aggressive foreign policy adds to their power or sows the seeds of their future downfall is a difficult question to answer.

One of my fantasies is that as India grows economically and militarily, we will show the world it is possible to be humble, gentle and friendly and still carry a long stick.
 
Joined
Feb 16, 2009
Messages
26,473
Likes
29,804
Country flag
The assumption being that without being evil and ruthless one cannot be a superpower ?

I think the cause and effect is reverse actually. Countries become superpowers by having a large population and the necessary infrastructure and systems to make them highly productive. Once they start becoming powerful, they may start behaving like deranged mafia dons when dealing with other countries. Whether such aggressive foreign policy adds to their power or sows the seeds of their future downfall is a difficult question to answer.

One of my fantasies is that as India grows economically and militarily, we will show the world it is possible to be humble, gentle and friendly and still carry a long stick.
Are we setting ourselves up to repeat the same mistakes we have made thru out our history; if we follow this doctrine ,which has never worked in our history??
 

The Messiah

Bow Before Me!
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 25, 2010
Messages
10,809
Likes
4,614
Are we setting ourselves up to repeat the same mistakes we have made thru out our history; if we follow this doctrine ,which has never worked in our history??
that policy only works when rest of the people share the same values.

when one is out to get you then you must stand up and knock him down before he knocks you down.
 

SHASH2K2

New Member
Joined
May 10, 2010
Messages
5,711
Likes
727
The assumption being that without being evil and ruthless one cannot be a superpower ?

I think the cause and effect is reverse actually. Countries become superpowers by having a large population and the necessary infrastructure and systems to make them highly productive. Once they start becoming powerful, they may start behaving like deranged mafia dons when dealing with other countries. Whether such aggressive foreign policy adds to their power or sows the seeds of their future downfall is a difficult question to answer.

One of my fantasies is that as India grows economically and militarily, we will show the world it is possible to be humble, gentle and friendly and still carry a long stick.

One has to do whatever is necessary to maintain the leadership or superpower status. Today we all look at USA from our point of view. USA is doing what it should do to maintain its status. I dont see any wrong in it . If you look at history you will come to the conclusion that if you want to become great power you need to have certain amount of ruthlessness to achieve and maintain it . Thats the reason we can never be a superpower if we donot have ruthlessness in our policies . Unfortunately till now we lack qualities what it needs to be a superpower. USA has it and thats why they are superpower.
 
Joined
Feb 16, 2009
Messages
26,473
Likes
29,804
Country flag
It is like dictatorship, so it wont work in INDIA
a strong military infrastructure is a good offense and a good defense for securing the country it is even more necessary during economic expansions, just because we want to be peaceful dosen't mean the rest of the world wants to do the same.
 

dove

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 11, 2010
Messages
96
Likes
2
There is a difference between being evil and resisting evil.

Our current problem is that of not having a backbone and being overrun with commie/secular traitors. Removing the cancer in our midst and strengthening our spine does not necessarily involve arm twisting hapless tiny countries around the world into supporting our lifestyle with the blood of their poor.

I for one believe America became a superpower due to the work ethics and resilience of its previous generations, not to mention its leadership in the Dharam-Yudh against the Nazis in the 2nd European War.

The superpowerdom went to their heads and evil rose in their hearts. Today they are one country that every one in the world, even their so-called allies, would like to see hurt and humiliated. The actual cost in dollars US has to pay, in lost goodwill and trust, for their past and continued arrogance and aggression is - IMO - one of the huge costs that has made worse the economic crisis they are in.

I sincerely hope India will have more maturity in handling our inevitable rise in economic and military might.
 
Joined
Feb 16, 2009
Messages
26,473
Likes
29,804
Country flag
US being a superpower has been the greatest positive for the word, people forget many nations have become rich because of USA. USA has a strong work ethic as you mentioned and there has always been lot of money that went into weapons development USA had SLBM's MIRV 50 years ago many nations even today (like China) have not been able to develop these things. USA also had strong alliances that helped to reach and maintain it's superpower status NATO,ABCA etc... India IMO needs to develop economically and fix its infrastructure the rest will fall into place once these things start accelerating.
 
Last edited:

sesha_maruthi27

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 15, 2010
Messages
3,963
Likes
1,802
Country flag
Last but not the least, to say, the 1971 war was fought between -an entire group of classmates of the INDIAN MILITARY COLLEGE at Dehradun(during the pre-partition time).
 

Sridhar

House keeper
Senior Member
Joined
Feb 16, 2009
Messages
3,474
Likes
1,052
Country flag
i think this has not been posted here

The U.S. perspective in 1971
Asif Mahfuz

RECENTLY, after almost 35 years of independence of Bangladesh, the National Security Council (NSC) of America declassified some very interesting documents relating to the Liberation War of Bangladesh. They clearly show America's policy during the war of Bangladesh in 1971.

The available documents offer many useful insights into how and why Richard Nixon and Henry Kissinger made important decisions during the war of 1971. They show in detail how U.S policy, directed by Richard Nixon and Henry Kissinger, followed a course that became infamously known as "The Tilt."

The first part of the documents, from March '71 to the end of May is a record of the genocide. These documents highlight some particular issues, mainly the brutal details of the genocide conducted in East Pakistan in March and April of 1971. It reveals that, in one of the first "dissent cables" questioning U.S. policy and morality, Archer Blood, as consulate general in Dhaka, wrote: "Unfortunately, the overworked term genocide is applicable."

The documents show the role that Nixon's friendship with Yahya Khan and his interest in China played in U.S. policymaking, leading to the tilt towards Pakistan. They expose George Bush Senior's view of Henry Kissinger, and the illegal American military assistance approved by Richard Nixon and Henry Kissinger to Pakistan following a formal aid cutoff by the U.S. The refugee situation was also known to the U.S government, as an estimated ten million Bengalis had fled across the border to India by May 1971.

The second part of the documents shows the desperate effort of Nixon to give military aid to Pakistan and the international ties among the countries supporting Pakistan. In this part, the U.S first recognises the mukti bahini (freedom fighters) as a force to reckon with.

By using what Nixon and Kissinger called quiet diplomacy, the administration gave the green light to the Pakistanis. In one instance, Nixon declared to a Pakistani delegation that "Yahya is a good friend." Rather than express concern over the ongoing brutal military repression, Nixon explained that he "understands the anguish of the decisions which (Yahya) had to make."

As a result of Yahya's importance in the China initiative and his friendship with Nixon and Kissinger, Nixon declares that the U.S. "would not do anything to complicate the situation for President Yahiya or to embarrass him." In a handwritten letter on August 7th, 1971, to President Yahya, Nixon writes: "Those who want a more peaceful world in the generations to come will forever be in your debt."

Not only did the U.S publicly pronounce India as the aggressor in the war, but also sent the nuclear submarine U.S.S. Enterprise to the Bay of Bengal, and authorised the transfer of U.S. military supplies to Pakistan, despite the apparent illegality of doing so and, though both the countries were under an arms embargo, U.S sent arms to Pakistan via Iran and Jordan.

Excerpts of important documents are placed according to the date so that readers may understand the flow of information and the relevancy of the message at that time.

(Documents gleaned by the author.)

March 28, 1971: U.S. Consulate (Dacca) Cable, Selective Genocide: Consul General Archer Blood reports they are "mute and horrified by a reign of terror by the Pakistan military" in East Pakistan. Blood indicates that evidence is surfacing suggesting that Awami League supporters and Hindus are being systematically targeted by the Martial Law Administrators (MLA). He also reports that Prof. Dev, Prof Fazlul Haque , Prof. Abedin, along with many DU teachers and MPA's have been killed.

March 28, 1971, Memorandum for Dr. Kissinger, Situation in Pakistan: NSC official Sam Hoskinson tells Kissinger that events in East Pakistan have taken a turn for the worse. It also acknowledges both American recognition of the "reign of terror" conducted by West Pakistan and the need to address the new policy issues that have been created as a result of the terror.

U.S. Embassy (New Delhi) Cable, Selective Genocide: Ambassador Keating (U.S consular of India) expresses his dismay and concern at repression unleashed by the MLAs with the use of American military equipment. He calls for the U.S. to "promptly, publicly, and prominently deplore" the brutality.

U.S. Consulate (Dacca) Cable, Killings at University: A. Blood reports an American's observation of the atrocities committed at Dacca University. "Students had been shot down in rooms or mowed down when they came out of building in groups." In one instance, the MLAs set a girls dormitory on fire and then the girls were "machine-gunned as they fled the building."

March 31, 1971. U.S. Consulate (Dacca) Cable Extent of Casualties in Dacca, & Sitrep: Army Terror Campaign Continues in Dacca; Evidence Military Faces Some Difficulties Elsewhere: Archer Blood reports that an estimated 4,000-6,000 people have "lost their lives as a result of military action" since martial law began on March 25. He also indicates that the MLAs are now focusing on predominantly Hindu areas. Another Cable reports atrocities in DU, that naked female bodies in Rokeya hall DU were found "hanging from ceiling fans with bits of rope," after apparently being "raped, shot, and hung by heels" from the fans. "Mass graves reported by workmen who dug them" "numerous reports of unprovoked planned killing."

April 6, 1971. U.S. Department of State Cable, USG Expression of Concern on East Pakistan: During a conversation with Assistant Secretary Sisco, Pakistani Ambassador Agha Hilaly said: "The army had to kill people in order to keep the country together."

The first "cable of dissent" by A. Blood, April 6, 1971. U.S. Consulate (Dacca) Cable, Dissent from U.S. Policy Toward East Pakistan: Blood transmits a message denouncing American policy towards the South Asia crisis. The transmission suggests that the U.S is "bending over backwards to placate the West Pakistan [sic] dominated government and to lessen likely and deservedly negative international public relations impact against them." The cable goes on to question U.S. morality at a time when "unfortunately, the overworked term genocide is applicable."

April 28, 1971. Memorandum for the president, Policy Options toward Pakistan: (Secret, 6 pp.) (Nixon's handwritten note.) Kissinger presents Nixon with U.S. policy options directed towards the crisis in East Pakistan. Nixon and Kissinger both feel that the third option is the best as it, as Kissinger writes "would have the advantage of making the most of the relationship with Yahya, while engaging in a serious effort to move the situation toward conditions less damaging to US and Pakistani interests." At the end of the last page Nixon writes: "To all hands: Don't squeeze Yahya at this time."

May 10, 1971. Memorandum of Conversation (3:05 - 3:30 p.m.) between U.S. and Pakistani officials including Henry Kissinger Agha Hilaly: They discuss the potential for a political solution in East Pakistan. Kissinger indicates Nixon's "high regard" and "personal affection" for Yahya and that "the last thing one does in this situation is to take advantage of a friend in need." On the same day (4:45 - 5:20 p.m.), in a meeting of the president and the Pakistani officials including Agha Hilaly, Nixon expresses sympathy for Pakistan by indicating that "Yahiya is a good friend," and in response to the genocide in the East, says he "could understand the anguish of the decisions which [Yahya] had to make." Nixon also declares that the U.S. "would not do anything to complicate the situation for President Yahiya or to embarrass him."

May 26, 1971. Department of State, Memorandum for the President, Possible India-Pakistan War: This memorandum denotes three causes that may lead to an India-Pakistan war and also formally recognises the mukti bahini: (1) Continued military repression in the East, (2) the refugee flow into India, and (3) Indian cross-border support to Bengali guerillas (the mukti bahini).

June 3, 1971 (4:00 P.M.). In a Meeting Kissinger indicates that Nixon wants to give Yahiya a few months to fix the situation, but that East Pakistan will eventually become independent. Kissinger points out that "the President has a special feeling for President Yahiya. One cannot make policy on that basis, but it is a fact of life."

July 19, 1971 Memorandum for Dr, Kissinger, Military Assistance to Pakistan and the Trip to Peking: Saunders discusses U.S. aid to South Asia, noting the connections between U.S. military assistance to Pakistan and Pakistan's role in the China initiative. Kissinger writes: "But it is of course clear that we have some special relationship with Pakistan."

August 7, 1971. Handwritten Letter from President Nixon to President Yahya: Nixon writes to personally thank Yahya for his assistance in arranging contacts between the U.S. and China. At a time when West Pakistani troops were engaging in a repression of East Pakistan, Nixon told Yahiya that "those who want a more peaceful world in the generation to come will forever be in your debt."

August 11, 1971. Meeting of the president, Henry Kissinger and the NSC Senior Review Group: Nixon says that the Indians are more "devious" than the "sometimes extremely stupid" Pakistanis, the U.S. "must not, cannot, allow" India to use the refugees as a pretext for breaking up Pakistan. Despite the conditions in the East, which Ambassador Blood described as "selective genocide," Nixon states that "we will not measure our relationship with the government in terms of what it has done in East Pakistan."

November 15, 1971. Memorandum for General Haig, Pakistan/India Contingency Planning: The U.S. sends the nuclear aircraft carrier, USS Enterprise, into the Bay of Bengal; representing possible American involvement in the conflict, especially if it expanded to a superpower confrontation.

December 4 and December 16, 1971. White House, Telephone Conversations between Nixon and Kissinger: These records, in Haig's words "confirm the president's knowledge of, approval for and, if you will, directive to provide aircraft to Iran and Jordan" so that these countries will provide aircraft to Pakistan. Nixon express his desire to, "get some PR out to put the blame on India. It will also take some blame off us."

December 7, 1971. Jordanian Transfer of F-104's to Pakistan National Security Council Memorandum for Henry Kissinger. Includes State Department Cable to Jordan and U.S Embassy (Amman) cable: First page has a handwritten Kissinger note in which he suggests "that title should have been omitted." It expresses that "by law," the U.S. "cannot authorise" any military transfer unless the administration was willing "to change our own policy and provide the equipment directly." This would rule out any transfer of American military equipment for Pakistan, supplied by the U.S. or any third party like Jordan.

December 10, 1971. Event Summary by George H.W. Bush, (later president of U.S): UN Ambassador Bush describes a meeting between Kissinger and the Chinese delegation to the United Nations. Kissinger reveals that the American position on the issue was parallel to that of the Chinese. Kissinger disclosed that the U.S. would be moving some ships into the area, and also that military aid was being sent from Jordan, Turkey, and Iran. Some of this aid was illegally transferred because it was American in origin. Bush also reports that Kissinger gives his tacit approval for China to provide militarily support for Pakistani operations against India. Bush expresses his personal doubts about Kissinger's style, in one instance calling him paranoid and arrogant.

December 9, 1971. Department of State Cable, Pakistan Request for F-104s. The transfer of F-104 planes to Pakistan from both Jordan and Iran is under review at "very high level of USG."

December 14, 1971. Department of State, Situation Report #41, Situation in India-Pakistan as of 0700 hours (EST): The State Department notes that eleven Jordanian F-104 fighter aircraft have possibly been sent to Pakistan.

December 15, 1971. Department of State, Situation Report #44, Situation in India-Pakistan as of 0700 hours (EST): Heavy fighting is turning in favour of the Indians, while cease-fire plans continue to be in the works.

Same day. U.S Embassy (Islamabad) Cable: "The present trickle of Mig-19's and F-104's will not hold off the Indians." Writing next to Mig-19's notes "China" and next to F-104's notes "Jordan."

December 16, 1971. Central Intelligence Agency, Intelligence Memorandum, India-Pakistan Situation Report (As of 1200 EST): India has ordered a unilateral cease fire upon the unconditional surrender of West Pakistani forces in East Pakistan. Fighting continues "between Bengalis and scattered "Mujahid/Razakar/West Pakistani elements." Also, the CIA reports that a squadron of American origin, Jordanian F-104's was delivered to Pakistan on December 13 despite an American embargo on military supplies to both India and Pakistan.

December 29, 1971. U.S Embassy (Tehran), Cable, F-5 Aircraft to Pakistan: The embassy in Iran reports that three F-5A fighter aircraft, reportedly from the U.S, had been flown to Pakistan to assist in the war efforts against India. A Northrop official matches the aircraft to a group of planes originally slated for sale to Libya, This information suggests that not only did Washington look the other way when Jordan and Iran supplied U.S. planes to Pakistan, but that despite the embargo placed on Pakistan, it directly supplied Pakistan with fighter planes.

http://www.thedailystar.net/story.php?nid=117868
 

AOE

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 29, 2011
Messages
437
Likes
23
Americas support and backing of Pakistan despite the genocide that was occuring is unsurprising, given a rather important detail here; that Henry Kissinger was involved. This man has a gleaming record of financially supporting and backing dictatorships and abusive regimes all over the world, especially in South America. He is also to blame for the fact that the US even developed relations (rapproachment) with the PRC in the 70s, the diplomacy of which still remains to this day. He is arguably one of the biggest political blights in America's history as a democratic super power on the world stage, and frankly I cannot wait for this duplicitous shill to die. If it wasn't for him, perhaps Pakistan would have no longer existed after the 1971 war, perhaps another secretary of state would have advocated threatening Pakistan for its genocidal behaviour; regardless of what China thinks.

Of course the latter is speculative, but one can live in hope.
 

captonjohn

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 11, 2010
Messages
580
Likes
277
Country flag
The moral of whole this topic is like this: Do go too close to USA or you''ll become Pakistan of 1971!
 

civfanatic

Retired
Ambassador
Joined
Sep 8, 2009
Messages
4,561
Likes
2,565
Americas support and backing of Pakistan despite the genocide that was occuring is unsurprising, given a rather important detail here; that Henry Kissinger was involved. This man has a gleaming record of financially supporting and backing dictatorships and abusive regimes all over the world, especially in South America. He is also to blame for the fact that the US even developed relations (rapproachment) with the PRC in the 70s, the diplomacy of which still remains to this day. He is arguably one of the biggest political blights in America's history as a democratic super power on the world stage, and frankly I cannot wait for this duplicitous shill to die. If it wasn't for him, perhaps Pakistan would have no longer existed after the 1971 war, perhaps another secretary of state would have advocated threatening Pakistan for its genocidal behaviour; regardless of what China thinks.

Of course the latter is speculative, but one can live in hope.
There are some analysts who say that one of the goals of the current war in Afghanistan is to encourage a civil war and balkanization of Pakistan, to facilitiate Western control of the Indian Ocean trade routes (particularly the Central Asia-Arabian Sea lines, which pass through Pakistan's troubled Balochistan region) and to prevent China from exerting too much control over these trade routes.

If you look at the current situation in Pakistan, it is China who is supporting and investing in the central Pakistani government, while America is greatly increasing instability in Pakistan via the WoT and drone strikes. It is a 'new Great Game', of sorts, and like the old Great Game it revolves around the pivotal Central Asian region and its outlets.

All this is of very high interest to India, of course. We too are playing the 'Great Game'. If you look at Indo-Afghan relations this will become clear.
 

AOE

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 29, 2011
Messages
437
Likes
23
Of course the downside to a destabilized Pakistan will invariably spill over as a conflict into India and Afghanistan, and then there is of course the bigger problem of Pakistans nuclear arsenal at this point. I guess this wouldn't be a problem for the US special forces to capture and hold until the weapons in question are removed. Heh, funny how it all works out.
 
Joined
Feb 16, 2009
Messages
26,473
Likes
29,804
Country flag
Of course the downside to a destabilized Pakistan will invariably spill over as a conflict into India and Afghanistan, and then there is of course the bigger problem of Pakistans nuclear arsenal at this point. I guess this wouldn't be a problem for the US special forces to capture and hold until the weapons in question are removed. Heh, funny how it all works out.
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).
 

Latest Replies

Global Defence

New threads

Articles

Top