US forces had orders to target Indian Army in 1971

[Clarke]

China, USA or whatever, 1971 has been the finest moment in the brief history of our armed forces. Running through the territory of East Pakistan in 13 days is a brilliant achievement.

[coffee_rules]

You should probably start with Indira Gandhi's statement - Two-nation theory has been sunk in the Bay of Bengal.

So we proved partition was a bad idea. Didn't we know it already? We established our presence in the area and showed who had the balls. I guess that's the reason for having no hostilities from Pakistan until 1999 Kargil war.

[gs]

Just shudder at the thought of what might have been if the Soviet Union hadnt intervened on our behalf. Yet another version of "shock and awe" on India by the British and American battle group, perhaps?

[Tiger80]

Just shudder at the thought of what might have been if the Soviet Union hadnt intervened on our behalf. Yet another version of "shock and awe" on India by the British and American battle group' date=' perhaps?[/quote'] Nothing BD problem was sardard of Pakistan our forces could had retreated ,I don't think we gained an inch of land in 1971 war,the civil war could had drained Pakistan longer

[Lurker]

Just shudder at the thought of what might have been if the Soviet Union hadnt intervened on our behalf. Yet another version of "shock and awe" on India by the British and American battle group' date=' perhaps?[/quote'] Whats with this effing lack of faith you folks have when it comes to India? Soviet Union has been a true friend of India. But India also wrapped up 1971 war pretty darn quick. The whole Pakistan's defence philosphy was, and remains, to make a quick hit, capture key positions and then wait for the war to go for a long time so world powers can intervene. What India did was to catch the bluff, make deep inroads inside Pakistan and wrap the war so quickly world powers didnt stand a chance. Instead of recognizing, and celebrating, Indian diplomacy and warfare efficiency you are worried about a "what-if". Really??

[Lurker]

So we proved partition was a bad idea. Didn't we know it already? We established our presence in the area and showed who had the balls. I guess that's the reason for having no hostilities from Pakistan until 1999 Kargil war.

Yep we did. Every Indian, regardless of religious leaning, would beleive that India as a nation celebrates religious pluralism. That doesnt take away the fact that Pakistan was indeed founded on seperate-religion-seperate-nation philosphy. The fact that Pakistan split even after one religion was in huge majority basically unproves that, at the same time India has managed to stay the way it has been. Of course that is just a byline. 1971 war was hardly done for justifying India's existence but it remains an important point.

[gs]

Whats with this effing lack of faith you folks have when it comes to India? Soviet Union has been a true friend of India. But India also wrapped up 1971 war pretty darn quick. The whole Pakistan's defence philosphy was, and remains, to make a quick hit, capture key positions and then wait for the war to go for a long time so world powers can intervene. What India did was to catch the bluff, make deep inroads inside Pakistan and wrap the war so quickly world powers didnt stand a chance. Instead of recognizing, and celebrating, Indian diplomacy and warfare efficiency you are worried about a "what-if". Really??

Yes, "what if" scenario does come to mind since a lot more was going on in the backdrop than previously thought until these papers were declassified. There was never any doubt that Pakistan would be dealt with severely. But would India have had the chance if Soviet Union hadnt stuck their neck out for us risking an all out nuclear war with British and American carrier groups?!? What if they backed out after an initial show of force/support like they did in the Cuban crisis? Wasnt Cuba their friend and a far more strategically important ally considering its proximity to US mainland?!? The lack of faith comes from India's recent past in dealing with terrorist threats as well as territorial ones from China/Pakistan. I was too young to remember the days of Indira Gandhi but the current crop doesnt inspire any confidence at all.

[Lurker]

Yes, "what if" scenario does come to mind since a lot more was going on in the backdrop than previously thought until these papers were declassified.

No. These are rather well-known facts. There is nothing new here. Maybe a bit more masala and thats that.

There was never any doubt that Pakistan would be dealt with severely. But would India have had the chance if Soviet Union hadnt stuck their neck out for us risking an all out nuclear war with British and American carrier groups?!? What if they backed out after an initial show of force/support like they did in the Cuban crisis? Wasnt Cuba their friend and a far more strategically important ally considering its proximity to US mainland?!?

So we are discussing a hypothetical that never happened??? What did happen was Soviet Union was where it was needed to be. US made an overture and USSR nulled it out. Simple. USA would not have been stupid to invade India, when did they ever get into somebody else's war?? Full credit to USSR for catching USA on its bluff and escalating the issue.

The lack of faith comes from India's recent past in dealing with terrorist threats as well as territorial ones from China/Pakistan. I was too young to remember the days of Indira Gandhi but the current crop doesnt inspire any confidence at all.

More the reason why you should be proud of India's civil and military leadership of 70s than to question them.

[panther]

surely india is making a mistake by becoming friendlier with usa

[gs]

No. These are rather well-known facts. There is nothing new here. Maybe a bit more masala and thats that. So we are discussing a hypothetical that never happened??? What did happen was Soviet Union was where it was needed to be. US made an overture and USSR nulled it out. Simple. USA would not have been stupid to invade India, when did they ever get into somebody else's war?? Full credit to USSR for catching USA on its bluff and escalating the issue. More the reason why you should be proud of India's civil and military leadership of 70s than to question them.

I dont agree here. If they were well known facts then what was the need to classify them in the first place? US has always overtly or covertly involved itself in almost all major conflicts during the cold war years. Vietnam and Korea were a threat to US mainland?!? US invasion of India was not required in this context. A naval blockade of India or coercing the Chinese to open a third front in the north would have been enough to change the course of the war. I am glad that events panned out like the way they did. Like I mentioned in my previous post a similar incident had happened in Cuba, and am just glad that the Soviet Union stood its ground here. Dont see why you are getting bent out of shape over a plausible even if hypothetical situation that I mentioned. I have mixed feeling about the leadership in the 70s. While they showed resolve in the war, the gains were squandered away without getting anything concrete in return. Kashmir still remained unresolved. Dont attribute this as a failure of the 70s administration, but over the years Bangladesh has just proved to be a chip off the old block.

[Clarke]

Whats with this effing lack of faith you folks have when it comes to India? Soviet Union has been a true friend of India. But India also wrapped up 1971 war pretty darn quick. The whole Pakistan's defence philosphy was, and remains, to make a quick hit, capture key positions and then wait for the war to go for a long time so world powers can intervene. What India did was to catch the bluff, make deep inroads inside Pakistan and wrap the war so quickly world powers didnt stand a chance. Instead of recognizing, and celebrating, Indian diplomacy and warfare efficiency you are worried about a "what-if". Really??

+++++ The word that comes to mind is Blitzkrieg, use your air/armor advantage to run through enemy defenses, skipping them if needed and get hold of the key centers, thus encircling the enemy. The hopelessness exhibited by certain members is un-effin-believable. There's permanent paranoia about China to this day & then there's what ifs from the past.

[maniac]

I still wonder what the bigger picture behind the political motivation of Bang War of 1971 was.....We need to look into various other factors before giving Indira Gandhi too much credit... Ok if Indira's motive was to liberate Bangladesh from the genocide done by Pak what were India's interests here because surely it can't be Inidira all of a sudden getting a moral enlightenment. If say Indira did get a moral enlightenment and obviously it resulted in an all out war with Pak,why didn't we use this to get further leverage in some of the other issues we had with Pak like Kashmir etc.Why only a half *** war. The only thing this led to is to have 2 poor and unstable nations who are hostile towards us along with a huge refugee and illegal immigration problem. If Indira's problem was with human rights violations what about the treatment of Hindu minorities in Pak.If she wanted to go all out war with pak using this as a reason then why not go all the way with it. Please don't give her too much credit,Their dynasty rule has always held us back or is it just a coincidence that our country has made more progress under 2 Non-Gandhi-Nehru Dynasty PM's in NarsimhaRao and VajPayee.

[Lurker]

I dont agree here. If they were well known facts then what was the need to classify them in the first place?

These are rather well known facts. Not trying to put myself on a pedestal but you would find me discussing this a couple of years(maybe even earlier to that) back on ICF, much before the leaks.

US has always overtly or covertly involved itself in almost all major conflicts during the cold war years. Vietnam and Korea were a threat to US mainland?!? US invasion of India was not required in this context. A naval blockade of India or coercing the Chinese to open a third front in the north would have been enough to change the course of the war.

How is Vietnam or Korea a relevant analogy?? In both Vietnam and Korea there was a power game between Super Powers (US & USSR) to stop the sphere of influence. Both these countries had people who supported US or USSR and the struggle ended up what it did. In case of India and Pakistan these were two completely independent countries who had the right to decide their future. And much as US supported Pakistan militarily the moment Pakistan invaded India there was no reason for US to follow suit a la Vietnam. Hope that clarifies.

I am glad that events panned out like the way they did. Like I mentioned in my previous post a similar incident had happened in Cuba, and am just glad that the Soviet Union stood its ground here. Dont see why you are getting bent out of shape over a plausible even if hypothetical situation that I mentioned.

What happened in Cuba?? It was merely a show of strength, no country invaded each other and in the end it remained just that..a show of strength. Why are you confusing it with an actual war and actual loss of lives.

I have mixed feeling about the leadership in the 70s. While they showed resolve in the war, the gains were squandered away without getting anything concrete in return. Kashmir still remained unresolved. Dont attribute this as a failure of the 70s administration, but over the years Bangladesh has just proved to be a chip off the old block.

Thats one way to look at it. Other way to look at is, why would you want an extra inch of Pakistan or BD? I am one of those who belives in a akhanda-bharat if you will, but is that even worth that headache?? With regards to Kashmir, that would have been a side-bar. The whole 1971 war was about BD and the refugees inflow to India. The moment you included Kashmir this would have become an India-Pakistan war where two enemies were out to settle scores. India got what it wanted, in my opinion of course. You can disagree.

[gs]

These are rather well known facts. Not trying to put myself on a pedestal but you would find me discussing this a couple of years(maybe even earlier to that) back on ICF, much before the leaks. How is Vietnam or Korea a relevant analogy?? In both Vietnam and Korea there was a power game between Super Powers (US & USSR) to stop the sphere of influence. Both these countries had people who supported US or USSR and the struggle ended up what it did. In case of India and Pakistan these were two completely independent countries who had the right to decide their future. And much as US supported Pakistan militarily the moment Pakistan invaded India there was no reason for US to follow suit a la Vietnam. Hope that clarifies. What happened in Cuba?? It was merely a show of strength, no country invaded each other and in the end it remained just that..a show of strength. Why are you confusing it with an actual war and actual loss of lives. Thats one way to look at it. Other way to look at is, why would you want an extra inch of Pakistan or BD? I am one of those who belives in a akhanda-bharat if you will, but is that even worth that headache?? With regards to Kashmir, that would have been a side-bar. The whole 1971 war was about BD and the refugees inflow to India. The moment you included Kashmir this would have become an India-Pakistan war where two enemies were out to settle scores. India got what it wanted, in my opinion of course. You can disagree.

I had not heard about the overt confrontation of Soviet and US/UK naval forces during the Bangladesh war. I had only read about covert support like arms/intelligence/propaganda by the super powers to their respective allies. So these declassified papers were news to me. In Cuba and Bangladesh, the actual events were just a side-show as far as the super powers were concerned. From their perspective, the intent was to project power and influence over the other's sphere of influence -- just a show of strength as you mentioned. I am just glad that unlike in Cuba the US blinked first this time and Soviet Union stood its ground. In case of Korea/Vietnam, this brinkmanship went one step further and the super powers covertly or overtly got involved. So in my opinion, whether a shooting war actually took place is immaterial in this context and hence I used the Korea/Vietnam analogy to prove that US/USSR interfered in other countries' wars as a part of its cold war power games. Once Nixon/Kissinger-Pakistan-China nexus was formed and Indo-Soviet friendship treaty signed, both India and Pakistan were non-aligned only on paper. I am not keen on akhand Bharat concept either but hope to preserve whatever is left of Bharat. At the end of the day it was a shooting war between India and Pakistan regardless of the purpose of the war or how the world viewed it. As a victor India had the golden opportunity to settle the nagging Kashmir territorial dispute once for all and we missed it big time. Once again, not claiming that this would automatically mean peaceful relationship with Pakistan, but at least there would not be any LOC nonsense -- just international border at least on the west. Let's just agree to disagree here.

[Jersey #10]

Ranks by the fire power and army 1. USA 2. Russia 3. China 4. India 5. UK 14. Pakistan USA would be a lot weaker than Russia if it were to bring it's troops overseas compared to Russia marching on the land and comparatively a much shorter distance. Chinese can not be trusted and neither could be the Pakis. Russia is a good friend to have on our side.

[panther]

surely pak is better than 14

[achilles]

14? Seriously that good? I thought Pakistan might be 24 or something.

[panther]

whats your 1-14 than?