Was India the aggressor during the 1962 Indo - China war?

[diga]

http://www.scmp.com/news/asia/article/1461099/neville-maxwells-revelation-reveals-india-was-hiding-nothing-over-its-1962 At an official banquet in Beijing in 1971, Neville Maxwell had the shock of his life. Premier Zhou Enlai and Pakistan's then prime minister Zulfikar Ali Bhutto rose from the head table and walked to the foreign correspondents' table, where The Times reporter was seated. "Mr Maxwell," said Zhou through his interpreter, "your book has done a service to truth, and China has benefited from that." Zhou called for a glass of mao-tai and offered him a toast. "That moment at the banquet is deeply engraved in my memory, failing as it sometimes is," Maxwell said in an interview with the South China Morning Post. The 87-year-old Australian journalist and historian likes to make jokes about his supposedly fading memory. But he won't let India forget its past errors which, he says, led to the 1962 Sino-Indian war. For nearly half a century he has been going against the grain of Indian collective memory that remembers the humiliating defeat in the month-long border war as an unprovoked act of aggression by a country it considered a friend. This month he pulled a Snowden on India. He exposed a top-secret Indian war report that returned the spotlight to a period in history that still sours public opinion in India and bars normal ties between the two Asian giants. In a specially created blog, Maxwell published a chunk of the secret war report that harshly criticised the highest echelons of power in India at the time for pursuing a flawed strategy of provoking China without the means to handle a backlash. India's toll in that short war in the high Himalayas was 1,383 killed, 1,047 wounded and 1,696 missing. China never declared its losses. The war ended when Beijing suddenly called a unilateral ceasefire and ordered its troops to retreat to their previous positions - all after dealing India its worst military drubbing. India called the "attack" a stab in the back. But China maintained it was a necessary counterattack to fend off India's advances on its territory - Maxwell's thoughts exactly. "I had been trying for years to get the report on to the public record but it had begun to look as if the report might never be published, and I thought that would be dreadful," Maxwell told the Post in an exclusive interview. Speaking from Sydney, it was the first time he discussed his disclosure that has made waves in India. Maxwell covered the 1962 war as The Times' India correspondent. Like all Western journalists, he unquestioningly accepted India's line that China had been the aggressor and reported it as such. Later, when he took a sabbatical to study the conflict more deeply, he said he began to see China's side of the story. "I was blinded by ideology … liberal anti-communism. You'll see the same affecting many journalists today, as American policy continues the cold war," he said. In 1970, a converted Maxwell published an influential yet controversial revisionist tome, India's China War - the object of Zhou's praise at the banquet the following year. The book chronicled how India provoked Beijing into the fight, challenging the narrative of Chinese aggression. For his conviction, Indians denounced Maxwell as a China apologist and an India-basher. The inspiration for Maxwell's epiphany was widely believed to be a document that gave him a rare insight into the workings of the then Indian establishment. The so-called Henderson Brooks-Bhagat Report was an operational review of India's military debacle commissioned by New Delhi that Maxwell managed to obtain. Compiled by Lieutenant-General Henderson Brooks and Brigadier Premindra Singh Bhagat in 1963, it has been kept secret by the Indian government despite repeated appeals that it be declassified. The government's excuse for keeping the report under wraps "for national security" has few takers in India. The predominant view is that the government aims to protect the legacy of the then prime minister, Jawaharlal Nehru. Disgraced by the 1962 defeat, Nehru died a broken man within two years. But the Nehru-Gandhi clan, through its grip on the ruling Congress Party, has continued to maintain a near monopoly on the levers of power. The report is a dry army operations review, its terms of reference narrowed to military preparedness to insulate the civilian leadership from a witch hunt. But the authors still manage to make a scathing implicit attack on top civilian and military authorities. In particular, they rip into the so-called "forward policy" pushed by the Nehru government, under which Indian troops were told to advance from their existing positions to stake out new territory and force out the Chinese. The report details how this brinkmanship was forced down the throats of ground commanders despite their repeated warnings about reversing the border's status quo without sufficient preparation. Such moves, they said, were bound to provoke the Chinese. Half a century on, as India and China struggle to overcome the mutual suspicion left over from the war, peaceniks hope Maxwell's outing of the secret war report might lead to more critical examination within India about its own role in the war and help reset bilateral relations. Indian media organisations have been widely covering the report, long seen as the key to bringing closure to a national shame. Opposition parties have renewed demands for the report to be declassified, but the government has refused to budge. In a moving piece thanking Maxwell, Indian Express editor Shekhar Gupta wrote that the report was still being treated as top secret only to "protect our carefully crafted and preserved mythologies of 1962". For China, the significance of the disclosure goes beyond India. At a time when there is growing disquiet in the region over China's claim to a "peaceful rise", a revisiting of the 1962 war helps it polish its credentials while reaffirming its ideological steel in view of its disputes in the South China and East China Seas. "Beijing would welcome the revived attention to their India dispute," Maxwell said. "Its lessons are that China is conflict-averse and will do all it can to reach peaceful solutions, but that it can't be pushed around and will never back away from defending what it sees as its basic security concerns. If the issue becomes fight or surrender, the PRC will always fight." This article appeared in the South China Morning Post print edition as A hiding to nothing for India

[vayuu1]

Yup india has been aggressor in all wars,be it 48,62,65,71 or Kargil,whatever makes u happy. sent from dil se

[diga]

Yup india has been aggressor in all wars,be it 48,62,65,71 or Kargil,whatever makes u happy. sent from dil se

Please read the article before commenting.. Dont know about the other wars.. but Nehru's forward policy has been blamed for the escalation of hostilites in this article & seems that the Henderson-brooks-bhagat report states it so...Imagine if this were true, & the report was to be made public, what would happen to India's claims of being a peace loving country?

[panther]

India is always the aggressor, in the next war ghazwa-e-hind India will start it but We will finish it According to defense analyst such as zaid hamid.

[diga]

Shekhar Gupta on the Henderson brooks report & Neville Maxwell published in March 2014 when UPA was in power

Dalvi’s Himalayan Blunder, the story of the greatest disaster of that war, the 7th Brigade that was pulverised under his command, leaving most of its men killed, wounded or taken PoW — including himself; from Maj Gen D.K. Palit’s War in High Himalaya to the then legendary but controversial intelligence super-czar B.N. Mullik’s My Years with Nehru trilogy, you could fill an entire shelf in a military academy’s library. Most of them were beautifully and convincingly written — maybe the fact that most of these generals had been trained in British academies had something to do with it. But we were also easy to convince, though noted journalist and The Indian Express commentator Inder Malhotra had dismissed this flurry of military literature as “a conspiracy of noise”. We were hearing the story from our soldiers. A story of betrayal, a stab-in-the-back while screaming Hindi Chini Bhai Bhai. Political, intellectual and strategic discourse, popular culture — all built the same story. Until Maxwell’s book challenged it in 1970. It was widely believed that he had been given access to the secret Henderson Brooks committee report by an “insider”. The most likely “suspect” then was Henderson Brooks, and it did not help that he settled after retirement in Australia — Maxwell’s country. Henderson Brooks, a wonderfully committed and patriotic officer, then commander of the Jalandhar-based 11 Corps, was hand-picked for the job and assisted by one of India’s most eminent soldiers, then Brigadier P.S. Bhagat, one of the few Victoria Cross winners then living. Nobody proved any insinuation then, but in the cloud of suspicion that persisted even after the decisive victory of 1971, Bhagat was inexplicably passed over, with Gen G.G. Bewoor being given a surprise extension of service. Nobody knows yet what that brilliant soldier was victimised for. He was too honourable a soldier to complain. He faded away, like good generals of yore, to head the faraway Damodar Valley Corporation. Never seen on any stage again, except probably the golf course. Not in politics, not in courts and definitely not muckraking. For heaven’s sake, Bhagat was a soldier’s soldier, one of the finest India has produced. That is precisely why he had been chosen to assist Henderson Brooks. But Maxwell’s shadow has hung over both for six decades. Although the reason their report is still classified “top secret” is not because it has anything of current tactical value — the lame excuse Defence Minister A.K. Antony gave to Parliament. It is to protect our carefully crafted and preserved mythologies of 1962. And it wasn’t just to protect the reputation of Nehru. Political decision-making wasn’t even in the inquiry’s remit. My information is that the Central Information Commission, under Wajahat Habibullah, called for the report following Kuldip Nayar’s repeated RTI requisitions for it. They found nothing wrong with making it public. But the veto came from the army. Which is surprising, given that several former chiefs and veterans’ associations have demanded that it be made public. Maxwell lives near Sydney and is now 88, which makes him a year older than L.K. Advani, and he is just as irrepressible. He never hid his left leanings, but it would be unfair to see him as an India-hater, though two generations of Indians have been brainwashed into believing that. I, too, hated him, and more so after I found his book in my small-town college library, where I would escape from Botany, Zoology and Chemistry.

[hhunaeh]

For China, the significance of the disclosure goes beyond India. At a time when there is growing disquiet in the region over China's claim to a "peaceful rise", a revisiting of the 1962 war helps it polish its credentials while reaffirming its ideological steel in view of its disputes in the South China and East China Seas. "Beijing would welcome the revived attention to their India dispute," Maxwell said. "Its lessons are that China is conflict-averse and will do all it can to reach peaceful solutions, but that it can't be pushed around and will never back away from defending what it sees as its basic security concerns. If the issue becomes fight or surrender, the PRC will always fight."

This is the most important part. Why release a secret report that changes perceptions at such an important time? It would be stupidity to do so.

[surajmal]

Please read the article before commenting.. Dont know about the other wars.. but Nehru's forward policy has been blamed for the escalation of hostilites in this article & seems that the Henderson-brooks-bhagat report states it so...Imagine if this were true, & the report was to be made public, what would happen to India's claims of being a peace loving country?

First lets accept that Nehru was the first C-i-C (chewtiya in chief) of "Independent" India. Second, gobar forward policy. In 1962, in many sectors, Soldiers didn't have bullets and rations. So "forward policy", if it existed, existed in name only. Thirdly, I wouldn't be surprised if Nehru's clouded mind thought, his WASP masters would come to his aid in fight against the evil commies.(assuming even, that he decided,along with his yes men: Menon and Thapar, to follow through with the forward policy.) My take: Slaves don't have the gumption to fight for even legitimate causes. (see 48 Kashmir or any other war fought with Paki Jihadis - India had to fight because war brought to its door). So how do you expect them take battle to the enemy or even more: be initiators? Point is by this time, Nehru had totally gone senile (not that he was blessed with much mental faculties to begin with). So one would not be surprised if India's foreign policy/diplomatic apparatus was totally fubar. Bahadur Shah Zafar was the last of a vast tyrannical empire. Nehru was a Zafar clone only he was the first of a gungadeen empire. The fact that this gungadeen empire hasn't died tells a lot about the capacity of Indians, worse, it tells us about the capacity of present day Congis and coterie.

[randomGuy]

Nehru's forward policy held responsible for the war - that's hardly a secret.

[suraj]

Dhakkan aggressor India We only had 1 aggressor in our history: Uski bhi yeh haalat ho gayi:

[diga]

^wow.. gungadeen empire has so many loyalists

[velu]

somewhere i read that pakistan wanted to have joint defense pact with india to counter china , but great nehru rejected the proposal

[Crookbond]

Yes

[Vilander]

India is always the aggressor' date=' in the next war ghazwa-e-hind India will start it but We will finish it According to defense analyst such as [b']zaid hamid.

dude did you seriously post this guys name..oh man you like that guy and believe him..lol :haha: you are that kind of pakistani but you type in english..lol :cantstop:

[gs]

First lets accept that Nehru was the first C-i-C (chewtiya in chief) of "Independent" India. Second, gobar forward policy. In 1962, in many sectors, Soldiers didn't have bullets and rations. So "forward policy", if it existed, existed in name only. Thirdly, I wouldn't be surprised if Nehru's clouded mind thought, his WASP masters would come to his aid in fight against the evil commies.(assuming even, that he decided,along with his yes men: Menon and Thapar, to follow through with the forward policy.) My take: Slaves don't have the gumption to fight for even legitimate causes. (see 48 Kashmir or any other war fought with Paki Jihadis - India had to fight because war brought to its door). So how do you expect them take battle to the enemy or even more: be initiators? Point is by this time, Nehru had totally gone senile (not that he was blessed with much mental faculties to begin with). So one would not be surprised if India's foreign policy/diplomatic apparatus was totally fubar. Bahadur Shah Zafar was the last of a vast tyrannical empire. Nehru was a Zafar clone only he was the first of a gungadeen empire. The fact that this gungadeen empire hasn't died tells a lot about the capacity of Indians, worse, it tells us about the capacity of present day Congis and coterie.

+1

[panther]

dude did you seriously post this guys name..oh man you like that guy and believe him..lol :haha: you are that kind of pakistani but you type in english..lol :cantstop:

He speaks what other Pakistanis especially politicians in the media do not wan't to talk about. India is becoming more and more aggressive by the day, Soon their will be a war maybe over water, or maybe a false flag attack.

[AmreekanDesi]

dude did you seriously post this guys name..oh man you like that guy and believe him..lol :haha: you are that kind of pakistani but you type in english..lol :cantstop:

he's trolling. you fell for it

[Texan]

Jaitley should have released the report, especially considering that when he was in the opposition he wanted the report to be released. We Indians need to know what happened in that war. As far as "sensitivity" of it's contents is concerned, this happened more than 50 years ago. India's foreign policy has drastically changed since those days. India and China's military prowess is very different from those days. So, I don't really buy the argument that the report cannot be publicized for "sensitivity" concerns.

[Midfielder]

I dont know if India started the war but Nehru for sure underestimated china.

[diga]

I dont know if India started the war but Nehru for sure underestimated china.

nobody can say that with certainty.. but most articles on the Henderson-brooks say that China was provoked into the war