1962 Sino-Indian War: Declassified CIA Documents

Sanjay M
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4892
Joined: 02 Nov 2005 14:57

What Will Happen? Will Sonia Act?

Postby Sanjay M » 29 Jun 2007 12:10

When the Volker report fingered Natwar Singh as a recipient of Saddam's petro-bribery, we then saw a Tehelka.com exposee quickly being released to finger opposition BJP politicians for having taken bribes. How convenient.

Now that we have this latest CIA declassification along the lines of Mitrokhin report, how will the govt deal with these revelations? Will we see another similar exposee conveniently being released, from Tehelka or some similar group, in a similar act of convenient timing?

Despite Natwar Singh's hollering in response to the Volker report, and initial shrieking by Congress partymen in threatening to "sue the UN" over it, Sonia still acted to oust Natwar Singh and the rest of the party fell in line with it. So will we then see similarly resolute action by Sonia towards the Left-wing coalition partners, in spite of the cost to UPA stability?

I know that sounds like an unlikely scenario, but I didn't expect a Nehru-family stalwart like Natwar Singh to be ousted either. Nor did I expect to see Jagdish Tytler be made to stand down from his office in the wake of the 1984 riot verdicts. And yet these things happened, once Madame decided that they should.

What about this latest CIA declassification revelation? The CPI(M) will of course scream indignantly, and the rank-and-file Congressmen will of course downplay the revelations, as consistent with past behavior in Volker report and 1984 verdicts. But will Sonia act against the CPI(M) coalition partners, as per the precedents set by her previous behaviour in the Volker report and 1984 riot cases? Clearly, coalition considerations are more weighty than mere internal party shuffles or ejections. The Family's clout inside their party is strong enough that they can dump any partyman they choose, but if you dump a coalition partner, you can lose your parliamentary majority and mandate to rule. Would Sonia make that choice?

And unlike internal party problems, when a coalition is affected, other partners can start to squawk or intervene. Witness Karunanidhi's recent damage control actions to heal rifts in the UPA.

I suspect that Sonia would believe the CIA revelations in the same way that we all do, even in spite of the negative portrayal of Nehru. But it remains to be seen whether she would once again surprise us all by acting to oust CPI(M) from the alliance.
Last edited by Sanjay M on 30 Jun 2007 03:04, edited 1 time in total.

sum
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9779
Joined: 08 May 2007 17:04
Location: (IT-vity && DRDO) nagar

Postby sum » 29 Jun 2007 12:16

err,you meant jaswant singh or natwar singh??? :-?

Igorr
BRFite
Posts: 598
Joined: 01 Feb 2005 18:13
Contact:

Postby Igorr » 29 Jun 2007 12:21

ramana wrote:
Igorr wrote:
ramana wrote:I think the timing of the release of the Indian related parts is psy-ops.
What can be their aim?
Now who is in charge of the UPA?- Congress and lefties. The papers were released to let loose a firestorm inside India as a way to soften the parties.
May it be because the Americans see CPI as the main obstacle on the way of atomic deal? I heard, the US ask from India to stop using used Uran for mil purposes. Or may be they fear the last steps in Indo-China rapprochement?

gopal.suri
BRFite
Posts: 191
Joined: 26 May 2007 17:22

Postby gopal.suri » 29 Jun 2007 12:49

:D You remember, there was a news that Russia and China had cut a deal on 1962.

CPI (M) are chinese representatives in India. Thats how, the Indian commie topic was included in this declassification release.

Sanjay M
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4892
Joined: 02 Nov 2005 14:57

Postby Sanjay M » 29 Jun 2007 12:58

sum wrote:err,you meant jaswant singh or natwar singh??? :-?


Sorry, Natwar Singh -- there are too many Singhs around to keep track of.

SK Ram
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 15
Joined: 03 Dec 2003 12:31

Postby SK Ram » 29 Jun 2007 16:02

This war is about 30 years before I was born and I am only fed with very basic info so pardon my ignorance.

I am not able to understand the Russian-Chinese Alliance angle here. Weren't the Roosi's on our side ever since the first time we fought the Pakis in 47 ? I thought we were already one of their allies since the 50s . Why the Volte-face in 1961-62 and what did Russia have to gain by the China-Tibet-India-1962 war ?

gopal.suri
BRFite
Posts: 191
Joined: 26 May 2007 17:22

Postby gopal.suri » 29 Jun 2007 16:16

You are horribly late by birth. :!:

Rossi's were not even at the side in 1947. We were totally angreji. Our forces got desi janrail saab in 1950's onwards. Indu started ballet with roosi somewhere in late 1950's as angrej wouldn't give us submarines etc.

SK Ram
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 15
Joined: 03 Dec 2003 12:31

Postby SK Ram » 29 Jun 2007 16:27

gopal.suri wrote:You are horribly late by birth. :!:

Rossi's were not even at the side in 1947. We were totally angreji. Our forces got desi janrail saab in 1950's onwards. Indu started ballet with roosi somewhere in late 1950's as angrej wouldn't give us submarines etc.


Fine but what did they have to gain if the Chinese whooped our ...

gopal.suri
BRFite
Posts: 191
Joined: 26 May 2007 17:22

Postby gopal.suri » 29 Jun 2007 16:39

:D chini and roosi did a deal, or, so is said so. chini would not attacke roosi when roosi would fry nu-clear soup in carribian (cuba). instead chini urge of attacking someone will be channalised on indu.

later when roos's goose was cooked carribean, they told chini are bad.

Even today indu are told by roosi that roosi should not be forced to choose between indu and chini.

uddu
BRFite
Posts: 1787
Joined: 15 Aug 2004 17:09

Postby uddu » 29 Jun 2007 21:12

The Chinese seem to be playing the same game again and the idiots in India supporting the Chinese nation.

India-China relationship a big stabiliser, says Yechury
P. S. Suryanarayana
http://www.hindu.com/2007/06/29/stories ... 511500.htm

SINGAPORE: The process of improving the India-China relationship, now in “progress,â€

uddu
BRFite
Posts: 1787
Joined: 15 Aug 2004 17:09

Postby uddu » 29 Jun 2007 21:19

Lap dog: Commies supporting Chicom
Watch dog: Interfering by Commies to suit their masters in Peking.
Barking dog: Making pro Chicom comments/Supporting Chicom

svinayak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14223
Joined: 09 Feb 1999 12:31

Postby svinayak » 29 Jun 2007 21:27

gopal.suri wrote:
Even today indu are told by roosi that roosi should not be forced to choose between indu and chini.


Even today this is relavent

svinayak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14223
Joined: 09 Feb 1999 12:31

Postby svinayak » 29 Jun 2007 21:36

http://www.rediff.com/news/indochin.htm

Remembering a War

Chronology of India-China relations (1947 - 2002)

http://www.rediff.com/news/chtime.htm

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 50059
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Postby ramana » 29 Jun 2007 21:37

SanjayM, Please fix your post after being informed about the mix-up between JS and NS. Thanks, ramana

Deccan Herald also has a report on PRC issuing a denial.

There is something odd about the timing of the declassification. Its not all honky dory.

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 35683
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Postby SaiK » 30 Jun 2007 00:01

Nehru taken for a ride by Chinese: CIA
Washington, PTI:
One of the major points of contention of the CIA is that the Chinese PM Zhou en Lai consistently impressed upon Nehru the China had no territorial ambitions.

In what could be seen as a possible obstacle to the growing ties between India and China, a recently de-classified paper of the CIA has said that the first Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru was consistently taken for a ride by the Chinese in the months and years prior to the 1962 war.
The top secret documents of March 1963 was approved for release only in May 2007. The declassification of documents pertaining to several aspects of domestic and international politics has been seen by the current CIA brass as a part of a new transparency as also providing a glimpse into the thinking and workings of the nodal intelligence outfit.
One set of documents called the Cesar-Polo-Esau Papers deal with Communist countries notably China and the erstwhile Soviet Union and three sections of which are devoted to an analysis of the Sino-Indian relations leading up to the 1962 debacle.
One of the major points of contention of the CIA is that the Chinese Prime Minister Zhou en Lai (at the time going by the spelling of Chou en Lai) consistently impressed upon Nehru that Peking (Beijing) had no territorial ambitions and that the maps that the Chinese were suing to portray vast tracts of Indian territory as theirs were 'old' maps from the Kuomintang era that had no time to be revised.
"The Sino-Indian dispute, as we see it, did not arise as a function of the Sino-Soviet dispute" the CIA said in its analysis in 1963.

SK Ram
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 15
Joined: 03 Dec 2003 12:31

Postby SK Ram » 30 Jun 2007 00:17

Just thinking aloud - a bit OT ... so if Russia can't choose between India and China (even today ) isn't there a conflict of interests when they back India over Kashmir but China backs Pak ( at least covertly..) ?

Back to topic , the timing of the declassification might not be by design but certainly its not entirely possible that the Americans are using an opportune moment to play every angle to ensure India tunes itself to their frequency ... no ?

rsingh
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3279
Joined: 19 Jan 2005 01:05
Location: Pindi
Contact:

Postby rsingh » 30 Jun 2007 01:34

This is an opinion-maker operation, hidden under disguise of "Unclassified Documents". It is NOT ABSOLUTE TRUTH. This is what CIA wanted (or wants) us to believe. I mean how easy to manipulate opinion........... just type a descent propaganda piece and "Declassify" it :-?

svinayak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14223
Joined: 09 Feb 1999 12:31

Postby svinayak » 30 Jun 2007 01:39

rsingh wrote:This is an opinion-maker operation, hidden under disguise of "Unclassified Documents". It is NOT ABSOLUTE TRUTH. This is what CIA wanted (or wants) us to believe. I mean how easy to manipulate opinion........... just type a descent propaganda piece and "Declassify" it :-?


This is how it should be looked at. These reports may even be cooked up just for this.

surinder
BRFite
Posts: 1421
Joined: 08 Apr 2005 06:57
Location: Badal Ki Chaaon Mein

Postby surinder » 30 Jun 2007 02:12

Just finished reading all the three parts of the CIA report. Took a long time to read!

The level of analysis is very good. Language and the power of expression is almost as if written by some academics. (Which is likely ... many work for CIA's after their academic work). The reports seemed to me based on many conversations they seemed to know. I am not sure how they know what Radhakrishnan said to Zhou En Lai in private? Well that is CIA's job, I guess..

I used to think of Nehur as the "useful idiot". I am not so sure anymore. My impression of Nehru has gone up somewhat. In many ways Nehru tried to avoid war (which is reasonable) and negotiate (that is good) and then finally was incensed at the Chinese occupation of Askai Chin. He essentially in the end took a hard line on Chinese. He did the best he could. I think the biggest problem was that Indian army was weak. A strong army would have changed the whole thing. Here is where Nehru carries the biggest blame. He and others just weakened IA. The other grave sin of Nehru is that he did not forsee that the years preceeding the 1962 war, the signs of war were a writing on the wall. As the report says, a militarily oriented man would have forseen it and would readied his nation for an impending war. Nehru did not realize that diplomacy and war-preparation could have gone on simultaneously. In some sense, we can gang up and fault Nehru, but we must see that India and its leaders were fresh and naive. They had just been running the currently for 10 years. Years of being under the British had deprived India was that ability to stand on her feet and forsee and live in the rough world. By the way, those who think that the British were so nice (they gave us railways, democracy, and engligh) forget that they deprived us of the ability to deal with this. Chanakya & Ranjit Singh would weep in their graves for this debacle.

S

surinder
BRFite
Posts: 1421
Joined: 08 Apr 2005 06:57
Location: Badal Ki Chaaon Mein

Postby surinder » 30 Jun 2007 02:16

Acharya wrote:
rsingh wrote:This is an opinion-maker operation, hidden under disguise of "Unclassified Documents". It is NOT ABSOLUTE TRUTH. This is what CIA wanted (or wants) us to believe. I mean how easy to manipulate opinion........... just type a descent propaganda piece and "Declassify" it :-?


This is how it should be looked at. These reports may even be cooked up just for this.


So you are saying that the US had the foresight 40 years ago to plan to spread these reports and then release it at the opportune time. Just for some propaganda effect. That is one hell of a long time to plan. Hats off, if that is true.

Also, what do you see in these reports that looks like it is erroneous.

s

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 50059
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Postby ramana » 30 Jun 2007 02:25

surinder, Muh me ghee shakkar. Now looks like the psy-ops backfired. Now we need more people to be in the first gen shoes and see what happened.

BTW there is significant evidence that JLN changed the focus of the 2nd Five year plan from Agriculture to Science and Technology in ~ 1958. Why?
Need to think about this.

svinayak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14223
Joined: 09 Feb 1999 12:31

Postby svinayak » 30 Jun 2007 02:43

surinder wrote:
So you are saying that the US had the foresight 40 years ago to plan to spread these reports and then release it at the opportune time. Just for some propaganda effect. That is one hell of a long time to plan. Hats off, if that is true.

Also, what do you see in these reports that looks like it is erroneous.

s

What I am saying is that they have the capability to create such a report to look like created 40 years ago and 'declassify' them as authentic.

Once the real story of communism movement is known then you can see the flaws in such report.

And I agree that Nehru was no fool. He was checkmated and pushed to a corner by the mafia.

Sanjay M
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4892
Joined: 02 Nov 2005 14:57

Re: What Will Happen? Will Sonia Act?

Postby Sanjay M » 30 Jun 2007 03:02

What do you mean Nehru was pushed by some mafia? Which mafia, the generals? I don't think the army pushed him, but his own inbuilt stupidity got him (and us) into trouble.

putnanja
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4380
Joined: 26 Mar 2002 12:31
Location: searching for the next al-qaida #3

Postby putnanja » 30 Jun 2007 03:14

China rejects CIA reports on Sino-Indian war

[quote]Beijing: China on Friday dismissed as “groundlessâ€

svinayak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14223
Joined: 09 Feb 1999 12:31

Re: What Will Happen? Will Sonia Act?

Postby svinayak » 30 Jun 2007 03:24

Sanjay M wrote:What do you mean Nehru was pushed by some mafia? Which mafia, the generals? I don't think the army pushed him, but his own inbuilt stupidity got him (and us) into trouble.


The mafia I am talking about is the international mafia - similar to Trilateral commission etc.

You question regarding the Hawk in India who made the decision for forward movement has to be answered.
You will find it in the dialogue between Nehru and Ambassador John Kenneth Galbraith. There is a strong indication that Nehru took the advice of Galbraith seriously.
http://www.johnkennethgalbraith.com/ind ... e=homepage

surinder
BRFite
Posts: 1421
Joined: 08 Apr 2005 06:57
Location: Badal Ki Chaaon Mein

Postby surinder » 30 Jun 2007 03:27

[quote="RaviBg"]China rejects CIA reports on Sino-Indian war

[quote]Beijing: China on Friday dismissed as “groundlessâ€

svinayak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14223
Joined: 09 Feb 1999 12:31

Postby svinayak » 30 Jun 2007 03:29

surinder wrote: We are right where we were in 1958.


We just took a temporary break for 50 years. Now the real action will start.

surinder
BRFite
Posts: 1421
Joined: 08 Apr 2005 06:57
Location: Badal Ki Chaaon Mein

Postby surinder » 30 Jun 2007 03:32

Acharya wrote:What I am saying is that they have the capability to create such a report to look like created 40 years ago and 'declassify' them as authentic.

Once the real story of communism movement is known then you can see the flaws in such report.


Acharya:

If you make such a claim, there has to present some plausibility argument to show. Otherwise we can simply say what we want. If I claim there are pink elephants floating in this room, I have to at least show some minimum plausibility that it is indeed the case.

What is the story of communism that will show the flaws in the report. Why don't you simply tell us what is flawed in the report.

s

Sanjay M
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4892
Joined: 02 Nov 2005 14:57

Postby Sanjay M » 30 Jun 2007 03:36

surinder wrote:The only progress I can see is that China is now claiming the whole of Arunachal Pradesh as its own. It controls and owns whole of Aksai Chin. It is still nibblining at Indian territory. We are right where we were in 1958.


No, we're not -- now China has progressed to consolidating its hold over Tibet. Our population centres are closer to the border, which used to give us the advantage in terms of being able to bring forces and logistic to bear in the event of a border conflict. But now China has got its rail links, and brought in its Han population. Soon they'll even have a highway upto Mt. Everest.

I feel that our best bet is to demand more democracy in China. If Americans and Europeans can loudly demand this from Russia, I don't see why we shouldn't maintain the same stance towards China. That way we're not burning our bridges with the Chinese people, just taking the offensive against their govt.

And we must heavily populate the NEFA Arunachal Pradesh area as much as possible. Build our "facts on the ground".

surinder
BRFite
Posts: 1421
Joined: 08 Apr 2005 06:57
Location: Badal Ki Chaaon Mein

Postby surinder » 30 Jun 2007 03:41

Let us war game it. Given that China had occupied Aksai Chin and was claiming territory south of McMahon line, what could India (Nehru etc.) could / should have done?

Instead of chest beating, this would give us some insights as to what we can do now. The China story is far from over.

From my side, I would have done the three following:

(1) When the Chinese occupation of Aksai Chin is found out. Tell the nation and come out clean. Advertise it and let the public opinion come out in your side. It is no triffling matter. This will galvanize the public. Increase recruitment to the armed forces to a very very high level.

(2) Get on a war path. Convert you factories for arm production. Make as much as you can.

(3) Throw out non-alignment and all such ideological junk. Get major powers to give weapons.

This would have taken a couple of years. Then talk to the Chinese and confront them militarily. More than likely, war would then be not necessary, as is often the case---when nations prepare for war, war is averted.

s

svinayak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14223
Joined: 09 Feb 1999 12:31

Postby svinayak » 30 Jun 2007 03:51

surinder wrote:

What is the story of communism that will show the flaws in the report.



US could use its knowledge of inside story of communism to chose the future of Tibet well in advance. They wanted minimum damage but could not avoid the war.

This is just a sample. You can get more info in the internet.

Although the Russian revolution was a far more major event in history than those that preceeded it, and its consequences are complex, It had profound effect. The Elite in Europe and US knew who were behind the revolution in Russia and also China.

Although the external support to and the origin of the revolution were known to most European governments early on, the most important proof of the conspiratorial relationship between Lenin, Trotsky and Bolshevism and the Jewish bankers of New York came after the revolution.
The Russian Ambassador to the United States stated: "Bolsheviks after the victory transferred 600 Million roubles worth royal gold between years 1918-1922 to Kuhn, Loeb & Company, Jacob Schiff’s firm".



Political control of Russia.
The investigation ordered by the Czar, shortly after the first failed attempt in 1905, revealed the hand of American bankers backed by an agent of Rothschilds, Jacob Schiff of Kuhn Leob and Company. Jacob Schiff was also responsible for the spread of the opium trade to the United States. Monsieur Francois Coty, historian and celebrated scent manufacturer, wrote in Figaro on 20 February 1932, "The subsidies granted to the nihilists at this period of 1905-1917 by Jacob Schiff of Kuhn Leob and Co., New York, were no longer acts of isolated generosity. A veritable Russian terrorist organization had been set up at his expense. It covered Russia with its emissaries".
The role American bankers in financing Bolshevism was also evidenced by a revelation from none other than the grandson of Jacob, John Schiff. The New York Journal of America of 3 February 1949 stated: "today it is estimated by Jacob’s grandson, John Schiff, that the old man sank about US 20 million dollars-(1917 dollars)-for the final triumph of Bolshevism in Russia".


The American Hebrew of 13 July 1918 revealed some of the contents of the report by the Russian Foreign Minister (referred to in the previous section): "the events which took place in Russia in 1905, plainly indicate that the revolutionary movement has a definite international character…the revolutionaries posses great quantities of arms imported from abroad and very considerable financial means…one is bound to conclude that there are foreign capitalists' organizations interested in supporting our revolutionary movement. If we add to the above that, as has been proved beyond any doubt, a very considerable part is played by Jews…as ring leaders in other organizations as well as their own.. always the most bellicose element of the revolution. We may feel entitled to assume that the above mentioned foreign support of the Russian revolutionary movement comes from Jewish Capitalist Circles".

Another source of proof for the international dimension of the funding came from the Russian General, Arsene De Goulevitch. On pages 223-232 of his classic work entitled "Czarism and Revolution", he states: "The main purveyors of funds for the revolution, however, were neither crackpot Russian millionaires nor the armed bandits of Lenin. The real money primarily came from certain British and American circles which for some time past had lent their support to the Russian revolutionary cause. Engineered by the English, more precisely Sir George Buchanan and Lord Alfred Milner….21 million Rubles were spent by Lord Milner to finance Russian revolution". Lord Milner was one of the founder of round table groups, and a close associate of Cecil Rhodes and Rothschild.

International balance of power and use of Russia in this game.
The International elite power brokers had not forgotten the theory of Balance of Power.

The International elite control over Bolshevism was (at least initially until 1953) relatively absolute. Unlike the case of Napoleon-II and III in France, Stalin was not merely a puppet, but actually one of them. The result was a propping up of the Soviet Union itself as a bulwark to contain the United States. This is in a very good sense the key to understanding the Cold War. The Cold War between Russia and America, with International elite players intertwined in both countries, was a stark manifestation of this conflict. Ethereal in this manifestation and perhaps similar to a neurosis, it would make its effects felt elsewhere over the world. Low key conflicts, purporting to be ideological in nature, were seen for example, in Africa, Asia, South Americas, Cuba, while conflicts more economic in color were seen in Iran and Iraq, Angola, the Afghan War, and the Gulf Wars.

The Communist magazine, of 12 April 1919, by Mr. Cohen states: "the great Russian revolution was indeed accomplished by the hands of Jews. There were no Jews in the ranks of Red Army, as far as privates are concerned, but in the committees and in the Soviet Organization as Commissars, the Jews are gallantly leading the masses. The symbol of Jewry became the symbol of Russian proletariat, which can be seen in the fact of the adoption of the five pointed star which in former times was the symbol of Zionism and Jewry" From the starting of Revolution in 1917, of the 52 persons who took over the direction of Russia, all but Lenin including Trotsky were Jews. Out of the 388 members of Revolutionary movement only 16 happened to be real Russians, all the rest were Jews with an exception of an U.S. Negro. 235 of these Jews come from Lower East side of New York. The central Executive committee of the Third Internationale, which ruled Russia under Stalin, consisted 59 men, of which 56 were Jews.


John Snow
BRFite
Posts: 1941
Joined: 03 Feb 2006 00:44

Postby John Snow » 30 Jun 2007 04:04

A strong army would have changed the whole thing. Here is where Nehru carries the biggest blame. He and others just weakened IA. The other grave sin of Nehru is that he did not forsee that the years preceeding the 1962 war, the signs of war were a writing on the wall. As the report says, a militarily oriented man would have forseen it and would readied his nation for an impending war. Nehru did not realize that diplomacy and war-preparation could have gone on simultaneously.


Nehru and his civvies were shit scared of strong army as it would be possible to stage a coup, like the goings in the neighborhood at that time.

Having had relatives serving the IA and some in MES there was always thios tug of war between supremacy of Civie over Khaki. The culture was deliberately indoctrinated into civies to snub the Khaki.

To an extent (as rightly observed by earlier posts) Nehru knew that with tijori khali (emptied the british) ther was no way India could continue wars with out think of economic upliftment and development. Remeber the Gold Bond days , when all Indian families pledged gold to import arms....

Some of the ordinance factories were manufacturing wick lamp stoves and other supplies ( for British war effort)rather than ammunitions.

It was a fine balanicng act of keeping the institutions of Armed forces on a leash and civilian institutions to strike root in the society.

We were food defciant as late as 1970s remember that and the shortage of cooking oil to whest to rice etc.

It was not easy at all, so in fairness if Nehru had 'Not even a blade of grass grows over there, should be understood in that light' but could it have been better done yes, People could have been mobilized, but unlike many countries our freedom struggle was nearly 100 yrs. and people were exhausted...

ldev
BRFite
Posts: 1533
Joined: 06 Nov 2002 12:31

Postby ldev » 30 Jun 2007 04:23

Is there anything new in this declassified report? I mean anything which we have not already discussed on BRF? It is common knowledge that Nehru was wary of a strong Indian Army because of the fear of a potential coup given that Indian democracy was in its infancy? The flipside ofcourse was that the Army was ill prepared to defend India's borders. It is also common knowledge that he advocated an aggressive forward deployment policy on the Chinese border without letting the Army prepare for the eventuality of a Chinese attack. But to let Nehru off the hook just because India had gained independence 15 years before that event is naive. The Chinese communists had themselves chased the prior government to Formosa (Taiwan) in 1949, had fought a war supporting the North Koreans against the US in the interim, had already taken over Tibet, all in the previous 10 years. So they were as badly prepared or worse than Nehru and India. Nehru dropped the ball and as a result India was whupped. Learn the lesson and move on.

So why are we digressing into the history of Communism and conspiracy theories regarding the Trilateral commission on this issue?

svinayak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14223
Joined: 09 Feb 1999 12:31

Postby svinayak » 30 Jun 2007 04:47

http://www.counterpunch.org/jayaprakash07092005.html


Nehru Refuses to Buckle

Another development that had important bearing on shaping India 's foreign policy was Nehru's visit to the United States in October 1949. The U.S. Administration had timed the trip in such a way that it coincided with the ascendance of the Communist Party to power in China. During the visit, considerable pressure was exerted by the United States on Nehru to draw India into the anti-communist camp. However, Nehru spurned all such insidious attempts by summarily rejecting the U.S. proposal of setting up military bases in India in return for the economic aid that Nehru had gone there to seek. Failure to obtain U.S. economic aid without political strings and because of the general foreign policy of the United States of suppressing national liberation movements in Asia, relations between India and the United States began to sour.

Concurrently, relations with the new regime in China presented an important foreign policy problem that India had to tackle and it did so by recognising the Peoples Republic of China on December 30, 1949. India also supported the demand for granting China its rightful place in the UN Security Council instead of the Chiang Kai-shek regime of Taiwan , which was being backed by the United States. Although the "Tibetan Question" briefly cast a shadow over Indo-China relations in 1950, relations between the two began to improve after the signing on January 1, 1951 of the barter agreement on supplying India, which was suffering from food shortage at that time, with Chinese rice in exchange for Indian jute.


Last edited by svinayak on 30 Jun 2007 07:01, edited 1 time in total.

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 35683
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Postby SaiK » 30 Jun 2007 04:54

We still follow nehruvism.. to say, even the appointment of CIDS, one must read the emphasis of the "I" (integrated).. that clearly keeps the tri services at bay viz taking control over politicians.

Instead of saying CIA declassifications is nothing but we talked about Nehru here, GoI should have bought a backhanded publication about Nehru policy failures, so that it does not have to be taken by surprise in the sense, they can always point at the publication saying we know that, we done that publicity etc.

The declassification has much to do with timing, especially the nuke deal (I may think so)., right from creating nuclear carrier display to projection of all that failures our leaders did, is just to point, hey, you guys have weakness that we can offer a strong hand, especially against China. Wanna side with us?

What was that NAM stunt for, by Rice?.. same psy-op. Many more to come, if GoI does not pre-empt and finnesse by cutting off from this reciprocative arrangements, and declare ahead its intentions. We don't need any CIAs to report our plans, that failed or succeeded.

Its a hit on the govt, right on the arse, for not taking faster approach towards westernization. Bush govt is trying all that it could, to work on our brains (more for ones like the ddms).

shyamd
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6717
Joined: 08 Aug 2006 18:43

Postby shyamd » 30 Jun 2007 04:56

CIA papers trace split of Indian Communists
[quote]Communist Party of India was squeezed between the growing
Sino-Soviet dispute, wandering from one position to another as its leadership, polarised between the two giants, pulled the party in different directions post-independence.

CPI was left stranded as Soviet Union not only turned warm towards Nehru but even stated in 1958 that he and not the Communists would take India towards socialism, claim the de-classfied CIA papers, with a chapter on CPI in the wake of Sino-Soviet dispute.

CPI leadership, the papers claim, stood polarised to the extent that support for CPSU (Soviet Union) over CCP threatened a split in the party.

During the 1950s, CPSU gained control over the central leadership of the CPI, leading to a strong resentment and growth of a Left wing within, opposed to USSR and closer to China. The dispute in CPI was on the path to be adopted in revolutionary struggle.

Ranadive's own methods of urban insurrection failed miserably in early 1950s and led to the ‘‘Andhra leadership'' gaining voice, demanding that it adopt the pragmatic Chinese method of two-stage revolution - of allying with anti-feudal rich peasants and anti-imperialist sections of urban bourgeoisie.

It was in the wake of Mao-Stalin face-off that the CPI drama unfolded. While Ranadive turned bitter and attacked Mao, bizarre turn of events saw even CPSU agree to a two-stage revolution, leaving the urban insurrectionists stranded. The ‘‘Andhra leadership'' not only took charge but also apologised to Mao for Ranadive's bitter attacks on him, says the CIA papers.

The CIA papers report details of the international events, with CPI swinging between the two communist regimes on the stand it should take.

As it notes, ‘‘A degree of Chinese influence was implanted and permanently legitimised within the CPI as a source of inspiration and guidance second only to CPSU.'' It says that ‘‘factionalism, blatant indiscipline and regional disregard for central authority which had grown during the struggle against Ranadive became permanent features of CPI life to a degree seen in hardly any other Communist party.

The authority of the central CPI machinery was weakened in relation to the provincial party organisations that never again did the central party leadership make a serious attempt to enforce a uniform rigid line upon the often defiant provinces.''

Early in post-1947 period, the CPI was forced to swallow its words as CPSU abruptly turned accommodating towards Nehru, doing away with its hostility towards the first prime minister of India. It “bludgeonedâ€

shaileshkg
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 2
Joined: 24 Jun 2007 14:57

Postby shaileshkg » 30 Jun 2007 14:36

Sanjay M and Surinder: Your ideas are noble but our highly corrupt poilitical class is incapable of any strong stand on anything. India could not change the demographics of Kashmir, forget abt Arunachal.

If there is a war with China in future, and if India stays the same as today, say goodbye to both Kashmir and bulk of North East.

vinayak_d
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 66
Joined: 10 Mar 2007 03:33

Postby vinayak_d » 30 Jun 2007 14:56

You can kiss beijing and shanghai good bye...

ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5200
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Postby ShauryaT » 30 Jun 2007 19:56

John Snow wrote:A We were food defciant as late as 1970s remember that and the shortage of cooking oil to whest to rice etc.

It was not easy at all, so in fairness if Nehru had 'Not even a blade of grass grows over there, should be understood in that light' but could it have been better done yes, People could have been mobilized, but unlike many countries our freedom struggle was nearly 100 yrs. and people were exhausted...
Strong leaders make hard choices. Mao killed half his own supporters just to out manoveur a few of his colleagues in the long march to nowhere. Do you know the size of Tibet? He moved into Tibet in 1951. All India got in return for that is a promise that they will not move on to Lhasa - which they did by 1959. The bugger wanted to build a road from Tibet to Sianking and he did not wait for someone's permission to do so.

No one is in any doubt that a decision to mobilize forces would not come at a cost. The issue is the leadership was weak and hence made poor choices in many areas. The proof that these were poor choices is there in the pudding. So, we should stop making excuses for their decisions. Does that mean that I would trade a Mao for Nehru? No, because there are areas where Nehru's decisions laid the foundation for our democratic republic. But, no excuses for his bad decisions.

SSridhar
Forum Moderator
Posts: 22776
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Location: Chennai

Postby SSridhar » 30 Jun 2007 21:05

surinder,
In some sense, we can gang up and fault Nehru, but we must see that India and its leaders were fresh and naive. They had just been running the currently for 10 years.

There is no question of ganging up. After all, we are all interested in the best for India. And, that was the noble intention of Nehru as well. I do not think anybody doubts that. However, Nehru was behaving worse than an autocrat and therefore gets blamed for wrong decisions, especially in foreign affairs. Nobody had the guts to air contradictory views and those who did had to leave the Government.

Nehru was scared of at least a couple of things. He saw ghosts everywhere. One was the military and the other was majoritarianism. He went to extraordinary lengths to emaciate both. The charisma he enjoyed with the masses in India and many parts of the world emboldened him to take a 'moral high' and preach to everyone without really backing it up with economic and military might.


Return to “Military History Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest