1962 Sino-Indian War: Declassified CIA Documents

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

Postby rsingh » 01 Jul 2007 02:03

surinder wrote:
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



:lol: :lol: So you are sure it was written 40 years ago.........why...just because unkil says so. Wait for May 2020 when unkil will bring out another rabbit out of hat about Kargil war........why Mush was about to bomb Dili and how Unkil saved Indians :P

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

Postby Sanjay M » 01 Jul 2007 03:29

No, I think it's been well-known for quite some time now that the US found Nehru's preaching naivete distasteful. That's why I don't find these declassified documents to be a revelation so much as a validation of what we already knew.

What's really ugly to recognize is that we didn't have any stomach to keep fighting. Look at the jihadis -- even in the face of all the American bombing, they still have the backbone even to keep fighting to certain death. But have we ever shown that we have that resolve? I don't think so. That's why people pick on us, because we're easy pickings, as we ourselves have advertised through our own conduct.

"Moderation should be pursued in all things, including moderation itself."
- Benjamin Franklin

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

Postby surinder » 01 Jul 2007 13:30

Sanjay M wrote:What's really ugly to recognize is that we didn't have any stomach to keep fighting. Look at the jihadis -- even in the face of all the American bombing, they still have the backbone even to keep fighting to certain death. But have we ever shown that we have that resolve? I don't think so. That's why people pick on us, because we're easy pickings, as we ourselves have advertised through our own conduct.


Sanjay:

Spot on. I am afraid that quite often in modern times we that India has not shown that all-out effort to fight the enemy. When hitler attacked Russia, the russians in battle of Stalingrad and Leningrad took casualties of 17 million men to fight him off. Americans lost millions in European wars. Chinese themselves lots 1-2 million fighting the americans when even their own territory was yet to be in danger (Korean War). How many men did India loose in 1962? A 1000 maybe? In WW-1 India had 74,000 killed; and lost 87,000 Indians in WW2. This is fighting someone elses wars.

We should have seen a full fledged preparation for war. A call to every street in India to commit arms and men to fight. We should have fought harder. Maybe retreated and then fought again. Mao himself said during the preparation for war with India, "It's better to die standing, than to die kneeling." as reported in http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~johnston/garver.pdf . I have to grant to the Chinese their will and skill in fighting. Wish we had it too.

But in the end, I still feel that while China got Aksai Chin, it got earned an eternal enemy on the South. According the CIA papers, Mao wanted to fight as little as possible with India. He wanted to keep the eye on the "US Imperialists" and not antagonize India. But he lost that. He has created a bigger enemy. One that will never let China sleep. India has not forgotten Aksai Chin. It never will. Pakistan's days as a nation are numbered. It got itself partitioned once, and will likely get further split. Once that happens, we will focus 100% on the Chinese. It is not for nothing that BJP in 1998 named China as the main reason for the nuclear tests. The anxieties emanating from Beijing at the realization that 1962 could motivate India are palpable.

Surinder

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

Postby surinder » 01 Jul 2007 13:39

ldev wrote: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.


You see, China had not been colonized as India was. It has been a free country for many many centuries. However badly, but Chinese were running their own affairs. The civil war was still intra-Chinese affairs, which happen when nations are free. Mao was an expert on Wars. He whipped Nehru because Nehru knew not an iota of warfare. All the top politburo members in PRC were battle-hardened. It gives a country edge. (as an aside, all the current crop of top politburo are Engineers. It has given them an edge in planning the economy since 1980's).

India got run its own affairs after a lapse of 100+ years. Our leaders knew nothing of realpolitik. Any fighting spirit was shamed out of us by Ghandhi. We lived in a cuckoo land of our own beleiving. Preaching to the world when could not even feed ourselves and protect our land. Cooking up foolish alliances like NAM when we have no ability to face the reality of any kind on our own. We often talk about Pakistan playing a league bigger than its own, I think we should do a dekho in our own gireybaan: We have been playing in a league higher than our natural capacity too.

S

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

Postby surinder » 01 Jul 2007 13:45

John Snow wrote: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.


Why is a nation that cannot feed itself trying out international ideas of non-alignment and all that Asian unity and all that cr@p? A nation that cannot feed itself, cannot defend itself is hardly suitable to lecture others. If this is not arrogance, what is? In this light, shouldn't 1962 be looked upon as a gift from God that put us out our grandiose misery and made us aware of the reality of the world. If so, I would say it is worth it.

S

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

Postby SK Ram » 01 Jul 2007 14:29

I don't see how taking an alliance with any of the major powers at that time would have helped today. At that time when USSR and USA were expecting all and sundry to either join them or the opposite alliance , I think NAM was one of the few things that was done right by Nehru . Our independence was marred by a very early conflict with Pak . There was potential for the major powers to use this occasion to force us into an alliance citing the war and future possible engagements . But we didn't capitulate. That was a good thing I beleive.

Otherwise , if we had taken an alliance with any of those powers , our country would have become a ticking time bomb ready to explode whenever the respective alliances were at war. We would have needlessly been involved in somebody elses war...

NAM had a meaning back then . Today much has changed but the threats remain . However instead of sticking to philosophies which have become outdated , we must use our growing stature in world to make the right friends - not necessarily alliances . And right now , the warming of relations with the USA is not a bad thing at all from that POV ..IMHO.

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

Postby ShauryaT » 01 Jul 2007 18:49

Sanjay M wrote: But have we ever shown that we have that resolve? I don't think so.
Kargil.

deovratsingh
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 24
Joined: 02 Nov 2006 07:11
Location: USA

India and China- 1962 and lessons from history

Postby deovratsingh » 01 Jul 2007 20:44

Kargill and 1971 are fine example of a steely resolve so was Shastri in 65. I fully agree with earlier post" your army and country is as powerful as your leaders are". Nehru was a naive gentleman and was no match for Mao and Zhaou en Lai in cunningness. The Chinese, having fought Americans in Korean war, knew exactly Indian military capabilities. Nehru had at least 6-7 yrs of advance warning to prepare, and he knew of border differences with Chinese. He consistently over ruled his Generals and Army commanders, (to get ready for armed conflicts ).

It is well known facts, that with steely resolve and your will to fight you can oppose even mightiest armies and win the wars- as shown by Rana Pratap( vs Akbar), ShivaJi (vs Aurangjeb) and Guru Govind Singh(Vs AurangJeb); British and Russians Vs Germans; and now in Iraq ( which is unfortunate, as the terrorist SOBs supported by Osma, Talibans and Pakis). Also Indian resolve in Kashmir is a great example as well.

It all boils down to your will power and steely resolve. At this point in time- India can hold against Chinese, but at present I doubt She can achieve a quick victory and force Chinese to stop war( I don't think China would like to loose Bejing and Shanghai;( or in case of India New Delhi or Bangalore in Nuclear exchange).

I wish our Indian leaders at present have same resolve as Atal Bihari Bajpai and should go for 70 squadrons of Aircraft, + at least 5 carrirers with 60-65,000 Tons each ( so they can have 50-60 fighters each). Indian navy would be instrumental in sea denial to both Chinese and Pakis. This would ensure that India can decisively defeat Both China and Pakis (although small probable sceanrio, but not and impossiblity). This would at least give IAF a level playing field and a fighting chance in event of conflict. At this point combined PLA and Pakis have 3:1 advantage over India. India needs at least parity with their combined forces. We assume that our fighters and training is superior, but Chinese and Pakis are not too far behind. Security lies in numbers as well. This has been very well shown by Americans against Germans in WW II( Shermans vs Tigers. 9:1 advantage for Shermans).

But actions of politicians and babus looks like they don't care.They are more concerned about Bofors, HDW and Denels scandals than urgency and short fall, which IDF is facing at present.

Regards,

DSingh.

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 35687
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Postby SaiK » 02 Jul 2007 00:19

Didn't want to start a thread for the declassified... for indo-pak. however, please let me know if this belongs elsewhere.

'Indians are slippery, treacherous people'

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/Indi ... 164932.cms

NEW DELHI: The recently declassified US official records throw new light on the anger and frustration that seized President Richard Nixon during the 1971 Indo-Pak war and how Washington secretly pleaded with China to "menace" India by moving troops to the Indian border.

Poring over thousands of pages of national security files and telephone transcripts of the then US National Security Adviser Henry Kissinger and 2,800 hours of Nixon tapes, well-known American author and historian Robert Dallek recalls the events in the White House during the December of 1971 in a just-published book Nixon and Kissinger-Partners in Power .

Nixon's infamous tilt towards Pakistan is well known but the author reveals many other facets of how Nixon and Kissinger were upset with India and how they tried to rope in China in a bid to prevent the formation of Bangladesh.

Nixon describes Indians as "a slippery, treacherous people" and his National Security Adviser calls the Indians "insufferably arrogant". The story began in the fall of 1971, when differences in the administration and the country over White House China policy posed little threat to a major transformation in Sino-American relations.

A larger danger to rapprochement with Beijing and detente with Moscow came from rising tensions in South Asia. Long standing tensions between the Punjabis, who dominated the central government in West Pakistan, and the Bengalis in the East now erupted into a full-scale crisis.

The President and Kissinger had less interest in what the Indians or Pakistanis did to each other than in assuring that nothing sidetracked Kissinger's trip to China and the revolution in Sino-American relations.

Our objective should be to "buoy up Yahya for at least another month while Pakistan served as the gateway to China," Kissinger told Nixon at the beginning of June. “Even apart from the Chinese thing," the President replied, "I wouldn't ....help the Indians, the Indians are no good."

In July, on his way to Beijing, Kissinger discussed the crisis with Pakistani and Indian officials in Islamabad and New Delhi. Before he left, Joe Sisco (a diplomat) urged him to take a tough line with Indira Gandhi. Sisco complained that "you people in the White House don't understand how serious" the situation is. "We know," Kissinger countered.

"At the end of the monsoons, India will attack". Sisco advised him to tell the Indians "we know you are supporting the guerillas." Kissinger responded, "That is not my specialty." Kissinger's meetings with the Pakistanis were cordial, but, predictably, the Indians complained that US support of Pakistan was encouraging a "policy of adventurism," which China was also promoting.

Indira Gandhi saw little chance of a political settlement: She did not want to use force and was open to suggestions," she told Kissinger, who warned India that a war would be disaster for both the countries and the sub-continent would become an area for conflict among outside powers. He also assured them that "we would take the gravest view of any unprovoked Chinese aggression against India."

Kissinger recalls returning from his trip with "a premonition of disaster". He expected India to attack Pakistan after the summer monsoons. He feared that China might then intervene on Pakistan's behalf, which would move Moscow "to teach Peking a lesson". At this time, Kissinger states, "no one could speak for five minutes without Nixon hearing of his profound distrust of Indian motives, his concern over Soviet meddling, and above all his desire not to risk the opening to China by ill considered posturing."

Nixon described the Indians in an NSC meeting on July 16 as "'a slippery, treacherous people." He felt that they would like nothing better than to use this tragedy to destroy Pakistan....He said that we could not allow - over the next three to four months until 'we take this journey' to Beijing - a war in South Asia if we can possibly avoid it."

Kissinger agreed. He called the Indians "insufferably arrogant", and eager for a conflict that would allow them to overwhelm Pakistan and take on China. "Everything we have done with China will (then) go down the drain." The book refers to the late Indira Gandhi's travels to several Western capitals, including Washington, at the beginning of November.

Nixon agreed to see her as a last-ditch effort to head off a conflict. Two conversations on November 4 and 5 were case studies in heads of state speaking past each other. During a morning meeting on November in the Oval office, they agreed to discuss tensions in South Asia, with a second day's meeting to focus on Sino-American relations. No easing of tensions was evident from the morning's exercises. As the situation escalated, Kissinger was angry at being told that the US policy was "weak". Beijing had done nothing.

"We are the ones who have been operating our public opinion, against our bureaucracy, at the very edge of legality," Kissinger said. Nixon and Kissinger discussed the potential results of Chinese action. If China menaced India, they anticipated a Soviet military response. If the US then did nothing, Kissinger predicted, "we will be finished." Nixon asked: "So what do we do if the Soviets move against them? Start lobbing nuclear weapons in, is that what you mean?" Kissinger replied. "If the Soviets move against them...and succeed, that will be the final showdown....We will be finished. We'll be thorough."

But a message from the Soviets assured Washington that India had no intention of attacking West Pakistan and that ceasefire discussions were underway. To their surprise and relief, the US got a Chinese message that said nothing about moving troops to the Indian border.

Instead, appreciating that independence for East Pakistan was a foregone conclusion, Peking said it was prepared to endorse an American UN proposal for a standstill cease-fire and forego a demand for mutual troop withdrawals. The crisis now petered to a conclusion. Between December 14 and 17, Indian forces completed their conquest of East Pakistan and agreed to a ceasefire in the West with no occupation of additional Pakistani territory.

Although Nixon and Kissinger put the best possible face on the outcome, the result of the war was essentially a victory for India and its Soviet ally, which declared the emergence of Bangladesh from the ruins of East Pakistan a triumph for Socialist and democratic principles, the book recalls.

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

Postby svinayak » 02 Jul 2007 00:33

This is old news and was disclosed some years back.

But why is this now again published. PRC may want to publish it now to counter the CIA charges of Zhou En Lai being treacherous on Indians.

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

Postby Sanjay M » 02 Jul 2007 01:05

ShauryaT wrote:
Sanjay M wrote: But have we ever shown that we have that resolve? I don't think so.
Kargil.


With Kargil, we suffered lots of casualties (hundreds? thousands?) but we didn't even reciprocally inflict a proportionately similar amount back. The Pakistanis retreated under US auspices, and not under Indian fire! We didn't push them out, they withdrew under US pressure! Hence the coup against Nawaz, for his panicky spineless agreement with Clinton. If the US hadn't intervened, and Musharraf had continued to have his way, can you honestly say that we would have successfully pushed them out of Kargil?

Aren't there still some peaks which are held by Pak forces? How do you explain this?

What happened with Operation Parakram, after our parliament was attacked? Did we do anything with that either? Nope. All I remember seeing was that fat, emotional lady Brinda Karat on TV, vigorously wagging her finger that we would not bow to terrorism. (What a waste of flesh that lady is. She reminds me of that opera-singer Bianca Castafiore from the Tintin comics.)

Karan Dixit
BRFite
Posts: 1102
Joined: 23 Mar 2007 02:43
Location: Calcutta

Postby Karan Dixit » 02 Jul 2007 01:09

Baljeet wrote:sanjay
Extremly good catch.


Not really. I have known it since I was in Grade-3.

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

Postby rsingh » 02 Jul 2007 03:28

Sanjay M wrote:
ShauryaT wrote:
Sanjay M wrote: But have we ever shown that we have that resolve? I don't think so.
Kargil.


With Kargil, we suffered lots of casualties (hundreds? thousands?) but we didn't even reciprocally inflict a proportionately similar amount back. The Pakistanis retreated under US auspices, and not under Indian fire! We didn't push them out, they withdrew under US pressure! Hence the coup against Nawaz, for his panicky spineless agreement with Clinton. If the US hadn't intervened, and Musharraf had continued to have his way, can you honestly say that we would have successfully pushed them out of Kargil?

Aren't there still some peaks which are held by Pak forces? How do you explain this?

What happened with Operation Parakram, after our parliament was attacked? Did we do anything with that either? Nope. All I remember seeing was that fat, emotional lady Brinda Karat on TV, vigorously wagging her finger that we would not bow to terrorism. (What a waste of flesh that lady is. She reminds me of that opera-singer Bianca Castafiore from the Tintin comics.)


That's rubbish. Shariff went to Unkil to save face. Unkil's intervention was limited up to that. All the peaks were librated by kiks on butts. Do not distort facts to fit to your POV. :evil: If US hadn't intervened, mush might heve been dispatched to his rightfull place in hell long ago. Please guys think before writing..........these irresponsible and silly remarks taken as serious writings and quoted by shitters on unmentionable forum

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

Postby Sanjay M » 02 Jul 2007 03:39

We would have faced far more casualties without the Pak-initiated withdrawal. The fact is that we silenced our guns as Pak withdrew the bulk of its forces under the cover of their own fire. This was done as part of the US-arranged ceasefire.

We dislodged some of their forces, but we didn't evict the bulk of them ourselves. And we suffered huge casualties.

So you may feel comfortably complacent with our track record, I feel the need for greater vigilance and not for complacency.

There is a difference between constructive criticism and destructive criticism, and the intent of my remarks should be obvious.

We have not shown great a track record for stamina on the battlefield, and without this we'll be seen as easy pickings / pushovers. You know very well that the Chinese and Pakistanis consider us to be softies and pushovers. That's why the Chinese have expanded their claim on Arunachal Pradesh -- where do you see them trying to accommodate us, or make genuine compromises?

How do you explain the current deterioration of our northeastern border relations? Random absent-mindedness by the Chinese?

JCage
BRFite
Posts: 1562
Joined: 09 Oct 2000 11:31

Postby JCage » 02 Jul 2007 04:04

SanjayM,

BRF is not a place where you can play fast & loose with facts...

Sanjay M wrote:We would have faced far more casualties without the Pak-initiated withdrawal. The fact is that we silenced our guns as Pak withdrew the bulk of its forces under the cover of their own fire. This was done as part of the US-arranged ceasefire.


Nonsense. The Pakistanis withdrew their forces under a ceasefire, by which time they had already suffered serious setbacks. There was no orderly withdrawal under own fire.

We dislodged some of their forces, but we didn't evict the bulk of them ourselves. And we suffered huge casualties.


Wrong. India had captured the bulk of the territory occupied by Pakistan. What was left was slapbang beside the LOC and with logistics lines extending to Pak. You are merely parroting Pak propoganda here. And Indias casualties were a third of what Pak suffered.

So you may feel comfortably complacent with our track record, I feel the need for greater vigilance and not for complacency.


Whatever you feel, cursory handwaves and a liberal wave at the facts wont help your arguement.

There is a difference between constructive criticism and destructive criticism, and the intent of my remarks should be obvious.


See above. Parroting Pak propoganda does not help your arguement even if you intend to provide a positive critique.

We have not shown great a track record for stamina on the battlefield, and without this we'll be seen as easy pickings / pushovers. You know very well that the Chinese and Pakistanis consider us to be softies and pushovers. That's why the Chinese have expanded their claim on Arunachal Pradesh -- where do you see them trying to accommodate us, or make genuine compromises?


This is more drivel and the use of rhetoric to push a POV does not make the latter correct. Indias successes on the battlefield have nothing to do with Pak/Chinese perception. A praetorian state like Pak can withstand a thousand battlefield defeats and pretend that alls well. Similarly, the PRC has an iron clad grip on its internal populace. Now coming to why the GOI is not escalating- why should it! I dont know how rosy things are in Canada, but India has huge internal challenges, which it is facing. It cannot afford a war or an unecessary exercise in sabre rattling just to see whose wiener is biggest. As such it will continue to bide its time, wait for things to stabilize within, and escalate when it must.

How do you explain the current deterioration of our northeastern border relations? Random absent-mindedness by the Chinese?


Of course the PRC will push. Their aim is to derail Indian economic development via provoking New Delhi. Its Indias job to bide its time, make sure its borders are secure, swallow these snide jabs at its H&D and bide its time when it can return the favour.

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

Postby rsingh » 02 Jul 2007 04:22

Thanks J Cage

vsudhir
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2173
Joined: 19 Jan 2006 03:44
Location: Dark side of the moon

Postby vsudhir » 02 Jul 2007 04:50

Of course the PRC will push. Their aim is to derail Indian economic development via provoking New Delhi. Its Indias job to bide its time, make sure its borders are secure, swallow these snide jabs at its H&D and bide its time when it can return the favour.


Interesting perspective. And convincing too.

Its no secret that PRC claims the whole of Arunachal. There've been sporadic (but unconfirmed by Delhi) reports of chini intrusions into Indian land followed by quick withdrawals in Aruncahal. Testing the ground perhaps?

Wonder what'll happen in PRC does a Kargil on India? Would Manmaino use ABV's line of "use necessary force within our borders" with the PLA too?

JCage
BRFite
Posts: 1562
Joined: 09 Oct 2000 11:31

Postby JCage » 02 Jul 2007 04:53

No Probs RSinghji,

Before our internet warriors think they know all about what "battlefield stamina" is- they might do well to read what actually happened at Kargil and reflect on what true grit means.

http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/MONITOR/ISSUE3-6/lns.html

Simultaneously a fresh battalion the 2nd Rajputana Rifles was brought in for the assault. The Grenadiers consolidated at 3 points 300 metres below the Pakistani positions thus providing a foothold to launch the attack from. The 2nd Raputana Rifles meanwhile fired and tested weapons, carried on reconnaisance and mock assaults on nearby ridges. 90 volunteers led by Major Vivek Gupta were assembled for the final assault. Among them were 11 Tomars. The Tomars have a long tradition of serving the army. Their tradition does not allow them to come back from the battlefield defeated. They must do or die. The youngest among them was 23 year old Praveen Singh Tomar who was to lead one of the platoons. Havaldar Yashvir Singh Tomar said sombrely "Sahib gyarah ja rahe hain aur gyarah jeet kar lautenge(Sir, 11 Tomars are going and 11 will return victorious)". Col Ravindranath gave them a final pep talk. The men were charged and JCO Bhanwer Singh said " Sir come to Tololing Top in the morning. We will meet you there". Most of them were the battalion sportsmen and atheletes. Letters were written in case they didn’t make it back and by12th June they were in position behind the boulders, 300 metres from the Pakistanis. H hour was 1830 hours on 12th June.


This is grit. This is courage. If people talk of the Indian Army at Kargil and decide to pass judgement, perhaps they could read up on the conflict before hand.

Just look at the manner in which this statement was made:

With Kargil, we suffered lots of casualties (hundreds? thousands?) but we didn't even reciprocally inflict a proportionately similar amount back.

The internet expert in question does not know:
1. Indias casualties- nor is he bothered!
2. Does not even know about Pakistans casualties- despite the umpteen references by Nawaz & co.
3. But he is sure that India suffered more and goes on to say:

The Pakistanis retreated under US auspices, and not under Indian fire! We didn't push them out, they withdrew under US pressure!

And this drivel is to be given currency on BRF!

For crying out loud, before passing judgement, the least these chaps could do is read up on the conflict, even a brief overview such as this!

http://www.ccc.nps.navy.mil/research/ka ... kargil.pdf

JCage
BRFite
Posts: 1562
Joined: 09 Oct 2000 11:31

Postby JCage » 02 Jul 2007 05:04

vsudhir wrote:
Of course the PRC will push. Their aim is to derail Indian economic development via provoking New Delhi. Its Indias job to bide its time, make sure its borders are secure, swallow these snide jabs at its H&D and bide its time when it can return the favour.


Interesting perspective. And convincing too.

Its no secret that PRC claims the whole of Arunachal. There've been sporadic (but unconfirmed by Delhi) reports of chini intrusions into Indian land followed by quick withdrawals in Aruncahal. Testing the ground perhaps?

Wonder what'll happen in PRC does a Kargil on India? Would Manmaino use ABV's line of "use necessary force within our borders" with the PLA too?


VSudhir- imho, unless there is a catfight in the PRC with the new chap deciding to prove his hawk credentials, we wont see a massive push into India. But we will continue to see a lot of pressure on India, mini territory grabs and brazen thuggery from PRC diplomats. The fact is that the PRC has a fifteen year march on India in terms of economics. They have managed to stabilize their economy and are now looking to use their newfound power. We otoh, are midway through the process, but have huge internal challenges- which are intricately tied to economic development. These include:

- J&K, NE in terms of COIN & lack of adequate tiein with the "idea of India" as well as economic development and peace on the ground
- The Maoist element which is a challenge to Indias future peace
- The line between the haves and have nots. We are not the PRC and it is a critical task to move the have nots into a higher economic trajectory asap, before the Maoists and anarchists get their hands on them

So, the end result is that we need stability, and are pushing for the same, and are avoiding destabilizing even our aggressive and obnoxious neighbours such as Bangladesh. I disagree on parts of this policy and would like to see a much harder line on Pak by paying them back in their own coin. But the overall theme is what I was pointing towards- that this is what GOI wants- economic development and time to settle internal dissension. And that is what the PRC would like to scuttle.

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

Postby Sanjay M » 02 Jul 2007 05:28

JCage wrote:Of course the PRC will push. Their aim is to derail Indian economic development via provoking New Delhi. Its Indias job to bide its time, make sure its borders are secure, swallow these snide jabs at its H&D and bide its time when it can return the favour.


Bide our time?? How -- by ceding land to their active encroachment??
What do you call this -- the PLO strategy? By the time you've finished biding your time, there will be no land left to us for pursuing a claim on.

How about us building our own stuff there? We have the forward population presence near the area, whereas the Chinese don't.

We've bided our time on everything -- invasion of Tibet, Pak nuclearization, Afghan Talibanization. I don't see that procrastination -- oh, excuse me, biding our time -- is yielding great results.

Why not also pursue this same policy on illegal Bangladeshi infiltration too?

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

Postby ShauryaT » 02 Jul 2007 06:22

Sanjay M wrote:Bide our time?? How -- by ceding land to their active encroachment??
What do you call this -- the PLO strategy? By the time you've finished biding your time, there will be no land left to us for pursuing a claim on.
Sanjay M: First, you will have to concede that your broad statements that India has never shown resolve to achieve an objective et al, was just that, talk, maybe a result of a sense of frustration, without any basis in fact. Otherwise, it becomes useless debating, when you simply want to speak your mind and not wanting to learn.

On ceding land, one MP's qualified statements in parliament leads to a fact, not. If there really was an issue, others would hear of it too. What China is doing is making sure that their concession of Sikkim is not treated as a Chinese "weakness" so that, when it really comes at time of settlement, they have some strong claims.
How about us building our own stuff there? We have the forward population presence near the area, whereas the Chinese don't.
A ligitimate criticism. We should and lately, we have decided to. However, no adventure into Chinese territory is possible because we have accepted Chinese soveregnity over Tibet and neither such an adventure is in our immediate interests. However, I have often wondered, what if, just what if, not Nehru but Patel would have been at the helm and India did not accept Chinese soveregnity automatically. What would be our leverage with China then?
We've bided our time on everything -- invasion of Tibet, Pak nuclearization, Afghan Talibanization. I don't see that procrastination -- oh, excuse me, biding our time -- is yielding great results. Why not also pursue this same policy on illegal Bangladeshi infiltration too?
. You are making a broad stroke across a lot of time, across many leaders and completely different governments on a few occassions. Do not know, what your point is?

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

Postby Sanjay M » 02 Jul 2007 06:40

ShauryaT wrote:On ceding land, one MP's qualified statements in parliament leads to a fact, not. If there really was an issue, others would hear of it too. What China is doing is making sure that their concession of Sikkim is not treated as a Chinese "weakness" so that, when it really comes at time of settlement, they have some strong claims.
How about us building our own stuff there? We have the forward population presence near the area, whereas the Chinese don't.
A ligitimate criticism. We should and lately, we have decided to. However, no adventure into Chinese territory is possible because we have accepted Chinese soveregnity over Tibet and neither such an adventure is in our immediate interests. However, I have often wondered, what if, just what if, not Nehru but Patel would have been at the helm and India did not accept Chinese soveregnity automatically. What would be our leverage with China then?


Instead of venturing into Chinese-held territory, we should heavily build on what we hold. A bird in the hand is worth 2 in the bush.

As for what leverage Patel could have held over China back then, it would have mainly come from our aligning with the Americans and their fear of Yellow Peril. This would have affected China's latitude in pulling away from the Soviet Union.

Meanwhile, back in the real world, as per these declassified discussions, we know that following the Sino-Soviet split the Americans were fairly certain that the Soviets would attack China if China attacked India. So that then would have been our leverage. Whatever strength PLA was maintaining against the Sino-Soviet border disputes was at the expense of maintaining strength against the Sino-Indian border disputes, and vice-versa. Instead of being complacent during that split period, we should have then pushed China for a border settlement more in our favour, since their power was at a low at that point. At the very least, we should have started building more stuff near the Line of Control, to catch their attention.

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

Postby surinder » 02 Jul 2007 07:36

Regarding Kargil. We are not talking of individual acts of valor. I am sure there were many many. When a nation 1/7th the size surreptitiously takes territory of the larger nations, what kind of a military response would be considered robust and strong and dare-devil and brave? I am afraid that larger nation setting an artificial limits that we will localize the war and bomb only our own territory does not constitute a brave, robust, imaginative response. It is not the valor of the individual soldier that is in question. It is the overall mental attitude and propensity of the nation that is being questioned. Of course, many amongst the BRF would say now we cannot do that becuase war will escalate, or there are nuclear weapons that we should be afraid off. But strong nations give a response that resonates in the agressor for generations.

S

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

Postby surinder » 02 Jul 2007 07:41

Sanjay M wrote:Whatever strength PLA was maintaining against the Sino-Soviet border disputes was at the expense of maintaining strength against the Sino-Indian border disputes, and vice-versa. Instead of being complacent during that split period, we should have then pushed China for a border settlement more in our favour, since their power was at a low at that point. At the very least, we should have started building more stuff near the Line of Control, to catch their attention.


We should have gone into a massive modernization of our armed forces and looked for an oppourtune time to avenge 1962. There was a time when the Soviet-Sino border dispute arose. We could have used some sabre rattling during Vietnam war. We need to build ourselves to a point where China will always have to compute India in its equation vis-a-vis Taiwan takeover. If at the very least, a belligerent India can help prevent China excercise more power elsewhere, I would say even that would be good. India must show inclination to sponsor and join any anti-China coalition. That must be the minimum punishment that India can dish out to Chine for 1962. Now that would be bravery and doggeddness.

S

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

Postby ShauryaT » 02 Jul 2007 08:00

surinder wrote:Regarding Kargil. We are not talking of individual acts of valor. I am sure there were many many. When a nation 1/7th the size surreptitiously takes territory of the larger nations, what kind of a military response would be considered robust and strong and dare-devil and brave? I am afraid that larger nation setting an artificial limits that we will localize the war and bomb only our own territory does not constitute a brave, robust, imaginative response. It is not the valor of the individual soldier that is in question. It is the overall mental attitude and propensity of the nation that is being questioned. Of course, many amongst the BRF would say now we cannot do that becuase war will escalate, or there are nuclear weapons that we should be afraid off. But strong nations give a response that resonates in the agressor for generations.

S
Do you think the idea of waging war in a democracy is a matter of a leader's own wishes. Gone are the days of Nehru, when such lattitude was allowed.

First, the MISSION in Kargil was to evict the intruders, nothing less, nothing more. The mission was accomplished with vigor , focus and determination. The determination did not waver. The soldiers and the leaders, I dare say, did not spare any effort to accomplish the MISSION.

One may have arm chair views of aar-paar kar denge and all, but I humbly submit that War, needs planning, effort, intent, capabilities, political capital, foreign policy allignments, economics, industry and many other such little things to be built for years and may be decades bofore a decision to wage war is to be taken. Hence, the debate over the idea that we could have suddenly gone to war - even if the nuclear deterrent was not around is foolish.

What is the MISSION for a war on Pakistan? A War without an agreed set of objectives is a useless exercise and I do not want any of my counry's soldiers to die in vain without a crystal clear clarity of this mission.

The question is not what Vajpayee should have done in 1999 but the question is what does India want from Pakistan? A Pakistan, who's two anchors are Islam and the hatred of India. Once, there is a resonable consensus on the issue, I submit the mechanics of how to wage war or war through other means can be worked on.

negi
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 12913
Joined: 27 Jul 2006 17:51
Location: Trying to mellow down :)

Postby negi » 02 Jul 2007 08:07

No point in asking hard questions guys ,dont you know this is the land of Gandhi .As far as India and her exploits in battlefield are concerned google maps are there for everyone to see .Even a stray dog would bite you if one steps on its tail we call it self defense and restraint.

Hack ptooth. :roll:

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

Postby Sanjay M » 02 Jul 2007 08:55

ShauryaT wrote:Do you think the idea of waging war in a democracy is a matter of a leader's own wishes. Gone are the days of Nehru, when such lattitude was allowed.


Clinton got it for Bosnia, Bush got it for Iraq. Both were "wars of choice".
In India's case, we're talking about our own home territory, and not somewhere on the other side of the world.
When Kargil was attacked, everyone got very hyped up.

First, the MISSION in Kargil was to evict the intruders, nothing less, nothing more. The mission was accomplished with vigor , focus and determination. The determination did not waver. The soldiers and the leaders, I dare say, did not spare any effort to accomplish the MISSION.


By leaders, I hope you're not including our politicians. Politicians didn't do a whole lot. Most of them were clamouring for a "probe" of how security forces could have allowed the situation to happen. Congress activists were gleefully parading their effigy of an overturned bus, symbolizing the failure of Vajpayee's bus trip diplomacy. Mulayam Singh Yadav was darkly warning that the "BJP wanted war".

One may have arm chair views of aar-paar kar denge and all, but I humbly submit that War, needs planning, effort, intent, capabilities, political capital, foreign policy allignments, economics, industry and many other such little things to be built for years and may be decades bofore a decision to wage war is to be taken. Hence, the debate over the idea that we could have suddenly gone to war - even if the nuclear deterrent was not around is foolish.

What is the MISSION for a war on Pakistan? A War without an agreed set of objectives is a useless exercise and I do not want any of my counry's soldiers to die in vain without a crystal clear clarity of this mission.

The question is not what Vajpayee should have done in 1999 but the question is what does India want from Pakistan? A Pakistan, who's two anchors are Islam and the hatred of India. Once, there is a resonable consensus on the issue, I submit the mechanics of how to wage war or war through other means can be worked on.


An enemy has to be defeated ideologically and not just militarily, otherwise you are leaving the roots from which the new weed will grow afresh. Their belief system has to be discredited and discarded. The first challenge is that their belief system (islamist socialism) extends into our own soil, which gives us ample opportunity to confront it ideologically right here at home.

Globalization has become our new enabler, giving us fresh advantage and impetus, in order to break out of our stagnant deadlock. With it, we should be able to dissolve the socialist 5th column's power base, as we expand our domestic economic base.

Eventually, the situation on Pakistan's opposite border will undergo change, as the Iranian nuclear question comes to a head. Either the Iranians will become a full-fledged nuclear power, with the attendant wholesale upheaval and re-alignment of power in the Middle East, or else they will undergo regime-change by the US. There is no middle ground.

But in the meantime and near future, Musharraf is undergoing slow collapse of his govt. Democracy then offers the opportunity for a de-fanging of the Pak military in pursuit of the post-9/11 goals.

So for the near-term future, we should support glasnost and perestroika in Pakistan, to see that their military machine is thoroughly cleansed, transformed and domesticated.

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

Postby ShauryaT » 02 Jul 2007 09:13

Sanjay M wrote:Clinton got it for Bosnia, Bush got it for Iraq. Both were "wars of choice".
In India's case, we're talking about our own home territory, and not somewhere on the other side of the world.
When Kargil was attacked, everyone got very hyped up.
You are simply making my case here. i.e: War takes planning and capacity building. Not something that is done at the spur of the moment. Except, where rats try to venture, where elephants do and get trampled upon. No planning needed there.

By leaders, I hope you're not including our politicians. Politicians didn't do a whole lot. Most of them were clamouring for a "probe" of how security forces could have allowed the situation to happen. Congress activists were gleefully parading their effigy of an overturned bus, symbolizing the failure of Vajpayee's bus trip diplomacy. Mulayam Singh Yadav was darkly warning that the "BJP wanted war".
Yes, I am including our politicians. The resolve of our highest leaders in power at that time for the way the war was conducted is commendable, in my view.

An enemy has to be defeated ideologically and not just militarily, otherwise you are leaving the roots from which the new weed will grow afresh. Their belief system has to be discredited and discarded. The first challenge is that their belief system (islamist socialism) extends into our own soil, which gives us ample opportunity to confront it ideologically right here at home.
Very true that without an ideological driven agenda to defeat another ideology, we would be leaving scope for new weeds to grow again.

Globalization has become our new enabler, giving us fresh advantage and impetus, in order to break out of our stagnant deadlock. With it, we should be able to dissolve the socialist 5th column's power base, as we expand our domestic economic base.
I am not so sure about the beginning of your para. India is not an export driven economy and the scope for growth within has a lot more potential, if accompanied with accelerated reforms. IOW: If we simply take care of the internal growth, export growth will take care of itself.

Eventually, the situation on Pakistan's opposite border will undergo change, as the Iranian nuclear question comes to a head. Either the Iranians will become a full-fledged nuclear power, with the attendant wholesale upheaval and re-alignment of power in the Middle East, or else they will undergo regime-change by the US. There is no middle ground.
Yes, there is no middle ground. Iran is not becoming a nuclear power.

But in the meantime and near future, Musharraf is undergoing slow collapse of his govt. Democracy then offers the opportunity for a de-fanging of the Pak military in pursuit of the post-9/11 goals.

So for the near-term future, we should support glasnost and perestroika in Pakistan, to see that their military machine is thoroughly cleansed, transformed and domesticated.
Hmmm..these tactics or others may be worthy options, but without a firm ideological driven agenda, we will be back to square one. What is man made democracy in front of the might of Allah?

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

Postby Sanjay M » 02 Jul 2007 09:30

ShauryaT wrote:I am not so sure about the beginning of your para. India is not an export driven economy and the scope for growth within has a lot more potential, if accompanied with accelerated reforms. IOW: If we simply take care of the internal growth, export growth will take care of itself.


Sure we export. Just ask Infosys, Wipro, TCS, etc.
Although we clearly need to expand our manufacturing of goods, but even that's starting to show signs of life. India exports auto parts too, now.

Yes, there is no middle ground. Iran is not becoming a nuclear power.


If Iran is not becoming a nuclear power, then that means Iran is going to be bombed. As part of that, a chain reaction of confrontation will occur that will necessitate regime change in Iran. If that happens, then Pak's strategic worth to the West will dry up, and they will return to the 1970s, Chinese assistance notwithstanding.

Hmmm..these tactics or others may be worthy options, but without a firm ideological driven agenda, we will be back to square one. What is man made democracy in front of the might of Allah?


Pak military is currently demonstrating it's helplessness in challenging Allah. Pro-democracy movement is growing due to the wrath of Allah. Therefore it's the military, and not democracy, which is retreating in the face of Allah.

Unfortunately, the military has sided against Allah, because it's beholden to the West, unlike democracy. It's like that movie, 'The Perfect Storm'.
Military is screwed, no matter which way it turns.

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

Postby ShauryaT » 02 Jul 2007 09:51

Sanjay M wrote:Sure we export. Just ask Infosys, Wipro, TCS, etc.
Although we clearly need to expand our manufacturing of goods, but even that's starting to show signs of life. India exports auto parts too, now.
Sanjay, My words were clear - India is not an export driven economy. It does not mean, India does not export. An export driven economy is one, where export is the primary driver of growth. Compare our exports by volume and as a percenatage of GDP to S. Korea, Japan or Taiwan to understand, What I am saying.

If Iran is not becoming a nuclear power, then that means Iran is going to be bombed. As part of that, a chain reaction of confrontation will occur that will necessitate regime change in Iran.
Not necessary. To retrograde Iran's nuclear capability a regime change is not needed and hence would not be the focus of operations.

Therefore it's the military, and not democracy, which is retreating in the face of Allah.
Do not count on this dance between the forces of "democracy" in Pakistan and the military. The analogy, that comes to mind is the almost cyclical change in government in Kerala between the CPI and the Congress. The ruled get fed up of the rulers and demand change. Apologies to the voters in Kerala for this comparision. At least these voters have that option, while the Pakistanis lack that basic option of simply voting the military out.

What I am saying is this dance between the military and the politicians in Pakistan is not where the real show is.

Tip: What was the percenatage of voters voting for radical islamist parties in Pakistan in the early 90's? What was the percentage in 2005?

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

Postby Sanjay M » 02 Jul 2007 10:17

ShauryaT wrote:Sanjay, My words were clear - India is not an export driven economy. It does not mean, India does not export. An export driven economy is one, where export is the primary driver of growth. Compare our exports by volume and as a percenatage of GDP to S. Korea, Japan or Taiwan to understand, What I am saying.


I would say that exports (eg. ITES) are driving the current Indian momentum, because they're tipping the balance in favour of free markets sufficiently to break the logjam/deadlock that was previously blocking liberalization.
But wait until the SEZs start to make their effects felt. Then it will become even more obvious. As the logjam/knot loosens, then its pace of breakup will accelerate much faster.

Not necessary. To retrograde Iran's nuclear capability a regime change is not needed and hence would not be the focus of operations.


I disagree, because as I mentioned, a tit-for-tat chain-reaction will occur. You cannot wound a tiger and walk away carefree. The exchange between Iran and the US will escalate, either culminating in regime change, or else the entire destabilization of the Middle East. Either the regime in Tehran will change, or else Tehran will be changing regimes elsewhere in the region.

Do not count on this dance between the forces of "democracy" in Pakistan and the military. The analogy, that comes to mind is the almost cyclical change in government in Kerala between the CPI and the Congress. The ruled get fed up of the rulers and demand change. Apologies to the voters in Kerala for this comparision. At least these voters have that option, while the Pakistanis lack that basic option of simply voting the military out.

What I am saying is this dance between the military and the politicians in Pakistan is not where the real show is.

Tip: What was the percenatage of voters voting for radical islamist parties in Pakistan in the early 90's? What was the percentage in 2005?


Pakistan is on the verge of suffering an Orange Revolution. And even though this has meant business-as-usual in the Ukraine, in the Pakistani context it means an alignment between an anti-military Benazir and an anti-Islamist USA. Once returned to power, Benazir and Uncle will use each other to further their respective agendas. Benazir, like any Paki politician, will simply wish to consolidate her hold on power and prolong her rule. That's guaranteed. The USA wishes to destroy the jihadi base in Pak, and will use Benazir to "drain the swamp" as Langley people like to say.

"Drain the swamp" can be milked for quite a lot. Look at how far it was taken under Yeltsin. It went quite a distance before the backlash against it saw Yeltsin replaced with Putin. And even that backlash was particularly due to the Balkans incursions, NATO encroachment upto Russian borders, as well as the Chechen humiliation. I'm not saying that we should immediately start some Chechnya in Balochistan, to derail the "drain the swamp" agenda. It's important that Pak feel safe, in order for its military to be de-fanged, and for the swamp of jihadi infrastructure to be drained.

The only thing that might cut short "drain the swamp", is if pro-jihadi Atlanticist Brzezinski types regain dominance in the Whitehouse and are able to return the legacy of military dictatorship, to restore their beloved anti-Moscow containment.

Bush right now is maintaining an uneasy peace with Putin, but a return of the Atlanticists to power will see that detente abandoned. It was Brzezinski who originally broke detente the first time around in the 70s, and it is he or his heirs who will break it again, if given the chance.

Baljeet
BRFite
Posts: 410
Joined: 29 May 2007 04:16

Postby Baljeet » 02 Jul 2007 22:07

Karan Dixit wrote:
Baljeet wrote:sanjay
Extremly good catch.


Not really. I have known it since I was in Grade-3.

Really, You were able to dis-sect Quality Intel since 3rd Grade==Age 6 or 7. Where have you been hiding all these years?

Baljeet
BRFite
Posts: 410
Joined: 29 May 2007 04:16

Postby Baljeet » 02 Jul 2007 22:43

SanjayM
Kargil is a raw nerve for people who have lost a family member in that war. Kargil was the first war brought into Indian Homes. This war united the people of this nation like nothing else before. Our Fighting men showed grits, tenacity to fight even if they didn't have winter clothing, not adequately equipped.

All Military forces serve and protect their nation, Pakistani nation serves and protects her Military.

Mulayam Singh Yadav was darkly warning that the "BJP wanted war".

What else would you expect from him. He is part of Indian 5th coloum. His salvation is in Jinnah Mosque not in Hanuman Temple.

ShauryaT
What is the MISSION for a war on Pakistan? A War without an agreed set of objectives is a useless exercise and I do not want any of my counry's soldiers to die in vain without a crystal clear clarity of this mission.

Clear Objective in case of pakistan is almost impossible. The moment we establish this objective..Bhai Chara, ahimsa, vote bank politics will force compromises.

I do agree with other aspect though, lets break them psychologically by showing our economic might. Let our economic strength speak for itself. Their media will do the rest.

Lets unleash our bollywood movies that shows the glittering India to aspiring Pakis.

Regardless of anyone's religious beliefs, we all want economic prosperity in our lives, it is a symbol of our accomplishment, purpose of our existence.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 50066
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Postby ramana » 02 Jul 2007 23:30

SanjayM,
Please educate yourself about Kargil before posting any further.

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 5409
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Postby Rakesh » 02 Jul 2007 23:36

Baljeet wrote:Regardless of anyone's religious beliefs, we all want economic prosperity in our lives, it is a symbol of our accomplishment, purpose of our existence.


Well said. Beautifully put.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 50066
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: What Will Happen? Will Sonia Act?

Postby ramana » 04 Jul 2007 01:26

Acharya wrote:
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


Galbraith seems to have been prepared and chosen to fufill a certain role which he did admirably. India needs to know more about this interesting personality. What was his brief in India? Why was he posted to India and what was his heirarchy in the SD and the informal pecking order in the US Admin.? Also who was the Ambassador before JKG? When was the fwd policy really implemented?

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

Re: What Will Happen? Will Sonia Act?

Postby svinayak » 04 Jul 2007 02:00

ramana wrote:Galbraith seems to have been prepared and chosen to fufill a certain role which he did admirably. India needs to know more about this interesting personality. What was his brief in India? Why was he posted to India and what was his heirarchy in the SD and the informal pecking order in the US Admin.? Also who was the Amabsaasdor before KJG? Chester Bowles? When was the fwd policy really implemented?


Very interesting line of thought.
Was Galbraith chosen to gain the confidence of Nehru since Nehru was key man and the only man in India's foreign policy making.

Galbraith's concept of economy was presented to be close to the socialist economy and made him trustworthy in the eyes of Nehru. That was his job.
Kennedy with his pro-India speech and stance was used for maximum effect of getting the trust of Nehru and Indians in this period.
Galbraith was the chosen one and had the ears of President Kennedy.

No wonder Nehru took Galbraith seriously thinking that it was US official line.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 50066
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Postby ramana » 04 Jul 2007 02:25

Wikipedia says that John Maynard Keynes was the idol for Galbraith and everyone knows that JMK developed his theories in India.

The question is why did they need to win over Nehru? What was the goal or object? Cant be neutrality as non-alignment was already the policy. Was it Tibet?

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

Postby svinayak » 04 Jul 2007 02:54

ramana wrote:Wikipedia says that John Maynard Keynes was the idol for Galbraith and everyone knows that JMK developed his theories in India.

The question is why did they need to win over Nehru? What was the goal or object? Cant be neutrality as non-alignment was already the policy. Was it Tibet?


It looks more like Tibet was the main issue. They needed to know the inside thinking of Indians - mainly Nehru about his views about Tibet.

What would be Indian policy if Tibet was finally taken over by PRC - not just autonomous region.
What would be the reaction of Indians if PRC asserted itself and used force to settle the issue.

Was Galbraith behind the scene, a mediator between China and India over Tibet without the Indians knowing about it.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 50066
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Postby ramana » 04 Jul 2007 03:30

Some Indians are reading the de-classified papers and asking same questions. Please try to followup this series from Deccan Chronicle, 4 July 2007.
Thanks, ramana

India knew it was too weak for war
By Govind Talwalkar

It might sound strange, but the CIA was not happy with the prospect of an India-China war in the Sixties. This is evident from the recently declassified 200-page report prepared by the agency with the help of several outside experts.

The report describes how Chinese civilian and military leaders were clear about their objectives and did not falter in building China’s military might. They had thought out China’s military and political strategy very coolly and were, of course, not under any pressure from any political Opposition.

Chinese leaders were battle tested, while their Indian counterparts had not seen military action for a decade.

Indian civilian leadership was not of one mind about the way to deal with the Chinese aggression in Tibet, Aksai Chin and North Eastern Frontier Agency (NEFA). Prime Minister Nehru was keen to avoid an armed confrontation. It was not that the whole Cabinet was supportive of him.

While secretary-general R.K. Nehru preferred negotiations and wanted to avoid a war, foreign secretary M.J. Desai wanted firm action. In fact Desai once complained to the Prime Minister that defence minister Krishna Menon was pushing his line about China through R.K. Nehru.

The Prime Minister had to face the political Opposition and also pacify some Congress members who had doubts about the efficacy of Nehru’s China policies.

As happens everywhere, during the time of war or during the days leading up to a war, amateur military experts who are very vociferous, start springing up. The CIA report disparages such "experts" who included some journalists.

Nehru was annoyed by China’s invasion of Tibet; but was assured by the Chinese that there would not be military action. In a few years China changed its policy and Tibet came under its iron grip.

The Tibetan people’s revolt was suppressed by the Chinese, and the Dalai Lama took refuge in India. All this changed Nehru’s perception about China. Speaking to an American diplomat, Nehru said that whenever the Chinese gained strength, they became aggressive.

Though some of Nehru’s notes to China at the time were critical of Chinese policy, Nehru withstood pressure from the Opposition to take decisive action. He was aware of the military stren-gths of both countries.

In April 1959 foreign secretary S. Dutt told US ambassador Ellsworth Bunker that India could not fight over Tibet which was impossible for India even to reach. He also said that India had sufficient military resources to resist any attack against its territory.

The Indian government came to know about the Aksai Chin road built by China almost after its completion. Nehru complained to China about the annexation of Indian territory from Ladakh. Initially, the Chinese did not want to come out openly against India.

However, the Chinese were determined to hold on to the Aksai Chin area. (The CIA report never mentions Aksai Chin but instead calls it Aksai Plain.)

When the Indian communist leader Ajoy Ghosh met Mao and Liu Shao-chi, on October 5 and 6, 1959, they told him that they were ready to exchange NEFA with Aksai Chin. They had built a road connecting Tibet and Sinkiang to put pressure on India to negotiate.

The options before Indian leaders were to fight in Aksai Chin or to exchange it to prevent a Chinese penetration through the rest of the border. They chose the latter. Nehru tried to assert that most of Ladakh was a wasteland; not a blade of grass grew there, and it was inhabitable.

American embassy officials gathered the impression after meeting Vice-President Radhakrishnan and the foreign secretary, S. Dutt, that they were not in tune with Nehru and even thought that Nehru was on the way to sell out on Aksai Chin.

Nehru’s line was strengthened by the military assessment. It maintained that the area was indefensible. The report cites General Thimayya’s estimate that the ridge line of the Karakoram Range was the only defensible frontier.

President Rajendra Prasad disliked the idea of exchange of territory and at one time told Nehru that it was his duty to defend the county’s integrity. He even wrote to Nehru to "ensure that future generations would have no cause to blame those who took part in the freedom struggle for any capitulation now."

But after quoting Thimayya, the CIA report says, "Had it not been Nehru, but rather a more military-minded man who occupied the post of Prime Minister in late October 1959, priority program to prepare India eventually to fight would have been started… This was not Nehru’s way... On balance, Indian estimates of Chinese capabilities and intentions along the border supported Nehru’s no-war and a negotiated settlement."

The Chinese had made the northeastern border a hot issue by 1960. It is unnecessary to go into details, but the information, which the CIA report gives about the visit of the Indian ambassador to Beijing (in the report, it is called Peiping), is significant, as it again underlines the diversity of views that Indian officials had. The ambassador to China, G. Parthsarthi told Nehru that China’s threat was its expansionist policy in South Asia, and not military. He urged not to make too much of the border dispute and settle it soon.

The ambassador to Russia, K.P.S. Menon told Nehru that more should not be expected from Russia than what had been done so far.


In a full Cabinet meeting in August 1962, Krishna Menon reported that India’s military position in Ladakh was "untenable." He said that the Army had pushed its position beyond the limits of safety. India would never be able to push the supply line in the Aksai Chin area even roughly comparable to China’s.

In the event of a major border clash, Indian forward posts would be wiped out and the Chinese would push the Indians far beyond their 1960 claim without serious resistance.


The CIA report says that this prompted the Prime Minister to state that India needed to change tactics and seek a military truce. He also emphasised the necessity for disengagement so that fighting would not begin.

Discussions about border settlement could go on for five or six years. Somebody pointed out that the reaction in the country to such a change of tactics would be serious. But Nehru said it would be nothing compared to a military catastrophe.

The report then observes, "in short, he (Nehru) and Menon showed considerable foresight by not under-estimating Chinese military capabilities on the border."


However, the Chinese by then were in no mood to give any leeway or escape route to Nehru, which led to the military confrontation.

{Why?}
To be continued



Return to “Military History Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests