1971 War: How Russia sank Nixon’s gunboat diplomacy

In hindsight, it’s a good thing that Nixon and Kissinger failed.

The problem was that Indira Gandhi chose, for whatever reason, to side with the USSR, perhaps in part because of the Chinese threat to India’s northern borders, perhaps in part from lingering resentment of the British colonization. That pretty much forced the U.S. to side with Pakistan in response, even though it is clear that India is a far more civilized country with far more in common with us than Pakistan.

Indira Ghandi appointed herself as leader of the “Third World” in the UN. The first and second worlds were the U.S. and Europe vs Russia and the Communist states. But in most instances, Indira Ghandi stood with the USSR, and persuaded numerous other third world countries to stand with her and vote in the UN against U.S. interests.

So, the Nixon-Kissinger policy is understandable—if regretable. We sided with Pakistan because (as I thought at the time) second best was the only choice we were offered.

The Russians supplied India with armaments when America refused to sell them, and even forced Britain to stop such sales - one of the Soviet premiers famously gave India’s Nehru tours of Russian aircraft factories with promises of supplying India with the latest of Russian weaponry - at a time when the West refused to entertain any such efforts. If I recall correctly, that was what irked India enough to cause the tilt, although no basing rights were given to the Russians by India.

The American bet was on a religiously “cohesive” Pakistan to survive over the long term, in comparison with what was thought to be a very unstable, secular India. On top of that, the Russians quite early on shored up support for India in booting out French and Portuguese territorial claims from within her territory - especially Goa.

Things turned out quite differently, for all parties, through the years. India, no doubt, acted in India’s interests and stuck with it.

As for India itself, the Nehru-Gandhis were extremely close with Britain all through the time.

You are totally wrong. Indira Gandhi first came to power in 1966. By then, US-Pakistan military alliance was well established. Pakistan was part of SEATO and CENTO in 1954-55. US supported Pakistan in the 1965 Indo-Pak war, one year before Indira Gandhi came to power. And Indira Gandhi didnt appointed herself as leader of the “Third World”. India was the founder member of NAM and being the largest democracy India was the most influential among the post colonization, newly independent third world countries.

You need to do a little more research before piling it all on Indira Gandhi. US never considered India to be best choice back then. Pakistan-China seemed much better choice .

Not for whatever reason. The administrations before Nixon also sided with Islamic Republic of Pakistan. I think we should curb this penchant of trying to justify every action using some moral argument. Why not admit mistakes and realize that we have no business interfering in other countries.

The US (Nixon) had tried to provoke the Chinese into attacking India in 1971, too, while the Bangladeshi people (especially the non-Muslims there) were being mowed down and slaughtered whole-scale by the Pakistani military (with US equipment and support - they even coaxed their Middle East friends to supply weaponry to Pakistan) under Operation Searchlight. The Russians neutralised both Chinese AND American threats (USS Enterprise was moved into the Bay of Bengal, to be quickly trailed by a Russian nuke sub) and only a total dimwit unaware of history would call india’s alliance with them a folly for India:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Searchlight

Kissinger is one of the most overrated historical figures. His policy was gobbledygook, and he didn’t achieve one thing diplomatically. What’s that you say, the China Thaw? What, like they weren’t going to go on roughhousing Russia without us? Or as if we wouldn’t buy their stuff on the open market once they veered capitalist without making a show of recognizing them?

About Kissinger - yeah, the guy was an unabashed lover of mass murderers. Read Kissinger's "White House Years" memoirs sometime - the affection he has for the likes of Pakistani military dictator Yahya Khan is cringe-inducing, and the outright adoration Kissinger expresses for Mao Zedong is beyond belief. Yahya Khan and Mao both had death counts measured in the millions.

There's no question the US backed the wrong dog in the fight between India and Pakistan - the world would probably be a better place today if India had been allowed to complete it's disintegration of Pakistan back then. But it wasn't all one-sided. Nehru was a Fabian socialist who spurned overtures from the US and his alignment with the Soviet Union while posing as a neutralist made a mockery of his credibility and hurt India both economically and geo-politically for decades. His daughter Indira Gandhi continued his policies.

Times and alliances change. India was on the side of the Soviets, while preaching "non-alignment", more or less continuously from Independence and the breakup with what became Pakistan until the assassination of "the bitch", as Nixon apparently called Indira Ghandi (in many ways an apt description). The US and what we used to call "Red China" were on the Pakistani side. The "Great Game" of South Asia has been going on for more than two hundred years now. The names of the countries change, the leaders change, and they even change sides in the game. But it never really stops.

At that time Pakistan had a pro-western government run behind the scenes and sometimes overtly by their military. It was smaller but richer and more "advanced" by far than Socialist India and the Islamic element were kept in their mosques. That ALL changed in 1979 when the Soviets invaded Afghanistan (long recognized like Mongolia as a backwater part of their "sphere of influence"). While we had already (thanks, again, Jimmy, you worthless POS) lost our greatest ally in the region besides Israel (Iran) we assisted the Afghan Mujahadeen (Holy Warriors) with Paki cooperation and Saudi money in resisting the Soviets trying, successfully in the end, to give Russia a Viet Nam of her very own and offset what looked like a Soviet march to warm water and oil.

Then the madrassas in Pakistan released their tens of thousands of young indoctrinated "scholars" ("Taliban") across the border to overthrow what was left of a Russian puppet government, they won all but a small fraction of the country, instituted a reign of religious terror that made China's Cultural or the French revolution look benign, nurtured and supported a rich Saudi who had fought with them through the Soviet years by the name of Osama bin Laden, and the rest as they say is history.

I have a few bones to pick with this article.

First off, it must be noted that the Nixon administration had a stake in preserving the integrity of Pakistan, longtime US ally during the Cold War that Nixon was using Pakistan as a go-between in its ongoing secret diplomacy with China.

In 1971, Nixon and Kissinger feared that India would use the Bengali revolt in East Pakistan as a pretext to “destroy” Pakistan. Furthermore, India abandoned its longstanding policy of “nonalignment” and became a Soviet ally when it signed the Indo-Soviet Treaty of “Peace, Friendship and Cooperation” in 1971—not 1970, as the article states. Shortly thereafter, Soviet armaments began pouring into India.

The writer also doesn’t mention the fact that the Nixon administration was trying to solve the conflict between the Pakistani government and the Bengalis by pressuring Islamabad to grant sweeping concessions to East Pakistan that would have eventually led to its independence. The Nixon administration also tried to get the Indians and Pakistanis to agree to a troop withdrawal from their borders and offered to have the US assume responsibility for the millions of Bengali refugees that were pouring into India, but got no response from India’s premier Indira Gandhi.

The article implies that the Soviet navy successfully faced down the US naval force, an eight-ship fleet known as Task Group 74. However, in no accounts of the conflict have I read of a naval face-of, and the message from the British commander to the US commander that the Soviets had arrived with a “fleet of battleships” sounds bogus, because the Soviet navy had no battleships.

In any case, when the war ended with West Pakistan intact, Kissinger remarked to Nixon, “Congratulations, Mr. President. You saved West Pakistan.”

Everything then was seen through a Cold War lens. India was seen as favoring the Soviets, and that was enough. Even at that, though, I saw it as very wrong when we sided against India when they liberated Bangla Desh.

I’m glad those days are done. One of the things Bush seemed to focus on was building a real alliance with India, and India has been valuable in the good-cop-bad-cop diplomacy with Pakistan the last few years.

We need to continue to build on the natural affinity we have for one another.

This article appears to be a psy-ops propaganda piece generated in a Russian intelligence group using alleged Indian writers dedicated to kissing up to Indians to keep them aligned with Russia.

The Russian military-industrial complex and/or elements of the Indian industrial complex that subcontracts building Russian arms is in desperate competition with the US now that Russian arms are increasingly obsolete relative to US/UK/French/Israeli offerings to the Russians.

The article makes out the Soviets to be such wonderful friends of the Indians and invites Indians to view today's Russians in the same light.

The article available at the same link to how Chuck Yeager's personal plane got shot up by the Indians during the last Indo-Pak war was very interesting and a clear anti-US propaganda piece:

“How India brought down the US’ supersonic man”

http://indrus.in/articles/2012/01/17/how_india_brought_down_the_us_supersonic_man_14208.html

See also propaganda piece of Australia's new Darwin outpost for US troops:

“Australia’s Darwinian blunder”

December 13, 2011
Rakesh Krishnan Simha, specially for RIR

“Australia’s decision to host a permanent US military presence in the northern city of Darwin is likely to spark a fierce arms race in the Asia-Pacific region.”

“This article appears to be a psy-ops propaganda piece generated in a Russian intelligence group using alleged Indian writers dedicated to kissing up to Indians to keep them aligned with Russia.”

A propaganda by definition implies deliberate spreading of false information, doctrines, rumors etc for a political purpose. Is there anything in THIS article that is false information? Surely it cant be a propaganda only because you don't like opinions expressed can it? As far as I know, the facts presented in this article is absolutely 100% correct.

Yes this article does makes the Soviets to be wonderful friends of Indians, which they were. You think that isn't true?

“The Russian military-industrial complex and/or elements of the Indian industrial complex that subcontracts building Russian arms is in desperate competition with the US now that Russian arms are increasingly obsolete relative to US/UK/French/Israeli offerings to the Russians.”

India has arms deals with Russia today far more then anytime in all of cold war history with Soviet/Russia. India has several multi-billion dollar arms deal that includes stealth fighter jets, aircraft carrier, nuclear subs, stealth destroyers, naval fighters jets, medium transport jets, AWACS, aerial refuelers, and hundreds of tanks and fighter upgrade programs. In comparison India's arms purchase from US amounts to only a few transport jets and maritime surveillance planes. That doesn't sound like "desperate competition" to me.

I also read the article on Chuck Yeager. All I can say is its bang on the buck.

The most foolish policy was to arm Osama bin Laden. Don’t give me the line about fighting Soviets because (a) it is insulting to the soldiers when you claim that American soldiers are all incompetent and so we need to go seek the help of some camel rider to save us, (b) it is still immoral to support Taliban and the terrorists and arm them, and (c) you imply that 9/11 attacks were justified because it was some sort of collateral damage that occurred as a result of fighting the Soviets.
Don't talk about foolish policies until you know basic facts. The Taliban did not exist until 1991, 3 years after the Soviets left Afghanistan. The US did not ever fund or arm Osama Bin Laden. Bin Laden took over Maktab al-Khidamat, which was an Arab organization funded by Gulf State Arabs like its former money man, OBL. The US funded native Afghans.

The problem with this article is the flagrand SPIN.

And the Russian equipment you mention...

“India has arms deals with Russia today far more then anytime in all of cold war history with Soviet/Russia. India has several multi-billion dollar arms deal that includes stealth fighter jets, aircraft carrier, nuclear subs, stealth destroyers, naval fighters jets, medium transport jets, AWACS, aerial refuelers, and hundreds of tanks and fighter upgrade programs.”

...it is all Soviet era crap barely updated.

If the Indians are going to confront the new Chinese weapons R&D (which is now far in excess of the Russians) they are going to need non-Russian Western arms.

China is building a gigantic naval base in Pakistan at Gwadar and Pakistan and China are trying to encircle India.

Consistent the the newly emerging US-India strategic alignment of interests India recently attended a conference with the US, Australia, Japan and the other nations threatened by China's aggressive territorial claims in the South China Sea for a friendly chat...prompting the anti-Australian Darwin US outpost article on this website.

Russian Equipment are craps ????

>Are you talking about SU 30 MKI and other versions (4++) Jet that even US and her allies feared the most .

>Aint am right that US provided the most updated fighter Jets and Equpiment to pakistan against India bt still they been defeated within 14 days ,not to mention other 3 wars.

> Chinese Weapons are still decades behind Russian so called Junk ,all they do is Copy Paste things which is yet to be tested in real war unlike russian Junks.

> India is happy with russian junk atleast there are no aatached string and they work fine in WAR.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.