Kyusuibu Honbu
BANNED
- Joined
- May 21, 2010
- Messages
- 15,305
- Reaction score
- -21
- Country
- Location
Arguably the biggest blunder on the Indian side was made by the erstwhile army chief General J.N. Chaudhuri, who agreed to a ceasefire saying that India’s front line ammunition had been expended and the Army had suffered considerable tank loss. It was later discovered that the Indian Army had only used 14 per cent of its frontline ammunition and still possessed twice the number of tanks compared to Pakistan, which in contrast had expended 80 per cent of its ammunition. Had India continued to fight, would the outcome have been more decisive in India’s favour and change the course of history is a question that experts and students of warfare need to analyse.
The reason for considering ceasefire was not military situation but the geo-political situation. There were threats of Chinese intervention which India took seriously and posted 60,000 troops in Sikkim, though later they turned out to be false.
Also threats of Indonesian navy based on Indonesia's statements on Andaman (These threats were taken seriously by CIA analysts as well, who assumed Indonesian navy would harass Indian navy during 1971 war.)
When India sought covert United States help to tackle the ‘triple squeeze’ of 1965 | The Indian Express
Nehru said India “thought the Indonesian contribution might be to take the Andaman and Nicobar Islands. India couldn’t stop this; it had no navy”
Not surprisingly Indian Navy was improved and played a decisive role in 1971
Last edited: