What's new

In 70 years, why Pakistan never asked for other's help in it's fight against India?

USA Carrier were .Supposed to be for bau of benfaB which were stopped due tomsoviet intervention
As for west Pak Indra ceased the operation after niazi surrendered in East pak as it wasn't militarily feasible to
India didn't even assimilate east Pak because even that wasn't viable for India or she would have

The world opinion would have heavily tilted against India if they even thought of usurping the land of another nation. So that was never on the table. It was militarily feasible to take on West Pakistan - after the fall of Dacca, morale was low and they had lost a significant amount of their fighting men. However, USA could not see a country which was SEATO/CENTO member and part of the US anti-communist block against the USSR completely fall. Also, USA needed Pakistan to exploit the Sino-Soviet split. No one wanted to raise the stakes - India had signed some mutual treaty with USSR. If USA attacked India, USSR would have been forced to intervene. So India was pretty much told that the idea of attacking West Pak was off the table. Given how powerful USA was even in 1971, they would have easily bombarded the daylights out of India. Remember, Nixon even mooted the idea of using nukes in Vietnam. I always thought Nixon was the craziest President America elected. Till Donald Trump of course.

1 major problem with your claims. Both india and america are allies now and are more powerful than they were in 1971. Both currently want to destroy Pakistan. Yet despite india being 7x bigger than us and having abundant access to the world's most advanced weapons systems whilst we are denied this privilege, as well as unlimited assistance from america and the West, india still cannot attack and fight Pakistan. This too despite many prominent indians daily calling for the destruction of the Pakistani race and nation. So it is not feasible that in 1971, american needed to stop india from destroying "West" Pakistan. You simply couldn't as you cannot today. It's like saying that the British/Pakistanis destroyed india by dismembering it on August the 14th 1947.

You also claimed that Pakistan asked China to attack india. Where is the GENUINE IRREFUTABLE evidence?

1. I don't think India or America wants to destroy Pakistan
2. You do realize Indians feel it is the other way around - that Pakistan wants to destroy India.
3. I personally believe the public opinion in India turned against Pakistan after 26/11 - till then, the public opinion was indifferent
4. 14th August 1947 - nothing happened - the transfer of power happened to 2 independent dominions of India and Pakistan on 15th August 1947 through an act of British Parliament. If you believe that destroyed India - well, so be it. I am not trying to gloat over what happened. I merely saying it as it is.
5. India has only recently been aligned with the West - Till the 1990s - Pakistan and USA were allies. India despite being nominally non-aligned had a definite Soviet tilt.

Regarding China helping Pakistan - someone like @JoeShearer can shed more light on it. I remember reading that to put pressure on India, China moved troops to the Indo-China border. In retaliation, the Soviets moved their troops along the Soviet-China border.

It was like a chess game and everyone quickly wanted the matter resolved.
 
.
The world opinion would have heavily tilted against India if they even thought of usurping the land of another nation. So that was never on the table. It was militarily feasible to take on West Pakistan - after the fall of Dacca, morale was low and they had lost a significant amount of their fighting men. However, USA could not see a country which was SEATO/CENTO member and part of the US anti-communist block against the USSR completely fall. Also, USA needed Pakistan to exploit the Sino-Soviet split. No one wanted to raise the stakes - India had signed some mutual treaty with USSR. If USA attacked India, USSR would have been forced to intervene. So India was pretty much told that the idea of attacking West Pak was off the table. Given how powerful USA was even in 1971, they would have easily bombarded the daylights out of India. Remember, Nixon even mooted the idea of using nukes in Vietnam. I always thought Nixon was the craziest President America elected. Till Donald Trump of course.



1. I don't think India or America wants to destroy Pakistan
2. You do realize Indians feel it is the other way around - that Pakistan wants to destroy India.
3. I personally believe the public opinion in India turned against Pakistan after 26/11 - till then, the public opinion was indifferent
4. 14th August 1947 - nothing happened - the transfer of power happened to 2 independent dominions of India and Pakistan on 15th August 1947 through an act of British Parliament. If you believe that destroyed India - well, so be it. I am not trying to gloat over what happened. I merely saying it as it is.
5. India has only recently been aligned with the West - Till the 1990s - Pakistan and USA were allies. India despite being nominally non-aligned had a definite Soviet tilt.

Regarding China helping Pakistan - someone like @JoeShearer can shed more light on it. I remember reading that to put pressure on India, China moved troops to the Indo-China border. In retaliation, the Soviets moved their troops along the Soviet-China border.

It was like a chess game and everyone quickly wanted the matter resolved.




indians constantly talk about wiping out Pakistan and the Pakistani race. Be it prominent indian nationalists or ordinary indians on the internet. The sikh massacre of 1 million innocent Pakistanis in August 1947 is irrefutable and genuine evidence of this ingrained and inherent indian mentality. Point is that despite this yearning, india or whoever CANNOT destroy Pakistan and the indian military high command knows this fact fully well. If indians can't do this NOW when they are 7x bigger than us and have abundant access to the world's most advanced weapons systems whilst we are denied this privilege, along with unlimited support from america and the West then how on earth could they have done it in 1971 when they didn't have these resources and backing?. It's one thing attacking an enemy of 45,000 with 45,000 members of their families who are cut off from their mainland by 3000 kms and are surrounded by 100 million hostile bengladeshis, backed by 500 million hostile indians and their military, it's another thing to attack the Pakistani mainland of over 90 million Muslim population who detest indians and indianism. That's the REAL reason why india didn't atrack. The americans would not go to war for a non-White, non-Christian/Jewish nation especially if they are already receiving a beating in Vietnam in 1971. If the americans cannot stop Islamic terrorism or subdue the Taliban after nearly 2 decades of trying then there is no way india could have successfully attacked the Pakistani mainland in any era be it in 1971 or any other year. Thinking otherwise is the same indian delusion that vehemently proclaimed that Pakistan would NEVER EVER become a nuclear weapons state with or without Chinese assistance.

PS please give the irrefutable and reliable evidence that Pakistan asked China to fight against india. No conjecture, just facts.
 
.
According to you we started killing since 1947, what a lie man. If we did, by now wouldn't have any single muslim Kashmiri left by now. so stop your propaganda.
its incomplete agenda of independence of subcontinent, kashmiris doesn't want to live with india since 47, you occupied kashmiris illegallyand your former prime minister promises at UN that they will do independent referendum in Kashmir to let them chose that in which country they wanna live with @Sam Vaish :crazy:
 
.
yeah our madrassa is far far far better then your rapist mandir ediucations which believes in lies and deceptions
BGHAL MAIN CHORI AUR MUON MAIN RAM RAM, that is india's motto againt the minorities in india @Rollno21 :enjoy:
Bro,I see you must be proud of the alumni of these madrassas which have contributed to the betterment of mankind in every field :-).
Bro don't bring religion in ,otherwise you will get the shock of your life .
Bro poor asifa was 8 I am all for skinning the culprits alive ,what do call a person who rapes a 9 year old do you think should be done:-).dont ever bring any term which is related to religion otherwise you will regret for bringing it up.

its incomplete agenda of independence of subcontinent, kashmiris doesn't want to live with india since 47, you occupied kashmiris illegallyand your former prime minister promises at UN that they will do independent referendum in Kashmir to let them chose that in which country they wanna live with @Sam Vaish :crazy:
So if any part of Pakistan wants referendum and UN takes it up you will be fighting on their behalf right
 
.
They did.
In 1971, Nixon ensured that West Pakistan remained intact.

They repeatedly asked China for military help - but China never provided any.








Nixon
: Does State understand that?

Kissinger: No. Well they understand it now, believe me.

Nixon: Yeah. See the point is, our desire is to save West Pakistan. That’s all.

Kissinger: That’s right. That is exactly right.

Nixon: All right. Fine. What is State up to now? We’re still getting, you’re still getting those—keep those carriers moving now.

Kissinger: The carriers—everything is moving. Four Jordanian planes have already moved to Pakistan, 22 more are coming. We’re talking to the Saudis, the Turks we’ve now found are willing to give five. So we’re going to keep that moving until there’s a settlement.

[Omitted here is conversation unrelated to South Asia.]

Nixon: When are you going to see the Chinese? This afternoon?


Full conversation - https://2001-2009.state.gov/r/pa/ho/frus/nixon/e7/48542.htm

Nixon hated India and Indians with a passion even the Pakistanis couldn't match.


West Pakistan was already deep inside India there was no need for anyone to save west.
 
.
Bro,I see you must be proud of the alumni of these madrassas which have contributed to the betterment of mankind in every field :-).
Bro don't bring religion in ,otherwise you will get the shock of your life .
Bro poor asifa was 8 I am all for skinning the culprits alive ,what do call a person who rapes a 9 year old do you think should be done:-).dont ever bring any term which is related to religion otherwise you will regret for bringing it up.
you bring religion to this topic madrassa is our religious education system and not all madrassa have extremist thoughts, hust like your mandirs that some mandirs are bad/extremist and some are good to betterment of the peoples, and same incident held in india few days ago when few hindu extremist rapes 8 years old girl, you do search in indian defense forum here in PDF good and bad peoples are all around the world mate @Rollno21 :-):-):-)
 
.
you bring religion to this topic madrassa is our religious education system and not all madrassa have extremist thoughts, hust like your mandirs that some mandirs are bad/extremist and some are good to betterment of the peoples, and same incident held in india few days ago when few hindu extremist rapes 8 years old girl, you do search in indian defense forum here in PDF good and bad peoples are all around the world mate @Rollno21 :-):-):-)
Madrassa means school,last week a Hindu kid was raped and burnt in a madrassa.
Stupid people are worried about the religion of the victim and the culprits rather they should be worried about justice to the victims that's the whole problem with these cases
 
.
So if any part of Pakistan wants referendum and UN takes it up you will be fighting on their behalf right
whole Pakistan is on back of Kashmiris for their you can blame us for TTP and Alquida for Afghanistan because we make TTP, Alquida with US CIA+ISI to defeat Soviet Union in Afghnistan but not for Lasker-taiyaba an other jihadi organizations but PA or Pak govt doesn't backed them up , those are just private terrorist organizations that's why we ban all of them in Pakistan @Rollno21 :p:
 
.
whole Pakistan is on back of Kashmiris for their you can blame us for TTP and Alquida for Afghanistan because we make TTP, Alquida with US CIA+ISI to defeat Soviet Union in Afghnistan but not for Lasker-taiyaba an other jihadi organizations but PA or Pak govt doesn't backed them up , those are just private terrorist organizations that's why we ban all of them in Pakistan @Rollno21 :p:
Bro for your information,we too have banned all the terrorist organisations operating against Pakistan ,so you must stop blaming us for what's happening in Pakistan
 
.
Madrassa means school,last week a Hindu kid was raped and burnt in a madrassa.
Stupid people are worried about the religion of the victim and the culprits rather they should be worried about justice to the victims that's the whole problem with these cases
Pure Islam believe in justice and peace mate, i told you not every madrassa is evil thought some believes in betterment of the people and some madrassa has evil thought basically disguised by CIA during the Soviet invasion of Afghan war @Rollno21 :p:

Bro for your information,we too have banned all the terrorist organisations operating against Pakistan ,so you must stop blaming us for what's happening in Pakistan
Becusae we have prove in the form of kaulboshan yadiv and sarbajeet singh @Rollno21

Bro for your information,we too have banned all the terrorist organisations operating against Pakistan ,so you must stop blaming us for what's happening in Pakistan
So why you assume that every terrorist event in india you blame on pakistan without prove @Rollno21 o_O
 
.
Pakistan is a nuclear power and can handle India on their own. They do not need any help.
 
.
If your friend or a relative sat your exam and passed, how much confidence would that give you. ??
There is no comparison. That is a school/college exam. This is a question of survival. The worst consequences of failing an exam is that you may not get the job you preferred more or you may be ineligible for higher studies.

A more apt analogy would be this: Many Pakistanis unhesitatingly come to India for low cost medical treatment because it's a question of life.

Be it losing Eastern wing in 1971, be it loss of Siachen glacier in 1980s, be it tumultuous years of terrorism in 2000s, be it the harmful project of CPEC, the Pakistani nation has been shaken and couldn't retaliate but Pakistanis indulge in the rhetoric, "We are a resilient nation. We stood up to a neighbor 7 times bigger and survived."
 
. .
Can you please provide genuine, irrefutable evidence to back your claims?
https://2001-2009.state.gov/r/pa/ho/frus/nixon/e7/48542.htm

Thank me later :)


172. Conversation Between President Nixon and his Assistant for National Security Affairs (Kissinger), Washington, December 10, 1971, 10:51-11:12 a.m.


Kissinger: Today, I want to tell you what I have done, tentatively, subject to your approval.

Nixon: Let’s go ahead.

Kissinger: They’ve got this East Pakistan—they’ve got the offer of the commander of the Pakistan forces in East Pakistan to get a ceasefire and so forth. They were going to run to the Security Council and get that done. We don’t want to be in a position where we push the Pakistanis over the cliff.

Nixon: No.

Kissinger: So I told them to link the ceasefire in the east with the ceasefire in the west.

[Omitted here is conversation unrelated to South Asia.]

Kissinger: The ceasefire in the west is down the drain.

Nixon: Yeah.

Kissinger: I mean the east is down the drain. The major problem now has to be to protect the west.

Nixon: Yeah.

Kissinger: So I’ve told them that they should link any discussion of ceasefire in the east with ceasefire in the west. And to use this to wrap the whole business up. I’ve got Vorontsov coming in at 11:30 and I’m going to tell him what the Pakistanis did in the east—

Nixon: was a result of our—

Kissinger: —was as a result of what we did. Which is true. I’m going to show him the Kennedy understanding. I’m going to hand him a very tough note to Brezhnev and say, "this is it now, let’s settle the—let’s get a cease fire now." That’s the best that can be done now. They’ll lose half of their country, but at least they preserve the other half. The east is gone.

Nixon: What is it the east in effect offered?

Kissinger: Well, the east—the commander in the east has offered—it’s a little bit confused. He’s asked the United Nations to arrange an immediate, honorable repatriation of his forces. In other words, turn over to civilian authority.

Nixon: Right. And?

Kissinger: And that’s, in effect, all. And a promise that the Indians would eventually withdraw too. But that’s going to happen anyway. I mean, to participate in that is a nice humanitarian effort, but it does not solve the overwhelming problem of the war in the west.

Nixon: Does State understand that?

Kissinger: No. Well they understand it now, believe me.

Nixon: Yeah. See the point is, our desire is to save West Pakistan. That’s all.

Kissinger: That’s right. That is exactly right.

Nixon: All right. Fine. What is State up to now? We’re still getting, you’re still getting those—keep those carriers moving now.

Kissinger: The carriers—everything is moving. Four Jordanian planes have already moved to Pakistan, 22 more are coming. We’re talking to the Saudis, the Turks we’ve now found are willing to give five. So we’re going to keep that moving until there’s a settlement.

[Omitted here is conversation unrelated to South Asia.]

Nixon: When are you going to see the Chinese? This afternoon?

Kissinger: 5:30.

Nixon: What are you going to tell them?

Kissinger: I’m going to tell them everything we did, and I’m going to tell them that we, I’m going to tell them what forces we’re moving.

Nixon: Could you say that it would be very helpful if they could move some forces or threaten to move some forces?

Kissinger: Absolutely.

Nixon: They’ve got to threaten or they’ve got to move, one of the two. You know what I mean?

Kissinger: Yeah.

Nixon: Threaten to move forces or move them, Henry, that’s what they must do. Now goddamn it, we’re playing our role and that will restrain India. And also tell them that this will help us get the ceasefire. We don’t want to make a deal with the Russians [that] the Chinese will piss on.


Kissinger: Absolutely. Oh, God. That’s why—

Nixon: The Chinese at the present time are kicking the hell out of the Russians about this, you know. The Russians are kicking the Chinese saying that the Chinese are playing with the Paks and the Paks—you know what I mean? This is a Russian-Chinese conflict.

Kissinger: Mr. President, if we stay strong, even if it comes out badly, we’ll have come out well with the Chinese, which is important.

Nixon: How about getting the French to sell some planes to the Paks?

Kissinger: Yeah. They’re already doing it.

Nixon: All right, why not? I mean, if they need some supplies, why not the French?

Kissinger: Yeah.

Nixon: Now the French are just—they’ll sell to anybody.

Kissinger: Yeah, they are selling them now.


[Omitted here is conversation unrelated to Pakistan.]

Nixon: Let me say this on the French thing, can you talk with the French? And, is there any way we can get them—I mean we talk about the United States helping, furnishing arms to Pakistan, how about getting the French to sell them in some instances?

Kissinger: Yeah.

Nixon: It’s a question of sales, isn’t it really?

Kissinger: Yeah.

Nixon: Yeah.

[Omitted here is conversation unrelated to South Asia.]

Nixon: Now coming back to this India-Pakistan thing, have we got anything else we can do?

Kissinger: No. I think we’re going to crack it now.

Nixon: Then I hope that the Indians will be warned by the Chinese, right?

Kissinger: Well, I’ll have to find out tonight.

Nixon: You do your best, Henry.

Kissinger: Yeah.

Nixon: This should have been done long ago. The Chinese have not warned the Indians.

Kissinger: Oh, yeah.

Nixon: They haven’t warned them that they’re going to come in. And that’s the point. They’ve got to warn them—it’s just—

Kissinger: Uh, huh.

Nixon: All they’ve got to do is move something . Move their, move a division. You know, move some trucks. Fly some planes. You know, some symbolic act. We’re not doing a goddamn thing, Henry, you know that. We’re just moving things around, aren’t we?


Kissinger: Yeah.

Nixon: But these Indians are cowards. Right?

Kissinger: Right. But with Russian backing. You see, the Russians have sent notes to Iran, Turkey, to a lot of countries threatening them. The Russians have played a miserable game.

Nixon: So we’ll do the same thing, right?

Kissinger: Exactly.

Nixon: Threatening them with what? If they come in and what?

Kissinger: They’ll do something. They haven’t said what they’ll do. But they’ll settle now. After your conversation with Matskevich yesterday, they’re going to settle.

Nixon: What basis [unclear]?

Kissinger: The ceasefire in the west is all that’s left.

Nixon: The ceasefire in the west. And what, though, on East Pakistan? What do we do about that? Are we going to just say that—

Kissinger: No, we—

Nixon: Indian occupation or Bangladesh? Or what?

Kissinger: What we—

Nixon: Are we going to oppose Bangladesh recognition? What’s our position?

Kissinger: The best would be—

Nixon: Is anybody involved on these things?

Kissinger: Yes, yes. The best not [unclear], but the best would be if—

Nixon: See, how are we, if we cannot tell those people how we want it to come out, we can’t have a decent plan. That’s what we haven’t had at this point.

Kissinger: That’s right. Well, we’ve had—after the Brezhnev letter came yesterday we sent a copy of it to Yahya.

Nixon: Yeah.

Kissinger: We’ve told him the pros and cons of accepting it.

Nixon: Right.

Kissinger: And now Yahya has come back with a proposal saying ceasefire, negotiations for mutual withdrawal, and negotiations to settle the political future of—

Nixon: [unclear]

Kissinger: And then what will happen on the Bangladesh, Mr. President, is that whatever West Pakistan and these people work out, we will accept. But we will not be in the fore—in the front. If we can get—

Nixon: Whatever West Pakistan works out with whom?

Kissinger: With—the negotiations on East Pakistan.

Nixon: India has not even—but India will not agree to negotiations on East Pakistan.

Kissinger: Yeah, but the Russians have already agreed to it. So what will happen, let’s be realistic, what will happen is that the representatives of East Pakistan will demand independence. And in practice I think that is what West Pakistan will then agree to. But then it won’t be us who’ve done it. This will solve the problem of do we recognize Bangladesh against the wishes of the Pakistan Government.

Nixon: That’s right. We must never recognize Bangladesh. That’s why no answer’s the right thing, until West Pakistan—

Kissinger: Well, that’s the point.


Nixon: Gives us the go-ahead. Bhutto will do it. Now, I want a program of aid to West Pakistan formulated immediately. Have some sort of a program, you know, after they’re there. We cannot let them hang out there by themselves. I don’t think we can do much from a military standpoint, but let’s find a way to let others do it. That’s one suggestion. On the French thing, I want you to talk to the French cold turkey. We’d like to find a way to help to work with the French, can we? You got any arms in there?

Kissinger: I will do my best.

Nixon: Can you think of anything else?

Kissinger: No, I think—

Nixon: I don’t think we can get—frankly Henry, I don’t think we can get through the Congress arms sales to West Pakistan. That’s what I mean. Do you?

Kissinger: No.

Nixon: All right. Then what was our answer? Give them a hell of a lot of economic assistance, correct?

Kissinger: I can let them convert it into—

Nixon: And let them convert into—well that’s their, that’s their, we don’t ask the Indians, we’ve given the Indians all this economic assistance, and we didn’t ask any questions when they made a treaty with the Russians and bought Russians arms. Did we raise any questions about that?

Kissinger: And the point you made yesterday, we have to continue to squeeze the Indians even when this thing is settled. They can’t get—these 84 million dollars are down the drain.

Nixon: That’s right. That’s gone. And incidentally we’ve already spent 25 million of it on the crap that—take another 25 million and give it to the Paks.

Kissinger: Yeah.

Nixon: We’ve got to for rehabilitation. I mean, Jesus Christ, they’ve bombed—I want all the war damage; I want to help Pakistan on the war damage in Karachi and other areas, see?

Kissinger: See the reason—I’m getting Vorontsov in, Mr. President, at 11:30—

Nixon: Yeah. Yeah.

Kissinger: I’m going to put before him, I’m going to show him that Kennedy—

Nixon: Yeah. And say, "This is what the President’s talking about."

Kissinger: Yeah.

Nixon: Now, and say now listen, we didn’t [unclear] and we just want to say we’re not—don’t get, just say the President is, as you know, you must never misjudge this man. He doesn’t pound on the table, and he doesn’t shout. But when he talks the way he does—I’ve walked with him for 3 years, this is the way he means it. It’s just cold fact. I’d put it that way. I think you’ve got to be [unclear—personable?]

Kissinger: Mr. President, I don’t have, this was, if this thing comes up, between you and me we know that West Pakistan is lost. If you can save West Pakistan it will be an unbelievable achievement because West Pakistan has had all its oil supplies destroyed.

Nixon: Yeah.

Kissinger: They’ve had no spare parts from us for months. Their army is ground down. And 2 more weeks of war and they’re finished in the west as much as they are in the east. So if we can save West Pakistan, it would still be a defeat, but we would have done it. And the Chinese will know that. And the Russians will know it. And the Indians will not be happy with it.

Nixon: I don’t want the Indians to be happy. I want the Indians—I want also, put this down, and get Scali in. Use him more. I want a public relations program developed to piss on the Indians. I mean, that atrocity of the [unclear], for example.

Kissinger: Yeah.

Nixon: I want to piss on them for their responsibility. Get a white paper out. Put down, White paper. White paper. Understand that?

Kissinger: Oh, yeah.

Nixon: I don’t mean for just your reading. But a white paper on this—

Kissinger: No, no. I know.

Nixon: I want the Indians blamed for this, you know what I mean? We can’t let these goddamn, sanctimonious Indians get away with this. They’ve pissed on us on Vietnam for 5 years, Henry.

Kissinger: Yeah.

Nixon: And what do we do? Here they are raping and murdering, and they talk about West Pakistan, these Indians are pretty vicious in there, aren’t they?
Kissinger: Absolutely.

Nixon: Aren’t they killing a lot of these people?

Kissinger: Well, we don’t know the facts yet. But I’m sure [unclear] that they’re not as stupid as the West Pakistanis—they don’t let the press in. The idiot Paks have the press all over their place.

Nixon: Well, the Indians did, oh yes. They brought them in, had pictures of spare tanks and all the rest. Brilliant. Brilliant public relations.

Kissinger: Yeah, but they don’t let them in where the civilians are.

Nixon: Oh, I know. But they let them in to take the good shots. The poor, damn Paks don’t let them in at all.

Kissinger: Or into the wrong places.

Nixon: Yeah.

Kissinger: The Paks just don’t have the subtlety of the Indians.

Nixon: Well, they don’t lie. The Indians lie. Incidentally, did Irwin carry out my order to call in the Indian Ambassador?

Kissinger: Oh, yeah. Yeah.

Nixon: He did?

Kissinger: Within an hour.

Nixon: And he told him he would not accept a—what they, well it came out fortuitously, didn’t it? The right thing to say at this time.

Kissinger: It could not have worked better. It’s all working together.

Nixon: Because we said to them that the acquisition of territory will not be accepted, correct?

Kissinger: Right.

Nixon: And that we had to have their assurance. What did the Ambassador say on [to] these instructions?

Kissinger: Well, he said, "How can you even suspect this?" and "What gave you this idea?"

Nixon: That’s what you expected him to say.

Kissinger: Oh, yeah.
 
. .
Back
Top Bottom