Munshi, in the political context I fully agree with the negative political ramifications of
Indo-Bangla relationship which has been mentioned in the article. In another thread I've
previously expressed my disgust at the way India treats many of it's small neighbours. I
feel this arrogant attitude of the Indian Government needs to change and India needs to
engage more positively & constructively with these countries. And also, if Pak & BD can
have a mutually constructive AND non anti-india relationship, why not?
In the military context there are lot of common accusations made against India's action in 1971 (highlighted in bold) to which I've tried to respond:
1)India used the 1971 Bangladesh situation to humiliate Pak and avenge the humiliation we suffered from Pak in the 1965 war: Yes sir we did so. The Pakistanis took advantage of India in 1965 didn't they? India in 1965 was weak & was just recovering from the Chinese humiliation of '62. So what the Pakistanis did to us in '65 we did to them in '71 - "EENT KA JAWAAB PATTHAR". Pretty fair & square I feel.
2)India wanted to cut-off EP from WP: Yes sir we wanted to. If you think about it, EP was a strategic, military & political anomaly - imagine a country with one part seperated from the other by thousands of miles of a hostile country's territory? A lot of pakistanis have cribbed that in '71 they lost the fight in EP because EP was logistically disconnected from the mainland (WP), that they were overwhelmingly outnumbered by the Indian forces in the East etc-etc. Well... that is what warfare is all about isn't it? - overwhelming your enemy and crushing him by whatever means necessary. Also... didn't anyone in Pakistan think about the military ramifications of having such a far-flung piece of real estate when Pakistan was being formed? Were they all smoking weed during their discussions with the Brits in 1947 I wonder?!!
EP was a thorn in India's side from day one and I'm surprised (even shocked!) that the
Indian political & military leadership had the commonsense & foresight to deal with that
problem conclusively. Had India allowed EP to exist even today, it would have been one
big terrorist training camp! BD is STILL strategically important to India in the sense that
we don't want it to turn into a thorn once again and sadly, that could be one of the
reasons why India wants BD to remain poor & weak. But that is where I feel BD needs to show that it can have fruitful relationships with Pak & China without necessarily being anti or Pro India. Such a policy by BD will definitely change India's security perception about BD.
iamunique
although i do agree with most of your thoughts i disagree on the point that india got humiliated in 1965 war.
As Operation Gibraltar has been mentioned i will just post some stats and assesments about indo pak war 1965
india lost 3,000 soldiers, 175 tanks destroyed,60-75 aicraft lost while pakistan lost 3,800,280 tanks destroyed , 20 aircraft lost. Despite the qualitative and numerical superiority of Pakistani armour, Pakistan was outfought on the battlefield by India.
In the end the Indian army was in possession of 710 mile² (1,840 km²) of Pakistani territory and the Pakistan army held 210 mile² (545 km²) of Indian territory. The territory occupied by India was mainly in the fertile Sialkot, Lahore and Kashmir sectors,while Pakistani land gains were primarily south in deserts opposite to Sindh and in Chumb sector near Kashmir in north.
Neutral assessments
There have been several neutral assessments of the losses incurred by both India and Pakistan during the war. Most of these assessments agree that India had a upper hand over Pakistan when ceasefire was declared. Some of the neutral assessments are mentioned below
According to the United States Library of Congress Country Studies:
The war was militarily inconclusive; each side held prisoners and some territory belonging to the other. Losses were
relatively heavy--on the Pakistani side, twenty aircraft, 200 tanks, and 3,800 troops. Pakistan's army had been able to withstand Indian pressure, but a
continuation of the fighting would only have led to further losses and ultimate defeat for Pakistan. Most Pakistanis, schooled in the belief of their own martial prowess, refused to accept the possibility of their country's military defeat by "Hindu India" and were, instead, quick to blame their failure to attain their military aims on what they considered to be the ineptitude of Ayub Khan and his government.
TIME magazine reported that India held 690 mi2 of Pakistan territory while Pakistan held 250 mi2 of Indian territory in Kashmir and Rajasthan. Additionally, Pakistan had lost almost half its armour temporarily. The same article stated that -
Severely mauled by the larger Indian armed forces, Pakistan could continue the fight only by teaming up with Red China and turning its back on the U.N.
Devin T. Hagerty wrote in his book "South Asia in world politics" -
The invading Indian forces outfought their Pakistani counterparts and halted their attack on the outskirts of Lahore, Pakistan's second-largest city. By the time United Nations intervened on September 22, Pakistan had suffered a clear defeat.
In his book "National identity and geopolitical visions"Gertjan Dijkink writes - The superior Indian forces, however, won a decisive victory and the army could have even marched on into Pakistani territory had external pressure not forced both combatants to cease their war efforts.
An excerpt from Stanley Wolpert's India,summarizing the Indo-Pakistani War of 1965, is as follows: In three weeks the second Indo-Pak War ended in what appeared to be a draw when the embargo placed by Washington on U.S. ammunition and replacements for both armies forced cessation of conflict before either side won a clear victory. India, however, was in a position to inflict grave damage to, if not capture, Pakistan's capital of the Punjab when the cease-fire was called, and controlled Kashmir's strategic Uri-Poonch bulge, much to Ayub's chagrin.
In his book "War in the modern world since 1815", Jeremy Black mentions that "Pakistan gambled and lost heavily". He also writes about India's missed military opportunities -
India's chief of army staff urged negotiations on the ground that they were running out ammunition and their number of tanks had become seriously depleted. In fact, the army had used less than 15% of its ammunition compared to Pakistan, which had consumed closer to 80 percent and India had double the number of serviceable tanks.
Dennis Kux's "India and the United States estranged democracies" also provides a summary of the war.
Although both sides lost heavily in men and materiel, and neither gained a decisive military advantage, India had the better of the war. New Delhi achieved its basic goal of thwarting Pakistan's attempt to seize Kashmir by force. Pakistan gained nothing from a conflict which it had instigated.
In its October 1965 issue, the TIME magazine quoted a Western official assessing the consequences of the war
Now it's apparent to everybody that India is going to emerge as an Asian power in its own right.
In his book "Mainsprings of Indian and Pakistani foreign policies", S.M. Burke writes After the Indo-Pakistani war of 1965 the balance of military power had decisively shifted in favor of India. Pakistan had found it difficult to replace the heavy equipment lost during that conflict while her adversary, despite her economic and political problems, had been determinedly building up her strength.
Newsweek magazine, however, praised the Pakistani military's ability to hold of the much larger Indian Army. "By just the end of the week, in fact, it was clear that the Pakistanis were more than holding their own."
Most observers agree that the myth of a mobile, hard hitting Pakistan Army was badly dented in the war, as critical breakthroughs were not madeSeveral Pakistani writers criticized the military's ill-founded belief that their "martial race" of soldiers could defeat "Hindu India" in the war.Moreover, Pakistan had lost more ground than it had gained during the war and, more importantly, failed to achieve its goal of occupying Kashmir; this result has been viewed by many impartial observers as a defeat for Pakistan.
(
source wiki)
All i want to say is that the motive of war is to protect national pride by preventing the loss of territory and to win in the perception of other countries and i think india did pretty good on these fronts.
