Indira Gandhi planned a mass invasion of Pakistan | CIA Records

[NP-complete]

Invasions are beyond south asian armies. They dont have the required military skill. Indian involvement in east pakistan dont count as invasion because locals were supporting them. They couldnt have invaded west pakistan with the whole population resisting them. Invasion requires out manuvering of enemy forces and their quick destruction. Then quick occupation of his vital areas. Hence the name "lighting war". Even now indian army cant take the strain this kind of hyper mobile warfare puts on a war machine. The same reason is why pakistan cant "invade" its tribal areas.
Indra was most likely advised to drop the plan (if it did exist in the first place) by advisors thinking along the same lines.

 

[Abu Zolfiqar]

Invasions are beyond south asian armies. They dont have the required military skill. Indian involvement in east pakistan dont count as invasion because locals were supporting them.

fair enough and Pakistani moral and other support to Kashmiri freedom fighters is not invasion either...good, we see eye to eye on this issue then

They couldnt have invaded west pakistan with the whole population resisting them. Invasion requires out manuvering of enemy forces and their quick destruction.

in india's case they just took in floods of refugees (promoted an influx of hindu refugees especially) -- armed em trained em and sent em back to fight....india certainly meddled in the affairs and partook in what would today be labelled "terrorist support" in the interests of freeing BD from Pakistan. BD was an issue from the very beginnign and in hindsight it should've been independent from the very beginning.

Then quick occupation of his vital areas. Hence the name "lighting war". Even now indian army cant take the strain this kind of hyper mobile warfare puts on a war machine. The same reason is why pakistan cant "invade" its tribal areas.
Indra was most likely advised to drop the plan (if it did exist in the first place) by advisors thinking along the same lines.

you conveniently forget that apart from local militias (which work under the directives of the political agents in each tribal area) -- there is also FC apart from regular army and they draw a sizable % of their manpower from KPK and FATA region.

if FATA were perceived as "invaded" then the locals would not cooperate and provide intel to the military/security forces who are busy blowing up terrorist hideouts at the moment

 

[Jackdaws]

A mass invasion? As opposed to what? A mini-invasion on the border areas? That is not an invasion.

Well the show is out for the whole world to see what Pakistan did with Indian allies they were blindly riding. Indian ambitions for past 63 years have been total anhillation of Pakistan because they cannot beat down anyone into submission as long Pakistan sticks like a thorn in their policies. Imagine with no Pakistan all the small south asian countries like Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, Nepal, Bhutan and Kashmir will not dare oppose a word against India.



Back then the United States was popular due to its fair play policy and Soviets were the evil repressive forces. Its clear to see that they did not jump to protect Pakistan for its mistakes. Yes East-Pakistan was being repressed and yes they launched a rebellion and this was all internal matter of Pakistan. The Americans did not approve of Pakistani attrocities or took sides no matter how strong the alliance was. However the words in bold are ironic as America is totally doing the opposite right now. Invading Iraq and Afghanistan to install democracy.

LOL - yes - the Banglas against whom you committed genocide, the Lankans whose cricketers you shot at, Nepal - a predominantly Hindu nation - a religion which your texts demonize and the peace-loving Bhutanese see you as the savior of South Asia. While you are at it, why not add Papua New Guinea to that list too? Then you can pass the peace pipe to me.

 

[bolo]

This women Ghandi had real balls.

She annexed East Pakistan in 12 days capturing 100,000 Pakistani Soldiers.

She took on the Sikhs Sant Bhindrawala Which ultimately cost her life.

She didn,t cow down to Kissenger and the Americans.

She would have eaten Musharaff for Breakfast.

SHE REALLY WAS AN IRON LADY

" Could you imagine Todays powerful India " with a leader like Indra Ghandi. rather than mild mannered Dr Mohan Singh

She didn,t cow down to Kissenger and the Americans, which ultimately cost her life.

 

[PlanetWarrior]

fair enough and Pakistani moral and other support to Kashmiri freedom fighters is not invasion either...good, we see eye to eye on this issue then




in india's case they just took in floods of refugees (promoted an influx of hindu refugees especially) -- armed em trained em and sent em back to fight....india certainly meddled in the affairs and partook in what would today be labelled "terrorist support" in the interests of freeing BD from Pakistan. BD was an issue from the very beginnign and in hindsight it should've been independent from the very beginning.





you conveniently forget that apart from local militias (which work under the directives of the political agents in each tribal area) -- there is also FC apart from regular army and they draw a sizable % of their manpower from KPK and FATA region.

if FATA were perceived as "invaded" then the locals would not cooperate and provide intel to the military/security forces who are busy blowing up terrorist hideouts at the moment

1. Kashmiris aren't flooding across Pakistan's borders seeking refuge from India.
2. From internet reports which I read, the Pakistani military was reeking havoc in East Pakistan. Even if India did arm the insurgents, credit needs to be given to the Pakistani military and political leadership for opening that door of opportunity for India. The claim is that you guys treated Bangladesh as an inferior colony of Pakistan. Agreed that the logistics of an East and West Pakistan did not make it a feasible idea. That still doesn't address the claims of the Bangladeshi that Pakistan was ruthless in its administration of that area.
3. Who knows what history will record in 20 years time. The possibility of it being recorded that the FATA area was subject to a civil war after which the inhabitants were liberated exists. After all, it is usually the victors who write history

 

[Abu Zolfiqar]

LOL - yes - the Banglas against whom you committed genocide

there was no genocide....Pakistan only killed mukti bahini rogues and those who facilitated them

the Lankans whose cricketers you shot at,

the same Lankans who agreed that despite the setback they will come back to Pakistan to play when invited; the same ones who know that it was india that had a hand behind the attacks b/c of Pakistan's open support to SL military in its war against terrorist tamil elements

Nepal - a predominantly Hindu nation - a religion which your texts demonize and the peace-loving Bhutanese see you as the savior of South Asia

Pakistan has good relations with Nepalese (wasnt the case earlier) and the reason for Nepal trying to get closer to Pakistan (and China) is to counter against indian hegemony. Nepalese are very bitter about india's negative influence on their country. Dont take my word for it, research yourself.


so the pot shouldnt call the kettle black. We've done much more for our neighbours than you have....just ask an honest Afghan who are given Pakistani identity cards, allowed to work without work permits and in fact in many cases are provided with free or near free housing (not to be confused with the refugee camps which we are pocketing a good expense from that)

She didn,t cow down to Kissenger and the Americans, which ultimately cost her life.

all it took was a few nationalistic Sikhs to get the job done right

waste of bullets though...should've used the holy kirpan instead

1. Kashmiris aren't flooding across Pakistan's borders seeking refuge from India.

Kashmiris are already integrated into Pakistani society; hell even our prime minister is of Kashmiri origin. There's no need for flooding of any kind. Those who have family on both sides of the border find ways to reunite with eachother. Regular families as well as those affiliated with freedom fighters and/or the liberation movement.

2. From internet reports which I read, the Pakistani military was reeking havoc in East Pakistan. Even if India did arm the insurgents, credit needs to be given to the Pakistani military and political leadership for opening that door of opportunity for India.

I agree generally.

But actually it was just the political leadership that added fuel to the fire. The military only intervened when india's military became involved and they did so rightfully. Field Marsh. Y. Khan was for peace talks with that guy mujib

The claim is that you guys treated Bangladesh as an inferior colony of Pakistan. Agreed that the logistics of an East and West Pakistan did not make it a feasible idea. That still doesn't address the claims of the Bangladeshi that Pakistan was ruthless in its administration of that area.

there certainly was mistreatment and misallocation of resources but then again the "resentment" also came about as a result of lackluster rescue and relief missions for cylcone victims -- the Center's reaction to it was slow and inefficient and it only helped fuel resentment...just blaming the military is a typical reaction - but not a well founded one

3. Who knows what history will record in 20 years time. The possibility of it being recorded that the FATA area was subject to a civil war after which the inhabitants were liberated exists. After all, it is usually the victors who write history

as i belong to that region and know a great deal about it i can assure you that if FATA were in a civil war it would be more so b/c of tribal infighting. There have been no insurrections by people of FATA against any province or the Center (i.e. Pak govt). There certainly is conflict in the region but it is not civil war.

 

[hari sud]

Indira Gandhi's reluctance in 1971 resulted in continued Pakistani occupation of Kashmir and now terror activities in rest of India.

 

[Shadow_Hunter]

It must be galling to accept that we ruled over you guys for a 1000 years. In that time we won many victories over you. You only have 1971 and that too because of the bengalis insurrection.

Yes kindly point me to a book which describes the time when pakistanis ruled over Indians, that too for a thousand years.

Oh wait, you can't, you are simply a pathetic liar, nothing more

 

[Guynextdoor2]

Well the show is out for the whole world to see what Pakistan did with Indian allies they were blindly riding. Indian ambitions for past 63 years have been total anhillation of Pakistan because they cannot beat down anyone into submission as long Pakistan sticks like a thorn in their policies. Imagine with no Pakistan all the small south asian countries like Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, Nepal, Bhutan and Kashmir will not dare oppose a word against India.



Back then the United States was popular due to its fair play policy and Soviets were the evil repressive forces. Its clear to see that they did not jump to protect Pakistan for its mistakes. Yes East-Pakistan was being repressed and yes they launched a rebellion and this was all internal matter of Pakistan. The Americans did not approve of Pakistani attrocities or took sides no matter how strong the alliance was. However the words in bold are ironic as America is totally doing the opposite right now. Invading Iraq and Afghanistan to install democracy.

Nixon...fair play....now I've heard everything

 

[Jackdaws]

there was no genocide....Pakistan only killed mukti bahini rogues and those who facilitated them



the same Lankans who agreed that despite the setback they will come back to Pakistan to play when invited; the same ones who know that it was india that had a hand behind the attacks b/c of Pakistan's open support to SL military in its war against terrorist tamil elements



Pakistan has good relations with Nepalese (wasnt the case earlier) and the reason for Nepal trying to get closer to Pakistan (and China) is to counter against indian hegemony. Nepalese are very bitter about india's negative influence on their country. Dont take my word for it, research yourself.


so the pot shouldnt call the kettle black. We've done much more for our neighbours than you have....just ask an honest Afghan who are given Pakistani identity cards, allowed to work without work permits and in fact in many cases are provided with free or near free housing (not to be confused with the refugee camps which we are pocketing a good expense from that)



all it took was a few nationalistic Sikhs to get the job done right

waste of bullets though...should've used the holy kirpan instead



Kashmiris are already integrated into Pakistani society; hell even our prime minister is of Kashmiri origin. There's no need for flooding of any kind. Those who have family on both sides of the border find ways to reunite with eachother. Regular families as well as those affiliated with freedom fighters and/or the liberation movement.




I agree generally.

But actually it was just the political leadership that added fuel to the fire. The military only intervened when india's military became involved and they did so rightfully. Field Marsh. Y. Khan was for peace talks with that guy mujib



there certainly was mistreatment and misallocation of resources but then again the "resentment" also came about as a result of lackluster rescue and relief missions for cylcone victims -- the Center's reaction to it was slow and inefficient and it only helped fuel resentment...just blaming the military is a typical reaction - but not a well founded one




as i belong to that region and know a great deal about it i can assure you that if FATA were in a civil war it would be more so b/c of tribal infighting. There have been no insurrections by people of FATA against any province or the Center (i.e. Pak govt). There certainly is conflict in the region but it is not civil war.

a. Yes, sure - Operation Searchlight in erstwhile East Pakistan is a figment of the world's imagination. Or the Blood Telegram sent by American diplomats. Or mass graves.

b. So did the Lankans tour Pakistan again?

c. Nepal - LOL. Look at this Gallup poll in Nepal. Nepalese See Pakistan as South Asia's Greatest Security Threat
28% of Nepal considers you a threat to South Asia.

No one in South Asia considers Pakistan as their "savior". They do consider India to be a bully but they deal with it on their own.

 

[SHAMK9]

a. Yes, sure - Operation Searchlight in erstwhile East Pakistan is a figment of the world's imagination. Or the Blood Telegram sent by American diplomats. Or mass graves.

b. So did the Lankans tour Pakistan again?

c. Nepal - LOL. Look at this Gallup poll in Nepal. Nepalese See Pakistan as South Asia's Greatest Security Threat
28% of Nepal considers you a threat to South Asia.

No one in South Asia considers Pakistan as their "savior". They do consider India to be a bully but they deal with it on their own.

No one here claims that Pakistan is considered a saviour but had Pakistan not existed, India's neighbouring countries would have lived under fear.

 

[Jackdaws]

No one here claims that Pakistan is considered a saviour but had Pakistan not existed, India's neighbouring countries would have lived under fear.

How so? That doesn't make an iota of sense.

 

[Jackdaws]

No one here claims that Pakistan is considered a saviour but had Pakistan not existed, India's neighbouring countries would have lived under fear.

How so? That doesn't make an iota of sense.

 

[HariPrasad]

This lady was brave and deserves respect.

 

[Slayer786]

Yes kindly point me to a book which describes the time when pakistanis ruled over Indians, that too for a thousand years.

Oh wait, you can't, you are simply a pathetic liar, nothing more

Lol. I think you guys like to forget the 1000 years of humiliation. Very understandable. It must be so infuriating to be reminded though.