Indira Gandhi planned a mass invasion of Pakistan | CIA Records

[bandit]

Mr Kissinger then says: "Those sons-of-bitches, who never have lifted a finger for us, why should we get involved in the morass of East Pakistan?

BBC NEWS | South Asia | Nixon's dislike of 'witch' Indira

Who do you think was asking US to get involved in E. Pakistan???

 

[Omar1984]

Who do you think was asking US to get involved in E. Pakistan???

Again, you refuse to read and understand the conversation between Nixon and Kissinger.


In a White House conversation with Mr Kissinger on 4 June 1971, President Nixon berates his ambassador to India, Kenneth Keating, for wanting to, as Mr Kissinger puts it, "help India push the Pakistanis out".


Why would Nixon abuse Pakistan when he never wanted independence and separation of East Pakistan?

LOL you indians arent as smart as what he thought. you cant even comprehend a simple article.

 

[somebozo]

Hi Somebozo, I will say what you have said does not make any sense as you said implies that pakistan is not one of the 'small south Asian countries'. Infact it is also one of the same small countries like Sri Lanka, BD, Nepal, Bhutan & Tibet. Kashmir is not a country its a state,- please get a geography book or better yet get an education - its a state which is part of a much larger nation India.

Having a big country doesnt necessary means having a big sense..Yes Pakistan is that "small" country you would love to over step like Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, Nepal etc etc but is it under indian influence?? NO...Does Pakistan has amputed armed and air forces like other neighbours of India?? NO.. Who is marketing China Inc to SriLanka, Bangladesh & Maldivies??? That was my logic.. Pakistan is a thorn in Indian foigen policy objectives. Until and unless Indians can show Pakistan as a proof of failure their ulterior moves of South Asia dominance will meet with resisitance. These things are understood if thought with a free mind not with an iron clad communist legacy big vs small mind.

 

[Bang Galore]

When he said "son-of-bitches" he meant indians. read the article again.

LOL you indians arent as smart as what he thought. you cant even comprehend a simple article.

Yawn ! That was 40 years ago.Nixon didn't exactly cover himself with glory. His problem was that he spoke too much. So much that he had to resign.

Ask any American or what the heck, since I am feeling very generous - ask anyone in Europe too if you want. Who are the guys taking ages to get through airport security? Who are the guys being marked for special treatment? They may not be calling anyone SoB's anymore what with all the political correctness , but anyone choosing to use their brains will figure who is being considered what.

Btw feel free to google what Kissinger says of India now. Sings a completely new song these days.

 

[barcelona]

Anyone who met several Pakistanis and then met several indians already know that Pakistanis are straightforward and indians are cunning, devious, and malicious. Both Nixon and Kissinger knew that.

American's also knew that Pakistan has every thing to give international community a migrane said by i think Madline albright who also knew the terror culture of Pakistan ..............................................................................................
on other hand sorry to post off topic comments

 

[Kompromat]

Plan seems nice on paper , she also had a plan to blow up Kahota Nuclear plant.
Its good that she was Eliminated by some strategically aware Intelligence agency.

 

[SQ8]

While I find the semi-trolls amusing.. Bhutto's tearing of that paper was actually quite detrimental.. a cease fire at that time would have actually stopped the invasion of east pakistan and allowed some time for better settlement.. If nothing else.. instead of surrendering those troops would simply have been recalled and Bangladesh given independence through official means.

However, any mass invasion of Pakistan in the west would have been extremely difficult.. considering there was a massed division under Tikka Khan ready to go in..and most likely a large swath of Indian territory would have been captured whilst the same cannot be said of Pakistan.. however.. the losses to Pakistani forces would have been much greater compared to India.. just for the offensive into India the PAF was prepared to lose about a 100 or so pilots ....and around 1/3rd of its hardware.
But those Indians dreaming of a walkover in west Pakistan back in 71.. really need to go smell the coffee.. it would have been very costly to India as well.. but.. if the Americans did not interfere.. it is quite possible that it could have been a reality.
Something Bhutto realized at Shimla.. and jump started the nuclear ambitions.. which were taken from paper to practice after smiling buddha.
But.. it would never have happened.. The Americans needed Pakistan.. and since the soviets were directly fighting with the Indians.. they would have eventually stepped in..
For those who aren't aware.. the attacks on Karachi's oil dumps were made by Soviet manned warships ..and not Indian OSA's.. there are very interesting recordings sitting in naval archives of radio chatter between ships firing away at Karachi in Russian..

 

[somebozo]

Its ironic that she had plans to rampage destruction all over Pakistan and instead of answering back with bombs we retaliated smartly by eliminating the icon of evil itself. Baring no secret that Sikh movement had offical ISI backing.

 

[Prometheus]

Its ironic that she had plans to rampage destruction all over Pakistan and instead of answering back with bombs we retaliated smartly by eliminating the icon of evil itself. Baring no secret that Sikh movement had offical ISI backing.

lol,,,,,,,,thats why it was a failure

 

[SQ8]

lol,,,,,,,,thats why it was a failure

With Indra dead, a intelligence network set up inside India, Trombay and other sites mapped out.. thanks to that network..
Id hardly call it a failure.

 

[somebozo]

Well the Sikh managed to get their demands fulfilled by GoI which also included creating the Sikh state punjab and brining city of chandi garth under state government. So one cannot brand it as total failure. There is no such thing as 100% sucess or failure in millitary and diplomacy however I did say Sikh achieved atleast 80% of their motives. The sikh rebellion was the same leader who trained Mukti Bahini few years ago. And ISI being able to recruit the godfather of its enemy forces against their own masters is a feat deserving much commendation.

 

[Patrician]

Well the Sikh managed to get their demands fulfilled by GoI which also included creating the Sikh state punjab and brining city of chandi garth under state government. So one cannot brand it as total failure. There is no such thing as 100% sucess or failure in millitary and diplomacy however I did say Sikh achieved atleast 80% of their motives. The sikh rebellion was the same leader who trained Mukti Bahini few years ago. And ISI being able to recruit the godfather of its enemy forces against their own masters is a feat deserving much commendation.

Chandigarh is a union territory under direct administration of the Govt. of the Union of India.

Please 'think' before you type. I hope that's not very difficult for you.

 

[Bang Galore]

Well the Sikh managed to get their demands fulfilled by GoI which also included creating the Sikh state punjab and brining city of chandi garth under state government. So one cannot brand it as total failure. There is no such thing as 100% sucess or failure in millitary and diplomacy however I did say Sikh achieved atleast 80% of their motives. The sikh rebellion was the same leader who trained Mukti Bahini few years ago. And ISI being able to recruit the godfather of its enemy forces against their own masters is a feat deserving much commendation.

Kindly stop posting rubbish. Your gibberish is difficult to read by itself without you trying to create nonsensical facts as its basis. There is not an iota of truth in your post. Pure, unadulterated bull !

 

[somebozo]

So isnt this creditied to Sikh uprising??

Akali Dal's demands
The Akali Dal led a series of peaceful mass demonstrations to present its grievances to the central government. The demands of the Akali Dal were based on the Anandpur Sahib Resolution,[36] which was adopted by the party in October 1973 to raise specific political, economic and social issues. The major motivation behind the resolution was the safeguarding of the Sikh identity by securing a state structure that was decentralised, with non-interference from the central government. The Resolution outlines seven objectives.[37]

1.The transfer of the federally administered city of Chandigarh to Punjab.
2.The transfer of Punjabi speaking and contiguous areas to Punjab.
3.Decentralisation of states under the existing constitution, limiting the central government’s role.
4.The call for land reforms and industrialisation of Punjab, along with safeguarding the rights of the weaker sections of the population.
5.The enactment of an all-India gurdwara (Sikh house of worship) act.
6.Protection for minorities residing outside Punjab, but within India.
7.Revision of government’s recruitment quota restricting the number of Sikhs in armed forces.

Punjabi Suba movement
The Akal Takht played a vital role in organizing Sikhs to campaign for the Punjabi suba. During the course of the campaign, twelve thousand Sikhs were arrested for their peaceful demonstrations in 1955 and twenty-six thousand in 1960-61.[33] Finally, in September 1966, the Punjabi suba demand was accepted by the central government and Punjab was trifurcated under the Punjab State Reorganisation Bill. Areas in the south of Punjab that spoke a language that is a derivative of Braj formed a new state of Haryana and the Pahari- and Kangri-speaking districts north of Punjab were merged with Himachal Pradesh, while the remaining areas formed the new Punjabi speaking state, which retained the name of Punjab. As a result, the Sikhs became a majority in the newly created state with a population of a little over sixty percent.

 

[Bang Galore]

So isnt this creditied to Sikh uprising??

Yeah, we find it difficult to credit things that happened in the 50's, 60's & the 70's to the so called uprising in the 80's.