@
Oscar;
you may have reasons to hold some sentiments, but not the license to "stretch" the facts!!!
Regardless of some statements (bandied about by some), Indira Gandhi did not have any Grand Plans to to "finish the Pakistan problem once and for all".
I am surprised that you seek to peddle this notion................but life can be full of surprises.
In another post (on another thread) in PDF; I have dealt with this misconceived idea. Let me deal with this again.
Indira Gandhi (supremacist tendencies not-withstanding) had a hard streak of realism contained within her. She never thought that She (and India) had the wherewithal to finish anything in Pakistan once and for all.
There was a section of the Indian Political Estt. of that time that was sorely tempted (
after the impending fall of Dhaka was apparent) by the possibility. But two Persons were notably not part of that: Indira Gandhi and Swaran Singh her Foreign Minister; who also had her ear. The then Defence Minister, Jagjivan Ram tended to think otherwise; but seasoned Indian Politician as he was;
knew not cross her path!
Let me tell you that even AHQ was divided on this possibility. Most of all the required forces to execute any such plan were not even in place in the West of India. While IA forces were being re-deployed from the Eastern Front, that process had started too late to build up sufficient strength. Only major elements of the IAF had been moved around but that alone could not have achieved what you postulate.
The point that you raise about Munabao and Shakargarh thrusts had different intentions. Munabao and the surrounding areas were suitable for IA to exert pressure while Shakargarh bulge would have helped IA to consolidate and refine their future defenses. This was in accordance with the IA's intentions to refine the border to their tactical requirement.
Do you really imagine that these thrusts could have
"finish the Pakistan problem once and for all"!!!???
Similarly, the Ladakh Scouts of the mounted an Ops in Kargil with a similar limited aim; but the weather (of a December Winter) played the spoiler. But that is as far as that
"Grande Strategy" that you so imaginatively seek to portray; could go.
Indira Gandhi's mind and intentions became even clearer at Shimla (after the war) when she negotiated with Bhutto. When she was accused (in hushed tones behind her back) of not driving the knife in further into a hapless Pakistan; she told D.P.Dhar (a confidant) that the task was achieved: that the Military Estt. in Pakistan had been "cut to size" and it was necessary to give the Political Estt. a chance to now come into prominence. Which would then muzzle the Military. That would help mitigate the problems as she saw it.
Very different from what you seek to portray.
NOW; the most important part. The Intl. Community was also drawn into the Combat; and the most powerful players had taken sides, which we know.
The Soviet Union had facilitated the Indian actions in the Conflict through very dextrous use of Vetos at the UN.
While Dick Nixon (
Mafia-Goonish qualities that he amply posessed) used bluster, threats, money and weapons from the other side!
BUT; Brezhnev and Kosygin had not given Indira Gandhi and India; any carte-blanche. Once the Birth of a new Nation called Bangla Desh became a fait-accompli; they made it clear to Indira Gandhi that the Vetos would cease. So the umbrella would be lifted then.
So your assertion that:
"it was the US 7th fleet and Nixon's posturing on ensuring that the more vital west Pakistan lay intact that Indra (sic) backed down."........is
sheer bunkum!
Oscar;
do not forget that: the 7th Fleet steamed grandiosely into the Bay of Bengal upto the latitude of Nicobar and then even more grandiosely turned back!!
While Dhaka fell and the Document of Surrender was signed on the Racecourse at Dhaka.
Dick had been looked down upon by Indira at the end of her aquiline nose during her visit to Washington. Something that he never forgave her for
Now his nose was (figuratively speaking) bloodied by the withdrawal of his much-vaunted 7th Fleet. Without any change of Plans of India; that the Fleet's presence was intended to instigate.
That is at gross variance with your assertion above.
Another person here; i.e. @
Joe Shearer may also be able to apprise you of the facts relating this episode of History.
Let not Emotion cloud reason or facts.