No Watergate, Nixon and the Indian nuclear bomb

So, I'm going to resurrect the first topic I posted on.

Richard Nixon was something of a Pakistan wanker, and disliked India for a bunch of reasons(which I'll go more in depth into on request, it's really fascinating and in part psychological, but that's not the point of the thread). As if this were not enough, he and Indira Gandhi had a very well known mutual loathing that came to a head in 1971 during the Bengali crisis. In short, as you all might have guessed, Indo-American relations reached freezing levels at these years.

Let's say Watergate doesn't happen or isn't discovered for whatever reason, and Nixon is still fully powerful in the White House in 1974, and is going forward with his foreign policy on other fronts-the Soviet Union, China, Middle East, etc. Remember-no Watergate means that foreign policy is still very much executive branch business, and Nixon is going to be in all likelihood still in charge. Congress will attempt to assert it's authority in 1973-that's a result of Vietnam-but they can't get near as far without Watergate.

Smiling Buddha happens. How does Nixon react, as far as US policy in South Asia goes?

EDIT:

My opinion is this: I don't think he is going to pull off a Chile or anything like a couple people suggested last time-that's impossible. India is not the sort of country where that can take place, Indira Gandhi is fully in charge and is nowhere near as stupid or insecure in power as Allende was, and Nixon's not dumb enough to try, especially with him probably trying to do SALT II at this time with the Soviets. Yet at the same time, US foreign policy is not going to be utterly frozen without Watergate sucking everybody's attention and giving more power to Congress. I can't stress the difference enough-minor league bureaucrats constantly challenged the WH by this point OTL. I find it hard to believe that a man as foreign policy obsessed as Nixon wouldn't do anything. The mostly Democratic Congress, like a lot of America and the government bureaucracy(State Department), tended to be pro-Indian, and didn't react to the nuclear test much. That's butterflied.

The rule of the second term curse means that even if Watergate doesn't happen, something else would come along to cause Nixon major headaches and disrupt his second term plans. So I think that Nixon would still be distracted and unable to do much anyway, especially since things like the Middle East would take higher priority for him. At most, there would be sanctions, but I doubt even that.

Realpolitik said:

Richard Nixon was something of a Pakistan wanker, and disliked India for a bunch of reasons(which I'll go more in depth into on request, it's really fascinating and in part psychological, but that's not the point of the thread).

Click to expand...

I respectfully request more info on this.

Even without Watergate, Nixon had his 'quirks', maybe come the Emergency in 1975 he fears India is going to become a full blown Soviet client and begins bankrolling Pakistan, encouraging them to engage over Kashmir again and even give them help to develop their own nuclear weapons?

Don Draper said:

The rule of the second term curse means that even if Watergate doesn't happen, something else would come along to cause Nixon major headaches and disrupt his second term plans. So I think that Nixon would still be distracted and unable to do much anyway, especially since things like the Middle East would take higher priority for him. At most, there would be sanctions, but I doubt even that.

Click to expand...

Nixon's big two areas that he wanted to tackle in second term were the Middle East and furthered detente, particularly SALT II, with the Soviet Union(which means he isn't going to mess with India too much). He also had the "Year of Europe" to think about, for 1973. South Asia won't be as high up on the list. And the economy/energy crisis will give Nixon hell, along with the power struggle with Congress.

That being said, I find it hard to believe he wouldn't alter policy in some regard. What would be interesting is how he gets along with Bhutto about this in 74-76. Pakistan is just beginning to contemplate a bomb. Nixon won't give them one or aid them too explicitly, but...

Jape said:

I respectfully request more info on this.

Even without Watergate, Nixon had his 'quirks', maybe come the Emergency in 1975 he fears India is going to become a full blown Soviet client and begins bankrolling Pakistan, encouraging them to engage over Kashmir again and even give them help to develop their own nuclear weapons?

Click to expand...

First off, the main reason a lot of the State Department and Congress-and the American people in general-favored India was because it was a democracy sans the Emergency, in contrast to Pakistan. The coldly realist Nixon obviously doesn't care about this at all, and is irritated that people seem to "irrationally" favor India. It didn't help that a lot of the pro-Indian voices tended to be the Americans that Nixon particularly couldn't stand-the "Eastern Elite". Nixon regarded India as the pet of American liberals and the counterculture.

There were geopolitical reasons, of course-like other American Presidents, Nixon disliked India's "neutrality", which they perceived as a front for tilting toward the Soviet Union(in fairness, India and the SU were pretty close). The Indo-Soviet treaty of 1971 just increased these feelings. Pakistan also was very closely aligned to the Indian antagonist China, and Nixon of course was trying to shift to China over the Soviet Union.

However, Nixon disliked other countries Brahmins almost as much as his own. There were no two leaders who were less inclined to get along than Nixon and Indira Gandhi. A big part of this was class conflict, deep down.

I think Gandhi didn't understand why things weren't like they were back in the Kennedy days. For Gandhi, there were geopolitical reasons as well: Gandhi of course disliked Vietnam and American meddling in the 3rd world, disliked American support for Pakistan, and although publicly "congratulating" Nixon for China, probably disliked that too. But deep down, I think that compared to a more cultured, more "understanding" guy like Kennedy or even Johnson, Nixon was a poor substitute. She didn't think much of him, and it showed.


On the other side, Nixon disliked it all, even in the Nehru days-the British accent, the "chic" anti-capitalism, the "pretentious moralism." Nixon also couldn't stand what he saw as her hypocrisy-he thought that behind her moralist pretensions lay someone even more coldly realist than he was, who would love to dismember Pakistan if she got the chance.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s1UBQgDDuWc (Women are tougher than men tape)



I'll quote Kissinger: ‘...were not intended by fate to be personally congenial. Mrs. Gandhi’s assumption of almost hereditary moral superiority and her moody silences brought out all of Nixon’s latent insecurities. Her bearing toward Nixon combined a disdain for a symbol of capitalism, quite fashionable in developing countries, with a hint that the obnoxious things she had heard about the President from her intellectual friends could not all be untrue.’"

In contrast to all of this, the Pakistani military dictators were blunt, simple, "warrior", unpretentious, resolutely anti-Communist and pro-American. Nixon liked them from the start, as VP. Nixon also didn't forget how Ayub Khan treated him like a guest of honor when few did, in his wilderness years, and was sensitive to his opinion about the recent Diem coup. And as I mentioned before, Yahya was very helpful with Beijing just a few months earlier.

“And these blunt military chiefs of Pakistan were more congenial to him than the complex and apparently haughty Brahmin leaders of India.

EDIT:

It's unbelievable how petty the two were when she visited Washington. Gandhi attempted to lecture Nixon "like a particularly slow schoolboy" on South Asian politics and Pakistani aggression. Nixon, of course, really didn't take that well. He promptly retaliated by forcing her to wait nearly an hour the next day for him to show up. Everybody was relived when it was over.

Realpolitik, I must say you truly are a font of knowledge on all things Richard Nixon, which only continues to impress me.

Wow. Imagine a reality TV show where they were forced to live together.

There were geopolitical implications too. I think that maybe I didn't stress that enough. The Indo-Soviet treaty can be thought of as a reaction to the Sino-US alignment-besides the long cooperation with the Soviet Union, the Indians had a very antagonistic relationship with China during the Cold War, and I doubt New Delhi was ignorant of how the dynamics of the Cold War had changed with Washington and Beijing-the major supplier of Islamabad-rapproaching. And of course, Vietnam isn't too far from the surface-by this point, it was beginning to become clear that NV's future was with the Soviets, not the Chinese. It was a big turn around from the days where Kennedy supported India against the Chinese, and thought the Soviets as the lesser evil.

EDIT:

I think this is a good summary of the crisis, as a side note. Takes a nice clean view of it, that isn't Richard Nixon or Jack Anderson's view on the subject.

http://nixontapes.org/india-pakistan.html

This is an interesting read, and your knowledge of Nixon is really awesome. Having listened to the tapes concerning India, however, would Nixon particularly aid Pakistan?

Bhutto tended to lean Socialist as well, and while I understand the camaraderie between the Generals and Nixon, if Bhutto's securely in power, I'm not sure if Nixon would warm considerably towards Pakistan. Certainly nuclear India would be disconcerting, but it might simply be a case of applying sanctions more than arming Pakistan; especially since Zia only comes into power in '78- two years after Nixon's term ends.

Badshah said:

This is an interesting read, and your knowledge of Nixon is really awesome. Having listened to the tapes concerning India, however, would Nixon particularly aid Pakistan?

Bhutto tended to lean Socialist as well, and while I understand the camaraderie between the Generals and Nixon, if Bhutto's securely in power, I'm not sure if Nixon would warm considerably towards Pakistan. Certainly nuclear India would be disconcerting, but it might simply be a case of applying sanctions more than arming Pakistan; especially since Zia only comes into power in '78- two years after Nixon's term ends.

Click to expand...

Judging from what I saw looking at Pakistani policy in 1972 and 1973, I'm pretty sure he'd be willing to work with Bhutto happily. In fact, when Nixon voiced suspicions, Kissinger noted it was an advantage to him, as he didn't owe anything to Bhutto, unlike Yahya Khan. Quite the opposite, as Bhutto pointed out when he met with Nixon at the end of 1971. But at any rate, if Nixon truly cared about enough to stop helping Pakistan, he wouldn't have gone to Moscow, Beijing, Warsaw, or Damascus. How people ruled at home was a matter of indifference to him, unlike most Presidents, so long as it didn't interfere with American interests.

He might just do sanctions, but my guess is the reason would not be Bhutto.

Also, remember to take the long term in view. Without Watergate, there is going to be no Carter administration. With a different lineup of Presidencies, it's possible that South Asian policy as a whole takes a different trajectory.

Realpolitik said:

Also, remember to take the long term in view. Without Watergate, there is going to be no Carter administration. With a different lineup of Presidencies, it's possible that South Asian policy as a whole takes a different trajectory.

Click to expand...

The Democrats had no heir-apparent for 1976. While Carter campaigned as the non-Watergate outsider, he could have done the same over whatever less-than-perfect issue came in an extended Nixon administration. Wasn't it the Teamsters who helped Carter the most?

We can assume Nixon will replace Agnew with Ford. The 1976 elections would be decided on the perception of the extended Nixon-Ford administration.

Mark E. said:

The Democrats had no heir-apparent for 1976. While Carter campaigned as the non-Watergate outsider, he could have done the same over whatever less-than-perfect issue came in an extended Nixon administration. Wasn't it the Teamsters who helped Carter the most?

We can assume Nixon will replace Agnew with Ford. The 1976 elections would be decided on the perception of the extended Nixon-Ford administration.

Click to expand...

No way. No Watergate means no Carter. His main appeal was his "I will never lie to you" outsider appeal. Without Watergate, that just won't have the same traction. I think the Democrats could still very well win in 1976, it's just highly unlikely that Carter would be said Democrat.

No. Ford was forced on Nixon more than anything, because it was becoming increasingly clear that Nixon might be impeached, and that the new President needed to be someone acceptable to Congress. Without Watergate, while he will not be getting his first choice(Connally, Congress will never confirm him), he will have a lot more leeway than OTL.

Realpolitik said:

No way. No Watergate means no Carter. His main appeal was his "I will never lie to you" outsider appeal. Without Watergate, that just won't have the same traction. I think the Democrats could still very well win in 1976, it's just highly unlikely that Carter would be said Democrat.

No. Ford was forced on Nixon more than anything, because it was becoming increasingly clear that Nixon might be impeached, and that the new President needed to be someone acceptable to Congress. Without Watergate, while he will not be getting his first choice(Connally, Congress will never confirm him), he will have a lot more leeway than OTL.

Click to expand...

Carter was still the only Democratic candidate who really understood how to make the new primary system work to his advantage. As long as that remains the case he'll still have a strong chance- he could still also sell himself as the face of the new, progressive south.

Don Draper said:

Carter was still the only Democratic candidate who really understood how to make the new primary system work to his advantage. As long as that remains the case he'll still have a strong chance- he could still also sell himself as the face of the new, progressive south.

Click to expand...

Without Watergate, he won't get traction. Scoop Jackson would probably get Nominated

Imperator Maximilianius said:

Wow. Imagine a reality TV show where they were forced to live together.

Click to expand...

These things popped into mind

"Gimme some sugar, baby"

and

"Now she knows why my '60 campaign slogan was 'Stick with Dick' "


Off to go get some brain bleach now

marathag said:

These things popped into mind

"Gimme some sugar, baby"

and

"Now she knows why my '60 campaign slogan was 'Stick with Dick' "

Off to go get some brain bleach now

Click to expand...

I can't see the picture. All I get is something about remote linking.

Imperator Maximilianius said:

I can't see the picture. All I get is something about remote linking.

Click to expand...

see if this fixes it

marathag said:

see if this fixes it

Click to expand...

Better. Thanks.

Back to the subject. How is US policy toward Pakistan changed, if anything? Bhutto starts the atomic bomb project around this point.

Realpolitik said:

Back to the subject. How is US policy toward Pakistan changed, if anything? Bhutto starts the atomic bomb project around this point.

Click to expand...

Though he isn't going to deliver an ICBM to Islamabad, could easily see Nixon giving the CIA the nod to slip Pakistan blueprints and what not on the sly.

Jape said:

Though he isn't going to deliver an ICBM to Islamabad, could easily see Nixon giving the CIA the nod to slip Pakistan blueprints and what not on the sly.

Click to expand...

Really? You know, in my old Watergate-less TL, I was planning on having Bhutto and Company-including a certain AQ Khan-show up in DC in the summer of 1975 when things are starting to look really nasty for Nixon domestically, and he is under pressure. That's a little much, but Nixon wasn't the type to just stick to sanctions when he was annoyed, and he'll be looking more than ever to distract himself from domestic problems.

I was also going to have Nixon be interested in really improving relations with the Islamic world in general, and seeing an Islamic bomb as not potentially a bad idea. He would justify this as them being a future power block to be put against the Communist powers, and a possibly alternate source of good relations. Radical Islam is not really a big deal until the late 70s. So that worry is not apparent here. This was to have... interesting consequences, with a different administration in power in the late 70s, and the boiling problems in Saudi and Iran, along with the Middle East taking a different trajectory as well.