WI: Indira Gandhi goes 'the full way' in 1971

Brundlefly · Sep 12, 2014

In his book "The Duel. Pakistan on the Flight Path of American Power", Tariq Ali writes about an interview with Indira Gandhi regarding the war of 1971. There, she states that one of her generals, General Manekshaw, was willing to start an invasion of West Pakistan after the successful war against their army in East Pakistan/Bangladesh. Apparently, there were also elements in the government who favoured such a solution.

So what would have happened if the hawks in the Indian government would have had it their way? If (West) Pakistan would have been conquered by the Indian army, their allies USA and China probably would have stepped in somehow. Also, India just made a treaty of friendship with the Soviet Union, which might have had fatal consequences in the relationships between the super powers.

British Republic · Sep 12, 2014

The Pakistani Army considered invading India from the West, that might have triggered such a war.

As for China, remember that the war took place in December and after the rainly season, I doubt if the Chinese Army could suceed in a invasion of India thanks to the heavy snow.

America would be unlikely to get invovled after getting invovled Vietnam, the last thing they want is to have a war against India, granted the US milltary was much stronger, but India's was not exactly a weak force.

India would most likely defeat Pakistan (only because it has a much bigger armed forces.

The bigger question would be however, what happens next? I would think it could be posibble to annex East Bengal (the attempts prevent to divide Bengal even before 1947 by Indian freedom fighters are well know), after all India has a federal system.

A much bigger issue would be West Pakistan, while most in the area are Punjabis (which are considered "Indian"), and the rest have historic links with India, then and now there was a lot of bitterness between the 2 nations sadly.

Plus Indira Gandhi is not well known for being a good leader of India.

I don't think Pakistan would return, but there would be still resentment.

Other buttefies could affect both nations nuclear programmes as well

Uruk · Sep 12, 2014

Could India split Pakistan into Pakistan and Baluchistan and then leave?

British Republic · Sep 12, 2014

Uruk said:
Could India split Pakistan into Pakistan and Baluchistan and then leave?

Why would India want a continuing Pakistan though if they are going to invade it?

Thoresby · Sep 12, 2014

I don't think the intention would be to annex Pakistan which would anyway cause serious international controversy (i.e. China and Tibet, Israel and West Bank, Russia and Crimea), but rather to show once and for all that India was the boss and maybe solve the Kashmir issue by force by making Pakistan accept the pre-71 status quo and border.

British Republic · Sep 12, 2014

Thoresby said:
I don't think the intention would be to annex Pakistan which would anyway cause serious international controversy (i.e. China and Tibet, Israel and West Bank, Russia and Crimea), but rather to show once and for all that India was the boss and maybe solve the Kashmir issue by force by making Pakistan accept the pre-71 status quo and border.

India got away with invading and annexing Hydrabad and Goa? Besides there was never a democratic vote on Partition.

If they are going to invade Pakistan (which would be very hard for the Indians), they are not going to let them stay around.

stubear1012 · Sep 12, 2014

Would East Bengal be better off as part of India?

This thread made me wonder if East Bengal would be better off as part of India?

Realpolitik · Sep 12, 2014

If you mean just Kashmir, than India could probably do it and get away with it, since this it the pre-nuclear era and Pakistan is in chaos...

A full blown invasion was highly unlikely. First off, the invasion would be far more difficult than liberating Bangladesh. But the big trouble is the international scene. China will go nuts. And so will the US, and furthermore, Nixinger will also want to show China what a good ally they can be. West Pakistan being conquered by India was not tolerable. And the Soviet Union, in turn, will support India, but since China has announced a rapprochement with the US, the situation in South Asia might cause them to get closer militarily and "officially" than we did early on, rather than us playing the two off against each other... an official Sino-US alliance would impact Moscow in two ways. It would either be that

a) The Soviets decide that trying keep the US away from China is the greater priority.

or b) it gets pretty ugly.

Either way, it's not good for India. Indira knows what she can and cannot do-she probably would have liked to OTL, but had a cooler mind than her hawks. Besides, having partitioned Bangladesh, humiliated Pakistan, and being on the way to being the only nuclear power in the region, why would she? Pakistan cannot really challenge India anymore, for the time. Of course, given how Yahya attacked anyway...

This thread made me wonder if East Bengal would be better off as part of India?

Probably. Just look up the atrocities that the Pakistanis committed in 1971, and the miseries that Bangladesh has endured as an independent nation.

British Republic · Sep 12, 2014

stubear1012 said:
This thread made me wonder if East Bengal would be better off as part of India?

Yes it would.

Realpolitik said:
If you mean just Kashmir, than India could probably do it and get away with it, since this it the pre-nuclear era and Pakistan is in chaos...

India is not going to let the Pakistan region fall into chaos

Realpolitik said:
A full blown invasion was highly unlikely. China will go nuts. And so will the US. West Pakistan being conquered by India was not tolerable. And the Soviet Union, in turn, will support India. Things could get ugly.

China cannot invade in December, the conditions in the Himalaya would be the reason. In fact that is why India invaded Bangadesh in December.

America is not going to get invovled, even they don't have the resources and after Vietnam, I doubt they have the will.

Realpolitik said:
Probably. Just look up the atrocities that the Pakistanis committed in 1971, and the miseries that Bangladesh has endured as an independent nation.

Partition as a whole should have never happed, plus they should have include Sri Lanka and not break Burma off.

Realpolitik · Sep 12, 2014

British Republic said:
China cannot invade in December, the conditions in the Himalaya would be the reason. In fact that is why India invaded Bangadesh in December.

America is not going to get invovled, even they don't have the resources and after Vietnam, I doubt they have the will.

Partition as a whole should have never happed, plus they should have include Sri Lanka and not break Burma off.

That's why people have nukes and missiles. Besides, an invasion of Pakistan will take a longer time.

The US actually did get involved toward the end, when they sent the Task Force 74 to the Bay of Bengal. And the Soviets proceeded to send nuclear subs after them. I don't think lack of resources would be a problem. This isn't a guerilla war in a small country we are talking about here, this is confrontation between nuclear powers with clear enemies and setups. Of course the US would be involved. Nixon and Kissinger would get involved-it's not in their personalities not to. Besides, in 1972, Vietnam is becoming a much smaller factor-the ground troops are mostly home, and Linebacker is approved of by much of the population.

Definitely agree with you on partition. Bad idea.

British Republic · Sep 12, 2014

Realpolitik said:
That's why people have nukes and missiles. Besides, an invasion of Pakistan will take a longer time.

Neither nation would have nukes until after 1971.

Anyway a Indian invasion of Pakistan would be a very hard war war to win, most likely the biggest war since WW2

Realpolitik said:
The US actually did get involved toward the end, when they sent the Task Force 74 to the Bay of Bengal. And the Soviets proceeded to send nuclear subs after them. I don't think lack of resources would be a problem. This isn't a guerilla war in a small country we are talking about here, this is confrontation between nuclear powers with clear enemies and setups. Of course the US would be involved. Nixon and Kissinger would get involved-it's not in their personalities not to. Besides, in 1972, Vietnam is becoming a much smaller factor-the ground troops are mostly home, and Linebacker is approved of by much of the population.

Because the USSR and America have nukes, they are not going to go to war direct, although they may give some support to either side.

But if only America gets involved, then they have really got themselves in a great big mess, India is not going to be keen on America getting involved (they don't want to be a vassal or colonial state to anyone).

Not only that but the Indian Army is a much bigger and stronger force that North Vietnam would ever be and if the United States could not beat (and financially ruin themselves in the process) North Vietnam, how on earth would they beat India?

Besides, India is not that been on Communism anyway, so it is not like "the Reds would spread across Asia" problem would apply.

If all of the Americas (and Australia/NZ) where as developed as America milltary wise and has joint armed forces, maybe they could sucessfully defeat India, but that is not the case in 1971.

IG is going to end up being a hero to anyone who opposes America and her allies, as well as become one of the best leaders India has had on the basis of reunifying the country and defeating America.

Realpolitik said:
Definitely agree with you on partition. Bad idea.

My family suffered from it personally.

Realpolitik · Sep 12, 2014

British Republic said:
Realpolitik said:

That's why people have nukes and missiles. Besides, an invasion of Pakistan will take a longer time.[/QUOTE

Neither nation would have nukes until after 1971.

Anyway a Indian invasion of Pakistan would be a very hard war war to win, most likely the biggest war since WW2

Because the USSR and America have nukes, they are not going to go to war direct, although they may give some support to either side.

But if only America gets involved, then they have really got themselves in a great big mess, India is not going to be keen on America getting involved (they don't want to be a vassal or colonial state to anyone).

Not only that but the Indian Army is a much bigger and stronger force that North Vietnam would ever be and if the United States could not beat (and financially ruin themselves in the process) North Vietnam, how on earth would they beat India?

Besides, India is not that been on Communism anyway, so it is not like "the Reds would spread across Asia" problem would apply.

If all of the Americas (and Australia/NZ) where as developed as America milltary wise and has joint armed forces, maybe they could sucessfully defeat India, but that is not the case in 1971.

IG is going to end up being a hero to anyone who opposes America and her allies, as well as become one of the best leaders India has had on the basis of reunifying the country and defeating America.

My family suffered from it personally.

Click to expand...

China, Russia, and the US all do. I was not referring to India or Pakistan. It's not so much the subcontinent so much as the subcontinent could cause them to do something that is very stupid...

I never said the US getting involved was a good idea. I'm saying that knowing Nixon and Kissinger, it is probably going to happen.

Because the US is much more suited to conventional style wars*-which this involvement/war/whatever would be-and is also becoming (somewhat) internally stable by 1972. Again, I don't think that it's an Indo-US war we have to worry about (that's impossible unless the situation degenerates like I described FIRST, and then unlikely) so much as a tit-for-tat escalation between the US and SU spawned by the subcontinent's troubles, in conjunction with the US and China approaching.

That wouldn't be a problem anyway-America was trying to enlist Mao at the time.

Yeah. Most people I've talked to who have family experience with it says that if they could prevent it, they would.

A full out nuclear war is not likely-that's a worst case scenario. But I could see a game of nuclear brinkmanship going on between the big powers before everybody calms down...

*-Vietnam was a guerrilla war during the 60s(the period in which things went bad), but by 1972 had become a more militarily conventional style war. This is part of why Operation Linebacker was very effect against the North Vietnamese.

British Republic · Sep 12, 2014

Carrying on from any posibble invasion of India by the United States, their defeat would mean Nixon would have a even worse record than OTL and that Kissinger would be discredited to a large extent.

In fact it would make Vietnam seem painless. The butterflies from this are very big.

British Republic · Sep 12, 2014

Realpolitik said:
China, Russia, and the US all do.

And how many of them are willing to start a nuclear war by bombing India?

Realpolitik said:
I never said the US getting involved was a good idea. I'm saying that knowing Nixon and Kissinger, it is probably going to happen.

Realpolitik said:
Because the US is much more suited to conventional style wars*-which this war would be-and is also becoming (somewhat) internally stable by 1972.

True, America would have a advantage, but that does not mean they would suceed against India in my view

Considering that they where jsut leaving Vietnam, how much support would there be for a war against India? Especially one which is not Communist.

Realpolitik said:
Yeah. Most people I've talked to who have family experience with it says that if they could prevent it, they would.

Same here, that ruined both nations very badly.

Badshah · Sep 12, 2014

China won't invade. In 1971, India had soldiers protecting its northeastern frontier- they were anticipating Chinese aggression, whereas in 1962, that wasn't the case.

I can't imagine India annexing Pakistan. I bet they would probably take Bangladesh and then establish Baluchistan and take all of Kashmir. But Pakistan would be too much in 1971. Maybe they renegotiate treaties with NWFP and FATA and take over Pakistan's role there?

Brundlefly · Sep 12, 2014

One interesting aspect is the influence on Pakistani politics. I guess even if the Indian army just did a small-scale "punishment", they'd make sure a friendly government is installed afterwards. Also the reputation of the army generals would be severely damaged, after losing East Pakistan and facing an Indian invasion.

British Republic said:
Besides, India is not that been on Communism anyway, so it is not like "the Reds would spread across Asia" problem would apply.

India surely wasn't keen on communism, but with Pakistan under Indian control and Bangladesh becoming a sort-of ally, the whole of South Asia is basically under Indian - and thus Soviet - influence. That certainly wouldn't have suited the Chinese and the hardliners in the American government (for whom this scenario would almost seem like the domino theory becoming true). And Nixon and Kissinger weren't on best terms with the Indira Gandhi government already before the war.

(Bear in mind that Salvador Allende wasn't a Communist either, but that didn't stop him from being ousted by a US-supported coup.)

Realpolitik · Sep 12, 2014

British Republic said:
Carrying on from any posibble invasion of India by the United States, their defeat would mean Nixon would have a even worse record than OTL and that Kissinger would be discredited to a large extent.

In fact it would make Vietnam seem painless. The butterflies from this are very big.

Again, it's not an invasion of India or a war between the US and India I am worried about, if India invades West Pakistan-and I don't think they would have to begin with-
it's nuclear brinksmanship that I'm worried about. If the situation degenerated to the point where that was ever was considered feasible, that the world will have been screwed already.

And how many of them are willing to start a nuclear war by bombing India?

Let us imagine how many people would die if war breaks out. There are 2.7 billion people in the world, and a third could be lost. If it is a little higher it could be half ... I say that if the worst came to the worst and one-half dies, there will still be one-half left, but imperialism would be razed to the ground and the whole world would become socialist. After a few years there would be 2.7 billion people again.
— Mao Zedong, 1957

Mao was a psychopath. Comments like these don't come from someone who would care about starting a nuclear war. And he is a psychopath that the US has just announced rapprochement with. I don't think the US would intentionally get into a nuclear war, but rather do something stupid or rash.

He only condemned Bangladesh passively, but West Pakistan might be different. And again, invasion and nuclear brinkmanship are different.

China won't invade. In 1971, India had soldiers protecting its northeastern frontier- they were anticipating Chinese aggression, whereas in 1962, that wasn't the case.

I can't imagine India annexing Pakistan. I bet they would probably take Bangladesh and then establish Baluchistan and take all of Kashmir. But Pakistan would be too much in 1971. Maybe they renegotiate treaties with NWFP and FATA and take over Pakistan's role there?

This. Like I said, India wouldn't be doing this anyway. Gandhi is not stupid.

British Republic · Sep 12, 2014

Badshah said:
China won't invade. In 1971, India had soldiers protecting its northeastern frontier- they were anticipating Chinese aggression, whereas in 1962, that wasn't the case.

Good to hear someone else agrees.

Badshah said:
I can't imagine India annexing Pakistan. I bet they would probably take Bangladesh and then establish Baluchistan and take all of Kashmir. But Pakistan would be too much in 1971. Maybe they renegotiate treaties with NWFP and FATA and take over Pakistan's role there?

Pakistan after a total Indian Victory would be quite literally broke, not only is the concept of a "home for Indian Muslims" dead, but the Government itself is overthrown. Some have suggested the region would fall into instablity, India is not going to tolerate it.

Perhaps the might establish sem-independence for NWFP/FATA (you suggestion does not really work unless they annex Pakistani Punjab), but the rest would be theres in some form.

Brundlefly said:
One interesting aspect is the influence on Pakistani politics. I guess even if the Indian army just did a small-scale "punishment", they'd make sure a friendly government is installed afterwards. Also the reputation of the army generals would be severely damaged, after losing East Pakistan and facing an Indian invasion.

Maybe in the short term, but considering the potental loss of life on the Indian side, I don't think they want a continuing Pakistan

Brundlefly said:
India surely wasn't keen on communism, but with Pakistan under Indian control and Bangladesh becoming a sort-of ally, the whole of South Asia is basically under Indian - and thus Soviet - influence. That certainly wouldn't have suited the Chinese and the hardliners in the American government (for whom this scenario would almost seem like the domino theory becoming true). And Nixon and Kissinger weren't on best terms with the Indira Gandhi government already before the war.

True, but short of IG declearing the "Peoples Republic of India", they are not going to get much support from the American public, they failed to get that many to get support a way against actual Communists. However Nixon and Co woyld do the war anyway.

Brundlefly said:
(Bear in mind that Salvador Allende wasn't a Communist either, but that didn't stop him from being ousted by a US-supported coup.)

Good luck getting the Indian Army do to that.

Realpolitik · Sep 12, 2014

British Republic said:
True, but short of IG declearing the "Peoples Republic of India", they are not going to get much support from the American public, they failed to get that many to get support a way against actual Communists. However Nixon and Co woyld do the war anyway.

Good luck getting the Indian Army do to that.

Very true. I've stated this elsewhere. India is not a South American country where the army often operated independently of civilian rulers.

Nixon had a lot of support from the American public with Operation Linebacker. By 1972, the antiwar movement had become a parody of itself-the draft was gone and so were most of the ground troops.

India is a different matter. Most people's sympathy would lie with India here. However, that might be overridden if there were an apparent Soviet-Indian bloc against us and our new "ally".

Realpolitik · Sep 12, 2014

Brundlefly said:
One interesting aspect is the influence on Pakistani politics. I guess even if the Indian army just did a small-scale "punishment", they'd make sure a friendly government is installed afterwards. Also the reputation of the army generals would be severely damaged, after losing East Pakistan and facing an Indian invasion.

India surely wasn't keen on communism, but with Pakistan under Indian control and Bangladesh becoming a sort-of ally, the whole of South Asia is basically under Indian - and thus Soviet - influence. That certainly wouldn't have suited the Chinese and the hardliners in the American government (for whom this scenario would almost seem like the domino theory becoming true). And Nixon and Kissinger weren't on best terms with the Indira Gandhi government already before the war.

OTL's humiliation didn't stop General Zia Ul-Haq from taking over 5 years later and executing Bhutto, the civilian leader. In Pakistan, civilian leaders come and go. The military is always in power. I don't see that changing.

Exactly... not to mention the Russians and the Chinese are just getting off near-nuclear war and border clashes with each other from 2 years earlier.