AHC/Wi:Indian Annexation of Pakistan and Bangladesh

Hang on, in 1971, Bangladesh was East Pakistan at the time, which was why the Pakistan army was there. That was when Bangladesh was fighting for independence, and the people spent six months fighting the Pakistan Army to try and get independence. The Pakistan Army was busy trying to prevent this, and engaged in some brutal repressive techniques.

It was a civil war/war of independence (delete according to taste), and it involved some of the most egregious acts of terror it has ever been my misfortune to witness. Into this, once the monsoons had cleared, the Indian army came, ostensibly to restore order (which they did with a level of competence and professionalism that was praiseworthy). They may well have had other motivations, although as a lowly Royal Marine stuck protecting the British Embassy while the Hell was going on around him, I didn't pay much attention to deeper political questions.

The Bangladesh people welcomed the arrival of the Indian army, because the Indian army put an end to the terror that the Pakistan army was inflicting upon the Bangladesh people.

I make no claim to being a dispassionate, objective observer of that particular passage of history, but your statement is not in accord with what I witnessed.

I see no contradiction- the Indians chose the correct strategy. Concentrate on East Pakistan/Bangladesh and destroy the Pakistani army there. they do it with ease as the people welcome them as liberators. Getting the Bengalis to accept a quasi independent status with India in control over the defense and foreign policy would be easy. I was well aware of the reasons for the war. The result of the Bengali campaign though, is that over half the Pakistani army was captured

But the Indians didn't stop there. They also launch attacks into West Pakistan. There the government had more support but not all that much. From a military point of view, the Pakistani army was beaten and could offer little real resistance Most important, the Pakistani army knows it was beaten and its resistance was crumbling. In fact, most of what was left of the Pakistani Air Force was hiding in Iran There's little reason to expect a long drawn out conclusion

Since the proposed peace terms are exceptionally mild- control over defense and foreign policy with local self government- there isn't likely to be much reason to resist either

Also to answer your question:

1. The UN, which was created so that a country fully annexing another nation couldn't happen without just cause. Why would India just decide to annex Pakistan?
2. See #1
3. The UN had the ability to intervene. If India says "fuck you" and annexes Pakistan and Bangladesh there would be harsh sanctions, maybe even an embargo if India does go Hindu Nationalist.

The Same UN that sat quietly by while the Vietnam War rage, the Vietnamese annexed Cambodia ad infinitum Add in that the Soviets could and would veto any act against India, we can dismiss this body.
 
I see no contradiction- the Indians chose the correct strategy. Concentrate on East Pakistan/Bangladesh and destroy the Pakistani army there. they do it with ease as the people welcome them as liberators. Getting the Bengalis to accept a quasi independent status with India in control over the defense and foreign policy would be easy. I was well aware of the reasons for the war. The result of the Bengali campaign though, is that over half the Pakistani army was captured

But the Indians didn't stop there. They also launch attacks into West Pakistan. There the government had more support but not all that much. From a military point of view, the Pakistani army was beaten and could offer little real resistance Most important, the Pakistani army knows it was beaten and its resistance was crumbling. In fact, most of what was left of the Pakistani Air Force was hiding in Iran There's little reason to expect a long drawn out conclusion

Since the proposed peace terms are exceptionally mild- control over defense and foreign policy with local self government- there isn't likely to be much reason to resist either

The phrasing you used suggested, or at least I inferred from your phrasing, that the Indian army came into East Pakistan and was opposed by both the Pakistan Army (such as it was; but the time of India entry, the Pakistan Army was a disorganised, ill-disciplined, out of control, ill-supplied, poorly-trained, incompetent rabble only capable of terrorising unarmed civilians) and the Bangladeshi people. As you clarify in this post, the Bangladeshi people were quite pleased to have someone come in and help disperse the terror tactics of the Pakistan Army.

I'm not in a position to say what the Bangladeshi people would or would not have accepted in the immediate aftermath. I do know for a certain fact that the attitude of the leaders of the Bangladeshi community and the senior command of the Indian army had a dinner pretty much as soon as the fighting had died down, and the view was expressed that, translated from formal language, came down to: "Thanks for helping out. Will you need any assistance in going back home?"

Taking Bangladesh might well have been possible. Holding it? I'm not so sure. I rather suspect that the issues that led to the State of Emergency a couple of years down the road, and the application of that State of Emergency, would have gone over very badly in Bangladesh. I can speak with confidence regarding 1971. I was there. I saw it. I was involved. I can only speculate about 1976; I was elsewhere (although actually, not very far away; just down the road in Nepal, as it happens).

West Pakistan I was less familiar with, and am hesitant to speak with certainty. My understanding is that the Pakistan authorities were much more secure in West than East Pakistan (although that's not actually setting the bar very high).

From a comparison of what I saw of the Pakistan army and the Indian army of 1971, one was a disorganised rabble, and one was as professional and competent force as I've seen for the period (and significantly better than a number of NATO units at the time).

Clare Hollingworth, who was reporting throughout the Bangladesh episode, is well worth reading on the subject.
 
The Same UN that sat quietly by while the Vietnam War rage, the Vietnamese annexed Cambodia ad infinitum Add in that the Soviets could and would veto any act against India, we can dismiss this body.

But do you think the US, which had a government sympathetic to Pakistan, would veto? Would the UK see the annexation of one of the countries in the British Commonwealth and shrug and say "oh well"? What about France and the ROC, which I believe would vote against any nation which just annexes two other countries for no reason?

Again, why would India want to annex Pakistan and Bangladesh? I get that India hates Pakistan and wants to neutralize it, but surely there must be better, more practical ways to do so then just annexing the entire country.
 
Honestly after the 1945 Indian elections there is no way to get India reunited short of a nuclear war which destroys every country except for India, Pakistan and Bangladesh or something having to do with ASBs.
 
Also, with regards to a Hindu Nationalist India: I am sure that if India does go full Hindutva for whatever reason there would be Sikh, Muslim and Christian militias.
 
But do you think the US, which had a government sympathetic to Pakistan, would veto? Would the UK see the annexation of one of the countries in the British Commonwealth and shrug and say "oh well"? What about France and the ROC, which I believe would vote against any nation which just annexes two other countries for no reason?

The bigger issue in the region at the time would be the Soviet Union (which was supporting India) and China (Pakistan); this was at the time of the Sino-Soviet divergence, and US detente with China (another reason for the US support of Pakistan).

The UK is insignificant in the equation, as is France.

I'm reasonably confident that America, China, and the USSR would ensure that the balance in the area would not shift massively one way or the other. East Pakistan becoming Bangladesh isn't too destabilising. India grabbing hold of both Pakistan and Bangladesh, that's destabilising. That would draw in the big 3, who would reach an agreement. Local opinions would not count for a great deal once those three got involved.
 
Also, with regards to a Hindu Nationalist India: I am sure that if India does go full Hindutva for whatever reason there would be Sikh, Muslim and Christian militias.
Can't forget southern Indians. A country like this would push for Hinduism in the language (to compare, think of how much of southern China has a dozen different languages, but the north is officially mostly Mandarin) and form of northern India, though it depends on if there is any focus on keeping the five layer British caste system or the one form before the British, officially having hundreds of castes. I am guessing they will go for a common Indian identity, and that means Hindi. Though maybe they do support the linguistic autonomy of the areas in their south, which might mean supporting Tamils in Sri Lanka. Anyways, while I do not believe that India would WANT to annex the Muslims lands after they left, if by some strange chance they do, I expect that East Pakistan would be allow to speak Bengali again, and that between the Muslim and Hindu portions of greater Bengal reforged. Well, if not for the bad memories of several million dead during the partitions.

Ahhh, and I feel I should mentoin to all. Since has had separate laws for Muslims and Hindus. The laws for Muslims not actually following Islamic law in some degrees, such as how a husband can divorce his wife immedialty, rather than them and their families working it out for half a year to try to mend the ties between them. Though it is personal laws rather than criminal laws. I expect that if we are going full Hindu nationalist that they might actually try to reform the legal code and have it be universal. Well, Indian nationalist.
 
Top