Indo-Pakistani_War_of_1971: A harsher Simla agreement

Status
Not open for further replies.
According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indo-Pakistani_War_of_1971#Aftermath , India won the war overwhelmingly. What I also did not know was that they had taken territory in Pakistani provinces of Punjab, Sindh and Kashmir, only to return most of it (minus some key strategic areas).

An interesting point I read: "The accord also gave back more than 13,000 km² of land that Indian troops had seized in West Pakistan during the war, though India retained a few strategic areas.[102] But some in India felt that the treaty had been too lenient to Bhutto, who had pleaded for leniency, arguing that the fragile democracy in Pakistan would crumble if the accord was perceived as being overly harsh by Pakistanis and that he would be accused of losing Kashmir in addition to the loss of East Pakistan."

Anyone care to speculate the outcome of a harsher Simla agreement? A toppled Pakistan?
 
According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indo-Pakistani_War_of_1971#Aftermath , India won the war overwhelmingly. What I also did not know was that they had taken territory in Pakistani provinces of Punjab, Sindh and Kashmir, only to return most of it (minus some key strategic areas).

An interesting point I read: "The accord also gave back more than 13,000 km² of land that Indian troops had seized in West Pakistan during the war, though India retained a few strategic areas.[102] But some in India felt that the treaty had been too lenient to Bhutto, who had pleaded for leniency, arguing that the fragile democracy in Pakistan would crumble if the accord was perceived as being overly harsh by Pakistanis and that he would be accused of losing Kashmir in addition to the loss of East Pakistan."

Anyone care to speculate the outcome of a harsher Simla agreement? A toppled Pakistan?

Maybe not a toppled Pakistan, but Bhutto would have been overthrown for sure. Bhutto would have been despised as a weakling so in order to save his democratic government (which India preferred to another military dictator), Indira Gandhi was generous in the Western border and also released all the POWs.
 
According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indo-Pakistani_War_of_1971#Aftermath , India won the war overwhelmingly. What I also did not know was that they had taken territory in Pakistani provinces of Punjab, Sindh and Kashmir, only to return most of it (minus some key strategic areas).

An interesting point I read: "The accord also gave back more than 13,000 km² of land that Indian troops had seized in West Pakistan during the war, though India retained a few strategic areas.[102] But some in India felt that the treaty had been too lenient to Bhutto, who had pleaded for leniency, arguing that the fragile democracy in Pakistan would crumble if the accord was perceived as being overly harsh by Pakistanis and that he would be accused of losing Kashmir in addition to the loss of East Pakistan."

Anyone care to speculate the outcome of a harsher Simla agreement? A toppled Pakistan?

The thing is that despite the sabre rattling of some people in India there wasn't really much real desire to take more territory. One major issue about the 1971 war is that India totally had the moral high ground- this is as important in Indian national rhetoric as it is in American rhetoric.
 
The thing is that despite the sabre rattling of some people in India there wasn't really much real desire to take more territory. One major issue about the 1971 war is that India totally had the moral high ground- this is as important in Indian national rhetoric as it is in American rhetoric.

Having been attacked first and then thoroughly defeating Pakistan, India may have been justified in taking additional territory. I'm justifying this on the fact that even after 1971, there have been a few more wars and "conflicts" in the disputed Kashmir region. This war also occurred before the official adoption of nuclear weapons so the annexation in the wake of Pakistan's disastrous defeat would probably have been manageable.

Would the international community have supported this grab? Could India have managed to maintain hold of this land? if I remember reading correctly, the war was timed by India when there would be snow in the Himalayas, sealing the mountain passes and preventing intervention by China.
 
Having been attacked first and then thoroughly defeating Pakistan, India may have been justified in taking additional territory. I'm justifying this on the fact that even after 1971, there have been a few more wars and "conflicts" in the disputed Kashmir region. This war also occurred before the official adoption of nuclear weapons so the annexation in the wake of Pakistan's disastrous defeat would probably have been manageable.

Would the international community have supported this grab? Could India have managed to maintain hold of this land? if I remember reading correctly, the war was timed by India when there would be snow in the Himalayas, sealing the mountain passes and preventing intervention by China.

I've never heard of this actually- Pakistan kicked off the war. They were busy slaughtering the intelligentsia of East Pakistan and crushing the Bangladeshi freedom fighters. Their strategy was inspired by Israel in the Six Day War- a preemptive strike to take out the Indian striking capability. Instead the first strike failed, Indian forces liberated East Pakistan and crushed the Pakistani Army in West Pakistan too.

The reason why India wouldn't take more Pakistani territory is that it would just give them another Kashmir. The conquered regions would have to be heavily garrisoned and would just be a target for more insurgents. Quite frankly India would gladly wash it's hands of Kashmir if it was politically feasible to do so (it isn't simply because of the blood and treasure already spent holding it for fifty years)
 
All India would annex in a harsher Simla agreement, if anything at all, would be the Pakistan portions of what had been Kashmir, that is to say, Azad Kashmir and the Northern Areas. Nonetheless, I think this could have interesting long term consequences for the region as a whole.
 
India has not gained anything from the magnanimity shown by Indira Gandhi in returning the conquered areas.The bastards never had gratitude for it.Why did she bother to help the regime of that son of a bitch, Bhutto? At last he got what he deserved at the hands of another son of a pig, Zia-ul-Haq.
 
India has not gained anything from the magnanimity shown by Indira Gandhi in returning the conquered areas.The bastards never had gratitude for it.Why did she bother to help the regime of that son of a bitch, Bhutto? At last he got what he deserved at the hands of another son of a pig, Zia-ul-Haq.

Nationalists like you make the rest of us Indians look bad. India didn't need the extra territory and the extra headache. India has progressed far beyond Pakistan so you should be proud of that rather than grumbling about the past
 
Nationalists like you make the rest of us Indians look bad. India didn't need the extra territory and the extra headache. India has progressed far beyond Pakistan so you should be proud of that rather than grumbling about the past

A Keralite like you does not realise what the Kashmiris have suffered thanks to the popular vote and "high moral ground" favouring Gandhi family and the Congress. All you guys think that the Shimla agreement was justified but all Gandhi had to do was to take the areas of kashmir and sign a treaty which limited the military of Pakistan. Hell this would have caused a civil war in Pakistan and hopefully would have split the country. We atleast would not have the problems now.
 
A Keralite like you does not realise what the Kashmiris have suffered thanks to the popular vote and "high moral ground" favouring Gandhi family and the Congress. All you guys think that the Shimla agreement was justified but all Gandhi had to do was to take the areas of kashmir and sign a treaty which limited the military of Pakistan. Hell this would have caused a civil war in Pakistan and hopefully would have split the country. We atleast would not have the problems now.

Yeah, because a civil war in Pakistan would have had no effect on India? Can you imagine the waves of terrorists that would have spawned? It's not like the Kashmiris wouldn't have suffered then. India's claim to a moral high ground is what lies st the hert of the Indian ethos- without I India is little better than any other Imperialist power
 
um.. wow. Do we have several from India on here arguing about an incident in Indian history? That's a refreshing change from the usual groups of Americans/Brits/Aussies arguing about incidents in their history... :)
 
Yeah, because a civil war in Pakistan would have had no effect on India? Can you imagine the waves of terrorists that would have spawned? It's not like the Kashmiris wouldn't have suffered then. India's claim to a moral high ground is what lies st the hert of the Indian ethos- without I India is little better than any other Imperialist power

Is it any better that our leniency inspired Pakistan to attack us more. A civil war might spawn more terrorists but will also be less against India and more against the Pakistan government and its forces. This does allow India to choose a side to back or better the US chooses a side to back and try to stabilize its 'ally'. And are we better than any other power? Are we even a power? It is because of these lenient, self serving and weak willed Politicians that our country has suffered a lot.
 
Is it any better that our leniency inspired Pakistan to attack us more. A civil war might spawn more terrorists but will also be less against India and more against the Pakistan government and its forces. This does allow India to choose a side to back or better the US chooses a side to back and try to stabilize its 'ally'. And are we better than any other power? Are we even a power? It is because of these lenient, self serving and weak willed Politicians that our country has suffered a lot.
PulkitNahata is right.It was the weak kneed attitude of our self serving political leaders that landed the country in all the present troubles.Mrs.Gandhi was in power when Pakistan was making the efforts to produce the nukes.Did she move her little finger to thwart the actions of the Pakis? If Pakistan turns to be a failed state and goes down the drain it is their headache and that of their friends.It would be a welcome development.
 
People should stop debating and instead think about the timeline and for arguers the last thing a country wants is a destabilised neighbor. I don't think India has any interest in a Bangladesh 2.0
 
PulkitNahata is right.It was the weak kneed attitude of our self serving political leaders that landed the country in all the present troubles.Mrs.Gandhi was in power when Pakistan was making the efforts to produce the nukes.Did she move her little finger to thwart the actions of the Pakis? If Pakistan turns to be a failed state and goes down the drain it is their headache and that of their friends.It would be a welcome development.

FYI, "Paki" is considered to be an offensive term in Britain, not sure if the same is true in India.
 
Top
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top