What's new

Denouncing Indira Gandhi

The above record doesn’t even come close to what Dr Kissinger had been trying to impress upon Bhutto and later, in a more diluted tone, in his memoirs.
Is that the record of his conversation with Bhutto, and the conversation in which Indira Gandhi uttered those sentiments, or is it one of various other conversations?

Without answering those questions, the quotes in his book and in the transcript of that meeting with Bhutto are still valid, since they could refer to other instances or unrecorded instances.

Only Mr. Kissinger can answer that question.
 
Thats your assumption based on ignorance. Forget Ms Gandhi, the whole world was literally pleading with Pakistani leadership.
I am afraid the assumption based on ignorance is yours -

Operation Searchlight began on the 26th of March, which ostensibly was the 'cause for concern' for India. By the end of March beginning of April she wanted Manekshaw to start a war with Pakistan - in what world is this time frame in any way an example of 'sustained dialog to resolve issues'?

Here is a quote you posted in another thread from the White House Years

"By the end of April we learned that India was about to infiltrate the first 2,000 of these guerrillas into East Pakistan."

We already know the lack of time given to engagement before planing to initiate war, now explain how in less than a month after Op. Searchlight training camps were set up, guerrillas were recruited, trained, equipped and made ready for infiltration into Pakistan.
 
First things first, Indian record of aggression, are you kidding ,
No I am not kidding.

If you point to the 1947 war in Kashmir I can point to the Indian military's invasion of Junagadh and Hyderabad.

1965 I will accept, so long as we are agreed that it was the attempt to stoke a rebellion in disputed J&K that caused India to initiate full fledged war - but by that token the 1971 war is India's fault by miles, and India's aggression against Pakistan in sovereign, undisputed territory.

The came the Siachen invasion by India, in complete violation of the Simla Agreement - Kargil falls in that category in terms of initiation of aggression by Pakistan then.

Really....and Kissinger's words were the gospel for you since he officialy represented the same country and given the fact we were pro-russian at the time?

Kissinger is quoting Indira Gandhi directly. HC is mouthing off speculation, and almost immediately backtracked on it.

No sir since you want us to denounce our leader and her policies its your prerogative to provide proof for us to do so.
The evidence is right here, in Kissinger's own words quoting Indira Gandhi. I did however say that you could make your 'denunciation' a conditional one.
 
Henry Kissinger was Secretary of State during Nixon's administration. I'm sure living in the US you know all about Richard Nixon. Along with this, the fact is that Kissinger literally hated Indira Gandhi. So no, Kissinger is not a credible source.

However, you can do a 'conditional denouncement' as I also suggested.

I have already done so. Let me state again, i reject the idea expressed behind those quotes. However, i do not believe those quotes to be the words of Indira Gandhi.
 
Henry Kissinger was Secretary of State during Nixon's administration. I'm sure living in the US you know all about Richard Nixon. Along with this, the fact is that Kissinger literally hated Indira Gandhi. So no, Kissinger is not a credible source.



I have already done so. Let me state again, i reject the idea expressed behind those quotes. However, i do not believe those quotes to be the words of Indira Gandhi.
Yup Agree.

I have offered my denouncement of these Ideas as well, but these being words of Mrs Gandhi can not be accepted with evidence here.
 
The came the Siachen invasion by India, in complete violation of the Simla Agreement - Kargil falls in that category in terms of initiation of aggression by Pakistan then.

Where does it say that '84 Siachen race was a violation of Shimla agreement? Can you point out the specific term(s) in the Shimla Agreement that demarcates Siachen Glacier as a boundary?

Siachen Conflict Basis
The conflict in Siachen stems from the incompletely demarcated territory on the map beyond the map coordinate known as NJ9842. The 1972 Simla Agreement did not clearly mention who controlled the glacier, merely stating that from the NJ9842 location the boundary would proceed "thence north to the glaciers." UN officials presumed there would be no dispute between India and Pakistan over such a cold and barren region[6]

Pakistan's Security under Zia: A Google books link, interesting read.
 
I have already done so. Let me state again, i reject the idea expressed behind those quotes. However, i do not believe those quotes to be the words of Indira Gandhi.

Yup Agree.

I have offered my denouncement of these Ideas as well, but these being words of Mrs Gandhi can not be accepted with evidence here.

X2
1234567890
 
Indira Gandhi tried too quickly within too short space of time to inpose India's dominance in the sub continent. If she did make those comments about Pakistan then most Indians including Congress supporters would be shocked and repulsed I am sure as most Indians during her time accepted Pakistan as an independent nation. Much has changed since her time in both Pakistan and India. I as an Indian passport holder cannot believe that she would make those comments but if she did do so then it was in bad taste and unacceptable

Planetwarrior...there is plenty more to it.You have discredited the fact that it was during her reign that we fought a bloody war with Pakistan.Do you remember the recent Mumbai attacks? and the diplomatic tussle that followed?foreign attaches were briefed and a global diplomatic aggression was ventured by our govt.?For months we have been in vain trying to highlight the role of their govt. agencies in the Mumbai carnage...now that might appear normal to you and me right now...but thirty years on..to an Indian if these statements by P.mukherjee and Manmohan Singh and troupe are shown...he'd call them tasteless too...i.e if he has no knowledge of the pretext or the mumbai incident as being the precursor to these statements...
Indira Gandhi's time was a harsh time for us...Americans were against us...you must have read Kissinger's and Nixon's statements about Mrs. Gandhi...we had them sanctions(nuke device implosion),etc...
the aftermath of a war has a diplomatic fallout.
the only thing I hate about her is the mishandling of the 'Bhindrewale' controversy...
 
Is that the record of his conversation with Bhutto, and the conversation in which Indira Gandhi uttered those sentiments, or is it one of various other conversations?

Without answering those questions, the quotes in his book and in the transcript of that meeting with Bhutto are still valid, since they could refer to other instances or unrecorded instances.

Only Mr. Kissinger can answer that question.
Re the 1st quote in OP: Dr Kissinger, in his The White House Years, specifically refers to the meeting between Ms Gandhi and President Nixon, on 4th Nov, 1971. Excerpts of the FRUS document that I have posted was drafted by the same Dr Kissinger, to record the same meeting.

Re the 2nd quote in OP: There weren’t too many conversations between Ms Gandhi and Dr Kissinger, or meetings which Dr Kissinger was privy to. During 1971, there were only two such tete-a-tete, involving Ms Gandhi and Dr Kissinger.

7th July, 1971 – with Dr Kissinger, himself, at New Delhi.

4th Nov, 1971 – with President Nixon at White House, Washington, where Dr Kissinger was present.

It was only at the last meeting that Baluchistan and Northwest Frontier were mentioned by Ms Gandhi. There were only two occasions when Dr Kissinger had raised the topic of Baluchistan and NWFP with regard to Ms Gandhi. He did that once on 29th Nov, 1971, at a meeting of Special Actions Group, with direct reference to the ‘meeting with the president’ and the only other time at the meeting with Bhutto, in 1976, although without direct reference. The FRUS documents, do not give any other instance where Ms Gandhi talked of Baluchistan and NWFP, in Dr Kissinger’s presence. Also, his own memoirs record the meeting with President Nixon on 4th Nov, 1971 as the only occasion when Ms Gandhi expressed her alleged opinion on Baluchistan and NWFP.

However I leave it to your judgment.
 
I am afraid the assumption based on ignorance is yours -

Operation Searchlight began on the 26th of March, which ostensibly was the 'cause for concern' for India. By the end of March beginning of April she wanted Manekshaw to start a war with Pakistan - in what world is this time frame in any way an example of 'sustained dialog to resolve issues'?
Gen Manekshaw, never spoke about 1971 operations. Therefore, it is mere speculation that Ms Gandhi had wanted Gen. Manekshaw, to start a war ‘by the end of March beginning of April’. All indications point to early May, while some say it was June. From The White House Years:
On May 18 – when we were already in the advanced stage of preparing the secret trip to Peking with Islamabad – Mrs. Gandhi warned Pakistan in a public speech that India was “fully prepared to fight if the situation is forced on us.” Indian ambassadors alerted Britain and France that India “may be forced to act in its national interest” in view of the flood of refugees, by then an estimated 2.8 million.[……]In May 1971 we learned from sources heretofore reliable that Mrs. Gandhi had ordered plans for a lightning “Israeli‐type” attack to take over East Pakistan.
Ms Gandhi, in her letter to President Nixon, on 13th May, 1971, had put the figure of registered refugees at 2,328,507. It was only in mid-May, that one can conclude with some reliability that Ms Gandhi was perhaps thinking in terms of military action. Towards the end of May, India did start to mobilize armor to the eastern boarder. However, it is probably sometime in June, that Ms Gandhi made her mind up that she wouldn’t settle for anything less than a military solution.

Meanwhile, Britain, France and U.S.S.R were repeatedly urging Yahya to stop his atrocities. US took a somewhat hands-off approach to the whole situation. Even if we take your allegation that Ms Gandhi had decided to wage war against Pakistan, as early as late March, what stopped Yahya to come to senses and take the air out of Ms Gandhi’s sail. The answer is in an anecdote by Dr Kissinger, in The White House Years:
I urged them to put forward a comprehensive proposal to encourage refugees to return home and to deny India a pretext for going to war. I urged Yahya and his associates to go a step farther in the internationalization of relief by admitting the United Nations to supervise its distribution. And I recommended the early appointment of a civilian governor for East Pakistan. Yahya promised to consider these suggestions. But fundamentally he was oblivious to his perils and unprepared to face necessities. He and his colleagues did not believe that India might be planning war; if so, they were convinced that they would win. When I asked as tactfully as I could about the Indian advantage in numbers and equipment, Yahya and his colleagues answered with bravado about the historic superiority of Moslem fighters.

There simply was no blinking the fact that Pakistan’s military leaders were caught up in a process beyond their comprehension. They could not conceive of the dismemberment of their country; and those who could, saw no way of surviving such a catastrophe politically if they cooperated with it. They had no understanding of the psychological and political isolation into which they had maneuvered their country by their brutal suppression. They agreed theoretically that they needed a comprehensive program if they were to escape their dilemmas. But their definition of “comprehensive” was too grudging, legalistic, technical, and piecemeal. The result was that never throughout the crisis did Pakistan manage to put forward a position on which it could take its international stand. In fact, its piecemeal concessions, though cumulatively not inconsiderable, played into India’s hands; they proved its case that something was wrong without providing a convincing remedy. Yahya found himself at a tragic impasse. Accused by conservative colleagues of hazarding his country’s unity and by foreign opinion of brutally suppressing freedom, he vacillated, going too far for his conservatives, not far enough for world, and especially American, public opinion.
If you have to blame or denounce anybody, its not Ms Gandhi.
Here is a quote you posted in another thread from the White House Years

"By the end of April we learned that India was about to infiltrate the first 2,000 of these guerrillas into East Pakistan."

We already know the lack of time given to engagement before planing to initiate war, now explain how in less than a month after Op. Searchlight training camps were set up, guerrillas were recruited, trained, equipped and made ready for infiltration into Pakistan.
I had quoted that, to correct another of your erroneous assumption that India was supporting ‘separatists’ in East Pakistan, even ‘prior to 1971’ and was ‘ramping up support in early months of 1971’. India’s decision to support Mukti-bahini had nothing to do with Ms Gandhi’s eventual decision to go into war.

Regarding camps, these were open fields, where young refugees volunteered to train in basic free hand self defense tactics and the best of them were trained to operate WW-2 era weapons and hand bombs. The so called ‘training’ was never for more than 7 or 10 days which later on came down to less than 3 days to merely few hours (I kid you not!). Details of such trainings, and camps, are available from the memoirs of a number of ex-Mukti bahini cadets.
 
Nixon Called Indira Gandhi an 'Old Witch' On Tapes

Richard Nixon is still making headlines from the grave…this time via some new tapes in which he calls India’s later-assassinated Prime Minister Indira Gandhi an “old witch.”

It’s a delightful look at what REALLY lurks underneath the fixed teeth-showing smiles of heads of state when they meet. And Secretaries of State, too: in the tapes Henry Kissinger calls Indians “bastards.”

In a tape that will perhaps turn Jerry Springer Show viewers onto foreign affairs fans, the words fly fast and furious, according to the Washington Post:

President Nixon referred privately to Indian Prime Minister Indira Gandhi as an “old witch” and national security adviser Henry Kissinger insulted Indians in general, according to transcripts of Oval Office tapes and newly declassified documents released Tuesday.

Nixon and Kissinger met in the Oval Office on the morning of Nov. 5, 1971, to discuss Nixon’s conversation with Gandhi the day before.

“We really slobbered over the old witch,” Nixon told Kissinger, according to a transcript of their conversation released as part of a State Department compilation of significant documents involving American foreign policy.

Nixon’s remark came as the two men speculated about Gandhi’s motives during the White House meeting and discussed India’s intentions in the looming conflict with neighboring Pakistan. The United States was allied with Pakistan and saw India as too closely allied with the Soviet Union.

“The Indians are bastards anyway,” Kissinger told the president. “They are starting a war there.”

Kissinger also told his boss that he had bested Gandhi in their meeting.

“While she was a b****, we got what we wanted too,” Kissinger said. “She will not be able to go home and say that the United States didn’t give her a warm reception and therefore in despair she’s got to go to war.”

Other documents chart U.S. contacts with China, as facilitated by Pakistan, and U.S. concern that India was developing nuclear technology. The archive covers U.S. policy in South Asia in 1971 and 1972.

The documents, many declassified only earlier this month, generally cover old ground, several Cold War scholars said. Still, the particulars are intriguing, including rosters of who was in various meetings and quotes from conversations among Nixon, his aides and foreign leaders.

WebIndia has a transcript of some of the controversial remarks, which includes this gem of an exchange:

Nixon: The Indians need – what they need really is a-

Kissinger: They’re such bastards.

Nixon: A mass famine. But they aren’t going to get that. We’re going to feed them – a new kind of wheat. But if they’re not going to have a famine the last thing they need is another war. Let the goddamn Indians fight a war [unclear].

Kissinger: They are the most aggressive goddamn people around there.

Nixon: The Indians?

Kissinger: Yeah.

Nixon: Sure.

Gandhi was unavailable for comment (she was cremated years ago).

PERSONAL NOTE: This tape was made some months before I went over to India as a student on a senior year independent study project while at Colgate Unversity. My main task was to intern on New Delhi’s Hindustan Times newspaper.

I arrived there in January 1972 and was shocked at the bitterness and disappointment of Indians who at all levels (on the newspaper, when I’d visit a village and when I met some upper-class elites) would talk about how the U.S. was “tilting” to Pakistan and how Richard Nixon and Henry Kissinger disliked India. Most of us Americans (except diplomats) dismissed it as paranoia at the time. But these tapes would suggest they were correct.

A complicating factor in those days was the fact that as the United States drew closer to Pakistan, India would edge closer to Moscow — a factor which didn’t endear the Indian leadership to American policymakers.

Plus, Mrs. Gandhi was a piece of work. In 1973 I returned after journalism school, this time to work as a freelance foreign correspondent. I wrote for the Chicago Daily News. I attended a meeting of the Foreign Correspondents’ Association at which Mrs. Gandhi was to speak. The officers said that I would have to be first in line, since the most junior member was at front. So Mrs. Gandhi came in and did her “namaste” to me first. The camera lights went on and she smiled at me, clasping her hands. The lights went off, the picture taken. Her smiled dropped immediately, she looked virtually through me and moved on.

“Did you see that?” I said to a British journalist.
“Hey,” he said, “she didn’t want to waste it…”

http://themoderatevoice.com/3221/nixon-calls-indira-gandhi-old-witch-on-tapes/
 
Last edited:
Gen Manekshaw, never spoke about 1971 operations. Therefore, it is mere speculation that Ms Gandhi had wanted Gen. Manekshaw, to start a war ‘by the end of March beginning of April’. All indications point to early May, while some say it was June. From The White House Years:

Ms Gandhi, in her letter to President Nixon, on 13th May, 1971, had put the figure of registered refugees at 2,328,507. It was only in mid-May, that one can conclude with some reliability that Ms Gandhi was perhaps thinking in terms of military action. Towards the end of May, India did start to mobilize armor to the eastern boarder. However, it is probably sometime in June, that Ms Gandhi made her mind up that she wouldn’t settle for anything less than a military solution.
Are the following comments attributed to Manekshaw, and widely quoted in Indian newspapers, blogs and books, false then?
The Field Marshal narrated this incident as a personal example of moral courage, at the inaugural Field Marshal KM Cariappa Memorial Lecture in October 1995 at Delhi.

There is a very thin line between being dismissed and becoming a Field Marshal. In 1971, when Pakistan cracked down in East Pakistan, hundreds and thousands of refugees started pouring into India, into West Bengal, Assam and Tripura. The Prime Minister held a Cabinet meeting in her office. The External Affairs Minister Sardar Swaran Singh, the Agriculture Minister, Mr. Fakhruddin Ali Ahmad, the Defence Minister, Babu Jagjivan Ram and the Finance Minister, Yashwant Rao Chavan were present. I was then summoned.

A very angry, grim-faced Prime Minister read out the telegrams from the Chief Ministers of West Bengal, Assam and Tripura. She then turned around to me and said, “What are you doing about it?”

And I said, “Nothing, it’s got nothing to do with me. You didn’t consult me when you allowed the BSF, the CRP and RAW to encourage the Pakistanis to revolt. Now that you are in trouble, you come to me. I have a long nose. I know what’s happening.”

I then asked her what she wanted me to do.

She said, “I want you to enter Pakistan.”

And I responded, “That means war!”

She said, “I do not mind if it is war.”

“Have you read the Bible?”, I said.

The Foreign Minister, Sardar Swaran Singh asked, “What has Bible got to do with this?”

I explained, that the first book, the first chapter, the first words, the first sentence God said was, “Let there be light” and there was light. Now you say, “Let there be war” and there will be war, but are you prepared? I am certainly not. This is the end of April. The Himalayan passes are opening and there can be an attack from China if China gives us an ultimatum.

http://indianeconomy.org/2007/10/12/when-manekshaw-confronted-indiras-cabinet/
Notice the highlighted sections, that lead to two points:

1. Manekshaw allegedly claims that IG had been using covert means to stoke an East Pakistan revolt before that meeting.

2. The meeting occurred sometime in April, putting the plans for war far earlier than what you suggest, and Indian intervention in EP even earlier.
Meanwhile, Britain, France and U.S.S.R were repeatedly urging Yahya to stop his atrocities. US took a somewhat hands-off approach to the whole situation. Even if we take your allegation that Ms Gandhi had decided to wage war against Pakistan, as early as late March, what stopped Yahya to come to senses and take the air out of Ms Gandhi’s sail. The answer is in an anecdote by Dr Kissinger, in The White House Years:

If you have to blame or denounce anybody, its not Ms Gandhi.
I read it differently - the quote you provided in fact validates the point that India had no legitimate reason for going to war, and used the 'refugees' and 'financial hardship' as a pretext - which should be obvious in any case sine India's actions in supporting, training and infiltrating thousands of violent rebels into EP, along with preparing for war, exponentially exacerbated the 'refugee and financial hardship', especially since the outcome of war, any war, for any sane person is not a given.

Secondly, while Pakistan was to blame for not settling its internal political issues in order, that does not justify the intervention and support for violent rebels and terrorists in Pakistan - your argument is akin to suggesting that an individual who does not lock his doors and gets robbed, exonerates the actions of the thief. The individual is still responsible for his carelessness, but the thief (India in this case) still committed a criminal act.

So yes, Indira Gandhi is indeed to blame. There was no justification for her actions, no 'refugee or financial crises', nor any aggression from Pakistan - nothing but a pathological hatred for Pakistan and its existence, as seen in her quotes posted here.

I had quoted that, to correct another of your erroneous assumption that India was supporting ‘separatists’ in East Pakistan, even ‘prior to 1971’ and was ‘ramping up support in early months of 1971’. India’s decision to support Mukti-bahini had nothing to do with Ms Gandhi’s eventual decision to go into war.
It is not an erroneous assumption - I provided the evidence to justify that position in the other thread, and Mankeshaw's comments imply the same. The support for rebels before 1971 played a part in the eventual unrest that occurred.
Regarding camps, these were open fields, where young refugees volunteered to train in basic free hand self defense tactics and the best of them were trained to operate WW-2 era weapons and hand bombs. The so called ‘training’ was never for more than 7 or 10 days which later on came down to less than 3 days to merely few hours (I kid you not!). Details of such trainings, and camps, are available from the memoirs of a number of ex-Mukti bahini cadets.
Some may have indeed been trained that way, but if the rebel force was entirely composed of such men, there would have been little challenge to the PA - there is no substitute for proper training and equipment.

So my point remains, the training camps had to be set up, men recruited, trained, equipped etc - all the evidence points to Indira Gandhi not giving dialogue a chance to resolve the issue and exacerbating and intervening in a domestic Pakistani political issue. Your own Kissinger quote blaming Yahya exposes IG's intentions - there was no altruism and no overriding threat to India at the time from Pakistan.
 
Where does it say that '84 Siachen race was a violation of Shimla agreement? Can you point out the specific term(s) in the Shimla Agreement that demarcates Siachen Glacier as a boundary?

Siachen Conflict Basis


Pakistan's Security under Zia: A Google books link, interesting read.

Clause 2 of the Simla Agreement:

(ii) That the two countries are resolved to settle their differences by peaceful means through bilateral negotiations or by any other peaceful means mutually agreed upon between them. Pending the final settlement of any of the problems between the two countries, neither side shall unilaterally alter the situation and both shall prevent the organisation, assistance or encouragement of any acts detrimental to the maintenance of peace and harmonious relations.

Read the underlined section - the Siachen invasion was a violation of exactly that.
 
Clause 2 of the Simla Agreement:

(ii) That the two countries are resolved to settle their differences by peaceful means through bilateral negotiations or by any other peaceful means mutually agreed upon between them. Pending the final settlement of any of the problems between the two countries, neither side shall unilaterally alter the situation and both shall prevent the organisation, assistance or encouragement of any acts detrimental to the maintenance of peace and harmonious relations.

Read the underlined section - the Siachen invasion was a violation of exactly that.

I think the question was "Can you point out the specific term(s) in the Shimla Agreement that demarcates Siachen Glacier as a boundary"?
 
Back
Top Bottom