Longewala 'lies' - Nailed

[Joe Shearer]

You have to count the times that American or other diplomatic intervention has kept India from invading you till you got your nuclear weapon. The Whole brasstacks episode is still taken as a time when India could have launched an attack had it wished to with Pakistan having no ability to mount a successful defence then except perhaps a few nukes here and there.

Since you did go public with your nuclear capability in 98, you have effectively declared the deterrence that keeps India from giving you a massive conventional battering. Secondly..Be it Kargil, Parliament Attack or otherwise.. India has been kept grinding its teeth on the calculation that while it holds a certain victory on any objectives its chooses against you; it cannot guarantee that its own forces will escape unacceptable losses of men and material in that process which will set it back against the world by a magnitude of years. Years that Indian strategists, economists have spent many more years trying to plan out and built on in terms of infrastructure,society and environment.

Hence, the reason for the extremely disproportionate buildup of the Indian military is not just their purported two front war(which in my view is a farce) but rather to ensure that if and when the opportunity presents itself to exact warfare on Pakistan in which they can guarantee minimal nuclear damage on themselves or outright find a denuclearized Pakistan they are able to dominate the battlespace and achieve their objectives of essentially creating a post first world war Germany after the treaty of Versailles situation for Pakistan(and essentially all subcontinent Muslims indirectly) of being forced to be toothless and subservient. Your nuclear assets deter them to this day and minute simply because they dont want to have the losses felt at their own homes in that magnitude. When(and not if) Pakistan's nuclear capability is neutered for whatever reasons.. India will come crashing down your doorstep regardless of whatever Ashas or latas you hold dear.

A cynical @Oscar? Now I've seen everything.

 

[Capt.Popeye]

Actually, that was the idea in 71 as well. Indra Gandhi did not mean to stop east at all, and the actions towards the monabao axis as well as efforts to close the Shakargarh bulge were all to finish the Pakistan problem once and for all. Like it or not, it was the US 7th fleet and Nixon's posturing on ensuring that the more vital west Pakistan lay intact that Indra backed down.

I disagree with FH on the PAF's performance being better in 65, they actually did a much better job in 71 considering the disadvantages they faced.

@Oscar; you may have reasons to hold some sentiments, but not the license to "stretch" the facts!!!

Regardless of some statements (bandied about by some), Indira Gandhi did not have any Grand Plans to to "finish the Pakistan problem once and for all".
I am surprised that you seek to peddle this notion................but life can be full of surprises.

In another post (on another thread) in PDF; I have dealt with this misconceived idea. Let me deal with this again.
Indira Gandhi (supremacist tendencies not-withstanding) had a hard streak of realism contained within her. She never thought that She (and India) had the wherewithal to finish anything in Pakistan once and for all.
There was a section of the Indian Political Estt. of that time that was sorely tempted (after the impending fall of Dhaka was apparent) by the possibility. But two Persons were notably not part of that: Indira Gandhi and Swaran Singh her Foreign Minister; who also had her ear. The then Defence Minister, Jagjivan Ram tended to think otherwise; but seasoned Indian Politician as he was; knew not cross her path!

Let me tell you that even AHQ was divided on this possibility. Most of all the required forces to execute any such plan were not even in place in the West of India. While IA forces were being re-deployed from the Eastern Front, that process had started too late to build up sufficient strength. Only major elements of the IAF had been moved around but that alone could not have achieved what you postulate.

The point that you raise about Munabao and Shakargarh thrusts had different intentions. Munabao and the surrounding areas were suitable for IA to exert pressure while Shakargarh bulge would have helped IA to consolidate and refine their future defenses. This was in accordance with the IA's intentions to refine the border to their tactical requirement.
Do you really imagine that these thrusts could have "finish the Pakistan problem once and for all"!!!???

Similarly, the Ladakh Scouts of the mounted an Ops in Kargil with a similar limited aim; but the weather (of a December Winter) played the spoiler. But that is as far as that "Grande Strategy" that you so imaginatively seek to portray; could go.

Indira Gandhi's mind and intentions became even clearer at Shimla (after the war) when she negotiated with Bhutto. When she was accused (in hushed tones behind her back) of not driving the knife in further into a hapless Pakistan; she told D.P.Dhar (a confidant) that the task was achieved: that the Military Estt. in Pakistan had been "cut to size" and it was necessary to give the Political Estt. a chance to now come into prominence. Which would then muzzle the Military. That would help mitigate the problems as she saw it.
Very different from what you seek to portray.

NOW; the most important part. The Intl. Community was also drawn into the Combat; and the most powerful players had taken sides, which we know.
The Soviet Union had facilitated the Indian actions in the Conflict through very dextrous use of Vetos at the UN.
While Dick Nixon (Mafia-Goonish qualities that he amply posessed) used bluster, threats, money and weapons from the other side!

BUT; Brezhnev and Kosygin had not given Indira Gandhi and India; any carte-blanche. Once the Birth of a new Nation called Bangla Desh became a fait-accompli; they made it clear to Indira Gandhi that the Vetos would cease. So the umbrella would be lifted then.
So your assertion that: "it was the US 7th fleet and Nixon's posturing on ensuring that the more vital west Pakistan lay intact that Indra (sic) backed down."........is sheer bunkum!

Oscar; do not forget that: the 7th Fleet steamed grandiosely into the Bay of Bengal upto the latitude of Nicobar and then even more grandiosely turned back!!
While Dhaka fell and the Document of Surrender was signed on the Racecourse at Dhaka.

Dick had been looked down upon by Indira at the end of her aquiline nose during her visit to Washington. Something that he never forgave her for
Now his nose was (figuratively speaking) bloodied by the withdrawal of his much-vaunted 7th Fleet. Without any change of Plans of India; that the Fleet's presence was intended to instigate.
That is at gross variance with your assertion above.

Another person here; i.e. @Joe Shearer may also be able to apprise you of the facts relating this episode of History.

Let not Emotion cloud reason or facts.

 

[Contrarian]

You have to count the times that American or other diplomatic intervention has kept India from invading you till you got your nuclear weapon. The Whole brasstacks episode is still taken as a time when India could have launched an attack had it wished to with Pakistan having no ability to mount a successful defence then except perhaps a few nukes here and there.

Since you did go public with your nuclear capability in 98, you have effectively declared the deterrence that keeps India from giving you a massive conventional battering. Secondly..Be it Kargil, Parliament Attack or otherwise.. India has been kept grinding its teeth on the calculation that while it holds a certain victory on any objectives its chooses against you; it cannot guarantee that its own forces will escape unacceptable losses of men and material in that process which will set it back against the world by a magnitude of years. Years that Indian strategists, economists have spent many more years trying to plan out and built on in terms of infrastructure,society and environment.

Hence, the reason for the extremely disproportionate buildup of the Indian military is not just their purported two front war(which in my view is a farce) but rather to ensure that if and when the opportunity presents itself to exact warfare on Pakistan in which they can guarantee minimal nuclear damage on themselves or outright find a denuclearized Pakistan they are able to dominate the battlespace and achieve their objectives of essentially creating a post first world war Germany after the treaty of Versailles situation for Pakistan(and essentially all subcontinent Muslims indirectly) of being forced to be toothless and subservient. Your nuclear assets deter them to this day and minute simply because they dont want to have the losses felt at their own homes in that magnitude. When(and not if) Pakistan's nuclear capability is neutered for whatever reasons.. India will come crashing down your doorstep regardless of whatever Ashas or latas you hold dear.

What happened to you? I can pick out many technical faults with your analysis, but..

You were generally the guy who gave the average case scenario/analysis, not the best or the worst case.

Secondly

Pakistan(and essentially all subcontinent Muslims indirectly)

This implies you associate Pakistan as the representative of subcontinental Muslims.
I disagree. India has not put forth any demeaning conditions on Bangladesh, and ofcourse Indians, regardless of caste, colour, creed or religion shall enjoy the bounties by national economic growth or subservience of other nations.

Any particular reasons for your shift from Pakistan is 'a nation' to Pakistan is the 'qila of Islam' ? I find it rather intriguing.
@Oscar a reply to this post would be appreciated as well. I find your choice of words in the last para rather out of the blue.

 

[FaujHistorian]

If by only sending thousands of Insurgents and then waging war finally India easily accomplish a hurculean task of breaking a united East and West Pakistan militarily alone, then why couldn't it replicates the same in remaining weak West Pakistan (specially Punjab & Sindh) as well didn't your judgement is totally flop as its completely lacks an essential ingredient.....which any lay man like Qamar1990 could rightly picked and highlighted anytime....but a grand arrogant faujihistorian like you couldn't read it easily in his entire life.........!

Peace

Terrible comparison between regions with different histories, demographics, and geo-location.


Please brush up your knowledge before throwing in these half-baked, rather cockeyed theories.

Thank you

Actually, that was the idea in 71 as well. Indra Gandhi did not mean to stop east at all, and the actions towards the monabao axis as well as efforts to close the Shakargarh bulge were all to finish the Pakistan problem once and for all. Like it or not, it was the US 7th fleet and Nixon's posturing on ensuring that the more vital west Pakistan lay intact that Indra backed down.

I disagree with FH on the PAF's performance being better in 65, they actually did a much better job in 71 considering the disadvantages they faced.

Based on what?

No planner and especially the Indian army's head Mankeshaw never even discussed any plan by Indira or Indian army to ever do that.

INdian army's posture on the West was defensive, while charging forward in the East.

Please do not try to cook $hit in your kitchen. It makes your house as living hell for sure, but more importantly stanks up the forum where many of us moderates are already having hard time to persist.


Thank you

 

[COLDHEARTED AVIATOR]

Longewala is a lie..

Kargil is fake..

26/11 is fake..

Operation Geronimo is fake..

Since alcohol is banned in Pakistan...Guys what do you smoke,seriously?

 

[Joe Shearer]

I can add one little snippet to @Capt.Popeye's masterly deconstruction of the situation at the time. If West Pakistan had been a target, seriously, Sam would not have been quite so insistent on keeping his mountain divs. on the qui vive against China. There was a little row that reportedly broke out between the COAS, General Sam Manekshaw, the DMO, Lt. Gen. I. S. 'Norman' Gill and the Chief of Staff, Eastern Command, Maj. Gen. J. F. R. 'Jake' Jacob. Jacob claims in his book that he asked Gill to transfer two mountain divisions to the effort against East Pakistan, and that Gill did him that favour in a clandestine manner, without Manekshaw getting to know.

Why would Manekshaw not have used his deployed mountain divisions on the western front if he had any serious intentions there? As we have already seen from the East Pakistan campaign, the Indian thinking at the time, and Eastern Command must have presented the plan to the Army Chief before launching it, was to concentrate forces on the point d'appui, not to keep them scattered about. If he permitted his northern boundary to be weakened for a few precious weeks to fight in East Pakistan, he would surely have done the same for any putative attacking campaign against West Pakistan.

There was no such campaign. There was no such intention. The only shift of forces from east to west is one that @Capt.Popeye has mentioned; P. C. Lal's shift of air force units to the west, once it was clear that the fall of Dhaka was certain, and East Pakistan was in the bag.

A post-script: Much though I personally admire Jacob, and notwithstanding the warm and cordial sentiments he has always expressed towards my late father and late uncle, both collaborators of his at certain times, he tends to exaggerate his own position, and some incidents reported in his book are frankly fantasy. The Norman Gill story was one. My uncle saw Gill's copy of Jacob's book, and the incident reported above was annotated in the margin: Bull Shit!

Gill was too good a soldier to try these clandestine manoeuvres behind the back of his chief.

 

[FaujHistorian]

I can add one little snippet to @Capt.Popeye's masterly deconstruction of the situation at the time. If West Pakistan had been a target, seriously, Sam would not have been quite so insistent on keeping his mountain divs. on the qui vive against China. There was a little row that reportedly broke out between the COAS, General Sam Manekshaw, the DMO, Lt. Gen. I. S. 'Norman' Gill and the Chief of Staff, Eastern Command, Maj. Gen. J. F. R. 'Jake' Jacob. Jacob claims in his book that he asked Gill to transfer two mountain divisions to the effort against East Pakistan, and that Gill did him that favour in a clandestine manner, without Manekshaw getting to know.

Why would Manekshaw not have used his deployed mountain divisions on the western front if he had any serious intentions there? As we have already seen from the East Pakistan campaign, the Indian thinking at the time, and Eastern Command must have presented the plan to the Army Chief before launching it, was to concentrate forces on the point d'appui, not to keep them scattered about. If he permitted his northern boundary to be weakened for a few precious weeks to fight in East Pakistan, he would surely have done the same for any putative attacking campaign against West Pakistan.

There was no such campaign. There was no such intention. The only shift of forces from east to west is one that @Capt.Popeye has mentioned; P. C. Lal's shift of air force units to the west, once it was clear that the fall of Dhaka was certain, and East Pakistan was in the bag.

A post-script: Much though I personally admire Jacob, and notwithstanding the warm and cordial sentiments he has always expressed towards my late father and late uncle, both collaborators of his at certain times, he tends to exaggerate his own position, and some incidents reported in his book are frankly fantasy. The Norman Gill story was one. My uncle saw Gill's copy of Jacob's book, and the incident reported above was annotated in the margin: Bull Shit!

Gill was too good a soldier to try these clandestine manoeuvres behind the back of his chief.

Good analysis as always My dear Joe.

Good analysis and reporting.



We cannot fork our history just because our nations have been or could in future (god forbid) be at each others throats.

I see so many Pakistanis and Indian posters making up history as they, just to support some narrow minded goals be they religious or nationalist.


Thank you

 

[MilSpec]

@Oscar What benefit would it bring to India to invade West Pakistan? Gen Sam took his time to plan and deploy the required formations to EP, If there were any such plans against WP, there would be similar deployments there too..... Although Gen Sam manekshaw, Gen Jacob, Gen Aurora are the ones very visible in the discussion, It was Gen General Bewoor who engineered the outline of the strategy of defense in the west and offense in the east. His southern command of 11th and 12 division in Rajhasthan to gujrat sector were strictly limited to defensive positions, whereas General Candeths fiery planning ensured the Indian army was capable to give a bloody nose when needed (although left with quite a few gaping holes like longewala)

 

[FaujHistorian]

@Oscar What benefit would it bring to India to invade West Pakistan? Gen Sam took his time to plan and deploy the required formations to EP,....

Good analysis


As per Manekshaw Indira Gandhi wanted to invade EPakistan in March.

He stopped her.

Then she is the one who asked military to "do something".

then as per Manekshaw, Indian government pushed 60,000 "insurgents"/aka terrorists into E Pakistan.

He was an honest general.

I wish we can follow his example of being honest even if it may go against the made up history/aka propaganda of our respective countries.


peace

 

[ssethii]

71' was a tragic year in our history and we lost in every front.
We made mistakes and in the end paid for them. There is no excuse for failure.
It will continue to happen if the secular forces will try to corner the fundamentalists. like the west cornered the east after independence.

 

[FaujHistorian]

71' was a tragic year in our history and we lost in every front.
We made mistakes and in the end paid for them. There is no excuse for failure.

Good idea. Thanks.

....
It will continue to happen if the secular forces will try to corner the fundamentalists. like the west cornered the east after independence.

What Mujib was fundamentalists and Pakistani government was secular force?

This does not makes sense at all Sethi sahib. No sense.[/quote]

 

[ssethii]

Good idea. Thanks.




What Mujib was fundamentalists and Pakistani government was secular force?

This does not makes sense at all Sethi sahib. No sense.

[/quote]
i was drawing parallels for the present situation(internal war) with the situation that lead to our defeat in east Pakistan.
hatred for bangalis in west then and hatred for fundamentalist in ruling elite now.
The leader of jui-f is a funny man though but take him seriously when he says "ye aa'yein meri zarooraton ko poora nhe kar raha"

 

[FaujHistorian]

i was drawing parallels for the present situation(internal war) with the situation that lead to our defeat in east Pakistan.
hatred for bangalis in west then and hatred for fundamentalist in ruling elite now.
The leader of jui-f is a funny man though but take him seriously when he says "ye aa'yein meri zarooraton ko poora nhe kar raha"

Knowing the military/ economic/ social history of Pakistan,

it is oversimiplistic to say the following:

1. hatred for bangalis in west

is in anyway or form similar to

2. hatred for fundamentalist now



Please explain what you really want to say.

Thank you

 

[SQ8]

No planner and especially the Indian army's head Mankeshaw never even discussed any plan by Indira or Indian army to ever do that.

INdian army's posture on the West was defensive, while charging forward in the East.

Please do not try to cook $hit in your kitchen. It makes your house as living hell for sure, but more importantly stanks up the forum where many of us moderates are already having hard time to persist.


Thank you

Well, you would want to tell that to military historians then who are of some repute to stop cooking what you conveniently assign as fecal matter.

Despite the battering that it took at Longewala, it can be said that 18 Division’s venture, foolhardy though it was, did not go in vain and, it was somehow able to prevent a befuddled 12 Division Commander, Major General R K Khambata, from achieving his main task of truncating West Pakistan. The Indian Official History of 1971 Indo-Pak War succinctly sums up 12 Division’s disappointment thus: “Had it detected the Pak thrust on 4 December, the Division could have met and dissipated it, and gone ahead with its offensive as originally planned

Aeronaut: Air Support in Thar – 1971 War

I never knew moderation meant declaring celibacy from unpopular opinion with our neighbors.. glad I was mistakenly considering myself one then.

 

[SQ8]

@Oscar; you may have reasons to hold some sentiments, but not the license to "stretch" the facts!!!

Regardless of some statements (bandied about by some), Indira Gandhi did not have any Grand Plans to to "finish the Pakistan problem once and for all".
I am surprised that you seek to peddle this notion................but life can be full of surprises.

In another post (on another thread) in PDF; I have dealt with this misconceived idea. Let me deal with this again.
Indira Gandhi (supremacist tendencies not-withstanding) had a hard streak of realism contained within her. She never thought that She (and India) had the wherewithal to finish anything in Pakistan once and for all.
There was a section of the Indian Political Estt. of that time that was sorely tempted (after the impending fall of Dhaka was apparent) by the possibility. But two Persons were notably not part of that: Indira Gandhi and Swaran Singh her Foreign Minister; who also had her ear. The then Defence Minister, Jagjivan Ram tended to think otherwise; but seasoned Indian Politician as he was; knew not cross her path!

Let me tell you that even AHQ was divided on this possibility. Most of all the required forces to execute any such plan were not even in place in the West of India. While IA forces were being re-deployed from the Eastern Front, that process had started too late to build up sufficient strength. Only major elements of the IAF had been moved around but that alone could not have achieved what you postulate.

The point that you raise about Munabao and Shakargarh thrusts had different intentions. Munabao and the surrounding areas were suitable for IA to exert pressure while Shakargarh bulge would have helped IA to consolidate and refine their future defenses. This was in accordance with the IA's intentions to refine the border to their tactical requirement.
Do you really imagine that these thrusts could have "finish the Pakistan problem once and for all"!!!???

Similarly, the Ladakh Scouts of the mounted an Ops in Kargil with a similar limited aim; but the weather (of a December Winter) played the spoiler. But that is as far as that "Grande Strategy" that you so imaginatively seek to portray; could go.

Indira Gandhi's mind and intentions became even clearer at Shimla (after the war) when she negotiated with Bhutto. When she was accused (in hushed tones behind her back) of not driving the knife in further into a hapless Pakistan; she told D.P.Dhar (a confidant) that the task was achieved: that the Military Estt. in Pakistan had been "cut to size" and it was necessary to give the Political Estt. a chance to now come into prominence. Which would then muzzle the Military. That would help mitigate the problems as she saw it.
Very different from what you seek to portray.

NOW; the most important part. The Intl. Community was also drawn into the Combat; and the most powerful players had taken sides, which we know.
The Soviet Union had facilitated the Indian actions in the Conflict through very dextrous use of Vetos at the UN.
While Dick Nixon (Mafia-Goonish qualities that he amply posessed) used bluster, threats, money and weapons from the other side!

BUT; Brezhnev and Kosygin had not given Indira Gandhi and India; any carte-blanche. Once the Birth of a new Nation called Bangla Desh became a fait-accompli; they made it clear to Indira Gandhi that the Vetos would cease. So the umbrella would be lifted then.
So your assertion that: "it was the US 7th fleet and Nixon's posturing on ensuring that the more vital west Pakistan lay intact that Indra (sic) backed down."........is sheer bunkum!

Oscar; do not forget that: the 7th Fleet steamed grandiosely into the Bay of Bengal upto the latitude of Nicobar and then even more grandiosely turned back!!
While Dhaka fell and the Document of Surrender was signed on the Racecourse at Dhaka.

Dick had been looked down upon by Indira at the end of her aquiline nose during her visit to Washington. Something that he never forgave her for
Now his nose was (figuratively speaking) bloodied by the withdrawal of his much-vaunted 7th Fleet. Without any change of Plans of India; that the Fleet's presence was intended to instigate.
That is at gross variance with your assertion above.

Another person here; i.e. @Joe Shearer may also be able to apprise you of the facts relating this episode of History.

Let not Emotion cloud reason or facts.

Rather then debunking the bunkum, you have helped me reinforce it. See, the Pakistan problem does not mean invading Pakistan; it means leaving it in a hapless state in which it is no further threat to India. Hence, inspite of the extreme nature of the "Pakistan problem" statement.. it does not detract that essentially that was the goal in 71 and is the goal now. Moreover, in no reference to Nixon's 7th fleet did I mention east Pakistan but rather the continuation of the conflict into the west. Regardless of his thug ideals, the presence of the 7th fleet sent a message to the soviets that the conflict would expand beyond just Pakistan and India if the west was to fall.

Now, regarding the overall plans of India vis-a-vis Pakistan.. I suggest you take up your disagreement with Mr Anuj Dhar who so vehemently asserts the opposite of what you attribute Gandhi to.

@Oscar What benefit would it bring to India to invade West Pakistan? Gen Sam took his time to plan and deploy the required formations to EP, If there were any such plans against WP, there would be similar deployments there too..... Although Gen Sam manekshaw, Gen Jacob, Gen Aurora are the ones very visible in the discussion, It was Gen General Bewoor who engineered the outline of the strategy of defense in the west and offense in the east. His southern command of 11th and 12 division in Rajhasthan to gujrat sector were strictly limited to defensive positions, whereas General Candeths fiery planning ensured the Indian army was capable to give a bloody nose when needed (although left with quite a few gaping holes like longewala)

I do not mention invade anywhere. I mention a solution to the presence of Pakistan as a threat to India and to end that threat the actions which are mentioned as defence were to be undertaken.