" She would have gobbled up West Pakistan " : Nixon on Indira in 71 war

[third eye]

Here is an interesting interview with Richard Nixon dating back to 1977.

He speaks of the Indo Pak war of 1971 from 1:52.55 to 2.01.00

He speaks plainly of Indira Gandhi's intent after East Pakistan and how it was the US that saved West Pakistan.

He feels that had the US not intervened on the side of Pakistan things would have been very different.

 

[doppelganger]

A strong leader.

Bigger balls than all of the present Congress combined.

 

[Mythal]

A strong leader.

Bigger balls than all of the present Congress combined.

She was from a generation of Nehru's who had seen struggles and what it takes to be a leader. She saw her father going to jail and genuinely struggling to achieve a goal.
Rahul Gandhi is from a generation that (till recently) thought that they are destined to be leaders irrespective of what they do.
I really hate it that even when there is a call to remove Rahul Gandhi from Congress, people are backing Priyanka Gandhi instead of a real leader from the party.

 

[doppelganger]

She was from a generation of Nehru's who had seen struggles and what it takes to be a leader. She saw her father going to jail and genuinely struggling to achieve a goal.

Sorry to say but she got all the balls her dad should have had.

 

[SwAggeR]

He also says that India was infinitely stronger than pakistan.

And again Thank you USSR.

 

[Armstrong]

Fighting a thousand miles away with a hostile population surrounding you and after nearly a year long civil war has left you dilapidated is one thing; fighting Pakistanis in West-Pakistan is something completely different.

Bravado aside, Ms.Gandhi and her Advisers knew that.

 

[chhota bheem]

Fighting a thousand miles away with a hostile population surrounding you and after nearly a year long civil war has left you dilapidated is one thing; fighting Pakistanis in West-Pakistan is something completely different.

Bravado aside, Ms.Gandhi and her Advisers knew that.

He was talking about west Pakistan not BD.

 

[Judge]

Fighting a thousand miles away with a hostile population surrounding you and after nearly a year long civil war has left you dilapidated is one thing; fighting Pakistanis in West-Pakistan is something completely different.

Bravado aside, Ms.Gandhi and her Advisers knew that.

In 1971, Pakistan lost land even in West Pakistan, not just East Pakistan.

Even in 1965, Pakistan lost more land in West Pakistan than it was able to take.


The excuses just never end.

 

[rockstar08]

Fighting a thousand miles away with a hostile population surrounding you and after nearly a year long civil war has left you dilapidated is one thing; fighting Pakistanis in West-Pakistan is something completely different.

Bravado aside, Ms.Gandhi and her Advisers knew that.

well something to boil the blood of Indians ... let them be happy .

 

[Armstrong]

In 1971, Pakistan lost land even in West Pakistan, not just East Pakistan.

Even in 1965, Pakistan lost more land in West Pakistan than it was able to take.


The excuses just never end.

Loosing a few hundred square kms here and a few hundred square kms there means very little when the assertion is 'that you're being gobbled up' - Take those tinted glasses off and think clearly for a minute.

Does anyone honestly think that the Indian Army would've gobbled up West-Pakistan ? Heck forget West-Pakistan does anyone even think they would've gobbled up Punjab ? If the Defense of the East lies in the West was the doctrine that lost us East-Pakistan because we had hardly anyone in East-Pakistan to fight the Indians and the Mukhti Bahinis....what do you think the forces stationed at West-Pakistan were here for ? Especially considering that in case of West-Pakistan India neither had the luxury of a civil-war raging on here nor were we cut-off from our mainland because well we were in the mainland ?

 

[Judge]

Loosing a few hundred square kms here and a few hundred square kms there means very little when the assertion is 'that you're being gobbled up' - Take those tinted glass off and think clearly for a minute.

Does anyone honestly think that the Indian Army would've gobbled up West-Pakistan ? Heck forget West-Pakistan does anyone even think they would've gobbled up Punjab ? If the Defense of the East lies in the West was the doctrine that lost us East-Pakistan because we had hardly anyone in East-Pakistan to fight the Indians and the Mukhti Bahinis....what do you think the forces stationed at West-Pakistan were here for ? Especially considering that in case of West-Pakistan India neither had the luxury of a civil-war raging on here nor were we cut-off from our mainland because well we were in the mainland ?

If defense of the East was truly in the West, then why did Pakistan consistently lose more territory to India in both 1965 and 1971 in West Pakistan. I can understand losing East Pakistan, what is the excuse for losing more land in West Pakistan?

In 1965, India held 710 sq mi (1,800 km2) of Pakistani territory and Pakistan held 210 sq mi (540 km2) of Indian territory

Is this a few hundred square kilometers ? Or is this near about two thousand square kilometers in Pakistan?

If you think this amount is trivial, then by all means, you are right.
Oh and gobble up in this context means breaking West Pakistan or India taking up a sizeable land area.

 

[third eye]

Does anyone honestly think that the Indian Army would've gobbled up West-Pakistan ?

The then US President did in the interview which put things in perspective.

Unless of course he did not know what he was saying.

 

[Armstrong]

If defense of the East was truly in the West, then why did Pakistan consistently lose more territory to India in both 1965 and 1971. I can understand losing East Pakistan, what is the excuse for losing more land in West Pakistan?

In 1965, India held 710 sq mi (1,800 km2) of Pakistani territory and Pakistan held 210 sq mi (540 km2) of Indian territory

Is this a few hundred square kilometers ? Or is this more than a thousand kilometers in Pakistan?

If you think this amount is trivial, then by all means, you are right.

Are you serious ? This is your argument that we captured thrice as much of your land than you did ours and so lets put mathematics to play and declare you the winners ?

The then US President did in the interview which put things in perspective.

Unless of course he did not know what he was saying.

Politicians are good at politicking; the previous US president even won the War in Iraq where the weapons of mass destruction were present; 10 years down the lane no one has even seen a bloody firecracker let alone a WMD.

 

[Judge]

Are you serious ? This is your argument that we captured thrice as much of your land than you did ours and so lets put mathematics to play and declare you the winners ?

My friend let me ask you a simple question - how do you define victory and loss?

The point of US Prez was that India would 'gobble up' West Pakistan. It means that in his opinion India would take up West Pakistani land as well as it started shifting its forces from East to West.

Considering that India in the last war, 6 years before 1971, had taken up close to two thousand kilometers of Pakistan - and that was just after India had suffered a loss in a war with China in '62.

The 'Defense of the East lies in West' concept was flawed. Do you know the idea behind the concept - it was that Pakistan would lose land in East but West Pakistan would capture Indian land so as to balance things in negotiations and talks.

However when tested, Pakistan could not fight a winning war either in East or in West in both 1965 or 1971.

 

[Levina]

I like the title <3
Whatever Nixon might call her, but Indira Gandhi had the spunk to stand up against the Americans, which did not go down well with 'em.