ARMOUR-1971 Cavalry Officers Association My chapter : A Politico–Diplomatic Perspective

My chapter : A Politico–Diplomatic Perspective

1971 is widely remembered as a liberation war, a war that led to the creation of a new country. It was not the first of the India-Pakistan wars; the two countries had been to war twice earlier, in 1947-48 and again in 1965. It was also not to be the last one, as Kargil war showed us in 1999. Yet, of all four, the 1971 war is remembered as the decisive one. All wars and battles lead to outcomes, invariably interpreted as victory or defeat by the protagonists and the India-Pakistan wars are no different. None of the four wars succeeded in ending the hostile relationship between the two because they remained inconclusive but the 1971 war is still accepted as a decisive victory for India. That is how history remembers it fifty years later; for it achieved an outcome that changed the map of the region forever.

Battles are fought on land, in the air and in the seas and oceans but outcomes of wars are also determined in meeting rooms and conference halls. 1971 is seen as a decisive victory for India because it reflected an Indian victory in shaping the narrative, domestically, regionally and globally. Yet, like in all wars, there were uncertainties and India had to cater for the unexpected. There were unanticipated developments that forced Indian leaders to adapt and modify goalposts but without losing control of the historical narrative. This article seeks to explore the dimensions of the 1971 war not on the battlefield but around conference tables and tension filled meeting rooms.

Seeds of the conflict

The war began in 1971 but the root causes go further back into history. A short appreciation illustrates how it helped Indian leaders shape the political narrative and take certain decisions. The seeds of differences between the leaders of East Pakistan and West Pakistan had been sown even before 1947. The ill-conceived partition of Bengal by Lord Curzon in 1905 provoked widespread resentment and agitations and had to be revoked in 1911. However, it heightened a sense of political awareness among the Muslims of Bengal. It is worth recalling that the Muslim League was founded in 1906 in Dhaka by the Nawab of Dhaka and included many prominent Bengali Muslims like Shaheed Suhrawardy, Khwaja Nazimuddin and Fazlul Haq. In subsequent years, the Muslim League leadership began to be dominated by Muslims from the north and west and very often, these leaders came from more elitist backgrounds.

In 1946, distance between the Bengali leaders of the League and Jinnah were surfacing and find mention in Suhrawardy’s letter to Chowdhary Khaliquzzaman. By this time, partition of India was emerging as a likely outcome, and while in the west, there were contiguous Muslim majority areas, the same was not the case in Bengal and Bihar. Suhrawardy reflected concerns about Muslims where they were in minority provinces and questioned Jinnah’s obsession with partition.

A key reason was that the Bengali Muslim identity was deeply rooted in the culture and linguistic traditions of Bengal. Bengali Muslims did not take to adoption of Urdu, Arabic or Persian instruments to emphasise their religious identity. In this sense, they were akin to the Muslim communities of Kerala and Tamil Nadu. They were influenced more by Bhakti and Sufi traditions than by Hanafi or Wahabi influences. However, the political tides took their toll and Pakistan emerged with two units – East and West Pakistan separated by 1500 miles of India in the middle.

After Liaqat Ali’s assassination in 1952, though both Shaheed Suhrawardy and Khwaja Nazimuddin served briefly as Prime Ministers, the power centre was shifting westwards. The erosion of East Pakistan’s autonomy began soon after 1947. Bengali Muslim League leaders were often given short shrift. Discussions on the constitution came to an impasse because West Pakistan was unwilling to accept a legislature that would have greater Bengali representation based on populations of the two wings. Jinnah’s fiat in 1951 about Urdu as the national language led to riots in Dhaka.

By 1954, the Awami faction of the Pakistan Muslim League had dropped the first two words and emerged as the Awami League. The growing marginalisation of the Muslim League at the hands of the Awami League led Gen Ayub Khan to overthrow the civilian government and declare martial law in 1958. A similar electoral outcome in 1970 eventually led Awami League to spearhead the call for independence in 1971.

Along with political discrimination, East Pakistan also suffered growing economic discrimination. The Planning Commission of Pakistan provided the most conclusive data in its reports. In 1949-50, the per capita income in East Pakistan was Rs 288 compared to Rs 351 in West Pakistan. By 1969-70, the disparity had widened and East Pakistan’s figure had risen to Rs 331, while West Pakistan’s per capita income had grown to Rs 533. Similar discrepancies were visible in terms of infrastructure, health and educational facilities. East Pakistan received 25 percent of investment despite being home to over half the population. Its share of Pakistan’s export earnings was between 50 and 70 percent during this period but its share of imports ranged between 25 and 30 percent. According to the Planning Commission, the net transfer of resources during these two decades from East to West was $ 2.6 billion.

The economic domination was made easier by the military rule that reinforced the West Pakistani domination in the military forces and the civil services. By 1970, 84 percent of the civil service and 85 percent of the diplomatic service was West Pakistani as was 95 percent of the army. Among the air force pilots, 89 percent were from the West. It is this frustration that led Sheikh Mujibur Rahman as President of the Awami League to announce the 6-point demand in 1966 for restructuring of the Pakistani state in a manner that would provide autonomy to the East.

The points included a federal parliamentary government; devolution of power with federal government authority restricted to defence and foreign affairs; effective measures to prevent flight of capital from East to West or two separate and freely convertible currencies; revenue and taxation powers with federating units and a percentage of the revenue to be given to the centre; separate accounts for foreign exchange earnings of the two wings; and, the setting up a separate para-military force for East Pakistan. As the 6 points gained greater traction, the groundswell of protests grew and Gen Ayub Khan was forced to resign in 1969.

His successor Gen Yahya Khan initially declared martial law but was then forced to convene general elections in December 1970. In a National Assembly of 313 members, Awami League made a clean sweep in the east, winning 167 seats; Zulfikar Ali Bhutto’s PPP was a distant second with 88 seats. It was clear that Sheikh Mujib would be the next PM while his party would also provide the Chief Minister for East Pakistan. Bhutto began to raise questions about Sheikh Mujib’s authority to change the constitution in keeping with the 6-point agenda and demanded equal authority as a representative of the West though his party had not won any seat in NWFP or Balochistan. The election outcome was a perfect reflection of the polarisation of the political structures.

Till this point, India had made no comments on the situation except to welcome the holding of the general elections so that a democratically elected government would take over from the military rulers. However, the National Assembly was never convened. Protests broke out in march against the delays, leading to firing and casualties in East Pakistan. As protests spread, martial law provisions were implemented ruthlessly. Sheikh Mujib refused to enter into a power sharing arrangement at the centre that Bhutto proposed or dilute his demands for autonomy. The last round of talks ended on 25 March and Bhutto returned to Karachi even as the National Assembly was to convene the following day. That night Operation Searchlight was launched, a brutal, genocidal crackdown, across the board aimed at crushing any dissent. Sheikh Mujib was arrested and flown out to Rawalpindi.

India gets involved

Prime Minister Indira Gandhi addressed the issue in parliament, criticising the military repression, expressing concern and urging restoration of democratic processes. Supportive resolutions were adopted by consensus. Overflights of Pakistani aircraft were suspended. After Sheikh Mujib’s arrest, the other members of the Awami leadership escaped entering border districts of West Bengal. In early April, an independent government of Bangla Desh was established on the border, its location was named Mujibnagar. Sheikh Mujibur Rahman was declared President in absentia; Syed Nazrul Islam and Tajuddin Ahmed were appointed Vice President and Prime Minister respectively. Further, India gave refuge to the East Pakistani military and para-military elements who were escaping the brutal crackdown overseen by Lt Gen Tikka Khan.  

The few East Pakistani army officers deployed in the east defected; the two senior most were Col M A G Osmani and Major Ziaur Rahman and the others in West Pakistan were put under house arrest. An underground resistance took shape under the leadership of Major Rahman. The youth wing of the Awami League reconstituted themselves as the Mukti Bahini under the leadership of Sheikh Fazlul Haq Moni (Sheikh Mujib’s nephew), Tofail Ahmed and ‘Tiger’ Kader Siddiqui. Together, they formed the core of the resistance. In some of the sub-districts, they captured treasuries and acquired some weapons. With these resources, they turned to India for help and Indian intelligence agencies, led by the Research and Analysis Wing (R&AW) got involved.

The outflow of refugees that had been a trickle soon turned into a torrent. By mid-May, neighbouring states of Assam, Tripura and West Bengal were hosting over five million refugees stretching the local resources. India began to agitate the East Pakistan issue as a humanitarian and refugee crisis in the relevant United Nations bodies in New York and Geneva. Internally, a Core Group was set up under Principal Secretary to PM P N Haksar, including Chairman of the Policy Planning Committee D P Dhar, Foreign Secretary T N Kaul, R&AW chief R N Kao and PN Dhar, Secretary to PM. At the cabinet level, Mrs Indira Gandhi consulted Defence Minister Jagjivan Ram, Finance Minister Y B Chavan and Foreign Minister Swaran Singh.

Initially, Mrs Gandhi favoured the idea of giving immediate recognition to Bangla Desh as a free country with a government in exile but others including Swaran Singh felt that India needed time to prepare the ground for gaining broad international acceptance; otherwise, India ran the risk of being blamed for interfering in the internal affairs of a neighbouring country and encouraging secession. It was also clear that immediate recognition would very likely lead to military operations in East Pakistan and Jagjivan Ram and Army chief Gen S H F J Manekshaw both sought time for adequate planning and resourcing as the conflict could also escalate into the western theatre, leading to a two-front situation.

Accordingly, an evolutionary policy approach was adopted with the necessary preparations to exercise the military option at a later date. The political understanding was that the Pakistan regime needed to respect the outcome of the December election and for this, the first step is the release of Sheikh Mujibur Rahman and commencement of a political dialogue. The second decision was to demand an end to the military crackdown in East Pakistan and a return of the troops to their barracks so that conditions for the return of the refugees could begin to be created. While the international community, especially key major powers needed to be approached to use their influence with Pakistan for the above two points, UN and its agencies would be sensitised to the refugee crisis to generate relief and rehabilitation assistance. Finally, resources for the military option were cleared so that necessary procurement could be fast tracked. Gen Manekshaw had the lessons of 1962 war with China and the 1965 war with Pakistan in mind and needed a better trained and better equipped force. Further, he also needed far greater coordination with the Air Force and Navy than had been in evidence earlier.

From June to December, the Ministry of External Affairs became the instrument for the campaign on the first two points, even as senior political leaders led by Mrs Gandhi visited selected capitals. Following closure of Indian air space, Pakistani aircraft had been using Colombo as a transit point. After some reluctance, Sri Lanka was finally persuaded in end-July to withdraw this facility. By this time the number of refugees had crossed eight million. Pakistan refused to release Sheikh Mujib, accused India of seeking a break-up of Pakistan, called the refugees as ‘rebels and secessionists’ and continued its crackdown.

The first fortnight of July unveiled a new surprise. On 6 July, US National Security Adviser Henry Kissinger landed in Delhi for talks. His message was to urge India to be patient even as news were breaking about US having resumed military supplies to Pakistan. After two days of bruising meetings in Delhi he took off for Islamabad. After a day, he feigned illness, ostensibly went to Nathiagali to recover, while he took off for his secret visit to Beijing that had been in the making and for which, Gen Yahya Khan had played the go-between. After returning to Islamabad, having recovered from his illness and returned to the US. On 15 July, US president Richard Nixon announced to a stunned world that he had accepted an invitation to visit China. As the details of Pakistan’s role emerged, Indian leaders were forced to review their options.

As we now know, Washington was fully aware of the developments in East Pakistan. The US Consul General in Dhaka Archer Blood sent a telegram to Washington in end-March, days after the beginning of Operation Searchlight, titled ‘Selective Genocide’. When it did not elicit a response, it was followed up in subsequent weeks with more details of the killings and then finally he and twenty of his colleagues sent the now famous ‘Dissent Telegram’, conveying disagreement with US policy on Pakistan and describing it as ‘moral bankruptcy’. By end-April, he was sacked from the post and returned to the US where he was assigned to the Personnel Department. US never asked for the release of Sheikh Mujib or criticised Gen Yahya Khan for the military crackdown; it merely asked him to seek a political solution.

Even when US Ambassador in Islamabad Joseph Farland reported that Pakistan could not hold on to its eastern wing, Kissinger’s response was that the US needed six months to pull off the China visit. The US effort therefore was to prevent India from going for the military option. The last straw was the message conveyed by Kissinger to Indian Ambassador L K Jha on 17 July that in case a war broke out between India and Pakistan and China got involved on Pakistan’s side, US would be unable to help India.

The Indo-Soviet Treaty for Peace, Friendship and Co-operation had been under discussion for a couple of years. There was already movement to fast track it and D P Dhar had been following it up. It was now finalised and Soviet Foreign Minister Andrei Gromyko flew to Delhi for the signing on 7 August. It included a significant clause calling for mutual consultations in the event of a threat to either party. Indian military planners had to factor in not just a two-front war with Pakistan but also the possibility of China upping the ante in the north-east. This was not an exaggerated notion. After the 1965 war, Bhutto had visualised that in the next conflict, coordination with China would be essential, in the north-east and particularly close to Sikkim down to the ‘chicken’s neck’. Bhutto was an influential leader and his own political ambitions had contributed to the East Pakistan crisis. From India’s point of view, a non-hostile Bangla Desh was strategically preferable to a hostile East Pakistan. Further, it was a negation of the two-nation theory that had formed the basis of the creation of Pakistan in the first place. The die was cast.

Setting the stage

Swaran Singh resumed his travels to key European capitals and US and Canada. K C Pant visited a number of Asian and Latin American capitals. Mohammed Yunus took on the responsibility of covering the Arab countries. The response was disappointing. Even where there was sympathy, there was a reluctance to get drawn into an issue that had larger ramifications. Territorial break-up of a state was difficult to accept and Pakistan was a member of Western military alliances, SEATO and CENTO. China and the US were openly supporting Pakistan and the Islamic world displayed a clear sympathy for Pakistan.  NAM was moribund.

However, international public opinion was getting energised. Media had begun to carry harrowing stories and pictures of the refugee camps. Joan Baez took up the cause in a series of concerts called Song for Bangla Desh. Pandit Ravi Shankar and George Harrison organised the Concert for Bangla Desh bringing together the Beatles, Eric Clapton and Bob Dylan, among others. In October-November, visits to the refugee camps by people like Prince Sadruddin Aga Khan, Senator Edward Kennedy and prominent French intellectual Andre Malraux kept the world opinion sensitised to the humanitarian tragedy. 

Meanwhile, at home, arrangements were made to enable the government in exile to establish contact with East Pakistani diaspora in other countries. The entire Bengali component of the Pakistani consulate in Calcutta had resigned and had joined the establishment in Mujibnagar. A Branch Secretariat of the MEA to coordinate the different needs and requirements of the growing refugee camps as well as the government in exile, was established in Calcutta, with representation from other branches of the government. Indian missions abroad were receiving requests for asylum from East Pakistani diplomats and officials that needed vetting. Gen Yahya Khan was threatening to charge Sheikh Mujib with treason and subject him to a court martial.

A last-ditch diplomatic exercise was set to unfold at the UN General Assembly in the third week of September. It was vital to ensure that India’s options not be constrained by any move by Pakistan, in concert with the US, through the Security Council. Even delaying tactics were to be blocked. Pakistan’s appeal was for preserving the territorial integrity of a member state. It was mooted that Pakistan may be receptive to taking back only the Muslim refugees provided the international community paid for their resettlement. The 1970 election was forgotten. Awami League was declared a secessionist party and therefore to be disbanded. Once West Pakistan’s authority was restored, a civilian government would be put in place. In the UN, the majority of the countries only addressed the humanitarian aspect and shied away from addressing the political issues. Some suggested that India and Pakistan should settle it bilaterally. Less than half a dozen countries supported the idea of respecting the will of the people reflected in the electoral outcome. The idea of a liberation struggle found no takers.

Even as India explored the possibility of a delegation of the Bangla Desh government in exile to visit New York to address the UN and engage directly with people, US Consulate in Calcutta was seeking to establish its own links with some members of the government in exile in order to explore if they were open to direct talks with the Yahya regime and create an embarrassing split. Meanwhile the Mukti Bahini had stepped up its activities in East Pakistan. Domestic public opinion in India was urging Mrs Gandhi to be more forthcoming in supporting the Mukti Bahini and recognising the government in exile. By mid-November it was clear that operational support for the freedom fighters needed to be stepped up, the liberation war could not be a prolonged affair and, Indian military action was inevitable.

In October-November, Mrs Gandhi undertook a series of foreign visits covering Moscow, Bonn, Paris, London and concluding with Washington on 4-5 November. The responses were along predictable lines. US had opened links to the Soviet Union suggesting that détente could be jeopardised if they encouraged India to declare war on Pakistan. In Moscow, Soviet leaders supported the calls for an end to the military crackdown and the killings as also release of Sheikh Mujib to enable a political settlement; in private talks, Premier Kosygin cautioned that a war might worsen the situation for India. She got a sympathetic hearing in Paris and Bonn from President Pompidou and Chancellor Willy Brandt respectively but a lukewarm reception in London. By this time, a Pakistani military build up on the western front had raised the prospects of war. After a frosty meeting with President Nixon in White House on 4 November, Mrs Gandhi decided to use the second meeting the following day on other global issues, completely bypassing the East Pakistan crisis.

The last of the doubts in Mrs Gandhi’s mind about avoiding war had vanished. She realised that that the international community could not support a return of the refugees. Moreover, the Mukti Bahini was becoming resentful at the restraints imposed on them by India. Pakistan adopted a policy of hot pursuit into India in the eastern sector, including using its airplanes. India responded in kind. Conflict broke out at Boyra on 22 November. The western sector was put on high alert. After some reservations on the part of Eastern Command the political decision was taken to set up a joint command with Col Osmani leading the freedom fighters. Mrs Gandhi was flying back from Calcutta to Delhi on 3 December when she learnt that Pakistani airplanes had undertaken pre-emptive strikes against Indian airfields in the western sector.

After landing in Delhi, an emergency meeting of the Cabinet was convened. A state of war with Pakistan was declared. Formal recognition was given to the state of Bangla Desh and they were invited to open a diplomatic mission in Delhi.

The 14-day war of 1971

The objectives of the military campaign were clear. In the east, it had to be the decisive defeat of the Pakistan army ensuring the transformation of East Pakistan into a free republic of Bangla Desh; in the west, it was to ensure that Pakistan was unable to make any gains in Jammu and Kashmir while exploring any possibilities for capturing territory in Rajasthan and Sindh that could be politically useful at the negotiating table. The force levels were deployed accordingly. Eastern Army Commander Lt Gen J S Aurora had a little over three corps assisted by two divisions of Mukti Bahini and the irregulars. This enabled the opening up of four fronts – from the west, north, north-east and east, simultaneously. The aircraft carrier INS Vikrant along with two frigates and other supporting vessels was deployed on the eastern front. A significant force multiplier was the nearly 12 squadrons of the Indian Air Force deployed along the nine airfields in the east for supporting each of the four ground attack lines whose strategy was to bypass the major the major urban centres thereby cutting off the Pakistani forces and surround Dhaka. The Mukti Bahini played a key role in providing intelligence and undertaking sabotage for shaping the battlefield. In contrast, force levels in the west were more evenly balanced.

On the diplomatic front, the action shifted in the UN from the General Assembly to the Security Council. Pakistan accused India of creating and supporting a separatist movement in East Pakistan and now giving it open military support. India emphasised the socio-economic and political reasons for the growth of the liberation movement, the influx of the refugees and Pakistan’s aggression with air strikes on 3 December. Most states urged an immediate ceasefire and opening of a political dialogue without addressing the deeper political causes.

More than twenty resolutions were introduced in the Security Council. The US resolution called for an immediate ceasefire, withdrawal of the forces to their own borders to create an environment conducive to the return of the refugees with the help of the UN Secretary General. Many western country resolutions were similar to the US resolution. The USSR resolution called for a political settlement in East Pakistan that could end the hostilities and urged Pakistani forces from violence against its citizens. A Polish resolution urged that power be transferred to the elected representatives. China’s resolution condemned Indian aggression and demanded the withdrawal of Indian forces. Between December 4-16, USSR exercised a veto in support of India on seven occasions. The result was that the Security Council was prevented from taking any punitive actions against India that could have interfered with the liberation struggle and been a strategic setback for India.

Foreign Minister Swaran Singh arrived in New York on 10 December to present India’s case to the Security Council. Pakistan was represented by Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto. Swaran Singh delivered his speech over two days as he sought consecutive translation instead of simultaneous translation, in view of the gravity of the situation. By 14 December, that the conflict in the east would end within the next 48 hours. Even USSR was urging India to move towards an end to the conflict. On 16 December, Swaran Singh informed the Security Council about the surrender of Dhaka and the following day at 2000 hrs (IST), India declared a unilateral ceasefire on the western front. Swaran Singh urged the Security Council to ensure that Pakistan reciprocated the unilateral ceasefire. After a dramatic tearing up of the draft resolutions, Bhutto blamed the Security Council for its inaction and staged a walk out. On his return to Pakistan, he took over as President and Civilian Martial Law Administrator from Gen Yahya Khan on 20 December. The following day, the Security Council adopted the resolution (UNSCR 307 of 1971) noting the ceasefire and urging both sides to ensure its durability.

While the fighting was on, US pulled out all the stops to put pressure on India. Chinese leadership was informed by Kissinger that US would support China if China were to take measures to neutralise any threat perceptions from India. On 12 December, China conveyed that having considered the options, it would be best to get a ceasefire through the Security Council. US also told USSR that détente process could be jeopardised if USSR did not use its influence on India to de-escalate the situation. To add to it, an 11-warship group, including the nuclear-powered aircraft carrier USS Enterprise from the Seventh Fleet entered the Bay of Bengal on 13 December in an exercise in coercive diplomacy. The justification used that it was needed to safeguard the foreigners and evacuate them from Chittagong if necessary. Soviet Deputy Foreign Ministers Firyubin and Kuznetsov visited Delhi for consultations. The message was that USSR would deal with the Seventh Fleet incursion, India should wrap up its operations in East Pakistan and immediately thereafter, announce a ceasefire on the western front. A Soviet naval task force including at least one nuclear submarine was directed to the area, with appropriate signalling. Eventually, the USS Enterprise departed just as Dhaka surrendered.

Such was the extent of self-delusion in the White House that immediately after the ceasefire, Kissinger congratulated Nixon for having saved West Pakistan. There had been no evidence that India had the resources or plans to dismember West Pakistan. However, flawed intelligence assessments were employed by the White House to deceive US friends and convince China that it was credible US military threats that had thwarted Indian plans.

The return to politics

In many ways wars become more interesting when the fighting stops. Negotiations begin. The spoils of war have to be legitimised. Negotiations are critical even though media attention moves on in search of new headlines. The 1971 war was no different. Keeping 93000 prisoners of war in safe custody while managing the post-war situation in terms of ensuring Sheikh Mujib’s return to Dhaka and keeping the logistics chains moving was a challenge. Pakistani prisoners were vulnerable to the Mukti Bahini, some of whom wanted to exact revenge, and they knew it.

In Pakistan, Bhutto was negotiating with Sheikh Mujib, asking him to intercede with India for the return of the POWs and give an assurance that no war crimes trials were conducted. Sheikh Mujib was flown to Ankara and then to London on January 8, 1972. He conveyed a message that he would fly back on a British airways special flight to Dhaka but would like to stop in Delhi to thank Mrs Gandhi and the people of India personally. On 9 January, he landed at Palam and after being received by Mrs Gandhi and the entire cabinet, the two leaders proceeded to the Parade Ground where a hundred thousand people had assembled to felicitate him. A couple of hours later, he left for Dhaka, landing in his own free country in the afternoon, to a tumultuous welcome by millions of his citizens.

India established its diplomatic presence in Bangla Desh when J N Dixit (later to become Foreign Secretary and NSA) presented his Letter of Commission as Minister in-charge of the Indian diplomatic mission, on 17 January to President Sheikh Mujibur Rahman in Dhaka. Bangla Desh was facing acute shortages of food supplies and health facilities; there was a breakdown in administrative structures and elements of Pakistan army had escaped and assembled into groups in the Chittagong hill tracts. Sheikh Mujib made three requests to Mrs Gandhi, for deputing Indian civil servants to run the district administrations for six months till Bangla Desh officials could take over, a continuing presence of Indian military to mop up the remnants of the Pakistan army, and across the board economic assistance for rebuilding the destroyed infrastructure and setting up a national airline and shipping line. All these were accepted. The Indian Navy helped clear the mines at Chittagong port. A brigade was deployed at Cox’s Bazaar. In February, Sheikh Mujib visited Calcutta to thank the people and in March, Mrs Gandhi became the first leader to visit Dhaka. Both visits were resoundingly successful.

Bhutto had set about repairing ties with the Islamic world by undertaking visits to Iran, Turkey, Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, Libya, Egypt and Syria in January 1972. He also swallowed his disappointment with US and China and set about strengthening his diplomatic position for the negotiations with India. He withdrew from the Commonwealth but maintained cordial relations with UK. Two rounds of bilateral talks were held in Murree in February and April and the Simla summit was convened in July 1972. Bhutto’s objectives were – to secure the release of POWs, to prevent any war crimes trials, to maintain Pakistan’s stand on Jammu and Kashmir undiluted, and manage the optics to appear as an equal and not a vanquished party. On the Indian side, there were two views on whether to drive through a final settlement on Kashmir or set a process in motion. The negotiations were often on the verge of a breakdown. It is known that on 2 July Bhutto sought a long private meeting with Mrs Gandhi where some of the outstanding issues were ironed out. The Simla Agreement was signed late that night. There has been considerable speculation about whether there was a secret text or verbal assurances but so far, there is no conclusive evidence. The POWs were released. Kashmir was to be settled bilaterally and a Line of Control came into being.

Bhutto also was moving to normalise relations with Sheikh Mujib. OIC countries linked Bangla Desh’s admission to this and Sheikh Mujib visited Lahore in February 1974 to participate in the OIC summit. Pakistan recognised Bangla Desh and in July 1974, Bhutto paid an official visit to Dhaka. It was clear that Bhutto was seeking to play on the Islamic sentiments to reduce the extent of the Indian influence. It also opened an option for Bangla Desh to navigate between India and Pakistan when needed.

Later in 1974, India conducted a Peaceful Nuclear Explosion creating ripples across the globe and in the region. Sikkim was integrated into India in 1975. Later that year, political imperatives led Mrs Gandhi to declare a state of national emergency that lasted 21 months. In the elections held in 1977, she lost power. In Bangla Desh, Sheikh Mujib was assassinated in August 1975 and by the end of the year, military rule had been established in Bangla Desh by Gen Ziaur Rahman, earlier a key leader of the Mukti Bahini. In Pakistan, Bhutto won the elections in 1977 but allegations of rigging led to a military coup and later that year, he was deposed by Gen Zia ul Haq and executed two years later.

History had moved on.

Conclusion

Looking back, it is only fair to judge that 1971 reflected a combination of strategic decisiveness among the political leadership, a responsiveness to the changing ground reality, unity across the party lines, a setting out of clear political objectives and a relationship of trust in the advice rendered by the military leadership. An objective assessment of military strength was made as also its application in the different zones of war, the diplomatic, military and political actors worked on a common script, that enabled India to claim that it was on the right side of history.

The best laid plans are often the first casualty when conflict begins. However, in 1971, the military plans had been backed by training and where necessary, the local commanders exercised initiative.  Covert operations by the committed Mukti Bahini in the east provided valuable insights to the Indian army as it progressed without getting bogged down in attrition warfare. The Indian Air Force had understood the lessons from the 1965 war and was able to integrate much more closely with the army operations in both sectors. The psychological impact of strikes on the Governor’s House in Dhaka, oil refineries in Karachi and Sui gas fields in Balochistan was considerable. The navy’s strategy of keeping INS Vikrant in the Andamans while the PNS Ghazi was prowling the Bay of Bengal was a clever tactic that yielded rich dividends once PNS Ghazi was neutralised.

Taking on an adversarial US and understanding the limits of Soviet political support also demanded taking political calls at appropriate times.

Finally, the 1971 war provided an important chapter in shaping India’s strategic culture.

*****

Selected Background Readings:

Srinath Raghavan, A Global History of the Creation of Bangla Desh (Harvard University Press, 2013)

J N Dixit, India-Pakistan in War and Peace (Books Today, India Today Group, 2002)

Arjun Subramaniam, India’s Wars – A Military History 1947-1971 (Harper Collins, 2016)

John Gill, An Atlas of the 1971 India-Pakistan War (National Defence University Press, 2003)

Husain Haqqani, Magnificent Delusions: Pakistan, the United States and an Epic History of Misunderstanding (Public Affairs, 2015)

Gary J Bass, The Blood Telegram (Random House, 2013)

While these provide a broad perspective, there are, in addition, numerous accounts and memoirs of the personalities directly involved in the political and military decision making.

Nuclear Signaling, the Need for New Guard Rails

Published in the Hindu on August 4, 2023

The conflict in Ukraine and the recourse to nuclear rhetoric have revived concerns about nuclear escalation management between the major nuclear powers. Since the end of the Cold War, the United States-Russia nuclear rivalry had taken a backseat. Instead, North Korea, Iran and India-Pakistan got attention with many analysts getting nostalgic about ‘nuclear stability’ during the Cold War. But as is becoming clear now, in today’s changed political environment, the escalation management lessons of the Cold War no longer seem to work for the U.S. and Russia.

Deterrence failure

In June 2021, U.S. and Russian Presidents, Joe Biden and Vladimir Putin met in Geneva. Nuclear arms control was a high priority item on the agenda but no progress proved possible. As concerns grew about Russian troop presence in Belarus on the Ukrainian border, Central Intelligence Agency Director Bill Burns flew to Moscow in November to spell out the consequences of aggression. In January 2022, Secretary of State Anthony J. Blinken met Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov in Geneva to reiterate the message. On February 24, Russia began its “special military operation” in Ukraine. U.S. attempts to deter Russian aggression had failed.

Even as North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) leaders met to decide their response, Mr. Biden made it clear that the U.S. was determined to avoid a Third World War or allowing the conflict to escalate into a NATO-Russia conflict. After freezing of Russian reserves and a slew of financial, energy-related and political sanctions, other elements of military assistance, lethal and non-lethal began to take shape. Intelligence sharing and restoring Internet connectivity was the first step. The second was the supply of ammunition and some weapon systems with which the Ukrainian forces were familiar. NATO deepened its military involvement by providing gradually more and more sophisticated weapon systems, beginning with Javelin and Stinger missiles, and moving on to Patriot missile defence batteries, long range Himars, Storm Shadow and Scalp long range missiles and now F-16s. Russian attempts to deter NATO involvement had failed.

On February 7, 2022, Mr. Putin warned that “if Ukraine attempts to take back Crimea, European countries will be in conflict with Russia, which is a leading nuclear power superior to many NATO countries in terms of nuclear force.” Annual nuclear exercises, normally scheduled for autumn were announced for February 17, with Mr. Putin personally witnessing them. Announcing the launch of “special military operations”, his words of caution were, “whoever tries to hinder Russia will face consequences never seen in history.” To drive home the threat, on February 27, Russian nuclear forces were placed on a “special combat readiness” with leave for all personnel cancelled.

Even as the U.S. issued blunt warnings to Russia against using tactical nuclear weapons, in the first week of March, NATO decided against a no-fly-zone and Poland, Slovakia and Bulgaria announced that they would not be sending MiG aircraft to Ukraine on account of Russian threats against their airfields from where these aircraft were to take off.

Russian officials tried to downplay the nuclear threat by pointing out that Russia would resort to nuclear use only if faced with an existential threat while U.S. officials tried to convey reassurance to their European allies that while Mr. Putin’s threats be taken seriously, there were no indications of unusual activity at nuclear sites.

President Biden declared on April 24, “We are neither encouraging nor enabling Ukraine to strike beyond its borders’, and adding that the “U.S. was not seeking regime change in Russia.” In short, the U.S. objectives were to support Ukraine, bolster NATO unity and avoid any direct conflict with Russia. Ukraine is not a NATO member and so does not have the security of the nuclear umbrella provided by U.S. policy of ‘extended deterrence.’

Russia’s resort to nuclear rhetoric failed to deter NATO involvement though it influenced its pace and timing. Therefore, both Russia and the U.S. are operating in a grey zone, taking turns at escalatory rhetoric even as they probe each other’s red lines. During the Cold War, the U.S. and the former Soviet Union engaged in multiple proxy wars, Vietnam in the 1960s and Afghanistan in the 1980s, but these were in distant theatres.

Cold War lessons

Deterrence is fundamentally based on the assumption that both adversaries are rational enough to judge when costs outweigh the benefits of the act. Nuclear deterrence adds a conundrum. With their huge arsenals that provided for assured second strike capability, neither the U.S. nor the Soviet Union had an incentive to try a surprise first strike. This realization was crucial in shaping nuclear deterrence theory.

Thomas Schelling, whose writings during the 1960s and 1970s shaped nuclear deterrence thinking (he won the Economics Nobel in 2005) concluded that nuclear weapons were not usable but had political utility in terms of preventing a war with another nuclear power. Clearly, Schelling was looking at the situation between the U.S. and the Soviet Union which had no territorial dispute.

Schelling also concluded that even though any use was “irrational,” the nuclear threat had to be “credible” in order to deter. This introduced a degree of uncertainty into the equation. Using his economics training, Schelling interpreted the uncertainty as risk that could be analysed in terms of probabilities. Risk was intended to induce rationality in the adversaries. Realizing the conundrum, Schelling concluded that the key to making nuclear deterrence credible is through escalation and raising the risk, that in the final analysis, “leaves something to chance.”

This, along with the lessons of the 1962 Cuban missile crisis kept the U.S. and Soviet rhetoric in check during the Cold War even as they engaged in proxy wars outside Europe, and away from NATO and Warsaw pact territories. Today, there is no Warsaw Pact and NATO has expanded to include a number of former Warsaw Pact members. The Ukraine conflict has persuaded Sweden and Finland to give up their long-standing neutrality and seek security under NATO’s nuclear umbrella.

Probing for red lines

Russia’s nuclear doctrine issued on June 2, 2020 specifies two conditions under which Russia would use nuclear weapons – “…in response to the use of nuclear weapons and other types of weapons of mass destruction against it/or its allies” and “in the case of aggression against the Russian Federation with the use of conventional weapons, when the very existence of the state is put under threat.” Mr. Putin has declared more than once that Ukrainians and Russians are one people with a shared history; Russia therefore doesn’t see Ukraine as entirely ‘sovereign’.

Second, there is the oft-cited escalate-to-deescalate approach that implies using tactical nuclear weapons to overcome a stalemate on the battlefield, thus forcing a termination of hostilities on favourable terms. In its 2022 National Security Strategy, the U.S. rejected this by declaring that first use would not lead to de-escalation on Russian terms “but alter the nature of conflict creating potential for uncontrolled escalation.”

U.S. caution is reflected in calibrating supply of more sophisticated weapons by continuously probing Russian red lines even though Ukrainian demands continue to grow. Meanwhile, it suits Russia to increase ambiguity. It is also likely that since Russia failed to achieve its military objectives, its thresholds are evolving.

Daniel Kahneman and Amos Tversky’s path breaking studies in economics showed that humans often tend to double down on bad bets because of ‘loss aversion.’ The Cold War escalation management lessons applied to a different world; today, the U.S. and Russia no longer enjoy parity and Russia’s red lines are fuzzy.

Nuclear signaling today is taking place in uncharted political territory. New guard rails are necessary if the nuclear taboo has to be preserved.

*****

The Future Trajectory of India’s Oldest Partnership

Published in Hindustan Times on July 21, 2023

Last week, as Prime Minister Narendra Modi witnessed the Bastille Day parade in Paris, where a contingent of Indian troops marched alongside their French counterparts to the strains of Sare jahan se achcha and the Indian Air Force (IAF) Rafales joined in the flypast, he had reason to look back with satisfaction at the 25-year-old India-France strategic partnership and feel confident about its future. The French connection has both deepened and broadened and reflects a reassuring stability in a world marked by increasing uncertainties and new rivalries.

Today, India has ‘strategic partnerships’ with over thirty countries but France was the first. As a country that prided itself on its ‘exceptionalism,’ France has been sympathetic to similar Indian claims based on its ancient civilisation. This is why both countries were quick to voice support for multi-polarity once the Cold War ended. French discomfort with United States (US)’s unipolar moment in the 1990s was evident when it described Washington DC as a ‘hyperpower’.

Defence cooperation had begun in the 1950s when India acquired the Ouragan aircraft and continued with the Mysteres, Jaguar (Anglo-French), Mirage 2000 as well as Alize and Alouette helicopters. Cooperation in the space sector has continued since the 1960s when the Centre National d’etudes Spatiales (CNES) helped ISRO set up the Sriharikota launch site, followed by liquid engine development and joint hosting of payloads. Today, it is a relationship of near equals and the two undertake joint missions. 

The Cold War imposed limitations on the partnership. However, when the Cold War ended, France decided that its preferred partner in the Indian Ocean region would be India. In January 1998, President Jacques Chirac declared that India’s exclusion from the global nuclear order was an anomaly that needed to be rectified. After the nuclear tests in May 1998 when India declared itself a nuclear weapon state, France was the first major power to open a dialogue with India and displayed a far greater understanding of India’s security compulsions compared to other countries. It was the first P-5 country to support India’s claim for a permanent seat in an expanded and reformed UN Security Council.

The original three pillars of the strategic partnership were nuclear, space and defence; gradually, others were added – counter-terrorism and intelligence sharing, cybersecurity, tackling radicalisation in plural societies, maritime cooperation, addressing climate change, renewables and green energy resources, urban planning and developing public-private partnerships for urban infrastructure.

If this expansive agenda reflects the broadening of the partnership, four key documents issued – Joint Communique, List of Outcomes, India-France Indo-Pacific Roadmap, and the comprehensive Vision 2047, reflect the growing trust and deepening of the ties.

While the earlier defence purchases were straight acquisitions, the new focus has been on developing domestic capabilities. The agreement for six Scorpene submarines to be built at Mazagaon Docks Ltd was signed in 2005 with Naval Group (then DCNS). It was a 13-year project and suffered delays due to technology absorption hiccups and building domestic sourcing capacity. The first was commissioned in 2017 and the sixth will be commissioned early-2024. India has cleared the purchase of three more. The Vision Statement states that both sides “are ready to explore more ambitious projects to develop the Indian submarine fleet.” India has a target of deploying 6 nuclear-powered SSNs by 2030 and this is a potentially significant area for cooperation.

Similarly, the agreement for acquiring 36 Rafale aircraft concluded in 2016 carried a requirement of 50% offsets amounting to ₹ 28000 crores. A new agreement for 26 Rafale Marine for the aircraft carrier is under discussion with additional offsets. On the civilian side, Indigo and Air India have signed up for 750 Airbus aircraft and Airbus is expanding its network of Indian OEMs as well as considering establishing maintenance, repair and overhaul (MRO) facilities. Both countries are developing a Roadmap for Defence Industrial Cooperation to strengthen the defence pillar.

In 2018, the two countries had agreed on a Joint Strategic Vision of India-France Cooperation in the Indian Ocean Region that has now been extended to the Pacific with the new Indo-Pacific Roadmap in view of its growing salience. Unlike other European countries, France with its overseas territories of Reunion island, New Caledonia and French Polynesia, is a resident power in the region. The new Roadmap is broader and covers preservation of marine biodiversity, sustainable development of maritime resources, deploying renewables like solar in the region, helping small island states develop resilient infrastructure and establishing an Indo-French Health Campus. 

Bilateral economic ties people-to-people are two aspects of the relationship that have been lagging. With annual trade of $ 15 billion, France is our fifth largest trading partner in the EU. Though nearly 1000 French companies have a presence in India, French foreign direct investment (FDI) is estimated to be $10 billion. There is an opening though. In the past, Indian companies saw United Kingdom (UK) as the entry point to Europe; now with Brexit, France can position itself as India’s entry point for Europe and Francophonie. Opening an Indian consulate in Marseille and a French office in Hyderabad will help, together with more direct flights.

The most significant development at the people-to-people level is the growth in number of Indian students and their new-found ability to get two-year work visas after their education. The target of 10000 students a year by 2025 has been met and now for postgraduate students, the visa has also been extended to five years.

One of India’s oldest relationships must now train its eyes on the next 25 years.  

*****

More HIT than Miss in India-Nepal Ties

Published in the Hindu on June 22, 2023

On his return to Kathmandu after concluding his four-day official visit to India, Nepal Prime Minister Pushpa Kamal Dahal ‘Prachanda’ described it as “successful.” He has reason to be satisfied. This is Prachanda’s third stint as Prime Minister and compared to his earlier official visits in 2008 and 2016, the visit in 2023 delivered many more concrete outcomes. More important, many of controversial issues were successfully skirted.

Prachanda’s politics

Under Prachanda’s leadership, the Maoist Centre had fought the elections last year in coalition with the Nepali Congress (NC). There was a falling out over claims to the post of the Prime Minister, and Prachanda switched sides to team up with K P Sharma Oli-led UML. Prachanda was sworn in as Prime Minister on December 26. However, the NC decided to support Prachanda in a vote of confidence, suggesting that since he had emerged as a consensus PM supported by 268 members in a 275-member House, he should also go for a national consensus apolitical President. Though Prachanda had earlier agreed to support UML candidates for the post of President (due for election in March) and Speaker (in return for making him Prime Minister), he began to backtrack.

Relations between Mr. Oli and Prachanda turned sour with Mr. Oli accusing Prachanda of ‘betrayal’ and Prachanda claiming that he wanted to ensure political stability by taking all parties along. The opportunistic Oli-Prachanda alliance collapsed and by end-February, UML withdrew support. In order to stay in power, Prachanda went back to NC, ready to support its candidate for President. On March 20, NC returned the favour by helping Prachanda win a freshvote of confidence, with UML sulking in the opposition. 

A complex power sharing arrangement has been worked out with Prachanda continuing as PM for two years, followed by Madhav Nepal (CPN-Unified Socialist) for a year and then NC leader Sher Bahadur Deuba for the remaining two years. Nepal’s transition to a federal republic (it began in 2008 with the abolition of the monarchy and the election of a new Constituent Assembly) has been politically tumultuous, but largely peaceful. Following the adoption of a new constitution in 2015, two rounds of elections have been held, in 2017 and last November. Hopefully, the current coalition has enough incentive to hold together, providing an opportunity to the government to focus on the economy.

During his pathbreaking visit to Nepal in August 2014, Prime Minister Modi had invoked ‘neighborhood first’ to denote a new beginning in relations. To highlight the focus on connectivity, he coined the acronym HIT, covering Highways, Infoways, and Transways. However, relations took a downturn in 2015 with the economic blockade. Repairing the relationship has been a slow process but results are now visible, leading PM Modi to recall and revive the old acronym. 

Hydropower cooperation

For years, there have been statements about cooperation in the hydropower sector but gradually, things are looking up. Nepal is endowed with an economically viable potential of 50000 MW of hydropower, but till a decade ago, had an installed capacity of barely 1200 MW, making it dependent on electricity imports from India. Today, Nepal has an installed capacity of 2200 MW and in season, can export power to India. A 400 KV transmission is now operational. In 2021, Nepal made a modest beginning by exporting 39 MW; the following year it went up to 452 MW earning Nepali Rupees 11 billion in export earnings. In the lean season, Nepal does import power from India but its dependence has dropped from 20% to 10% during the last five years.

Both sides have finalized a long-term power trade agreement targeting export of 10000 MW within a 10-year time frame. The 900 MW Arun III project started in 2018 by SJVN (formerly the Satluj Jal Vidyut Nigam) will be operational later this year. In addition, it signed a memorandum of understanding (MOU) for the 695 MW Arun IV project last year. The National Hydroelectric Power Corporation (NHPC) signed two projects last year totaling 1200 MW. During the visit, announcements were made about SJVN signing the 669 MW Lower Arun and NHPC, the 480 MW Phukot-Karnali projects.

To keep pace, work has begun on a second high voltage transmission line between Butwal and Gorakhpur and two more are planned under a Line of Credit of $679 million. By agreeing to the Nepali demand for the facility to export electricity to Bangladesh using the Indian grid, India has highlighted the prospects for sub-regional cooperation.

To facilitate movement of goods and people, the Rupaidiha-Nepalgunj Integrated Check Post was inaugurated, work begun on the Sunauli-Bhairahwa ICP and an MOU signed for another at Dodhara Chandni. The Jayanagar-Kurtha railway line, inaugurated last year is planned to be extended while more links are to taken up. After the Motihari-Amlekhgunj petroleum pipeline was operationalized in 2019, work has begun to extend it to Chitwan and an MOU for a new pipeline between Jhapa and Siliguri signed including terminals and other infrastructure.

Negotiations on these projects have been time consuming; the challenge is to ensure timely implementation.

Avoiding irritants

The fact that both sides successfully avoided controversial issues and public disagreements went a long way in keeping the focus on economic ties and ensuring a successful visit. Of the three difficult issues, two are of recent origin and the third is a legacy issue.

The latest issue is the Agnipath scheme that impacts the recruitment of Gurkha soldiers into the Indian Army’s Gurkha regiments, a practice that began in 1816 by the British Indian army. This was continued under a 1947 treaty based on ‘equal treatment’. The Agnipath revision of the terms needs to be discussed between the two armies and the concerned defence and finance officials. But a resolution is possible given the traditional ties between the two Services.

The second is the Kalapani boundary issue that was deliberately stoked as a nationalist cause by Mr. Oli in 2020 when his position as Prime Minister was under threat. He pushed through a constitutional amendment and unilaterally changed Nepal’s map. Resolving this will need time because a lasting solution will need political wisdom and understanding.

The legacy issue is the !950 Treaty of Peace and Friendship. In Nepal, a conviction has taken root that the Treaty is unfair to Nepal as it was imposed somehow. This ignores the reality that in 1949, the Nepali regime was perturbed by the Maoist revolution in China and the subsequent takeover of Tibet. It sought an understanding with India and the 1950 Treaty, in large measure, reflects the provisions of the 1923 Treaty between Nepal and British India. In fact, the Treaty enables Nepali nationals ‘equal treatment’ in terms of employment and permits them to apply for any government job, except for the Indian Foreign Service, Indian Administrative Service and the Indian Police Service. Nepali nationals work in the Indian private and public sector, have joined the revenue services and in the Army, have risen to become two-star generals.

The demand to review the Treaty was officially raised first in 1995; in 1996, it was on the agenda of Foreign Secretary’s meeting. Subsequent summits have included a reference to ‘review and update’ it but no substantive talks have taken place. However, some of the cobwebs of history need to cleared so that discussions can take place in an objective manner that addresses the concerns of both countries.

For the present, as Mr. Modi and Prachanda have demonstrated, the focus on HIT will go a long way in rebuilding trust.

*****