Why India has never seen a military dictatorship

[Joe Shearer]

I have replied in a general sense, but you must have realised that the point was made in a narrow sense, in the sense that Indira Gandhi's appeals for calm and restraint were brushed aside by Yahya in 1971.

What I can bear testimony to is that

1. The Indian leadership was caught by surprise and shocked by Operation Searchlight and its consequences;
2. The Indian public, specifically, the West Bengal public, was in turmoil, and felt that Delhi was indifferent to Bengalis being killed;
3. The Government of India reacted with great sensitivity and alarm at that frenzy in Bengal, because the state was just then being pulled back from a bloody Naxal rebellion;
4. The GoI tried very hard not to complicate a very complicated situation in West Bengal by getting the Pakistani leadership to bottle up the trouble, by giving in to Mujib, not to bring him to the forefront or to win brownie points, but to get a quick end to a problem that was looking really bad. Don't forget that Maulana Bhashani, the leftist-cum-Islamist Bengali leader, was much feared by India, and some people had nightmares thinking that Tiger Siddiqi rather than Mujib would come to represent Bangladesh. In which case, it might have become full-scale counter-insurgency in West Bengal.

I actually saw some of this from the inside.

 

[Joe Shearer]

Mushraff needs to brag a lot and loves to remain in news..In fact you will agreed with me that it was in his term that " Cross border movement" was being put to stop along with ceasefire agreement..Also India is much bigger in every aspect and should act like same ..As much as Pakistan will gain , India will gain much more if the hostilities are reduced..

I agree with that, as do many other Indians. As the larger country, we should have taken the initiative, we could have made concessions. The bureaucrats, however, feel that we did; two major instances they cite are the Indus Waters Treaty and the Most Favoured Nation status, that India gave to Pakistan, but that was not reciprocated.

If you are on Facebook, try and make friends with B. R. S. Nain; he is slightly older than I am, and was Principal Secretary to J&K, and advisor to Farooq Abdullah. Tremendous fount of knowledge and especially so in matters relating to Kashmir, to Punjab and to recent history. He was one of those on PTH in those famous discussions on India and Pakistan, partition, Jinnah, Gandhi, Nehru.

 

[Joe Shearer]

I agree with that, as do many other Indians. As the larger country, we should have taken the initiative, we could have made concessions. The bureaucrats, however, feel that we did; two major instances they cite are the Indus Waters Treaty and the Most Favoured Nation status, that India gave to Pakistan, but that was not reciprocated.

If you are on Facebook, try and make friends with B. R. S. Nain; he is slightly older than I am, and was Principal Secretary to J&K, and advisor to Farooq Abdullah. Tremendous fount of knowledge and especially so in matters relating to Kashmir, to Punjab and to recent history. He was one of those on PTH in those famous discussions on India and Pakistan, partition, Jinnah, Gandhi, Nehru.

DO NOT MENTION ME; HE'LL KILL ME.

 

[Joe Shearer]

Mushraff needs to brag a lot and loves to remain in news..In fact you will agreed with me that it was in his term that " Cross border movement" was being put to stop along with ceasefire agreement..Also India is much bigger in every aspect and should act like same ..As much as Pakistan will gain , India will gain much more if the hostilities are reduced..

Yes, I agree with you: we could have done more.

Perhaps one of the reasons why India backs away every time is because we all know that we have to talk to the Army, not to the civilian government. That was possible during Musharraf's time, when Army and Civilian authority came together.

 

[Hithchiker]

I actually saw some of this from the inside.

I will not refute or question something you personally testify..But there are two points :
1) Ayub decision not to join 1962 China -India war to exert pressure on India and gain leverage on kashmir should've been gauged as something positive in relationships..Though its another debate how much wise it would had been ..

2) Keeping in view of the above India ,if had handled the situation much better or would have avoided the direct war (I know you've another opinion on of its starting point) or could have persuaded the Bangladeshi Leadership under some sort of agreement with Pakistan would have definitely shown a people in Pakistan that "NO" India is not ALWAYS there to break us..However we disagree to the notion but it has added into the minds of locals ..

3) Situation was same or worst in Afghanistan during civil war..We have a province KP belongs to same ethnicity as Afghanistan majority but Pakistan never try to break it..(Though Pakistan had capabilities at that time or not is definitely "No")..Millions are still refugees in Pakistan

 

[Hithchiker]

DO NOT MENTION ME; HE'LL KILL ME.

Thank you i will definitely not "Name" you.. directly

 

[Hithchiker]

Yes, I agree with you: we could have done more.

Perhaps one of the reasons why India backs away every time is because we all know that we have to talk to the Army, not to the civilian government. That was possible during Musharraf's time, when Army and Civilian authority came together.

Yes that was my point ....In-fact nobody can resolve ...On our side Army has more weightage but same goes for India..though to lesser extent..What a good inititaitve it would have been "Siachen demilitarisation" ( as an example of IA involvement)..Though i agree in our context we trust Army more than politician for whatsoever reason..

 

[Joe Shearer]

I will not refute or question something you personally testify..But there are two points :
1) Ayub decision not to join 1962 China -India war to exert pressure on India and gain leverage on kashmir should've been gauged as something positive in relationships..Though its another debate how much wise it would had been ..

2) Keeping in view of the above India ,if had handled the situation much better or would have avoided the direct war (I know you've another opinion on of its starting point) or could have persuaded the Bangladeshi Leadership under some sort of agreement with Pakistan would have definitely shown a people in Pakistan that "NO" India is not ALWAYS there to break us..However we disagree to the notion but it has added into the minds of locals ..

3) Situation was same or worst in Afghanistan during civil war..We have a province KP belongs to same ethnicity as Afghanistan majority but Pakistan never try to break it..(Though Pakistan had capabilities at that time or not is definitely "No")..Millions are still refugees in Pakistan

Take these comments as expressing a different point of view, not contradicting you.

1. Ayub's gesture went completely unnoticed; the shock and horror of defeat, of some of our choicest regiments losing in battle, even if it was a last-man last-round situation, completely obscured any subtleties that were being conveyed.
2. By the time that the GoI realised that there was a crisis, it was too late. After Operation Searchlight, no Bangali was listening; if you look at the records, you will find that Yahya, egged on by a sinister-intentioned Bhutto, was not listening. Neither side was listening to us.
3. That was intelligent, and will stand you in good stead, once the war has died down.

 

[Hithchiker]

Take these comments as expressing a different point of view, not contradicting you.

1. Ayub's gesture went completely unnoticed; the shock and horror of defeat, of some of our choicest regiments losing in battle, even if it was a last-man last-round situation, completely obscured any subtleties that were being conveyed.
2. By the time that the GoI realised that there was a crisis, it was too late. After Operation Searchlight, no Bangali was listening; if you look at the records, you will find that Yahya, egged on by a sinister-intentioned Bhutto, was not listening. Neither side was listening to us.
3. That was intelligent, and will stand you in good stead, once the war has died down.

Not much contradicting , Bhutto acted adamantly and Yaha acted indifferently or was too much busy in enjoying the company of Rani..