Saturday, February 20, 2016

Naval Mutiny in 1946

It is one of the glorious moment where some spine was shown by Indians under British rule. When our elites were sucking upto Britishers it was because of Naval Ratings that British were shaken and the departure became hasty from India
I am coping this article for my future reference from below link of another blogger. It is for the first time that I read about these events in such good details. Late for me but important-

20 Loaves and A Forgotten Mutiny

HMIS Hindustan
In March, 1976 P.V.Chakraborty,  former Chief Justice of Kolkata HC  wrote a letter, where he described a correspondence between him and the British Prime Minister Clement Atlee in 1956. Atlee often mocked by Churchill as a “Modest man, with much to be modest about”, was visiting India in 1956, after it became independent. And during his visit, met Chakraborty, who was then acting Governor of West Bengal, and was asked  “The Quit India Movement of Gandhi practically died out long before 1947 and there was nothing in the Indian situation at that time, which made it necessary for the British to leave India in a hurry. Why then did they do so?”. Atlee gave out several reasons, one was Netaji Subash Chandra Bose’s Indian National Army, which weakened their army, and the other was the Royal Indian Navy Mutiny. And when Chakraborty asked him about impact of Gandhiji’s 1942 Quit India movement, Atlee wryly remarked with a smile “Minimal”.
I had mentioned this earlier in my article on Netaji about impact of INA, and am quoting an excerpt from that article.
But it  could not prevent mutinies from breaking out in the British  Army ,  especially the one by the Indian soldiers of the Royal Navy.  Chennai,  Pune, Jabalpur all saw the Indian soldiers rising in mutiny.  The  British often used the Indian soldiers as cannon fodder, they did  all  the dirty work, were the persons on front line in conflict and in  many  World Wars, many Indian soldiers died fighting for the British  empire.  Yet in grant for this, the British, treated the Indian soldiers  as  second class citizens, and exploited them. It was Bose’s Indian   National Army which sparked the uprising. Years later Clement Atlee ,   cited the revolts of the Indian Army, as a major decision, to grant   independence. Britain already economically and militarily weakened,   after WW2, knew that it could no longer trust the Indian armed forces  to  prop up it’s Raj. So in a way, Bose, contributed significantly to  the  end of the Raj.
Royal Naval Ratings Mutiny, or what is often called the forgotten mutiny in India’s history, an event which unlike the 1857 mutiny or the Quit India movement, does not really strike much resonance, except among hard core historians. Or Leftists, since they were the only ones to have backed this whole heartedly.
The Beginning.
Like the 1857 Mutiny, the 1946 Royal Naval ratings mutiny had a rather mundane beginning.  It was not an overnight event however, the resentment was building up among the naval ratings, and other Indian members of the Army. The INA was the most serious of all that really shook the faith of the British. Not that well known is something called the Royal Air Force Mutiny that also took place in 1946, over the working conditions, and demobilization of British troops after the end of the war.
The Naval Ratings
The beginnings of the Naval Ratings Mutiny were in an event that occurred on Jan 16, 1946 when a contingent of Naval ratings arrived at the Castle Barracks in Mint Road of Mumbai’s Fort Area.  This contingent was from the training ship HMIS Akbar, that was at Thane, and it was around evening 4 PM. On being informed of the arrival of the contingent, the galley cook, took out 20 loaves of bread, casually added some water to the mutton curry as well as the dal, that was from the previous day and served it.   The food was so tasteless and substandard that only 17 of the ratings took it, the rest of them went ashore.
This was not a one off incident, such neglect was quite common, and what was even worse, repeated complaints to senior officers of the working conditions, did not elicit any response.  As the complaints became galore, the ratings were more and more frustrated, both with the conditions as well with the indifference of the higher ups. Adding fuel to the fire was the trial of the INA leaders,  Netaji Subash Chandra Bose fight for freedom and the exploits of INA during Siege of Imphal began to be fed to the ratings. It gave them a sort of inspiration, and hope that the mighty British empire was not that invincible.
HMIS Kumaon
The Events
On Feb 18, 1946, Naval Rating M.S.Khan led the revolt on HMS Talwar, and a strike committee was formed.  In Karachi, ratings began the revolt on HMIS Hindustan, anchored off the Manora Island. M.S.Khan and another naval rating Madan Singh, had by now taken control of the mutiny, and it began to spread. By Feb 19,  ratings from Castle and Fort Barracks had joined  the revolt.  Ratings left their posts, and began to go around in Bombay on trucks carrying pictures of Netaji Subash Chandra Bose, who by now had become their inspiration.
rinm3rin
And soon it spread, to Kochi, Vizag, Kolkata, officers who opposed the strike were thrown off ships, and the mutineers used radio sets to communicate among themselves. HMIS Talwar became the epicenter for the mutiny as the strikers used the radio sets to send messages to and fro between themselves. It was a perfectly co-ordinated revolt, that was now striking back. And soon the other workers in the Navy too joined,  from the sloops, the minesweepers and the offshore establishments in Mumbai, along Hornby Road, near CST, now the Dadabhai Naoroji Road.  The White Ensign of the British was lowered from all the ships, and British officers were singled out for attack by mutineers, using hockey sticks, crowbars and whatever else they could lay their hands on.
Flora Fountain soon reverberated with cries of Jai Hind,  and slogans of liberation. British officers and their wives were forced to shout Jai Hind by the protestors. The Taj Mahal Hotel, Yatch club all had guns trained on them throughout the day. The Royal Indian Air Force joined in solidarity with the striking ratings, and 1000 men from Andheri, Marine Drive camps came in. The Gurkhas in Karachi,  one of the sword arms of the British army, refused to fire on the mutineers.  The mutiny now began to spread like wildfire, Kolkata, Vizag, Chennai, Karachi, reverberated with slogans of “Strike for Bombay”, “Release 11,000 INA prisoners” and “Jai Hind“.
The tricolor was now flying on all the ships, and by Feb 20, British destroyers positioned themselves near the Gateway of India. The British Govt, now headed by Clement Atleee, was alarmed, orders were given to the Royal Navy to put down the revolt.  Admiral J.H.Godfrey, the Flag Officer in command of the Royal Indian Navy, gave an ultimatum to the mutineers to submit or perish. On the other side, a wave of patriotic fervor,surged ahead in support of the mutineers.  The mutineers had taken control of all the ships and were prepared for a last ditch stand from the clerks to the cleaning hands to cooks and wireless operators, every single Indian was ready for the battle.
On Day 3, the Royal Air Force flew a squadron of bombers near Mumbai harbor, while Admiral Arthur Rullion, issued an ultimatum, asking the mutineers to surrender unconditionally. In the meantime, the 2nd Battalion of the Black Watch, silently managed to secure the island of Manora near Karachi.
Soon the decision was made to engage HMIS Hindustan in a straight confrontation,  which was now under the control of the mutineers. The ultimatum was given by the Royal Artillery on Manora island,  to either surrender or be prepared for war. At 10:33 AM, the guns began to fire on HMIS Hindustan,  and the naval ratings returned the fire. However they could not hold on for long, and by 10:51 they surrendered and HMIS Hindustan was taken over by the British. Soon HMIS Bahadur and Himalaya were subdued, and taken over by the British,  and the revolt at Karachi was put down.
With increasing bombardment and not much hope in winning a long drawn war, the mutineers began to surrender, and on Day 4, negotiations took place, where most of the strikers demands were conceded in principle. Immediate steps were taken to improve the quality of the food, and living conditions, and assurance was given, that release of INA prisoners would be considered favorably. 7 RIN sailors and 1 officer was killed, while around 34 were injured and 476 discharged from duty.
The Betrayal.
Sadly the mutineers got no support at all from the Indian National Congress as usual, in fact they were even condemned for their actions.  Mahatma Gandhi issued a statement condemning the mutineers for revolting without any guidance from a political party. One of the lone voices in the Congress who supported the mutineers was Aruna Asaf Ali, who said she would rather unite Hindus and Muslims on the barricades. The Muslim League too denounced the mutineers, arguing that unrest on the streets was not the best way to deal with grievances and it should be through constitutional methods only.  One reason could be that spontaneous uprisings like these threatened the centralized political authority of both Congress and Muslim League, and affected the dealings with the British Govt. One more reason was that neither Congress nor Muslim League was genuinely a mass based party, they still remained a preserve of the upper class, upper caste, elite, and these kind of mass upsurges left them uncomfortable.
The only political party that supported the mutineers was the Communist Party of India then, all others just left them in the lurch. Both Sardar Patel and Md.Ali Jinnah were united in their condemnation of the mutineers actions, and Aruna Asaf Ali was the lone voice from Congress in support of them.  The mutineers faced court martial and imprisonment on surrender, and what was worse even after independence, they received no support from either the Govts of India or Pakistan.
The Royal Naval Ratings Mutiny lasted only for 4 days and was put down swiftly, however the impact went much beyond. The British were now fully convinced, that they could no longer trust the Armed forces to maintain their control over India. So far the British managed to hold on to India, through the Armed forces, but when they began to revolt, they knew their time was up. First the INA revolts and then the Naval Ratings mutiny, add to it the revolts in the Air Force too, plus the fact that Britian was effectively pauperized after World War II,  all influenced their decision to quit India, much more than that 1942 movement.

Wednesday, November 4, 2015

Anatomy of a ‘liberal’ - Masterpiece from Chetan Bhagat

Anatomy of a ‘liberal’: Indian liberals do not offer solutions, they use the term as a class marker

November 2, 2015, 12:04 AM IST  in The Underage Optimist | Edit PageIndia | TOI
519
519
In discussions of Indian politics on social media, two distinct camps make the most noise. One of them is the ‘right-wing’ camp. These people call themselves nationalists. As a derogatory term, this camp is also referred to as ‘bhakts’, ‘sanghis’ and ‘chaddiwallahs’ in reference to their love for Hinduism and support for BJP, Modi and RSS (which uses outdated and unfashionable shorts in its uniform).
The people giving these labels belong to the other camp. They have quite an elegant term to describe themselves – liberals. That sounds like a bunch of intellectuals sipping tea and gently persuading each other with deeply intellectual arguments. Nationalists, on the other hand, sound like frenzied activists beating their chests on the streets.
Capture
However, let me tell you what those who call themselves ‘liberals’ truly are. Our lovely liberals usually have no clue on what India should actually be like, whether on matters of economic policy or of secularism. They never have solutions, so it is hard to put a finger on what they truly represent.
However, they exist, and operate in a predictable, herd-like manner despite claiming to be freethinking intellectuals. So, who are they?
These liberals actually are people who grew up with a certain amount of privilege compared to their peers. This class privilege comes not only in terms of money but also the level of English medium education they received and the world culture they were exposed to.
Remember the kid in school who brought hotdogs in his tiffin when you didn’t even know what a hotdog was? Remember the boy in class who had been to Disneyland, while you were waiting for your next birthday to go to Appu Ghar (if you were in Delhi, of course)? These kids grew up and had a huge advantage over other Indians.
They had better connections, spoke superior English and could blend in well with the upper classes because of their cultural exposure. To be above the riff-raff allowed them the best jobs and more importantly, a higher stature in society. These privileged kids could identify other privileged kids, and liked to stay in each other’s company.
Since differentiating themselves was important, they began to look down on almost all things liked by non-privileged Indians. Vernacular languages, for instance, were considered a sign of lower class. Someone speaking English with a local Gujarati or Bihari accent was mocked (while someone who spoke English with an Italian or French accent was seen as exotic and romantic).
Hinduism was seen as a backward religion followed by the lower classes. Since Indians have a class system ingrained into them anyway, the privileged kids created their own class and happily lived in that bubble.
Alas, over time India progressed economically. Talent came into demand and privilege mattered less. As merit and talent earned jobs more people had money, even though they perhaps lacked the global cultural exposure the privileged kids had received.
Also, the talented kids felt no need to belittle the local culture, language or religion. This created a relatively large class of proud nationalists – the economic growth seeking generation of Indians who were perhaps not so well exposed to world culture.
The privileged kids felt insecure. They ganged up as one and re-branded themselves as liberals. Calling themselves secular, inclusive, tolerant and conveniently forgetting how class conscious they are, they claimed to save India from the Hindu invasion. Quick to attack any Hindu fundamentalist trespass in the name of secularism, these liberals would not be found attacking Islamic fundamentalists the same way.
They claimed to be modern and fair, but one would rarely find them speaking out against Islamic diktats that militate against gender equality. Liberal discussions on Godhra riots never touch on how Islamic fundamentalists burnt trains with passengers inside.
There is a reason why liberals are derogatorily referred to as pseudo-secular, pseudo-intellectual and pseudo-liberal. For their agenda is not to be liberal. Their agenda is to look down on the classes that don’t have the global culture advantage.
If, for instance, Modi and Amit Shah had gone to Doon School, or studied in college abroad, or at least spoke English with a refined world accent, the liberals would have been kinder to them.
The sad part is we do need, quite badly, a class of real liberals and intellectuals in our country. We need people who have new ideas and solutions as well as a desire to be truly inclusive for all Indians. Hating Modi is not going to solve anything. Neither will looking down on the less privileged and their desires and aspirations. Instead, come up with ways in which Indian society can truly change.
If you want to be truly liberal and intellectual, then stop pointing fingers and making it a Congress versus BJP game. Figure out solutions we need to implement as one society – be it a common civil code that supersedes any religion, a common agenda for economic reform, English for all or improving educational facilities for everyone.
Don’t depend on the politicians to do it all, for they have to defend their jobs and hence vote banks first. If liberals and intellectuals in civil society can build consensus for reform, politicians will also act on it. If you are planning to become a liberal, be solution-oriented, truly open-minded and anti-elitist. Sipping tea from fine china cups is optional (and totally fine, of course).
http://blogs.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/The-underage-optimist/anatomy-of-a-liberal-indian-liberals-do-not-offer-solutions-they-use-the-term-as-a-class-marker/
I thought in these lines many times in my life but could never articulate these observations as good as Chetan has done. Simply Brilliant!!!

Friday, March 30, 2012

Governance, please: Jaswant Singh

This is the most brilliant article on the whole issue of leaked letter of Army Chief.
http://www.indianexpress.com/news/governance-please/929622/6


These two in reality are the core issues: statecraft and national security; that is why they are central to our concerns, also in part explanatory of the shemozzle that the Ministry of Defence (MoD) has made in the discharge of its responsibilities. It is self-evident that there has to be demonstrable good sense in managing public responsibility. Whereafter, axiomatic that a full understanding, due appreciation and timely responsiveness to the ingrained sensibilities of the armed forces must not only be observed, this should be demonstrably so. Then it is also clear that without an effective demonstration of statecraft in confronting the challenges to the state — challenges which are always an inevitable accompaniment of office — good governance will simply not be there. And if these attributes are absent in a government, any government, India’s security will be imperilled. This, too, is an axiom.
Let us briefly recapitulate the sequence of important events in this continuing saga of Chief of Army Staff (COAS) vs MoD as the wags put it. The first sorry episode is, of course, the Chief’s date of birth confusion. It requires no elaboration that no one can be born on two different dates. Without tediously repeating the entire course of events, I am persuaded to believe that this could have been handled with much greater administrative finesse. The Raksha Mantri ought to have, with due grace, accepted what was averred by the Chief. But had the Defence Minister come to the conclusion that the conduct of the COAS was unacceptable, he ought then to have said so and taken all such steps as his high office mandated.
Post the Supreme Court “judgment”, of sorts in reality, the management of the MoD became considerably more complex. It was then that the Prime Minister needed to step in; he is after all the Chairman of the CCS (Cabinet Committee on Security). For the country’s security, the PM, as the head of this apex body, bears full responsibility. The PM, alas, instead chose to make completely non-committal utterances of the most inane variety. The good Raksha Mantri in the meantime concentrated on remaining “good.”
Then, departing from all past traditions of the army, and sound good military order and form, the government, prematurely, and in haste, announced the name of the successor Chief. This was totally unnecessary, for in so doing the government has landed the Chief designate in avoidable and unneeded controversy. He thus starts his tenure with a cloud of controversy around him. Another demonstration of absence of sense resulting in again chipping at national security.
Then came the curious episode of B vehicles known as TATRA, of Czech origin. It would be too tedious to go into all the detailed explanations of how much, for example, a tarpaulin costs in the market and how much the MoD paid for it, whether directly or through BEML (Bharat Earth Movers Ltd). Here the plot really thickened, for the COAS, in an interview broadcast over TV and widely published by the print media, made known to all that he had been offered a “bribe” of some Rs 14-odd crore were he to approve acquisition of some 600 of these vehicles from BEML. Also, that in an outraged frame of mind, he had promptly gone and reported the matter to the Raksha Mantri. So far so good. But really not so good after all for subsequent revelations inform us that the RM, shocked and rendered speechless by all this, chose to sink his head in his hands, presumably in an act of hopeless despair, “good man” that he is.
Well, this was neither any effective demonstration of governance; of meeting the challenge of circumstances, of rising to the occasion, etc, or such other phrases of stock usage, nor of leadership. The RM says he told the COAS to take action or send a report or some such other vague generality. Not good enough, Mr Defence Minister; in reality, too flaccid, too feeble. What then does the COAS do? Well, he just goes back to his office or wherever and does nothing at all until he goes public on it some two months later. This is totally unacceptable conduct.
Let us, however, take it step by step. First, he (the COAS) could have taken no other action but to report to his superior, that is the Raksha Mantri, who it was that should have immediately initiated action. Why this sudden need for a written report, etc? The Chief is unquestionably subordinate to the RM, and as per Army Law, that is where he was obliged to report the matter. The RM’s explanations are ex-post-facto and unsustainable. Is it the RM’s suggestion that reversing responsibilities, he wanted the Chief to give instructions? These failures of sense, sensibility and statecraft begin to further burden our national security.
I do wish to add two thoughts here which my friend and colleague Arun Singh, with whom I have had the great honour, pleasure and privilege of working in the Ministry of Defence, has shared.
In a note, amongst other aspects, he has held: “If the COAS advised inaction, then why did he go to the RM in the first place? Was it, simply, as the navy puts it ‘to clear his yardarm’ and, if so, why didn’t RM disallow such a ‘clearance’ in a matter like this?”
Then a rap on the COAS’ knuckles. “If COAS knew the vehicles were either substandard or over-priced, relative to his General Staff Requirement (the operational guiding principles for all procurements), why did he not instruct his subordinates in Army HQ to reject the supply out of hand? He could not have been faulted for doing so, irrespective of any pressures that may or could have been brought to bear on him from the Department of Defence or the Department of Defence Production, if he was sure of his facts”.
Now consider for a moment the report in Dainik Bhaskar of March 28. It is an alarming news item reproducing the essential contents of purportedly a “Top Secret” letter written by the Chief (some say on March 12) to the PM. This is extremely worrisome and on various counts. The first, of course, is whether there does exist such a letter? Presumably, it does for it has not yet been denied. Then are its contents correct? The Raksha Mantri’s initial responses in Rajya Sabha do not refute the report. This complicates the issue (or issues) immeasurably. Are the contents correct is the very first question, for it is central to national security.
Then, secondly, how has a top secret communication between the Chief and the PM become public? This is a valid query and we do have a right to know. Before we reflect further on the conduct of the COAS, a word, and very briefly on this entire laggard process of our weapons’ procurement procedures and systems. The COAS has rather despairingly commented recently that “the procurement game is a version of snakes and ladders where there is no ladder but only snakes, and if the snakes bite you somewhere, the whole thing comes back to zero.” A stray example would be the acquisition of 75 much-needed Pilatus PC-7 Mk II trainer aircraft, announced last year, currently delayed like so many other procurements before it. Why? Over allegations of irregularities in the bidding process. Worryingly, questions have also now been asked about the Rafale procurement.
We need also to realistically assess, rather re-evaluate our so-termed “indigenous defence industry.” Here, our dreams do not match our achievements, but this is presently not central to our inquiry.
Before I go back to the COAS, a disagreement with and an appeal to the Raksha Mantri. First, you do not act because, you said “you had no report.” Then even though you have no report other than that of visual or print media, you self-satisfiedly announce that even without a report you have ordered a “comprehensive CBI inquiry”.
Mr Raksha Mantri, may I point out, most respectfully, that this is such an egregiously faulty step as to almost be beyond criticism? This grossly compounds earlier mistakes and causes further damage to the principal institutions of the Defence Ministry. Do investigate the whole bribe offer episode, certainly, but please not through the police elements of the CBI. Have you no confidence in your own military courts of inquiry; or examinations by peers of all matters military? Why cause injury and then sprinkle the salt of insult on it? In this, lies a gross failure of appreciating the sensibilities of the armed forces.
Now some words of advice to the COAS, from someone who is almost totally a product, from childhood to now of the army, and who was, besides, commissioned years earlier. The Chiefs of the three services are, of course, individuals, holding their high office for fixed terms, subject to the usual conditions. So have you held office notwithstanding all those age-related conundrums. The office of COAS, Air staff or Naval Staff is greater than the individual occupying it. Try and not overlook this crucial aspect.
Then let me take you to the Drill Square of the IMA, and the haloed Chetwode Hall, through the portals of which thousands of young gentlemen cadets slow march into commissioned service of the Republic. Remember that unerasable inscription of Field Marshal Chetwode’s advice to all those that go through that gateway? “The Honour, Safety, Security of your country comes first always and every time” and so on, in that order of priority ‘of the men that you command’, and ‘your own last’ always and every time.” Apply this simple, (or not so simple) yardstick, now as your career in the army draws to its close: “Has your conduct of the last several months been in harmony with that hoary injunction, or even with the great and distinguished service that you have yourself rendered to the country for all these years?”
With the Hon’ble PM and the Hon’ble RM, both very good men, I share Lord Halifax’s sneeringly patrician remark: “State craft is a cruel business, good nature is a bungler at it”.
Believe me, my good sirs, the nation is weary of your “good nature,” we crave for “good governance.” Can you now, please, for a change do just that?
The writer is a former Union minister of defence, finance and external affairs, express@expressindia.com


Tuesday, January 31, 2012

At Davos, Why Is No One Talking About the Poor?

The economic history of the twentieth century is full of reminders that the move towards globalisation is not inevitable. War in 1914 brought an end to a period of economic openness and integration unparalleled even today. The 1930s were more painful than necessary precisely because of beggar-thy-neighbour policies adopted in the wake of the Depression. It is not impossible that governments today will turn their backs on open trade and capital flows. Many of those in Porto Alegre would welcome such a policy reversal.

Read more: http://business.time.com/2012/01/28/at-davos-why-is-no-one-talking-about-the-poor/#ixzz1l6Z8EfDl

Saturday, October 22, 2011

Consequences of Fall of Gaddafi


When United States secretary of State Hillary Clinton made her short visit to Libya earlier this week, she bluntly said that the US wanted Muammar Gaddafi “captured dead or alive.” The rebels in Gaddafi’s hometown Sirte proved faithful to the US and North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (Nato) by capturing him alive and delivering him dead on Thursday.
The fate of the Libyan dictator was predicted like that of Saddam Hussein, with the secrets of their dealings with European countries and the US dying with them. The story of loyalists who turned rebels, too, won’t come to light. And it will be left to academic scrutiny to uncover details of what was a meticulously planned operation for a regime change that rode on the back of social upheaval in many Arab capitals.
Gaddafi has been eliminated, but his clones may be waiting in the wings. After all, deals with western governments were signed even before the transitional council was formed. According to reports, Nato forces bombed Gaddafi’s convoy of 35 vehicles and this allowed the rebels to capture Gaddafi and then shoot him from point-blank range after an order from “a superior”.
The real political war now starts in Libya. Each faction in the divided house will try to get a bigger piece of the cake. After the dissolution of the army and the security apparatus, and after arming the rebels to force their agenda on the people, there will be more bloodshed, which in turn will legitimise a permanent military presence for Nato and the US, thereby making it easier for Nato forces to ‘intervene’ in other countries in the region. The Arab world is going through its most crucial era.
The victory in Libya will be a catalyst for other regime changes conducted under the pretext of ‘humanitarian intervention’. This will finally lead to taking on Iran head-on. To achieve this, Syria is been targeted with the belief that by forcibly removing the regime in Damascus, Iran will be more isolated. Forcing a regime change in Syria, the plan could be to remove the last bastion of secularism in the Arab world and pave the way for a creative anarchy with radicals at its helm. This is in turn could lead to ‘political Islamists’ entering the scene, thereby providing a much-needed justification for a ‘stronger Jewish State’
It will be naïve to reject this scenario. Democracy based on internal unity is the key for a better future; not geopolitical division and internationalising crises to invite foreign intervention in a ground already fertile with sectarian, communal and ethnic strife.
The case of Yemen is getting clearer by the day. The United Nations, the US and the European Union have rejected the call for amnesty or protection for President Ali Abdullah Saleh. This, again, will lead to communal strife and sectarian violence that will require international intervention.
Till now, the US and Nato forces have failed to gain ground in Syria. A Benghazi-like situation would have allowed ‘humanitarian interventionists’ to take the lead. This scenario was averted and the credit for this goes Russia, China, India, Brazil and South Africa in the Security council. The Syrian people also have become much more aware of the situation after looking at what has happened in Iraq and what is now happening in Libya.
US president Barack Obama promised changes in the Arab and Islamic world in an era of democracy, human rights and prosperity. But all that seems to have become a digression. The general perception among Arabs is that the US still hasn’t learnt any lesson from collaborating with radicals in Afghanistan.
After the Second Gulf War and the ‘liberation of Kuwait’, I was witness to a heated argument between an American and a Kuwaiti immigration officer at the airport. The American wanted special treatment from the officer and told him. “You know, we Americans helped you get your freedom”. The Kuwaiti answered, “We paid you for that.”
It is too early to predict who will rule Libya in the post-Gaddafi era. It is also too early to ascertain what price a new regime will have to pay to their ‘collaborators’. The road map to democracy will face many challenges in the crater-ridden road ahead. Who is next in the Great Arab Domino effect is also hard to predict. But this latest victory for Nato and the US in Libya will clearly increase the appetite to take on a new frontier with the result being West Asia heading towards more anarchy and uncertainty ruling for a long time.
Waiel Awwad is a senior Syrian journalist with the television news channel Al Arabiya
The reason Gaddafi was killed is not his despotism or his other negative qualities. Nor is it the so called love for democracy proclaimed by some countries of the west. In today's world any body USA does not like is killed.    Convenient labels are attached to him to justify the action.

A few fundamental questons are:
1) Who has given NATO the right to decide the fate of other nations?
2) Will NATO appreciate if other countries interfere in their affairs. ( You can find enough noble causes to do so, like high carbon emissions, increased promiscusity etc.)
3) Why deos NATO support ictatorships in Saudi, UAE etc?
4) What guarntee is there that these violent revolts will lead to Democracy? Egypt is a good example.

War for peace is an oxymoron.



As long Ghadaffi fed money to corrupt and Bankrupt Western leaders he was intact in his dictatorship. When he stopped feeding them, he was humiliated and killed. New government in Libya stands accused of assassination. Their leadership should be tried in International Criminal court


One detects
a pang of nostalgia for Kaddafi in the editorial! There are no secrets in the Tony
Blair-Kaddafi deal. Libya dismantled her nuclear weapons program, betraying
A.Q. Khan and the Pakistani establishment in the bargain! George W. Bush agreed
not to invade Libya! Both however continued low level recriminations against
each other! Italians and French ran his oil fields, they probably would
continue to do so! The NATO decision to support the Libyan insurrection was an
Anglo-French-Italian venture! Obama was dragged in (against bi-partisan
opposition in Congress) to provide air cover to the European allies! Robert
Gates, the retiring Defense Secretary, harangued them to modernize their air forces, or "go it alone"!


Whether
Libya becomes a democracy is anybody's guess! With both U.S. and European
economies in disarray, Libya and Afghanistan may be the last NATO combined
operations!


Wednesday, September 21, 2011

India: Never Again the Same- After Indo-China war

http://www.time.com/time/printout/0,8816,829540,00.html

Thanks to Time Magazine. They have analysed it superbly.


Click here to find out more!
Friday, Nov. 30, 1962

India: Never Again the Same

INDIA
(See Cover)
Red China behaved in so inscrutably Oriental a manner last week that even Asians were baffled. After a series of smashing victories in the border war with India. Chinese troops swept down from the towering Himalayas and were poised at the edge of the fertile plains of Assam, whose jute and tea plantations account for one-fourth of India's export trade. Then, with Assam lying defenseless before her conquering army. Red China suddenly called a halt to the fighting.
Radio Peking announced that, "on its own initiative." Red China was ordering a cease-fire on all fronts. Further, by Dec. 1, Chinese troops would retire to positions 12½ miles behind the lines they occupied on Nov. 7. 1959. If this promise is actually carried out. it would mean, for some Chinese units, a pullback of more than 60 miles. These decisions. Peking continued, ''represent a most sincere effort" to achieve ''a speedy termination of the Sino-Indian conflict, a reopening of peaceful negotiations, and a peaceful settlement of the boundary question.'' War or peace, the message concluded, ''depends on whether or not the Indian government responds positively."
In New Delhi the government of Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru was taken completely by surprise. An Indian spokesman first denounced the Chinese offer as a "diabolical maneuver." which was later amended to the comment that India would "wait and see" exactly what the Chinese were proposing. A communique confirmed that, after the cease-fire deadline, there "had been no report of firing by the Chinese aggressors." Indian troops also stopped shooting, but Nehru warned India: "We must not imagine that the struggle will soon be over."
On closer examination, the Chinese cease-fire proved to be a lot less mysterious. It did offer India's battered armies a badly needed respite. But it left the Chinese armies in position to resume their offensive if Nehru refuses the Peking terms. And it puts on India the onus of continuing the war. Said the Hindustan Times: "The latest Chinese proposals are not a peace offer but an ultimatum."
Whatever the results of this peace bid tendered on a bayonet, India will never be the same again, nor will Nehru.
Barren Rock. In New Delhi illusions are dying fast. Gone is the belief that Chinese expansionism need not be taken seriously, that, in Nehru's words, China could not really want to wage a major war for "barren rock." Going too, is the conviction that the Soviet Union has either the authority or the will to restrain the Chinese Communists. Nehru's policy of nonalignment, which was intended to free India from any concern with the cold war between the West and Communism, was ending in disaster. Nearly shattered was the morally arrogant pose from which he had endlessly lectured the West on the need for peaceful coexistence with Communism. Above all. the Indian people, fiercely proud of their nationhood, have been deeply humiliated and shaken by the hated Chinese.
India, which is equally capable of philosophic calm and hysterical violence, showed, in the words of President Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan. a "great soul-awakening such as it has never had in all its history." The awakening took some curious forms. The Buddhist nuns and monks of Ladakh devoted themselves to writing an "immortal epic" of India's fight against Chinese aggression. A temple in the south Indian state of Andhra Pradesh converted its 85-lb. gold treasury into 15-year defense bonds, while New Delhi bank clerks shined shoes outside a restaurant after hours and gave their earnings to the government, men jammed the enlistment centers and showered Nehru with pledges to fight signed in blood.
The 73-year-old Nehru gave the impression of being swept along by this tumult, not of leading it. His agony was apparent as he rose in Parliament, three days before the Chinese cease-fire announcement, to report that the Indian army had been decisively defeated at Se Pass and Walong. The news raised a storm among the M.P.s. A Deputy from the threatened Assam state was on his feet, shaking with indignation and demanding, "What is the government going to do? Why can't you tell us? Are we going to get both men and materials from friendly countries to fight a total war, or is the government contemplating a cease-fire and negotiations with the Chinese?" Other gesturing Deputies joined in, shouting their questions in English and Hindi. "Are we nothing?" cried one Praja Socialist member. "Is the Prime Minister everything?"
While the Speaker asked repeatedly for order, Nehru sat chin in hand, obviously scornful of this display of Indian excitability, his abstracted gaze fixed on nothing. Finally Nehru rose again and tried to quiet the uproar by saying, "We shall take every conceivable and possible measure to meet the crisis. We are trying to get all possible help from friendly countries."
Attic Burglar. His critics accused him of still clinging to the language of nonalignment. Later, in a radio speech in which he announced the fall of Bomdi La,
Nehru sounded tougher. He no longer defended his old policies, denounced China as "an imperialist of the worst kind," and at last thanked the U.S. and Britain by name for arms aid, pledging to ask for more.
Nehru was coming close to admitting that he had at last discovered who were India's friends. The neutral nations, which so often looked to India for leadership in the past, were mostly embarrassingly silent or unsympathetic—a government-controlled newspaper in Ghana dismissed the war as "an ordinary border dispute." As for Russia, its ambiguously neutral position, argued Nehru, was the best India could hope for under the circumstances. Actually, Nehru had obviously hoped for more, and was shocked when, instead of helping India, Moscow denounced India's border claims and urged Nehru to accept the Red Chinese terms.
As India's poorly equipped army reeled under the Chinese blows, the West moved swiftly and without recrimination to India's defense. Shortly after the Chinese attack, frantic Indian officers simply drove round to the U.S. embassy with their pleas for arms and supplies. Eventually their requests were coordinated. During the tense week of the Cuban crisis, U.S. Ambassador to India Kenneth Galbraith was virtually on his own, and he promised Nehru full U.S. backing.
When Washington finally turned its attention to India, it honored the ambassador's pledge, loaded 60 U.S. planes with $5,000,000 worth of automatic weapons, heavy mortars and land mines. Twelve huge C-130 Hercules transports, complete with U.S. crews and maintenance teams, took off for New Delhi to fly Indian troops and equipment to the battle zone. Britain weighed in with Bren and Sten guns, and airlifted 150 tons of arms to India. Canada prepared to ship six transport planes. Australia opened Indian credits for $1,800,000 worth of munitions.
Assistant Secretary of State Phillips Talbot graphically defined the U.S. mission. "We are not seeking a new ally," he said. "We are helping a friend whose attic has been entered by a burglar." In Washington's opinion, it mattered little that the burglar gratuitously offered to move back from the stairs leading to the lower floors and promised not to shoot any more of the house's inhabitants. "What we want," said Talbot, "is to help get the burglar out."
To that end, a U.S. mission headed by Assistant Secretary of State for Far Eastern Affairs Averell Harriman and U.S. Army General Paul D. Adams flew to New Delhi to confer with Indian officials on defense requirements. Soon after, Britain's Commonwealth Secretary Duncan Sandys arrived with a similar British mission. Their most stunning discovery: after five years under Nehru's hand-picked Defense Minister, Krishna Menon, the Indian army was lamentably short of ammunition even for its antiquated Lee Enfield rifles.
Misbehaving People. So far, the fighting has shown that the Indians need nearly everything, except courage. Chinese burp guns fire 20 times faster than Indian rifles. The Indian 25-pounder is a good artillery piece, but is almost immobile in the mountains and cannot match the Chinese pack artillery, recoilless guns and bazookas. Each Chinese battalion has a special company of porters whose job it is to make sure the fighting men have ample ammunition and food. The Indians must rely on units from their unwieldy Army Service Corps, who were never trained to operate at heights of 14,000 feet and over mule paths. In addition to bulldozers and four-wheel-drive trucks, the Indians need mechanical saws that can match the speed of those the Chinese use to cut roads through forests.
India's catastrophic unreadiness for war stems directly from the policy of nonalignment which was devised by Nehru and implemented by his close confidant Krishna Menon. Says one Indian editor: "Nonalignment is no ideology. It is an idiosyncrasy."
Indians like to say that it resembles the isolationism formerly practiced by the U.S.. but it has moral overtones which, Nehru claims, grow out of "Indian culture and our philosophic outlook.'' Actually, it owes as much to Nehru's rather oldfashioned, stereotyped, left-wing attitudes acquired during the '20s and '30s ("He still remembers all those New Statesmen leaders." says one bitter critic) as it does to Gandhian notions of nonviolence. Nehru has never been able to rid himself of the disastrous cliche that holds Communism to be somehow progressive and less of a threat to emergent nations than "imperialism."
Nehru himself has said: "Nonalignment essentially means live and let live—but of course this doesn't include people who misbehave." During its 15 years of independence. India has dealt severely with the misbehavior of several smaller neighbors, but has been almost slavishly tolerant of Communist misbehavior.
The Communist Chinese invasion of Korea was "aggression." but the West was also "not blameless"; the crushing of the Hungarian rebellion was unfortunate, but all the facts were not clear; when the Soviet Union broke the nuclear test moratorium last year, Nehru deplored "all nuclear tests."
Like a Buddha. Yet in its way, nonalignment paid enormous dividends. India received massive aid from both Russia and the West. Getting on India's good side became almost the most important thing in the United Nations. At intervals, the rest of the world's statesmen came to India to pay obeisance to Nehru as though to a Buddha. And Nehru obviously believed that whatever he did. in case of real need the U.S. would have to help India anyway. Meanwhile, as he saw it. the object of his foreign policy was to prevent the two great Asian powers —Russia and China—from combining against India. In his effort to woo both, acerbic Krishna Menon, says one Western diplomat, "was worth the weight of four or five ordinary men. He was so obnoxious to the West that, almost alone, he could demonstrate the sincerity of India's neutrality to the Russians."
At the 1955 Bandung conference. Nehru and China's Premier Chou En-lai embraced Panch Shila, a five-point formula for peaceful coexistence. The same Indian crowds that now shout. "Wipe out Chink stink!" then roared "Hindi Chini bhai bhai" (Indians and Chinese are brothers). India refused to sign the peace treaty with Japan because Red China was not a party to it. At home, Menon harped on the theme that Pakistan was India's only enemy. Three years ago, when Pakistan proposed a joint defense pact with India, Nehru ingenuously asked, "Joint defense against whom?" Western warnings about China's ultimate intentions were brushed aside as obvious attempts to stir up trouble between peace-loving friends.
Even the Chinese conquest of Tibet in 1951 had rung no alarm bells in New Delhi—and therein lie the real beginnings of the present war.
Initialed Map. Under the British raj, London played what Lord Curzon called "the great game." Its object was to protect India's northern borders from Russia by fostering semi-independent buffer states like Nepal, Bhutan and Sikkim. In those palmy colonial days, Tibet was militarily insignificant, and China, which claims overlordship of Tibet, was usually too weak to exercise it.
When the Chinese Republic of Sun Yat-sen was born in 1912, Britain decided to look to its borders. At a three-nation meeting in Simla in 1914, Britain's representative. Sir Arthur McMahon, determined the eastern portion of the border by drawing a line on a map along the Himalayan peaks from Bhutan to Burma. The Tibetan and Chinese delegates initialed this map, but the newborn Chinese Republic refused to ratify it, and so has every Chinese government since.
The McMahon Line was never surveyed or delimited on the ground, and British troops seldom penetrated the NEFA hill country, where such tribes as the Apatanis. the Tagins and the Hill Miris amused themselves by slave-raiding and headhunting. As recently as 1953. the Daflas wiped out a detachment of the Assam Rifles just for the fun of it.
At the western end of the border, in Ladakh. the British made even less of an effort at marking the frontier, and the border with Tibet has generally been classified as "undefined." Red China was most interested in Ladakh's northeastern corner, where lies the Aksai Chin plateau, empty of nearly everything but rocks, sky and silence. For centuries, a caravan route wound through the Aksai Chin (one reason the Chinese say the plateau is theirs is that Aksai Chin means "China's Desert of White Stone"), leading from Tibet around the hump of the lofty Kunlun range to the Chinese province of Sinkiang. In 1956 and 1957 the Chinese built a paved road over the caravan trail, and so lightly did Indian border police patrol the area that New Delhi did not learn about the road until two years after it was built.
Time Immemorial. Firing off a belated protest to Peking, India rushed troops into the endangered area, where they at once collided with Chinese outposts. Attempts at negotiation broke down because India demanded that the Chinese first withdraw to Tibet, while the Chinese insisted that Aksai Chin, and much more besides in NEFA and Ladakh. was historically Chinese territory. Neither side has basically changed its position since.
On Oct. 25, strong Chinese patrols began penetrating the NEFA border, occupying Longju and Towang and threatening Walong. For once, Nehru was badly shaken. He said: "From time immemorial the Himalayas have provided us with a magnificent frontier. We cannot allow that barrier to be penetrated because it is also the principal barrier to India." But the barrier was being daily penetrated. Ten months ago, Nehru appointed Lieut. General Brij Kaul, 50, to command the NEFA area. Then, without consulting any of his military men, Nehru publicly ordered Kaul to drive out the Chinese invaders of NEFA.
The opposing armies were of unequal size, skill and equipment. The Chinese force of some 110,000 men was commanded by General Chang Kuo-hua, 54, a short, burly veteran of the Communist Party and Communist wars, who well understands Mao Tse-tung's dictum, "All political power grows out of the barrel of a gun." His army is made up of three-year conscripts from central China, but its officers and noncoms are largely proven cadres who served with distinction in the Korean war. The infantry is armed with a Chinese-made burp gun with not very great accuracy but good fire power, hand grenades, submachine guns and rifles. The light and heavy mortars, which have a surprising range, are also Chinese made, but the heavy artillery, tanks and planes are mostly of Soviet manufacture.
The Indian forces number some 500,000, but fewer than 100,000 men were committed to the Red border area—the bulk of the army, and many of its best units, being kept on guard duty in Kashmir watching the Pakistanis. A strictly volunteer army, with the men serving five-year terms, it drew its troops largely from the warrior races of the north—Jats, Sikhs, Gurkhas, Dogras, Garhwalis. Over the past century, the Indian army has fought from France to China, and has usually fought excellently, whether pitted against Pathan guerrillas, Nazi panzer grenadiers or Japanese suicide squads. In the 1947-48 war in Kashmir, the Indians were fighting a British-trained Pakistani army very like themselves. Since independence, the Indian army has not encountered a really first-rate foe. The guerrilla war with the rebellious Naga tribesmen of Eastern Assam and the walkover in Goa were little more than training exercises.
Infinite Testiness. For the past five years, the Indian army has also been plagued by Defense Minister Krishna Menon, who was both economy-minded and socialistically determined to supply the troops from state-run arsenals, most of which exist only as blueprints. Sharing Nehru's distrust of what he calls the "arms racket," Menon was reluctant to buy weapons abroad, and refused to let private Indian firms bid on defense contracts. Menon's boasts of Indian creativity in arms development have been revealed as shoddy deceptions. A prototype of an Indian jet fighter plane proved unable to break the sound barrier. Even the MIG-21 planes that the Soviet Union has promised to deliver in December are of questionable value, since jet fighters are useless without an intricate ground-support system, which India is in no position to set up.
A man of infinite testiness, Menon was soon squabbling with independent-minded generals. Lieut. General Shankar Thorat and Commander in Chief General K. S. Thimayya appealed to Nehru against Menon's promotion policies. When Nehru, who has long scorned the British-trained officers as men who "did not understand India," refused to listen to complaints about Menon, both generals retired from the army in disgust. Menon named as new commander in chief P. N. Thapar, a "paperwork general."
Skyward Zigzag. Before Kaul had a chance to try and "clear out" the Chinese in NEFA, the Chinese struck first on Oct. 20. Some 20,000 burp-gun-toting infantry stormed over Thag La ridge and swept away a 5,000-man Indian brigade strung out along the Kechilang River. The surprise was complete, and dazed survivors of the Chinese attack struggled over the pathless mountains, where hundreds died of exposure. In Ladakh the Chinese scored an even bigger victory, occupying the entire 14,000 square miles that Peking claims is Chinese territory.
While the Indians worked to build up a new defense line at Walong and in the lofty Se Pass, reinforcements were hurried to Assam. The effort to bring up men and supplies from the plains was backbreaking. TIME Correspondent Edward Behr made the trip over a Jeep path that was like a roller coaster 70 miles long and nearly three miles high. He reports: "The Jeep path begins at Tezpur, amid groves of banana and banyan trees, then climbs steeply upward through forests of oak and pine to a 10,000-ft. summit. Here the path plunges dizzily downward to the supply base of Bomdi La on a 5,000-ft. plateau, and then zigzags skyward again to the mist-hung Se Pass at 13,556 ft. Above the hairpin turns of the road rise sheer rock walls; below lie bottomless chasms. Rain and snow come without warning, turning the path to slippery mud. Even under the best conditions, a Jeep takes 18 hours to cover the 70 miles.
"At this height, icy winds sweep down from the snow crests of the Himalayas, and if a man makes the slightest exertion, his lungs feel as if they are bursting. Newcomers suffer from the nausea and lightheadedness of mountain sickness. Every item of supply, except water, must be brought up the roller coaster from the plains. There are few bits of earth flat enough for an airstrip, and helicopters have trouble navigating in the thin air."
Shell Plaster. After three weeks, Kaul felt emboldened to make a probing attack on the Chinese lines. Following an artillery barrage, 1,000 Indian jawans (G.I.s) drove the Chinese from the lower slopes of a hill near Walong. It was a costly victory, for the Chinese launched a massive counterattack through and around Walong, driving the Indians 80 miles down the Luhit valley. At Se Pass, the Chinese victory was even more spectacular. Having spotted the Indian gun emplacements, the Chinese plastered them with mortar and artillery shells, and then sent forward a Korea-style "human sea" assault. Two Chinese flanking columns of several thousand men each moved undetected and with bewildering speed through deep gorges and over 14,000-ft. mountains around the pass to capture the Indian supply base at Bomdi La, trapping an Indian division and throwing India's defense plans into chaos.
Panic spread from the mountains into the plains. Officials in Tezpur burned their files, and bank managers even set fire to stacks of banknotes. Five hundred prisoners were set free from Tezpur jail. Refugees jammed aboard ferry boats to get across the Brahmaputra River. Even policemen joined the flight.
Indian army headquarters was hastily moved from Tezpur to Gauhati, 100 miles to the southwest. Officers and men who had escaped from the fighting referred dazedly to the Chinese as swarming everywhere "like red ants." An Indian colonel admitted, "We just haven't been taught this kind of warfare."
Needed Intellect. Though India—like the U.S. after Pearl Harbor—could not yet afford scapegoats and recrimination, Defense Minister Krishna Menon was almost universally blamed for the inadequacy of Indian arms, the lack of equipment and even winter clothing. His fall from grace not only finished his own career but brought a turning point in Nehru's. The Prime Minister had tried to pacify critics by taking over the Defense Ministry and downgrading Menon to Minister of Defense Production, but Nehru's own supporters demanded Menon's complete dismissal.
On Nov. 7, Nehru attended an all-day meeting of the Executive Committee of the parliamentary Congress Party and made a final plea for Menon, whose intellect, he said, was needed in the crisis.
As a participant recalls it, ten clenched fists banged down on the table, a chorus of voices shouted, "No!"
Nehru was dumfounded. It was he who was used to banging tables and making peremptory refusals. Taking a different tack, he accurately said that he was as much at fault as Menon and vaguely threatened to resign. Always before, such a threat had been sufficient to make the opposition crumble with piteous cries of 'Tanditji, don't leave us alone!" This time, one of the leaders said: "If you continue to follow Menon's policies, we are prepared to contemplate that possibility." Nehru was beaten and Menon thrown out of the Cabinet. Joining him in his exit was Menon's appointee, Commander in Chief General P. N. Thapar, who resigned because of "poor health."
The Defense Department at once, but belatedly, got a new look and a firmer tone. Impatient of turgid oratory and military fumbling, all India turned with relief to the new Defense Minister, Y. B. Chavan. A big man in every sense of the word—including his burly 200 lbs.—Chavan served for six years as Chief Minister of Bombay, the richest and most industrialized Indian state. The army's new commander in chief, Lieut. General J. N. Chaudhuri, the "Victor of Goa," who also saw action in World War II campaigns in the Middle East and Burma, is a close friend of Chavan's.
Though a socialist and a onetime disciple of Nehru, Chavan is cast in a different mold. Once a terrorist against the British and a proud member of the Kshra-triya warrior caste, Chavan says: "There can be no negotiations with an aggressor." Unlike Nehru, who still maintains that China's attack is not necessarily connected with Communism, Chavan declared: "The first casualties of the unashamed aggression of the Chinese on India are Marxism and Leninism."
Old Twinkle. There has been some grumbling that Nehru is no wartime leader. At 73, he often seems physically and mentally spent. His hair is snow-white and thinning, his skin greyish and his gaze abstracted. Since the invasion, he has not spared himself, and his sister, Mme. Pandit, thinks Nehru is "fighting fit-he's got that old twinkle in his eye." But he tires noticeably as the day goes on. One old friend says, "It makes a big difference whether you see him in the morning or the evening."
No one seriously suggests that Nehru will be replaced as India's leader while he lives. To his country, he is not a statesman but an idol. Each morning, large crowds assemble on the lawn outside his New Delhi home. Some present petitions or beg favors, but thousands, in recent weeks, have handed over money or gold dust for the national defense. Most come just to achieve darshan, communion, with the country's leader. The throng is comforted and reassured, not by the words, but by the presence of Nehru.
His widowed daughter, Indira Gandhi, 45, who is functioning as his assistant and has sometimes been mentioned as his favorite choice to succeed him, is still essentially right when she says: "Unity can only be formed in India behind the Congress Party, and in the Congress Party only behind my father."
Nevertheless, Nehru's power will be circumscribed from now on. His long years of unquestioned, absolute personal rule are at an end. For the first time, leaders of the ruling Congress Party are demanding that attention be paid to the majority sentiment in the party as well as to Nehru's own ideas. The 437 million people of India may cease being Nehru's children and may at last become his constituents.
This does not mean that Nehru no longer leads, but only that from now on he will have to lead by using the more orthodox methods of a Western politician. Conservative members of the Congress Party, notably Finance Minister Morarji Desai, have been strengthened, and expect that Nehru's dogmatic reliance on socialism and the "public sector" of industry will be reduced; if India is to arm in a hurry, they argue, it will need the drive and energy of the "private sector."
Moreover, the Indian army may not only at last get the equipment it needs but may also gradually emerge as something of a political force. While this view is still vastly unpopular, many army officers think it is time for India to come to terms with Pakistan over the nagging Kashmir issue, so that the two great countries of the subcontinent can present a united front to China.
Bartered Gains. There is still considerable dispute over how little or how much the Chinese were after in their attack on India. One theory held by some leading Indian military men is that the Reds want eventually to drive as far as Calcutta, thereby outflanking all of Southeast Asia. In such a drive, the Chinese would be able to take advantage of anti-Indian feeling along the way, notably among the rebellious Nagas in East Assam, and in the border state of Sikkim. Reaching Calcutta, perhaps the world's most miserable city, where 125,000 homeless persons sleep on the streets each night, they would find readymade the strongest Communist organization in India. According to this theory, the Reds could set up a satellite regime in the Bay of Bengal and, without going any farther with their armies, wait for the rest of India to splinter and fall. This strategy has not necessarily been abandoned for good, but it certainly has been set aside. For one thing, the Chinese attack shattered Communism as a political force even in Calcutta.
The prevailing theory now is that the Chinese had less ambitious aims to begin with: to take the high ground and the key military passes away from the Indians, and to finally establish, once and for all, Chinese control of the Aksai Chin plateau in Ladakh, so as to safeguard the vital military roads to Sinkiang province. The Chinese may have been unprepared to exploit the almost total collapse of India's armed forces and may even have been surprised by their swift success. On this reading, the terms of the Chinese cease-fire offer become intelligible. The Nov. 7 line would in effect barter away the sizable Chinese gains in NEFA for Indian acceptance of China's property rights in Aksai Chin.
Viewed from Peking, the difficulties of supply through the Himalayas in dead of winter might make the Communists hesitate to try to occupy Assam, especially since India's determined show of national unity, and the West's evident willingness to support India to the hilt. There is a significant indication of one Chinese anxiety in the cease-fire offer. After warning that renewed war will "bring endless disaster to India," Peking says: "Particularly serious is the prospect that if U.S. imperialism is allowed to become involved, the present conflict will grow into a war in which Asians are made to fight Asians, entirely contrary to the fundamental interests of the Indian people." Implicit in those words are Red Chinese memories of the prolonged Korean war. which ended in a gory stalemate.
India's angry millions, armed, trained and aided by the U.S., must be a prospect that not even Mao Tse-tung relishes facing. Instead, by in effect quitting while they are ahead, the Chinese can play the peacemakers in the short-sighted eyes of the neutral nations, while having dramatically demonstrated their military superiority over India and without having to abandon the long-range threat. Says Madame Pandit: "This attack was far more than just an attack on one border. India is completely and wholly dedicated to democracy and not to some kind of 'Asian democracy.' China's motive was to humiliate India and to prove democracy is unworkable in Asia."
Without Meaning. Even if Nehru were prepared to give away Ladakh in return for a Chinese pullback elsewhere, he is committed to clearing all Indian territory of the invaders. And Nehru must know that the situation has reached a point where he can never again trust a Red Chinese promise and that the relationship between India and China has changed irrevocably. His policy of nonalignment has not been jettisoned. It has just ceased to have any meaning.
But Americans in New Delhi last week were irritated by evidence that the Indian government still prefers equivocation to the plain truth. Official requests went out to the Indian press not to print photos showing the arrival of U.S. arms, and the twelve U.S. Air Force transport planes sent by Washington to ferry Indian troops were made to sound like leased aircraft flown by mercenaries. The crowds know better. A current slogan is a revision of the earlier cry for brotherhood with China: "Americans bhai bhai; Chini hai hail" (Americans are our brothers; death to the Chinese!).
An Indian Cabinet minister, who disagrees with Nehru politically but respects him, says passionately: "He will come to many changes now. You cannot imagine how difficult it was for him to get rid of Menon. Do not think it was easy for him to ask for American arms. Right now, it is important not to push him into a corner in public." Another Cabinet minister, who does not like Nehru, also counsels patience: "His will to resist will wear down. It is already worn down a long way. Hitherto, there was no opposition at all in India. Now, Nehru is relying on his opposition. He may hate it. He has been thrown into the company of people like me, people he does not like. We make strange bedfellows, but together we are going to win the war."
To Americans it may sound like a peculiar way to win a war. But though India moves at a different pace and speaks with a different voice few could doubt last week the Indian determination to see that the Himalayan defeats were avenged, however long it may take.