|
Could India have intervened when China occupied Tibet? It is a moot point.
One of the major deficiency of Indian politicians then and now, is that they did not nor have military experience (some do have now but are not in any worthwhile position) and nor were they well versed with strategy. They would have read and understood the British “Great Game” only from a historical and political point of view and not the strategic masterstroke played therein and which played a major role in shoring up the British Empire in general and British India in particular.
If the Indian politicians had military experience and understood strategy, then they may have acted with alacrity and stalled the Chinese.
But then, there were the other issues.
The Indian Army was reorganising after independence. It was totally employed in riot control and exchange of population and then followed the Kashmir War. Therefore, militarily, there possibly were not enough troops to go around for the defence of India, let alone embarking on expeditions in Tibet.
It must also be remembered that the UN deliberated over Kashmir and the UN resolution was passed on 13 August 1948. Ignoring the basic issue of the UN resolution of 13 Aug 1948, that Pakistan should vacate the aggression first, the Security Council passed numerous resolutions and appointed a number of mediators and negotiators, but as their proposals went across the position held by India and recognized by the Security Council all these proposals failed. First came the proposals from Mr MC Naughten of Canada, followed by those of Sir Owen Dixon. Dr Graham laboured from 1950 to 1953 to find a solution to the holding of a plebiscite. But since Pakistan was not willing to withdraw its troops from the territory occupied by it, the missions failed.
Therefore, one can take it that the Indian Army was poised for war till as late as 1953.
And yet, China could have been confronted when on October 8, 1950, China officially entered the Korean War. The armistice was signed on July 27, 1953.
China possibly would not have been able to have a two front war.
On May 20-22, 1953 at New Delhi John Foster Dulles, the then Secretary of State, met Prime Minister Nehru and senior Indian officials with a ‘us or them’ proposal. India, at that time basking in the euphoria of being free, naturally, shied away from the idea of having to play second fiddle or be under domination. And thus, West was lost.
And so even at this late stage, India could not take the step to go in the defence of Tibet.
And, of course, Nehru was a pacifist and was more concerned about international opinion about a country steeped in Gandhian philosophy. He and India could not lose face!
Therefore, was it a case of:
1. Missed opportunities.
2. Lack of military experience and strategic insight.
3. Unable to free troops with the ongoing uncertainties in Kashmir.
4. Odd turn of events that were mismatched to appeal to India’s newly acquired sensibilities.
__________________
"Some have learnt many Tricks of sly Evasion, Instead of Truth they use Equivocation, And eke it out with mental Reservation, Which is to good Men an Abomination."
I don't have to attend every argument I'm invited to.
HAKUNA MATATA
|