NESA-1 SOUTH ASIA REPORTING IN U.S. PRESS (950) NEW YORK TIMES’ SYDNEY H. SCHANBERG WRITES FROM CALCUTTA
U.S. DIPLOMATIC MESSAGES, R.T.T. File October 12, 1971
“Last week, with the refugee population swollen to 9 million, West Bengal, the Indian state on the East Pakistani border, was in an explosive condition.”
As a result “ the temptation to get rid of the crushing
refugee burden by intervening in the fighting across the border—even if that meant another war with Pakistan— was growing for Indians all the way up to the government in New Delhi.”
Schanberg continues : “What the Indians fear most is that the tension might take on a communal color most of the East Pakistan refugees are Hindus terrorized by the Moslem West Pakistani army — and touch off a nationwide chain reaction in which India’s majority Hindus would take revenge on the country’s 60 million Moslems.
On the subject of possible Indian intervention, he says : “Even if the Indians do not immediately sanction a full- scale thrust to seize major territory, where at least some of the refugees could go back to live, reports here indicate that New Delhi is increasing its arms supply to the guerrillas and that there will be a sharp increase in guerrilla activity within a few weeks—‘A big punch’ as one Bangla Desh official described it.” On Prime Minister Indira Gandhi’s forthcoming tour of Western capitals, he says:
“If Mrs. Gandhi gets nothing but more urging of caution and restraint and comes home feeling that India is being abandoned or isolated, then caution and restraint may be the next casualties on this disturbed sub-continent.”
Baltimore Sun’s Adam Clymer reporting from Washington says that despite mounting hostility, guerrilla activity and the massing of troops on both sides of the India-Pakistan borders, “the best guess in Washington, which has been wrong before, is that war in the next few months is unlikely to be either nation’s deliberate choice, and that Rawalpindi and, New Delhi probably can prevent ‘Accidental’ conflict.”
All the arguments, he says, are based in two keys expectations :
That Soviet influence with India and American influence with Pakistan will operate as important levers of restraint-that each country would risk more than it could expect to gain by choosing war.
Reporting from New Delhi, Clymer says., .situations are gloomier than the consensus in Washington with “some highly informed observers”—seeing war as inevitable. “There seems to be little doubt," Clymer says, “the forces on both sides are ready for war and that there are enough of them, tense after weeks of being in the alert—especially the Air Forces — so that greater border incidents are almost inevitable.”
The arguments for India starting a war, he says, are fairly simple. As the refugee problem becomes an intolerable financial and social burden, India could come to the conclusion that the longer East Pakistan independence was in coming, the more radical its leaders would become and decide that something should be done immediately. Such a move, he adds, would probably halt American Economic and Refugee Aid.
The arguments for Pakistan starting a war are fewer, he says, since, “there could be little real hope of a military victory for Pakistan.” But if the Yahya Khan regime concludes it has no hope of restoring effective control over East Pakistan, he says, it might resort to a desperate military strike, feeling that even if it lost East Pakistan, the blame some¬how could be fixed on the big powers and not on the failure on Pakistani leaders.
Those who fear a war say the most risky time will come In lale November after Prime Minister Indira Gandhi returns from abroad, probably dissatisfied with promises from foreign capitals, including Washington — then “the lid could be blown off," reports Clymer.
Baltimore Sun's Pran Sabharwal in New Delhi says that, according to "responsible Awami League sources,” Sheikh Mujlbur Rahman has already been sentenced to death by the special military tribunal set up to try him; and that accord¬ing to other “reliable sources,” President Yahya will probably commute the sentence in a public broadcast tonight.
“Last week, with the refugee population swollen to 9 million, West Bengal, the Indian state on the East Pakistani border, was in an explosive condition.”
As a result “ the temptation to get rid of the crushing
refugee burden by intervening in the fighting across the border—even if that meant another war with Pakistan— was growing for Indians all the way up to the government in New Delhi.”
Schanberg continues : “What the Indians fear most is that the tension might take on a communal color most of the East Pakistan refugees are Hindus terrorized by the Moslem West Pakistani army — and touch off a nationwide chain reaction in which India’s majority Hindus would take revenge on the country’s 60 million Moslems.
On the subject of possible Indian intervention, he says : “Even if the Indians do not immediately sanction a full- scale thrust to seize major territory, where at least some of the refugees could go back to live, reports here indicate that New Delhi is increasing its arms supply to the guerrillas and that there will be a sharp increase in guerrilla activity within a few weeks—‘A big punch’ as one Bangla Desh official described it.” On Prime Minister Indira Gandhi’s forthcoming tour of Western capitals, he says:
“If Mrs. Gandhi gets nothing but more urging of caution and restraint and comes home feeling that India is being abandoned or isolated, then caution and restraint may be the next casualties on this disturbed sub-continent.”
Baltimore Sun’s Adam Clymer reporting from Washington says that despite mounting hostility, guerrilla activity and the massing of troops on both sides of the India-Pakistan borders, “the best guess in Washington, which has been wrong before, is that war in the next few months is unlikely to be either nation’s deliberate choice, and that Rawalpindi and, New Delhi probably can prevent ‘Accidental’ conflict.”
All the arguments, he says, are based in two keys expectations :
That Soviet influence with India and American influence with Pakistan will operate as important levers of restraint-that each country would risk more than it could expect to gain by choosing war.
Reporting from New Delhi, Clymer says., .situations are gloomier than the consensus in Washington with “some highly informed observers”—seeing war as inevitable. “There seems to be little doubt," Clymer says, “the forces on both sides are ready for war and that there are enough of them, tense after weeks of being in the alert—especially the Air Forces — so that greater border incidents are almost inevitable.”
The arguments for India starting a war, he says, are fairly simple. As the refugee problem becomes an intolerable financial and social burden, India could come to the conclusion that the longer East Pakistan independence was in coming, the more radical its leaders would become and decide that something should be done immediately. Such a move, he adds, would probably halt American Economic and Refugee Aid.
The arguments for Pakistan starting a war are fewer, he says, since, “there could be little real hope of a military victory for Pakistan.” But if the Yahya Khan regime concludes it has no hope of restoring effective control over East Pakistan, he says, it might resort to a desperate military strike, feeling that even if it lost East Pakistan, the blame some¬how could be fixed on the big powers and not on the failure on Pakistani leaders.
Those who fear a war say the most risky time will come In lale November after Prime Minister Indira Gandhi returns from abroad, probably dissatisfied with promises from foreign capitals, including Washington — then “the lid could be blown off," reports Clymer.
Baltimore Sun's Pran Sabharwal in New Delhi says that, according to "responsible Awami League sources,” Sheikh Mujlbur Rahman has already been sentenced to death by the special military tribunal set up to try him; and that accord¬ing to other “reliable sources,” President Yahya will probably commute the sentence in a public broadcast tonight.
Posts
0 Comments :
Post a Comment