Recently declassified documents reveal what Nixon and Kissinger thought about Indira Gandhi, with Nixon calling her a “witch” and a “bitch” and Kissinger referring to all Indians as “bastards.” Gandhi had come to the US in the period just before the Indo-Pakistan war of 1971. At that point, the US had a “special relationship” with Ayub Khan, the dictator of Pakistan, and India was flirting with the Soviets. The US did not want East Pakistan to form an independent Bangladesh.
Here are some snippets of the discussion between Nixon and Kissinger, just after Indira Gandhi left:
Nixon: This is just the point when she is a bitch.Kissinger: Well, the Indians are bastards anyway. They are starting a war there. It’s–to them East Pakistan is no longer the issue. Now, I found it very interesting how she carried on to you yesterday about West Pakistan….
Kissinger: While she was a bitch, we got what we wanted too. You very subtly–I mean, she will not be able to go home and say that the United States didn’t give her a warm reception and therefore, in despair, she’s got to go to war.
Nixon: We really slobbered over the old witch. [US State Department]
This wasn’t just about Indira Gandhi herself, they had a pretty low opinion of Indians in general:
Indians are “a slippery, treacherous people,” Nixon said.“The Indians are bastards anyway,” Mr Kissinger replied. “They are the most aggressive goddamn people around.” [Guardian]
Nixon was also mad at his ambassador for ‘going native’ —
In a White House conversation with Mr Kissinger on 4 June, 1971, President Nixon berates his ambassador to India, Kenneth Keating, for wanting to, as Mr Kissinger puts it, “help India push the Pakistanis out”.President Nixon says: “I don’t want him to come in with that kind of jackass thing with me… Keating, like every ambassador who goes over there, goes over there and gets sucked in.” [BBC]
US opposition to an independent Bangladesh was quite deep:
Mr Kissinger then says: “Those sons-of-bitches, who never have lifted a finger for us, why should we get involved in the morass of East Pakistan?“If East Pakistan becomes independent, it is going to become a cesspool. It’s going be 100 million people, they have the lowest standard of living in Asia.”
President Nixon replies: “Yeah.”
Mr Kissinger: “They’re going to become a ripe field for communist infiltration.” [BBC]
Nixon even went to far as to encourage China to intervene on Pakistan’s behalf:
President Nixon then openly courted China to try to turn the tide of the war Pakistan’s way. With the Indian army and armed Bengali separatists winning, the US on 10 December 1971 urged Beijing to mobilise troops towards India, saying the US would back it if the Soviet Union became involved.China declined and on 16 December the war ended with the Indian army and Bengali separatists taking Dhaka. [BBC]
The first casualty of the “great game” was principle. It is very useful to remember how far the US has been willing to go in the past, and how little concern it has shown for the rights of hundreds of millions, while still claiming to be fighting for freedom. It’s also useful to remember how wrong its calculations were. With July Fourth around the corner, maybe it’s time for us all to embrace a quintessentially American value, one celebrated by the founding fathers, that of skepticism.
So, Vinod, I agree with you that “freedom” and “democracy” are really important….because the words are catchalls that allow anyone to justify almost anything at this point (sort of like “anti-terrorist measure.”
So let’s start talking about what “freedom”, “democracy”, and “liberty” really mean, how they are established and sustained, and where it is most appropriate to use what tactics.
From my vantage point, whehter one supported the invasion of Iraq primarily for human rights reasons or for realpolitik, it was a horrendous geopolitical choice to make (where else could the hundreds of billions of dollars have gone to promote democracy in more effective ways?), relies on a terrible model of social change and actors who have demonstrated themselves to be far less committed to democracy and transparency in their actions than their rhetoric, and was poorly planned.
Just as a thought exercise, consider the following options, which possibly would have served both democracy and U.S. interests more than the money and lives spent on the invasion of Iraq:
1) alternative fuel research and energy conservation to wean the United States off of OPEC oil; 2) promoting indigenous groups around the world that are triyng to build democracy (like the NLD in Burma); 3) cultivating opposition in Iran; 4) finding alternative ways of increasing leverage against the Saudi government (which is probably, if you want to find one actor, the primary source of financial support for the culture of Islamism in the world); 5) the establishment of primary schools in the developing world. 6) finishing the rebuilding of Afghanistan, which has essentially been left in the dustbin of American foreign policy failures, and will undoubtedly come back to bite someone in the a$$ someday–if only the people who live in Afghanistan. 7) Subsidizing the production and provision of medication to produce curest to common diseases and reducing the prices of things like HIV meds 8) Debt forgiveness for countries that engage in reforms that promote increased education, health provision, freedom of speech, freedom of religion, or other reforms 9) Increasing the size the of the security council to include representatives of poor(er) countries on a permanent basis 10) investing greater resources in international criminal investigation, including, but not limited to Al Qaeda activities.
The point is not that any one of these ideas would be a solution or are even a good idea, but that if you creatively survey all the optinos available (of which there are almost infinitely many), it seems to me that a poorly planned invasion of Iraq probably doesn’t rank very high on the list by any standard of logic and decency. I came up with thie in about 10 mintues, so I imagine the policy resources of the entire U.S. government (and if it wasn’t so thickheaded as to ignore them, those of its allies and people with similar interests in broader society) would probably have been able to come up with something better.
“Forced sterlizations might be considered vile. But I think the idea just went sour? …. Wish my grandparents were taught some self restraint … we must be one of the most hated races on earth “
I dont know about being the most hated race on earth, but its pretty clear we’re the most self-hating. Sheesh. Just pathetic.
Apparently the only “correct” response to coerced sterilization is total horror; when someone tries to discuss any other aspect, they’re labelled self-hating or racist or worse. I’m against any kind of coercion, but I’ve never understood how sterilization gets lumped into more evil categories like murder.
This thread, and the one about HIV+ couples, prompt me to ask a risky question. Namely, is any kind of childfree movement developing in India?
I’d be surprised because of the family-centric culture. Everybody loves their children, but the lives of Indians especially revolve around their kids. They pamper their kids like there’s no tomorrow.
It’s just like Italians– check out how many parent proudly tote their kids around Piazza Navona in Rome, stuffing them with cotton candy and spoiling them silly.
Somebody I know that has lived throughout India once told me that South Indians are a lot more courteous, polite, and civil than people from other parts of India.
[1] Gawleee! So many of you are so obsessed with freedom, human rights ..blah..blah. Your passion/madness about it is just as intense as that of the muslim fundamentalists of our times, the communists of the last century and the crusaders of the past. The idea you fixate upon as the basis upon which society ought to be built is different (in your case human rights etc. as oppossed to god’s word or the society of equality), but the obsession and the slavish dedication to the idea is same.
[2] People have to make compromises and judgement calls – if I am ever offered the choice that “killing 1000 people from some other country” could reduce the chances of americans getting killed by 2% … should I make the call? How much is a american life worth? – another non-american life, a 100 non-american lives, may be? The talk of all beings are equal is bullshit… when your mom is going to raped infront of you, how many people would you kill to prevent it – 10, 100, 1000… why should you kill anybody, may be the rapist will change his mind at the last moment… what percantage of certainity is enough to make a call that could potentially devastate the lifes of million’s of people.
The answer depends on you own risk aversion levels. For me its ok to blow up a million people in some other county to save a 100 american lives; if in the end the cost/benefit ratio works in out favour. Your ratio’s might be different. Nixon’s & Kissinger’s ratios are different.
So, stop all the bitching and moaning and pansy talk of a world where every body exchanges flowers, and eats euphoria for breakfast – People get fucked. bad. It better not be you.
[3] Stop talking quotes out of context.
Your over worked sensibilties screeam racism the moment you soup is late by 20 seconds! If I say New Yorkers are bastards, or that the yankess are bastards, you are not going to take out the R card, hun? Kissinger called Indians bastards the same way (yes, he told me). Yes, they were agressive; Indians did not exactly talk about a non-violent protest to diffuse the tensions during the Bangladesh war.
All in all, Nixon & Kissinger were the greatest genuises of the last century – ofcourse, their priorities were not the freedom/human rights bullshit, but they did a damn good job realizing, their priorities whatever the expenses were – U.S. is still one of the decent nations to live in, is it not?
Indira Gandhi had the balls to her things. She paid a price, but it was her game – her cost/benefit analysis. You can pontificate as much as you want, but maintaining freedom, human rights etc. are not cost free oprations, and you will create groups who will benefit at the expense of others.
whoa…satish…have some ice cream or cotton candy or something. There are situations that are not zero-sum games (in fact, probably most…well, unti Bush gets through with the world economy).
That’s why people make use of the symmetry that the Nash equilibrium teaches us. Your argument, by symmetry, can be stated as: “what chance does your mom,dad,siblings,etc have of being killed, .01%, .1%, 1% when someone else’s mom is going to be raped in front of him and he decides?”
Since the unfortunate child is one player in the Nash equation, each other rational player when presented with the possible dilemma beforehand will minimize the increased risk to his/her own family members by imposing stiff penalities on whichever player is given the deleterious choice.
What you get is the equilibrium – of the one trying to damage the others to save his mother – and the many trying to make it harder for that one to do so.
Foreign leaders know you will, that’s why they’ll make sure the cost of killing 1million non-americans is severe enough it isn’t to your benefit. This is the foundation of MAD (Mutually-Assured Destruction), where they’ll kill all 300million if you kill 1million, and even though you’ll detect their response and destroy them completely as well, the cost to you is high enough to make sure you won’t kill their 1million to begin with. In fact, it’s because of adventuresome people like you why many nations embrace MAD or are gaining capabilities to embrace it. It’s unfortunate, but your ilk gives credence to the rhetoric of “might makes right”, “power respects power”, and other antiquated expansionist sentiments.
Are you trying to get on the Hannity & dead-sock-puppet Colmes talk show? The only thing worse than being jaded is being a Nixon apologist.
Yes, when we live in a world where the laws adjust dynamically and in real time with the sentiments and expecations of the agents (us) in the model. Untill, then the player who can exploit the system will reap the most benefits.
Right now people are getting fucked in Darfur & DR Congo. There aint no equilibrium coming to save their ass.
No, they will TRY to make sure. But, still I (America) can get away with things they never can, because I have power & might. Can you imagine Iraq invading us on ensure our compliance to the Non-prolifeartion treaty.
Unfortunate – perhaps in your expecation of how the world ought to be.
Antiquated – not as long as man is alive. The rhetoric of justice and human rights is another set of tools to appease the masses, and those who do the double-talk will invariably reap more out of the systems than who are become foolishly compliant with these principles for moral reasons. And ofcourse, not everybody can get away with the double-talk… we can.. Iraq got it’s ass whooped for being inhuman (Kurdish pansies etc.), but we got away with torcher in Abu Gharib..haven’t we? Who dares to prosectue us for war crimes? Radovan Karadzic does not have the same luxury.
You bet you bottom dollar, that it does. It does not matter how close you are to the equilibrium, when I put a gun to your head, you will do what I say. And the equilbrium can be a chaotic system, a miniscule percentage of people with with a different agenda can upset you little make believe world.. that why we have walgreens!
So, baby you can hate me, but sure as hell, this is how it will stay – I prosper at the expense of others; And, I am down with dat.
Yes, and there are games where I want to get the entire sum and want to give you zero. Gandhi say, ” we have enough for every man’s need, but not everyman’s greed”… but alas, one man’s greed is another man’s need…so, the fact that there are zero-sum games aint helping me much in getting all I want.
Not that this is a definitive commentary on Indira’s tenure, but looking at all the posts i feel compelled to add my thoughts:) vis.a.vis emergency and her stint as PM.
The good points of her tenure: 1. Very decisive judgements when it came to national security (although some might term it as over-reaching). Eg: Creation of Bangladesh, Operation Bluestar 2. Played a major role in controlling the law and order in India in those days. (more on this later) 3. Heralding the Green revolution 4. Making India a nuclear power ( at a heavy price albeit)
The bad points: 1. She was hardly democratic in the way she functioned. This was one of the reasons lot of good principled leaders left Congress to begin with. A lot is made out of the letters Nehru wrote to her while he was in prison on the virtues of democracy, but there is no proof she read and understood them. 2. Interfering with the judiciary and using her absolute majority in Parliament with utter disregard for well established precedences before her.
On the imposition of emergency, here is the point. Read on!!!! Mr. JP Narayan was fighting for all the right causes, with all the wrong means. (encouraging students to boycott colleges and indulge in arson, literally everyday govt. property was burnt and looted, this was very common in Bihar and later in the north Indian states). There is no evidence he encouraged arson, but he actively encouraged the youth to come down to the road leaving their colleges and careers. These students eventually ended up indulging in arson – daily!!. The causes he was fighting for were – corruption, social justice & equality etc. To him IG was the person to be blamed and hence he never reached a compromise with IG. IG on her part looking at the way things were going really feared there was an internal emergency and imposed one. So this is the background of emergency. It is important to know these facts behind the emergency. In case you are wondering, consider this.
If Mr.JP had a Gandhian effect on Indians, How come the non-Congress govt. crumble so quickly after IG was out of power? Essentialy the point is problems of those days, which still exist today had more to do with scarce resources and poor moral standards in the administration. The issue wasn’t if IG was behind these problems. Wisdom will tell you these problems arise when there is poverty, high illiteracy and competition for scarce resources. This ofcourse wasn’t understood by one and all, not even Mr. JP. And ofcourse there were tons of idiots who saw an opportunity in this problem, which they gladly exploited. Eg. Mr Laloo who is widely credited with running a very corrupt and inefficient administration in Bihar for almost 15 years ( with his wife being the CM for 5 yrs ) was one of the prominent student leaders that talked to Mr. JP and asked him to lead the movement. It is at this stage that the movement got violent and IG had not an option but to impose emergency.
However there are things IG could have done to handle this situation better. It is here that her lack of working in a democratic manner hurt her the most and the rest is history. One of the crooks that exploited the situation to hilt was her son Mr Sanjay Gandhi!!!!. He had noble ideas, but hardly noble means to achieve them.
That is the best damn comment. It shows that Nixon was shit scared of Indira. I mean common I have not seen a single prime minister with such guts in the past twenty years. It is a compliment.
Seriously, when Tricky Dick starts dogging on someone, I say sign me up! Too bad it’s the Iron Maiden.
Sonal:
Kissinger sounds like such a jerk. I heard that he hated Indians as well.
But then why should it bother us? We arent living in India anyways. In 1971, our papas were on their way to the US, and we were born here or bringing us in diapers over here. We shouldnt be shocked. Thats how it was so deal with it.
Hay Sonal, do you know that there is a say in Hindi – “Dobhi ke kuta, na ghar ka na ghat ka.”
What can I say? That fits you and your kind perfectly right. You live in an information and technologically rich country, but yet know a damn thing about your motherland – India’s greatness.
God, I wish I had the power to stamp on your forehead, requesting people to NOT to recognize you as an Indian.
Now, I wish there would be racism in USA. Then you and your kind would know what goddamn freaking things does NIXON and KISSINGER types mean, to you especially.
And hey, just that no one is speaking about you on your face, doesnt mean they are giving the same status that of native Americans. God knows what they speak behind you.
Did you just finish reading Beyond Good and Evil or was it Atlas Shrugged>?
Isnt it sad to see that we would never know what Indira Gandhi thought of Nixon or how she bad-mouthed him!!
Putting Nixon and Kissinger on hold for a moment, has anyone seen this?
If true I think its only appropriate to say, “All your bitches are belong to us !!”.
🙂
cssw, cute link. (It took me a minute to figure out it’s purely a humor piece though.)
Manish Vij says:
Pithy as your comment is, this boob does not get it.
I googled and I froogled and I bought the house down! But I still don’t get it. Pray rid me of my misery!
I think the comments on Indira is an understatement.
However, they commenting on Indians generally is American dumbness.
Nixon himself practising Yoga to control his stress and also doing “Omkar” 100 times (Meditating and chating “Om”). He lived few more days due to the sheer power of Yoga else he would not have had lived to even curse Indians. He himself is such a mean being and how can he comment on somebody else like that.
Nina P asked “…is any kind of childfree movement developing in India? “
I haven’t heard of a movement yet. But came across this article recently
http://www.desijournal.com/article.asp?articleid=249
I am a 38 year old Childfree male from New Delhi. I am a member of some childfree e groups in the US, but am not really aware of any childfree movement in India. Anyways, its a matter of time before the childfree concept hits India. You can read my childfree essay, in which I have tried to use logic and spirituality to stress the need for being childfree. Breeding concerns all of us, so I guess it should be of interest to everyone. You can read my essay “Conceiving a Child is a Sin” at: http://dontconceive.blogspot.com You are welcome to drop me a line at dontconceive@hotmail.com
Its all karma, people. Remember, in the 80s America was countering the Soviet “empire”. At the time, America intervened and then the mujhadheen was able to defeat the “Red Army”. That prestige costed them though in ’71 when all those billions of dollars worth of tanks and jets couldn’t beat India. All of a sudden, America had nothing to do with it. Fast forward years later, and look whats going on in Afghanistan. Another empire is closing in on it and this time like the Red Army nearly 20 years ago, they are still there, only there is no welcome mat for weapons.
KHALISTAN ZINDABAD NeverForget84 Indra Gandhi is a fucked up bitch NeverForget84 KHALISTAN ZINDABAD
So Kissinger, who survived the Holocaust at age 14 when his family moved to America, has no problem supporting another holocaust in Bangladesh, huh? Oh, wait a minute, I forgot! Bengalis are expendable. All that talk about how western civilization values human life is only meant for white people, right?
Bastard… I don’t know if he’s still alive, but I hope he eventually rots in hell. To witness a Jew and a Holocaust survivor showing this callousness is not only shocking, but obscene.
Hi
First thing to remember is the context of the remarks – a genocide was going on in Bangladesh, and Indira Gandhi was trying to get buy-in from Nixon to intervene. Nixon (who needed Pakistan for China) couldn’t care less about the Bangladeshis, inspite of American diplomats in Bangladesh and India screaming themselves hoarse. In the end a lot of people died, women were raped, and lives destroyed because of Nixon and Kissinger (and of course the Pakistan army). This week, after 40 years, Bangladesh is planning to honour Indira Gandhi and 226 other Indians for their part in helping this happen.
With this background, the name calling hardly matters when set against . As for the forced sterilization, this was rumored to have happened around 1976-77 under Sanjay Gandhi, several years after these remarks. And it was the reason, as much as the emergency, that Indira Gandhi lost that election. It is a bad episode, and it wont be the last bad thing that happens in India. But for those whose adopted country is the US, remember that many such things have happened in the US also, and happens in every country. 25% of all black men are sent to prison – is this not a shame? We cannot judge a country by one episode, but understand that the best countries in the world have flaws and “the price of freedom is eternal vigilance”. I am happy to say that as it happens in the US, ultimately in India people revolted and the practice came to an end. Since the 1980s, India has eliminated numerical targets for family planning, and focuses on a more positive approach around education and family health to achieve these goals.
Samir, good posting. Without meaning to go way off topic, the reference to Nixon( and Kissinger) needing Pakistan for China, just proves beyond a reasonable doubt what a hoax and a fraud the whole “cold war” was. If the ideological underpinning of the cold war was principled and determined opposition to totalitarianism, what possible role could China have in any such movement? The US and UK of course, discredited themselves from the beginning by propping up all kinds of dictatorships in the name of keeping communism at bay. But roping in a totalitarian state like China to counter another totalitarian state like Russia, takes the proverbial cake.
These comments are not that shocking. This is how the game is played at these levels. Nixon was never a smooth talker anyway. If anything this should serve to do is highlight how careful India needs to be in its dealings with other countries. These types of things should also remove the veil of ignorance that many Indians have in believing that the US or the West is their saviour and their friend. They are your friend if it suits them, if it doesn’t then they will switch in a minute.
I just hope it leads Indians to question things and become stronger. India has to learn to stand on its own two feet to be respected and to act in the best interests of its own people. That is not to say that the US and the West can’t be great allies, but just be aware of the game being played and play it too. Otherwise you just become the sucker at the table, just like in Poker.
I actually think India is well placed to be an ally to both the west and the east by building good relations with both sides. I think it could be a bringer together of opposing sides at some point. But that point can only be reached through mutual respect and that may mean playing these guys at their own game.
Indra gandhi was a whore bitch witch prostitute. kutti harami