4 ms·

Interesting to see this level of cooperation between the United States and India in 1965. Especially between the American and Indian intelligence agencies. His

Interesting to see this level of cooperation between the United States and India in 1965. Especially between the American and Indian intelligence agencies. Historians of this time period usually describe India as having a more frigid relationship with America by the mid 1960’s with India moving closer to the Soviet Union and the United States moving closer to Pakistan. But articles like this demonstrate that the situation may have been more complex than that. Of course geopolitics can sometimes change quickly. The leadership in the US and in India did change between 1965, the early 1970’s and the late 1970’s so that was a factor as well.

jhbadger 10mo ago
As the article mentions, this was about their shared worry of Mao's China and their nuclear advances. India then as now has a strong connection to the USSR/Russia -- they flew, and still fly, MiG planes, for example.
alephnerd 10mo ago
It was mutual. The US shifted to becoming de facto allied with China in the early 1970s as a bulwark against the Soviet Union, and Pakistan helped with the initial backdoor diplomacy [0][1] that lead to US-Chinese normalization in the 1970s. India, having fought a war against both Pakistan and China in the 1960s, pivoted to the Soviet Union as a result, who were also miffed at China because of the Sino-Soviet split and were looking for a bulwark. > Historians of this time period usually describe India as having a more frigid relationship with America by the mid 1960’s with India moving closer to the Soviet Union and the United States moving closer to Pakistan A major reason was Brzezinski - LBJ and later Carter's foreign policy czar. He was a "realist" whose primary goal was boxing in the USSR (he spent his early childhood in Moscow during the Stalinist purge and Poland before the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact). As such, he pivoted the US away from India in favor of Pakistan and China. The is why the US went from building IITs and allowing it's tech companies like Burroughs and IBM building joint ventures in 1960s India to de facto sanctions in the 1970s. Kissinger followed a similar policy as Brzezinski, and IMO a major reason was that both grew up in pre-War Europe and their past experiences colored their views as a result. [0] - https://www.rand.org/pubs/commentary/2015/10/pakistan-and-chinas-almost-alliance.html https://www.rand.org/pubs/commentary/2015/10/pakistan-and-ch... [1] - https://www.isas.nus.edu.sg/papers/pakistan-china-relations-in-a-changing-geopolitical-environment/ https://www.isas.nus.edu.sg/papers/pakistan-china-relations-...
- mmooss 10mo ago
  > India ... pivoted to the Soviet Union India may have had a relationship, but they were never a Soviet ally or anything like it. They led the Non-Aligned Movement.
  - alephnerd 10mo ago
    The Indo-Soviet Treaty in 1971 [0], Soviet tech transfers to India starting in 1972 [1] that made India a semiconductor exporter to the Eastern Bloc [2] and become a mini-Taiwan before Taiwan [3], and support for India's military modernization initiative [4] under Indira Gandhi that surprised Western observers in the 1980s [5]. Finally, the NAM movement began fading from 1962 following the Sino-Indian war and died by the late 1970s with the US pivot to China [6] [0] - https://www.mea.gov.in/Portal/LegalTreatiesDoc/RU71B1557.pdf https://www.mea.gov.in/Portal/LegalTreatiesDoc/RU71B1557.pdf [1] - https://www.mea.gov.in/Portal/LegalTreatiesDoc/RU72B1581.pdf https://www.mea.gov.in/Portal/LegalTreatiesDoc/RU72B1581.pdf [2] - https://www.cpushack.com/2021/08/02/the-6502-travels-the-world-the-story-of-the-indian-scl6502/ https://www.cpushack.com/2021/08/02/the-6502-travels-the-wor... [3] - https://www.indiatoday.in/magazine/economy/story/19831015-semiconductor-complex-in-mohali-industrial-complex-set-to-become-a-mini-silicon-valley-771115-2013-07-17 https://www.indiatoday.in/magazine/economy/story/19831015-se... [4] - https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/tr/pdf/ADA089122.pdf https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/tr/pdf/ADA089122.pdf [5] - https://www.nytimes.com/1987/03/06/world/on-india-s-border-a-huge-mock-war.html https://www.nytimes.com/1987/03/06/world/on-india-s-border-a... [6] - https://www.jstor.org/stable/2757064 https://www.jstor.org/stable/2757064
    - mmooss 10mo ago
      First, thanks for contributing your expertise. Couldn't we say the US has a similar relationship with India now, at least before Trump II? We send them goodies to keep them friendly, but little geopolitical support that has significant consequence is exchanged. ? For example, India didn't/doesn't permit military bases, if either the US or USSR wanted them. The US/USSR didn't cause an Indian victory against their neighbors (or did the Soviets have material effect on the Pakistan-Bangladesh split in 1971?).
hermitcrab 10mo ago
There is an interesting video by Sarah Paine on Youtube discussing the geopolitics of this. (Paraphrasing from memory) she says that the US tried to be friends with both but, because the scars of partition were so painful, this wasn't possible and they just ended up pissing off both. Apparently Pakistan was very strategic due to the presence of US listening posts and U2 bases.
- alephnerd 10mo ago
  China played a role as well. The US pivoted to China from the 1970s to 1990s due to the rivalry with the USSR.
  - hermitcrab 10mo ago
    Sarah Paine is an expert on China and covers this (and lots more besides). If you are at all interested in geopolitics, then I recommend watching some of her videos.
    - Analemma_ 10mo ago
      Is she actually considered an expert, by other experts? I watched a couple clips of her which were recommended to me on YouTube, and she just came across as a self-congratulatory booster for the inevitable triumph of Western liberal democracy, the sort of end-of-history talk we all now mock when it comes from e.g. Fukuyama.
      - hermitcrab 10mo ago
        >she just came across as a self-congratulatory booster for the inevitable triumph of Western liberal democracy I've watched 2 or 3 hours of videos and that isn't what I took away. She does argue that a rules based international order, free trade, democracy and liberalism is a superior system to authoritarianism, but I don't think too many people (in the West, at least) would disagree with that.
    - alephnerd 10mo ago
mmooss 10mo ago
Based on only a little understanding, India's geopolitical position makes it neutral in US-Russia/Soviet and US-China rivalries. India could and can securely ignore the rivalies: Its location isn't strategic (valuable) to those rivalries, unlike Europe or Japan; for example, India shares a border with China but the Himlayas are an uncrossable barrier for large military operations - India is no threat to and is not threatened by China in a serious way, and is far from Russia and its strategic interests. Its enormous size and population make it very expensive to influence militarily or politically, unlike smaller countries in Africa, for example. Those factors plus India's location made them less economically dependent on the rivarly countries. And India was very poor, so it provided little value to control economically. For India, the obvious choice was and is to stay out of those fights - they have little to gain and much to lose, both in money spent on military, and other geopolitical costs including sovereignty. Instead, they can sit securely in South Asia and invest in themselves (or the leaders can cash in on corruption). Now India has much more value economically, but that also makes them more secure. They verbally becoming more aggressive, but they have few targets and it seems like the commonplace tactic of nationalism. > the situation may have been more complex than that It always is on a micro level, but India is not becoming a US ally.
- JumpCrisscross 10mo ago
  > India's geopolitical position makes it neutral in US-Russia/Soviet and US-China rivalries Neutral with the Russians, a natural ally against the Chinese. (China and India have extant border disputes. And China has been working with Pakistan to contain India for decades.)
  - dragonwriter 10mo ago
    Yeah, the problem with that argument is that the US has been actively working with Pakistan for influence in Central Asia for several decades, and has formally designated it a major non-NATO ally for the last couple decades. Which kind of undercuts any “natural” anti-China alliance with India.
    - 10mo ago

jhbadger 10mo ago

As the article mentions, this was about their shared worry of Mao's China and their nuclear advances. India then as now has a strong connection to the USSR/Russia -- they flew, and still fly, MiG planes, for example.

alephnerd 10mo ago

It was mutual. The US shifted to becoming de facto allied with China in the early 1970s as a bulwark against the Soviet Union, and Pakistan helped with the initial backdoor diplomacy [0][1] that lead to US-Chinese normalization in the 1970s. India, having fought a war against both Pakistan and China in the 1960s, pivoted to the Soviet Union as a result, who were also miffed at China because of the Sino-Soviet split and were looking for a bulwark. > Historians of this time period usually describe India as having a more frigid relationship with America by the mid 1960’s with India moving closer to the Soviet Union and the United States moving closer to Pakistan A major reason was Brzezinski - LBJ and later Carter's foreign policy czar. He was a "realist" whose primary goal was boxing in the USSR (he spent his early childhood in Moscow during the Stalinist purge and Poland before the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact). As such, he pivoted the US away from India in favor of Pakistan and China. The is why the US went from building IITs and allowing it's tech companies like Burroughs and IBM building joint ventures in 1960s India to de facto sanctions in the 1970s. Kissinger followed a similar policy as Brzezinski, and IMO a major reason was that both grew up in pre-War Europe and their past experiences colored their views as a result. [0] - https://www.rand.org/pubs/commentary/2015/10/pakistan-and-chinas-almost-alliance.html https://www.rand.org/pubs/commentary/2015/10/pakistan-and-ch... [1] - https://www.isas.nus.edu.sg/papers/pakistan-china-relations-in-a-changing-geopolitical-environment/ https://www.isas.nus.edu.sg/papers/pakistan-china-relations-...

mmooss 10mo ago
> India ... pivoted to the Soviet Union India may have had a relationship, but they were never a Soviet ally or anything like it. They led the Non-Aligned Movement.
- alephnerd 10mo ago
  The Indo-Soviet Treaty in 1971 [0], Soviet tech transfers to India starting in 1972 [1] that made India a semiconductor exporter to the Eastern Bloc [2] and become a mini-Taiwan before Taiwan [3], and support for India's military modernization initiative [4] under Indira Gandhi that surprised Western observers in the 1980s [5]. Finally, the NAM movement began fading from 1962 following the Sino-Indian war and died by the late 1970s with the US pivot to China [6] [0] - https://www.mea.gov.in/Portal/LegalTreatiesDoc/RU71B1557.pdf https://www.mea.gov.in/Portal/LegalTreatiesDoc/RU71B1557.pdf [1] - https://www.mea.gov.in/Portal/LegalTreatiesDoc/RU72B1581.pdf https://www.mea.gov.in/Portal/LegalTreatiesDoc/RU72B1581.pdf [2] - https://www.cpushack.com/2021/08/02/the-6502-travels-the-world-the-story-of-the-indian-scl6502/ https://www.cpushack.com/2021/08/02/the-6502-travels-the-wor... [3] - https://www.indiatoday.in/magazine/economy/story/19831015-semiconductor-complex-in-mohali-industrial-complex-set-to-become-a-mini-silicon-valley-771115-2013-07-17 https://www.indiatoday.in/magazine/economy/story/19831015-se... [4] - https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/tr/pdf/ADA089122.pdf https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/tr/pdf/ADA089122.pdf [5] - https://www.nytimes.com/1987/03/06/world/on-india-s-border-a-huge-mock-war.html https://www.nytimes.com/1987/03/06/world/on-india-s-border-a... [6] - https://www.jstor.org/stable/2757064 https://www.jstor.org/stable/2757064
  - mmooss 10mo ago
    First, thanks for contributing your expertise. Couldn't we say the US has a similar relationship with India now, at least before Trump II? We send them goodies to keep them friendly, but little geopolitical support that has significant consequence is exchanged. ? For example, India didn't/doesn't permit military bases, if either the US or USSR wanted them. The US/USSR didn't cause an Indian victory against their neighbors (or did the Soviets have material effect on the Pakistan-Bangladesh split in 1971?).

hermitcrab 10mo ago

There is an interesting video by Sarah Paine on Youtube discussing the geopolitics of this. (Paraphrasing from memory) she says that the US tried to be friends with both but, because the scars of partition were so painful, this wasn't possible and they just ended up pissing off both. Apparently Pakistan was very strategic due to the presence of US listening posts and U2 bases.

alephnerd 10mo ago
China played a role as well. The US pivoted to China from the 1970s to 1990s due to the rivalry with the USSR.
- hermitcrab 10mo ago
  Sarah Paine is an expert on China and covers this (and lots more besides). If you are at all interested in geopolitics, then I recommend watching some of her videos.
  - Analemma_ 10mo ago
    Is she actually considered an expert, by other experts? I watched a couple clips of her which were recommended to me on YouTube, and she just came across as a self-congratulatory booster for the inevitable triumph of Western liberal democracy, the sort of end-of-history talk we all now mock when it comes from e.g. Fukuyama.
    - hermitcrab 10mo ago
      >she just came across as a self-congratulatory booster for the inevitable triumph of Western liberal democracy I've watched 2 or 3 hours of videos and that isn't what I took away. She does argue that a rules based international order, free trade, democracy and liberalism is a superior system to authoritarianism, but I don't think too many people (in the West, at least) would disagree with that.
  - alephnerd 10mo ago

mmooss 10mo ago

Based on only a little understanding, India's geopolitical position makes it neutral in US-Russia/Soviet and US-China rivalries. India could and can securely ignore the rivalies: Its location isn't strategic (valuable) to those rivalries, unlike Europe or Japan; for example, India shares a border with China but the Himlayas are an uncrossable barrier for large military operations - India is no threat to and is not threatened by China in a serious way, and is far from Russia and its strategic interests. Its enormous size and population make it very expensive to influence militarily or politically, unlike smaller countries in Africa, for example. Those factors plus India's location made them less economically dependent on the rivarly countries. And India was very poor, so it provided little value to control economically. For India, the obvious choice was and is to stay out of those fights - they have little to gain and much to lose, both in money spent on military, and other geopolitical costs including sovereignty. Instead, they can sit securely in South Asia and invest in themselves (or the leaders can cash in on corruption). Now India has much more value economically, but that also makes them more secure. They verbally becoming more aggressive, but they have few targets and it seems like the commonplace tactic of nationalism. > the situation may have been more complex than that It always is on a micro level, but India is not becoming a US ally.

JumpCrisscross 10mo ago
> India's geopolitical position makes it neutral in US-Russia/Soviet and US-China rivalries Neutral with the Russians, a natural ally against the Chinese. (China and India have extant border disputes. And China has been working with Pakistan to contain India for decades.)
- dragonwriter 10mo ago
  Yeah, the problem with that argument is that the US has been actively working with Pakistan for influence in Central Asia for several decades, and has formally designated it a major non-NATO ally for the last couple decades. Which kind of undercuts any “natural” anti-China alliance with India.
  - 10mo ago