Unanswered Questions by Hendorson Brooks Report on Indo-China War 1962; India Must Know

Hendorson Brroks report on Indo-sino war in fact doest answer all questions related to Indian war planning and Geo Strategic policy on Tibet. The report accepts its limitation when it makes mentions that no record of Govt minutes of various meeting of Defense Minister or PM or Cabinet were shared with the investigating committee. The committee was only given mandate to investigate failure of Indian Army in implementation of Govts forward policy on Tibet? Though report questions validity of forward policy in pure military terms but its political scrutiny has not been carried out.

Military policy comes out of the political policy of the Govt. Considering the long term devastating impact of failure of Nehru’s Forward Policy there is surely a need to investigate the political policy of then govt on Tibet and China. It is shameful that no investigation on such failures have been conducted leaving many questions unanswered? These questions are there in minds of many Geo-political strategists who trie to understand the political policy of Nehru’s Govt on Tibet and China? What are these questions to which Indians need answer?

Before these questions are listed here, let us understand two phases of Indo-China relations. First phase was before Communist revolution in China in 1949 and second phase was after the communist Mao came in power.

In Phase 1 of Indo-China relations, it is a fact that, Tibet was presented to China under Nationalistic Govt of Chiang Kai-shek by British- US alliance to prevent Russia advancing into Asia. Under this strategy, Nehru accepted and endorsed Tibet being part of China without giving due consideration to the need of India to have a strategic depth with China. Moreover, China under Chiang Kai-shek promised full autonomy to the Govt of Dalai Lama. Situation became critical for US-British alliance in 1949 when communist revolution threw Nationalistic Govt of Chiang Kai-shek. Communist China was seen as Russian Allie. Tibet under China which was supposed to prevent advance of Russians into Asia itself became a launching pad for such advance under communist Russian-China alliance.

Communist revolution in China changed the Geo-strategic balance in Asia drastically challenging US-British interests. A need therefore was felt to at-least hold on to Tibet. It is known secret that CIA helped Dalai Lama to move into India when communist army marched into Lhasa. It is also a known secret that Nehru’s govt in India was very much on board to this US strategy wherein Dalai Lama was given shelter in India and he was granted a status of a head of state. It was in Indian interest to support Tibet which naturally was in line with US policy.

India was not in position to take on China militarily to re-instate govt of Dalai Lama in Lhasa. Nehru also had a dislike for military and a fear of coup and did not want a military buildup. He played a balancing game ignoring Indian security interest and tried to get a deal from communist China as was with Chiang Kai-shek. India at that given time, was better poised to interfere into Tibet if she had prepared her military well but Nehru has his own reservations and he totally ignored national security interests forcing Patel to write to him about it.

However under US pressure and also to secure Arunanchal Pradesh India adopted forward policy wherein Assam Rifles under Intelligence Bureau started securing NEFA, Indian army was kept out of loop. CRPF was deployed in Aksai-Chin area. The policy was evolved and implemented without consulting army.  If India had undertaken such policy after due military consideration the situation would have been different.

Forward Policy of India had due backing of US. It is impossible to imagine that no military fall out was considered. Apparently it looks that IB and GOI were being advised by military experts of Britain and US though Indian army was kept out of loop. Circumstantial evidences indicate that following plans were being aggressively pursued by Nehru with US backing:

1.     Inch forward to secure Akasai Chin and NEFA so that launch pads are created on watershed for US special mission into Tibet.

2.     If possible retake Lahsa to reinstate govt of Dalai Lama if Chinese are found weak.

3.     In Case if required, Indian military supported by US special mission teams and US air Force to support uprising in Tibet.

The Politico-military objective was to reinstate Govt of Dalai Lama in Tibet by supporting an uprising and if required to support it militarily. This plan was fine as it secured Indian interests but it had serious flaws in terms of

1.     Indian Military was kept out of loop and involved at a very last stage.

2.     No modernization of Indian military was undertaken to meet a contingency of a war breaking out with China.

3.     British/ US military advice was given more serious consideration than advice of own military.

Any military strategist will refuse to accept that US military experts were not fully aware of serious fall outs of such military interventions in terms of a possibility of a war breaking out with China. It looks US advisors deliberately misguided Indian Govt and ruled out possibility of any war. They seem to have hidden the facts of massive Chinese military buildup in Tibet. It appears IB was not having required resources of intelligence in Tibet and they fully relied on British or US intelligence.

It appears that US was aware of possibility of a war breaking out between India and China and same was dovetailed in their plans. It looks US plans were to support India militarily to liberate Tibet forcefully in case ware takes place.  

Even if the US had hidden such plans from India, the plans were in Indian interests except reported US designs on Kashmir. Now with above circumstantial assessment the key questions are

1. Was Nehru aware of US plans to interfere into Tibet militarily? 

2. Why was Indian army kept out of decision loop though they were the most affected party? 

3. Why was warning of Indian army against forward policy leading to war with China ignored? What were the reasons? Were such warning ignored as GOI had some understanding with USA?

4.     Why was Indian army not prepared for war in-spite of Patel and Gen Thimayya writing to govt for it?

5.     When the war broke out and Indian army was fighting a withdrawal battles, what were counter offensive plans? Such military withdrawals are only undertaken if there are war mobilization plans to launch counter offensive to destroy advancing enemy?

6.     Were there plans to raise mountain divisions numbering 45 with US equipment and launch counter attack on Chinese army to defeat them and liberate Tibet? The present organization of mountain divisions of Indian army was actually given by US army during the war?

7.      If there were such counter attack plans then why were these plans not executed? Who abandoned these plans and why?

8.     Why did India accept unilateral siege fire by China on Russian intervention?

9.     What were the compelling reasons for Nehru to switch sides from US to Russians?

10. What were the commitments given by Russians to Indians for accepting such siege fire?

11.      Why was trapped Chinese military spared from sure annihilation and why were plans for liberation of Tibet abandoned?

12.       Did China give any assurance to India for getting a face saving when she was facing a sure shot impending defeat?

13.       Why India chose a disgraceful exit and shied away from making required sacrifices to secure national honor and security interest?

14.            Was there any understanding with Pakistan for not interfering into war to take any undue advantage? if so then what were these understandings? 

Hendorson Brooks report certainly doesn't address above questions?

1962 war with China is a perfect case of a missed opportunity to annihilate trapped Chinese military and liberate Tibet. Failure of Indian Govt to manage war mobilization has resulted into now India living with a border dispute with China where in Indian mainland is under constant threat.

History must ask above questions to make a fair judgment. 

Seeing the submissive profile of Mr Manmohan Singh there is also a need to ask the question that shouldn't Indian PM be one who is physically fit, mentally robust and have strong leadership qualities to lead the nation in adverse situation like any war? Is Mr Manmohan Singh capable to leading India into any conflict to secure national interests or to victory?