Skip to main content

Report blames Nehru govt and army for misadventure that led to China war defeat : VISIONLESS NEHRU AND CONGRESS PLUS NO GUESS OF CHNEESE EVIL ATTITUDE/MIND!


Sub : Report blames Nehru govt and army for misadventure that led to China war defeat :
The Telegraph

Ref : Nehru's failed foreign policy


Evacuation from Tezpur in Assam during the India-China war 

New Delhi, March 18: Key portions of a secret 1962 Indian Army report that have emerged in public for the first time suggest that a mix of strategic and personnel blunders contributed to the humiliating defeat against China that year.

The report, commissioned to pinpoint the reasons for the rout, purportedly identifies two key mistakes. One, an aggressive “forward policy” adopted under then defence minister V.K. Krishna Menon and two, Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru’s decision to handpick Lt General Brij Mohan Kaul to lead operations in the North-East Frontier Province (Nefa).

Authored by Lt General Henderson Brooks and Brigadier P.S. Bhagat, the report is dubbed top secret by the Indian government, which has never declassified the document despite repeated demands by scholars and sections of the military and political establishment.

But veteran Australian journalist Nevill Maxwell, who reported on the 1962 China-India war, uploaded scanned copies of 190 pages from the report online today, sparking a scramble within the Indian government to contain any embarrassing fallout.

Maxwell’s website — where he has uploaded the documents — became inaccessible within hours, triggering speculation that the Centre may have tried to disable access to the report.

But the Indian Computer Emergency Response Team (Cert-In) — the government’s top online watchdog — rejected any role, and the revealed sections of the report, downloaded by others from Maxwell’s website, were soon available on other portals.

The defence ministry in a statement said “it would not be appropriate to comment” because of the “extremely sensitive nature of the contents of the report, which are of current operational value”. It also reiterated that for the government, the document remains classified as top secret.

The criticisms expressed in detail in the sections of the report that became public today are not new. Military commanders have made the same arguments in private accounts and landmark books like Brigadier John Dalvi’s controversial 1968 book Himalayan Blunder and Maxwell’s India’s China War, published in 1970.

But the revealed sections confirm that India’s official military review of the 1962 war concurred with these often sharp criticisms.

India had in 1961 begun implementing a plan known as the “forward policy”, under which troops were sent across the McMahon Line — the effective boundary between India and China south of Tibet — to encircle Chinese troops in response to incursions by Chinese forces.

But the Henderson Brooks report, based on internal documents, memos, analyses of meetings between top officials including defence minister Menon, and messages from army units at the frontier concludes that the forward policy was introduced “without the means to implement it effectively”.
“It is obvious that politically the ‘Forward Policy’ was desirable, and presumably the eviction of the Chinese from Ladakh must always be the eventual aim,” the report says on Page 10. “But what is pertinent is whether we were militarily in a position at that time to implement this policy.”

Jawaharlal Nehru (right) and YB Chavan at Nefa (Arunachal) in December 1962

The political and military leaderships, the report says, were convinced that India’s pinpricks would not prompt China into any “major military operation”.

But the “forward policy”, originally intended for the Ladakh sector, spread to Nefa — now Arunachal Pradesh — aggravating tensions.

In particular, the report questions the role of B.M. Kaul, who was chief of the General Staff Branch, Army Headquarters, in the run-up to the war and was then made commanding officer in charge of the army’s Nefa operations.

Kaul, the authors say, remained convinced as late as end-September 1962 that China would not attack. This was days before Chinese troops attacked Indian posts.

“So far, efforts have been made to keep individual personalities out of this review,” the authors say on Page 83. “General Kaul, however, must be made an exception.”

According to the authors, the lack of clear instructions from Kaul, and the muddled messages he sent down the line for the military commanders, “is inexcusable” and “must never be allowed again”.
Kaul’s decision to order operations at a post known as Dhola “despite being fully briefed regarding the grave logistical shortcomings, can at best only be described as wanton disregard of the elementary principles of war”, the authors say.

Truth : -

1. Nehru a failed PM,
2. The congress a failed party then,
3. VK.Krishnamenon a failed defence minister then,
4. A total negligence on the part of Nehru and defence minister,
5. Poor strategy by   general Kaul.

Thank you for reading,
Next With another topic   ...

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog


The whole of the Ramayana is an Epic of humanity. Humanity does not mean mankind but that which particularly characterises human nature.

It is in this sense, Sri Rama is oftentimes called the paragon of humanity, an example of the perfection of human nature.

This perfection of human nature is not inclusive of the foibles of man in his lower endowments.

In the majestic words of Valmiki with which the Epic commences, we are given a description of what this perfection of humanity is, as an answer given by sage Narada to a question put by sage Valmiki as to who is the ideal of human nature.

"Whom do you think, O sage, is the perfect embodiment of humanity in this world and can you give me an example of such a perfection?" was the question put by Valmiki to Narada.

And then, Narada commences a dignified description of a personality whom today we know and adore as Sri Rama.

That majestic feature of bodily personali…

Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel Biography :

Personal Life & Legacy :

Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel tied the knot at the age of 18, to Jhaverba, who was twelve years of age then. Following the traditional Hindu customs, which allowed the bride to stay with her parents until her husband had a decent income and an established household, the two stayed apart for a few years until Sardar Patel had definite income to fall back on.

Along with Jhaverba, he set up a house in Godhra. The couple was blessed with a daughter, Manibehn, in 1904, and a son, Dahyabhai, two years later.

In 1909, Jhaverba, who was suffering from cancer, underwent a major surgical operation. Though the operation was successful, Jhaverba’s health continued to decline. She passed away the same year. Patel was against remarrying and instead raised his children with the help of his family.

Patel’s health started declining in the summer of 1950. Though he was taken care of intensely, his health worsened. To recuperate, he was flown to Mumbai, where he lodged at the Bi…

PM’s Mann Ki Baat Programme on All India Radio :- 25/02/2018

25 Feb, 2018

My dear countrymen, Namaskar.

Let us begin today’s Mann Ki Baat with a phone call.

Phone Call…

Thank you very much for your phone call. My young friends have asked me many questions related to Science; they keep writing on quite a few points. All of us have seen that the sea appears blue, but we know from routine life experiences that water has no colour at all. Have we ever thought why water acquires colour in rivers and seas? The same thought occurred to a young man in the 1920s. The same question gave rise to a great scientist of modern India. When we talk about Science, the first name that strikes us is that of Bharat Ratna Sir C.V.Raman. He was awarded the Nobel Prize for his outstanding work on light scattering. One of his discoveries is famous as the Raman Effect.

We celebrate the 28th of February as National Science Day since on this very day, he is said to have discovered the phenomenon of light scattering, for which the Nobel Prize was conferred upon him. This …