Showing posts with label Krishna Menon. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Krishna Menon. Show all posts

Thursday, March 20, 2014

Was Lt Gen. BM Kaul of the 62’ war fame a Poltroon or a Patsy?



The recent release of the net version of, yet to be declassified, Henderson Brook’s Report (HBR) has revived the debate on  Lt gen BM Kaul and ‘Forward Policy”. Much like the maps and borders, independent India’s strategy had brazenly borrowed the word “forward policy” from the old British files on Tibet to build up a case, against China. The HBR not only omit’s the role of political class in 1962 war but also the international influences that shaped Pol-Mil thought in India.

The origins of the ‘forward policy’ in Indian strategic lexicon date back to early 1900s. Forward policy was what the British had employed in Tibet, ostensibly as a “counter policy” against Russia’s “aggressive” intent. Explaining to the Chinese, the so-called “British Mission in Tibet” or British military forays into Lhasa, Sir Walter Lawrence wrote in The North American Review, in 1904. 


“It is well that those who inhabit the fortress, and that those who live on the glacis over the Indian frontiers, should know that their misfortunes, whether they take the form of taxation, or of military occupation, are due, not to the "forward policy" of India's rulers, but to the aggressive policy of India's greatest enemy. There is no such thing now as a “forward policy “in India. The old idea of a Lawrence policy, and of a forward policy, as the only two alternatives, is out of date. New factors have come into play, and the Indian policy of to-day may be defined as one of preventive defence.” 


In late 1950s, the relative decline in the British influence on India was balanced by enhanced American presence in Indian political economy. By 1957 the quantum of US AID and  World Bank loans had increased manifold. Many within the Indian establishment were desirous of piling up India defence with western, especially, American weapons. 

On 26 November 1962, when war with China was on the verge of getting over, TT Krishnamachari (TTK) wrote a letter to government of India, promoting a M-14 gun from an American company. The company had approached then Chief Minister of Punjab, Mr. Pratap Singh Kairon. These were some of the key players pushing the “shopping list” of arms that was to be handed over to the USA. 

In the wake of Independent India’s first major financial scam, the Mundra scandal, TTK was removed as Finance minister in 1958. Post war, in 1962, TTK was made the minster for Economic and Defence Cooperation (E&D) for a brief period before taking on the finance responsibility. During his short stint at E&D ministry, TTK went to Washington in 1963, asking the Kennedy administration for military aid to the tune of $1.3 billion.[1]

Another key player in Nehru’s cabinet during the 1962 war was Morarji Desai, finance minster from 1958. Desai’s dislike for Krishna Menon, the defence minister is well known. Desai was responsible for stalling many of the proposals forwarded by the MoD headed by Krishna Menon. 


Morarji Desai’s closeness to the American establishment was well known even to the Chinese. Commenting on Nehru’s American proclivities, the Chinese leadership remarked, “Nehru, is however a representative of the gross bourgeoisie. The reactionary tendency has the upper hand in the Nehru government policies. In his pro-American policy, there is no difference between Nehru and Desai.”[2]

Another stalwart in this game was Lt Gen BM Kaul. A by-product of flamboyance and nepotism, Kaul became the most discredited military commander of the 1962 debacle. As Corps Commander, Kaul not vacated his post during the war, but also reported sick and parked himself in Delhi. 

According to K. Subrahmanyam, as the Chief of General Staff, Gen Kaul, “met the US under Secretary of State Chester Bowles the summer of 1962 without the knowledge of the Prime Minister and Defence Minister and discussed with him the possibility of a Chinese attack that fall.[3] The question is, why did Kaul, a serving army officer meet Bowles? If Kaul knew about the imminence of the attack, then why did he proceed on leave? 

More intriguing is the fact that with war clouds hovering over the country, both the Prime Minister Nehru as well as Defence Minister Krishna Menon had left the country in the month of September. The Director of Military Operations was sent on the Vikrant cruise. 

Despite K. Subrahmanyam raising these pertinent issues in his earlier writing, they have largely remained buried. For some reasons, scholars, who have been looking for release of Henderson Brook’s Report had conveniently ignored these glaring gaps in the 1962 war story. 

The popular discourse does disgrace Kaul but his tenure as India’s defence attache to USA in 1947-48 and his other American connections have largely remained obscured.

Kaul enjoyed good rapport with the high and mighty in the US. In 1948, Nehru, before his 1949 US visit, asked Kaul to approach the US authorities for an exclusive Indo-US military relationship.[4] Nehru bypassed ambassador, Asif Ali, because Kaul was considered to be close to Louis Johnson, then US Defence Secretary. [5]

The questions that need to be asked is, why did the Army Headquarters, with Gen Kaul as the key players in the game did not play according to the rules? Their actions resulted in a frivolous war and made India lose 3000 of its brave soldiers.

According to page 10 of the  net version of HBR report:
“The relevant orders from Delhi were deliberately not passed to the command...There is no doubt that the implementation of the “forward Policy” in the manner it was done, was carried out deliberately by Army headquarters without the necessary backing, as laid down by the government.” (Emphasis added).

Nehru, who in accordance with Chester Bowles' advice went on to adopt a mini-Monroe doctrine to assume leadership in the Asian region got entrapped into fighting a war that had very little to do with Indian national interests. Therefore, it is all the more important to get to the root of the 1962 war and dispassionately ask, was Lt Gen Kaul a poltroon or a patsy? 

Can we just dismiss the case by stating that Kaul was a coward, a poltroon who reported sick during or war? Or do we need to move beyond and probe; was Gen Biji Kaul a Patsy, a sacrificial lamb who was used by Galbraith, the American Ambassador to India in 1962 and finally thrown away into the dustbin of history.






[1] Dennis Kux, Estranged Democracies: India and United States – 1941-1991, Sage Publications, 1993,P.213 


[2] Prozumenschikov,MY, The Sino-Indian Conflict, the Cuban Missile Crisis, and the Sino-Soviet Split, October 1962: New Evidence from the Russian Archives, Record of Conversation (from East German archives) between Chinese Premier Zhou Enlai and Mongolian leader J. Zedenbal, Beijing, 26 December1962 http://www.claudearpi.net/maintenance/uploaded_pics/Cuba_and_SinoIndian_conflict.pdf 




[4] AG Noornai, “In Constant Repair”, The Hindustan Times , 16 April 2004 


[5] K. Subrahmanyam, “Arms and Politics”, Strategic Analysis Volume: 29 Issue: 1, January 2005, http://www.idsa.in/strategicanalysis/ArmsandPolitics_ksubrahmanyam_0305

Friday, December 16, 2011

Why was Krishna Menon the fall guy of '62?




Three guilty men of India-China war are Mao, Menon, and Nehru - the dominant discourse in India imbues the trio with various shades of red - and tends to filter the 1962 war debate through the anti-communist prism - conveniently ignoring the role that the Indian conservatives and socialists played in making the war inevitable. Both the rightists and the centrists within and outside the Congress party were the first generation of Indian cold warriors, who were as paranoid about communism as McCarthy was in America. Much before India had become a republic – one of the tallest leaders of Indian politics, Sardar Patel wrote to Nehru on 07 November 1950 - spelling out his concerns about communist China, “Chinese ambitions in this respect not only cover the Himalayan slopes on our side but also include important parts of Assam. They have their ambitions in Burma also…While our Western and North-Western threat to security is still as prominent as before, a new threat has developed from the North and North-East. Thus for the first time after centuries, India’s defence has to concentrate on two fronts simultaneously.”

In hindsight, one could say that Patel was a visionary. However, one wonders as to what were the main drivers of Patel’s belief in Chinese imperialist intentions. Unlike Nehru and Menon, Patel was a conservative, closer to Vivekanand’s nationalist point of view. It is therefore difficult to understand Patel’s reliance on  British maps and geopolitical threat analysis to shape his territorial perception on India-China territorial dispute. The Indian independence was in its infancy, no rational actor at that juncture would have considered opening up a second front, then why was Patel so keen about it in 1950. The answer is simple - it was communism and not China that posed a threat.  A dispassionate look at Patel’s statement would reveal that the seeds of India- China war had been sown immediately after Mao drove out Chiang Kai-shek from mainland China in 1948. Lt Gen Nathu Singh Thakur (one of the senior most Indian military officers at the time of independence) on 24 October 1950 wrote to Army Headquarters, “Communist China’s complete success over the Kumintang… their declared policy towards liberation of Tibet… clearly indicate the writing on the wall. The Communist menace is gradually spreading towards the borders of India.” This was also the time when communist led Telangana rebellion against feudal lords and Nizam of Hyderabad was at its peak.

The entry of Tibet factor into Sino-India equation and the formation of a strong lobby within India that took up cudgels on behalf of the Tibetans and the CIA involvement in using the Indian territory at Mcleodgunj in Himachal Pradesh to build alternative power structures for control of Tibet is now well documented. The Americans could easily garner support within India for their cause to contain China because prior to leaving India the British had ensured that the Indian elite class had enough anti-communists with its fold. Rajagopalachari the first Indian Governor General of India, on taking over as the Chief Minister of Madras in 1952 openly declared, “I am here to save my country from the traps and dangers of the communist party. That is my policy from A to Z. I am placing my cards on the table. I am your enemy number one and may I say you are my enemy number one. This is my policy.”  

The early Indian strategic thought and security considerations were embedded in the international political economy than the classical geopolitics that considers geography to be the main determinant of the inter-state conflict. The main plank on which the foundation of future India-China conflict was erected was the fear generated by the arrival of communism in Asia and the prospects of ensuing red revolution in India. Many of the Indian political elite and also the British-bred Indian military leaders were determined to build fences to prevent the communist onslaught from halting India’s capitalist growth path. The problem was that both Pandit Nehru and Krishna Menon did not want to fall prey to the anti-communist paranoia gripping the elite in the 1950s. Driven by the realities of leading an infant state, Nehru felt that the best bulwark against communism was cooperation and not confrontation with China. The overarching presence of Nehru on India’s foreign policy till of course, 1957 ensured that the Indian elite kept their China related fears to themselves.  An article in the Time on the 1962 war says, “Even the Chinese conquest of Tibet in 1951 had rung no alarm bells in New Delhi—and therein lie the real beginnings of the present war.”

To the West disappearance of fear from the Indian minds and the growing Hindi-Chini Bhai Bhai chants did not portend well. The two most populous countries could not be allowed to form a third pole on the global stage. The prospects of the two most progressive nations combining was equally unpalatable to the Soviet Union that could not see its position of preeminence among the left oriented nations coming under any stress. While the Soviet Union betrayed their communist friends in China, the Americans played a similar game in India to ensure that the two Asian nations remain distant from each other. America sacrificed India to gain China’s friendship. The Soviets too allowed China to flow into the US fold because they knew that ideological constraints would naturally limit the scope of Sino-US relations. Therefore, despite Nehru’s non-alignment - much like rest of the world - Asia too was divided between the two competing blocks. This tacit understanding between the two super powers may have been reached primarily because the Russians were confident of the ideological purity of the Chinese leadership and the Americans too were confident about the Indian leadership barring of course, Krishna Menon to keep communism at bay.

Krishna Menon was a rising star in Indian politics – his growing mass appeal both within and outside the country was causing consternation in Washington. Menon’s unflinching faith in Non-Aligned Movement - his deep understanding of the ongoing imperial mechanizations in the post-colonial era had made his opponents brand him as ‘crypto communist’. Menon was steering a dangerous course. For a leader of a newly independent, cash strapped nation with miniscule military muscle - to openly take on - a diehard anti-communist like John Foster Dulles, the US secretary of state - was asking for direct access into the CIA’s hit list. He could have been easily eliminated but that could have led to the surge in strength of the forces that the USA wanted to curtail. Therefore, Menon was given the proverbial ‘long rope to hang’. The crushing defeat in a war with communist China not only nipped Menon in the bud but also ensured that in Indian perception the communists became traitors. Perhaps, it is the realization of this objective that made YB Chavan see victory in defeat, when he said “The first casualties of the unashamed aggression of the Chinese on India are Marxism and Leninism.” Chavan was correct because the Chinese war decimated not only Nehru but also politically eliminated Krishna Menon who was considered more dangerous than Nehru to the continuation of capitalism in India.   

All the President’s men
American confidence was based on the fact that they had die-hard anti-communists in key positions in India. Vinod Mehta’s book, Lucknow Boy: A Memoir - takes us back to early 1980’s when a bizarre controversy erupted and the presence of a “CIA mole became headline news in India. While his/her presence was never in doubt—that cabinet decisions taken in 1971 were being leaked to the Americans was conceded in official quarters—the identity of the spy remained a mystery, (Mr (Seymour) Hersh, the American investigative journalist) in his book (The Price of Power: Kissinger in the Nixon White House) claimed to solve it. He identified the spy, courtesy his unnamed sources in the White House and CIA, as Morarji Desai.” Along with Morarji Desai another name connected to the CIA conspiracy is YB Chavan, who became the defence minister replacing Krishna Menon in 1962. Much like Desai, Chavan too had been the Chief Minister of Bombay, the business capital of India, and as the Time 1962 article put it, “Though a socialist and a one time disciple of Nehru, Chavan is cast in a different mold.” 

While Morarji’s dubious role as a mole has become folklore, but what has largely gone unnoticed is his performance as the finance minster from 1958 leading up to the 1962 war with China – ignoring the crucial role that finance ministry played in delaying the proposals for defence modernization put forth by the ministry of defence then under the leadership of Krishna Menon. Before the arrival of Morarji in the finance ministry, Menon had ensured that “the allocations to defense rose from Rs. 2,130 million in 1956-1957 (1.8% of the GNP) to Rs. 2,800 million in 1957-1958 (2.4% of the GNP)” (IDSA Journal 1972). The defence allocations began plumetting after 1957 is something that needs to be studied in greater detail.

Morarji’s closeness to Washington and the related events during that period also throw light on the role that America played in fomenting the 1962 conflict. The gross neglect of these linkages in the study of 1962 war has led to history being subverted and blame for the 1962 defeat laid squarely on the shoulders of one the most intelligent strategist of independent India- VK Krishna Menon. Menon and Morarji were both a part of the Nehru’s cabinet that was announced on 17 April 1957. While Krishna Menon had bagged the Defence portfolio, Morarji Desai had got Commerce and Industry ministry – and T.T. Krishnamachari was the Finance minister.

1957, was an important year in India’s post independence history. The year had begun well with Krishna Menon valiantly defending India’s stand on the Kashmir issue at the United Nations – his seven hours and forty eight minutes long speech - where he articulated India’s right under the International Law of self defence to throw out Pakistani infiltrators from Kashmir - won him friends and admirers both within and outside the country. He had won a landslide electoral victory from North Bombay in the general elections. Commenting on the popularity of Krishna Menon during the 1957 election campaign, The Hindu reported, “Huge crowds surged forward, blocking the streets, while Menon was drowned by the surrounding uproar, his umbrella knocked away by the ceaseless bombardment of flowers and bouquets.” 

The Congress had won the elections with 60 million votes; the communists were the runners up bagging 12 million votes – replacing the Praja Socialist Party as the second largest political group in Parliament. The political outfit of the Sangh Parivar had yet to register itself as a serious political contender. The rise of communist clout in Indian politics – Krishna Menon’s surging popularity - his leftist leanings coupled with his anti-Americanism was causing concern in domestic as well as international capitalist circles. After having lost China to Mao, the West could not afford to lose India to Communism. The 1957 communist victory in Kerala Assembly elections was difficult to digest for all those who had envisioned a future for India based on free market economy. This was also the time when the tensions between the central bank (The Reserve Bank of India) and the government had begun to surface. The open spat between the then RBI governor, B. Rama Rau and the then finance minister T.T. Krishnamachari over the issue of degree of autonomy that the RBI could enjoy in independent India. 

Towards the fag end of 1956, Sir CD Deshmukh, India’s finance minister since 1950 resigned from Nehru’s cabinet, ostensibly on the question of Nehru’s disagreement over Bombay’s right to be a part of a separate Marathi-speaking State of Maharashtra. Till the time Deshmukh was leading the department of finance and Sir Benegal Rama Rau was the governor of RBI things were smooth. Both the financial luminaries had belonged to the same school of thought and had read the same text books to reach the commanding heights in their profession. Both had been appointed as CIE (Companion of the order of the Indian Empire). Deshmukh, an ICS officer had been with the RBI since 1939 as its liaison officer to the Government, then as the Bank’s Secretary, Deputy Governor (1941–43), and Governor (1943–50). Deshmukh was also India’s representative at the 1944 Bretton Woods Conference that led to the formation of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (IBRD). Sir Benegal Rama Rau was a thoroughbred British bureaucrat - his most prestigious appointment was as Financial Adviser to the infamous Simons Commission (1928–1930).  He was also Deputy High Commissioner for India in London (1934–1938), High Commissioner for India in South Africa (1938–1941) - Ambassador to Japan from 1947 to 1948, and to the United States for one year prior to taking over as the Governor. With the Deshmukh – Rao combination at the helm of independent India’s economy and monetary policies, the British and their American friends had ensured that India would not change tack towards communism and would follow the policy prescriptions from the Bretton Wood twins.

Till the time the economic front was well secured the Americans were happy with Nehru and gave him the space to indulge in his fantasies of being a being a leader of the third world and non-aligned movement. This smug satisfaction and the confidence that India will continue to maintain the course despite the obvious Russian tilt was based on the western orientation of key leaders in India. A telegram by the US embassy in India dated November 25, 1955 to their state department reiterates the point, “Embassy’s preliminary evaluation of effect of Bulganin, Khrushchev visit on India and on US security is that it will represent a gain for Russians despite determination of Indian leaders to keep India independent and despite Indian leaders basic orientation toward Western Democracies.” 

However, America’s problem was Menon who as the defence minister, was attempting to carve a people’s army from the ‘Raj’ military handed over to him. He started Sainik schools to make the officer cadre more inclusive. He could not stand the likes of Field Marshal Cariappa and General K.S. Thimayya whom he saw representing a particular class and interest group rather than the nation. It is perhaps these ideological differences that were at the root of Thimayya’s resignation in 1959 rather than any disagreement over promotion of senior army officers. As Srinath Raghavan posits, “the archival evidence now available shows that the reasons for the resignation ran deeper. Just a few weeks before the affair, Indian and Chinese forces had clashed along the eastern frontiers. To counter the growing threat from China, Thimayya wanted the political leadership to consider seriously the proposal mooted by President Ayub Khan for joint defence arrangements between India and Pakistan.” This was an idea that came straight from Washington and was designed to use both India and Pakistan to launch a war on China. Field Marshal Cariappa’s sympathies became obvious when he joined the Swatantra Party and came out on the streets urging India to go out and take on China.  

1957 was also the year when India’s second five year plan was jeopardized by paucity of funds. According to the now released  CIA reports from that period, Nehru was the weakest at this juncture and was more inclined toward the US because he was desperate for US aid.  However, Krishna  Menon was least affected by the money crunch in the country and continued to follow his anti-American agenda. Washington was palpably worried, as Menon’s political boat began gathering wind, the Americans knew, it was time to pull back. By now, it appears that Nehru too was beginning to understand the game. The process of purging began with easing of CD Deshmukh and replacing him with T.T. Krishnamachari (TTK). Krishnamachari ensured that Benegal Rama Rau too was removed from the RBI. 

But perhaps, both Nehru and Menon were unaware of the powers that the American central bank and its cohorts were capable of exerting. Soon after Rama Rao’s exit a Calcutta-based Marwari businessman named Haridas Mundhra’s dubious share transactions with the Life Insurance Corporation (LIC) amounting to Rs. 1.25 crores were revealed by the media. Feorze Gandhi, Nehru’s son-in-law added fuel to the fire by disclosing the   confidential correspondence between the then Finance Minister T.T. Krishnamachari and his principal finance secretary, and raised a question in Parliament on the sale of ‘fraudulent’ shares to LIC. The second big corruption scandal of independent India that was christened ‘Mundhra scandal’ ended with the scalp of TT Krishnamachari, who was replaced as finance minister by Moraji Desai. If Seymour Hersh’s disclosures about Morarji’s CIA connections are to be believed and if one is to assume that Morarji had been inclined towards his American mentors since as early as 1950s, then one can safely infer that America had been successful in ensuring that they continued to mentor the Indian economy by removing one of the close confidants of Nehru in the Cabinet in 1957. Krishnamachari’s outster from the cabinet was followed by removal of the EMS Namoodripad’s communist government in Kerala in 1959. This was also the year when Dalai Lama was brought on horseback and made to settle down in India and a pressure group including C Rajagopalachari, Minoo Massani, N G Ranga, VP Menon, KM Munshi, Homi Baba and a few other prominent erstwhile socialists, free market proponents, Princes and Maharaja’s had come to form a new political outfit called the Swatantra party. Apart form opposing the Congress party’s 1959 Nagpur resolution that proposed joint cooperative farming and ceiling on land holdings, the party led by Rajaji was a staunch opponent of China’s Tibet policy. Many members of this party were openly accused of being CIA agents by Congressmen. Whether they were paid by CIA or not, the fact is that their sympathies clearly tilted in the direction of America and its policies.   Khasa Suba Rau, the well known editor of Swatantra party mouth piece was clearly of the opinion that India was ready to follow America, and even Nehru may give up his policy of neutrality, if only the US could persuade the Europeans to give up the colonies in Afro-Asian countries.

Despite the victories that the USA had been able to acheive in India, Nehru’s closest confidant, Krishna Menon was still giving sleepless nights to US policy makers. In December 1961, Menon once again thwarted Western designs by making sure that the Portuguese were driven out of Goa. This enhanced his reputation further making him a natural successor to Nehru. This was neither good news for free market followers in India nor for American foreign policy. The arrival of 1962 general elections and Krishna Menon’s resounding victory against Acharya JB Kripalani from North Bombay constituency had convinced Nehru’s detractors that Krishna Menon had to be nipped in the bud. These elections were hyped up as a clash between “socialism and reaction” by the left and according to Kripalani as the fight between “Gandhism and Marxism”. The Times of India, Indian Express and all other mainstream newspapers launched a scathing attack on Menon. The elections had acquired international dimensions with the Time magazine putting Menon on its cover page, openly declaring that “America have an important stake in this outside elections”. The Time article that derided India’s “Dhoti Democracy”, “played up India’s appeasement on China issue.” Menon’s victory sounded the death knell for right wing politics in New Delhi. Exactly eight months after the election, India -China war broke out and as Norman D Palmer an American journalist who covered the 1962 North Bombay elections says, “What his critics in India and United States had failed to accomplish, his Chinese “friends” brought about with amazing suddeness.” And the rest, as they say is history.