Indo-Pak hostilities 1971 and 2025 : Indira Gandhi and Narendra Modi : No comparison can done
In the wake of the Indo-Pak war, especially after the ceasefire, attempts are being made to compare the role and influence of the United States during the 1971 war and the present situation by juxtaposing Prime Minister Indira Gandhi with the current Prime Minister Narendra Modi. Such comparisons are not appropriate.
The war of 1971 and the current conflict are fundamentally different and cannot be equated. The 1971 war was an all-out war, while the current conflict is limited and non-escalatory, aimed at specific terror targets rather than an all-out war with Pakistan
The war of 1971 and the current conflict are fundamentally different and cannot be equated. The 1971 war was an all-out war, while the current conflict is limited and non-escalatory, aimed at specific terror targets rather than an all-out war with Pakistan. The war that took place recently also remained limited — Indian infantry did not enter Pakistan. The primary objective then was the liberation of Bangladesh, whereas now, it is the destruction of terrorist infrastructure in Pakistan.
The world acknowledges Indira Gandhi’s exceptional leadership during the 1971 war, and every generation of Indians has felt pride since then. However, the context and circumstances of 1971 are entirely different from the present. One must remember that in 1971, the United States directly aided Pakistan, while China extended support.
Indira Gandhi signed the Indo-Soviet Treaty of Peace, Friendship, and Cooperation on August 9, 1971, with the Soviet Union.
When the war appeared imminent and after receiving indications of the United States’ direct involvement on Pakistan’s behalf (one objective being to counter the Chinese threat), Indira Gandhi signed the Indo-Soviet Treaty of Peace, Friendship, and Cooperation on August 9, 1971, with the Soviet Union. There was no other viable option. Due to this treaty, when the United States sent the USS Enterprise (7th Fleet, Task Force 74) to the Bay of Bengal on December 13 to support Pakistan, the Soviet Union, under Admiral Vladimir Kruglyakov, deployed its nuclear submarines and naval fleet in India’s support, countering the American threat, forcing the USS Enterprise to retreat. Without the treaty and Soviet support, would the war have ended within three days?
If Indira Gandhi had not signed the Indo-Soviet Treaty, the situation could have become far more complicated — one can only imagine the consequences.
To avoid making this text excessively long, just a few facts: In 1971, neither India nor Pakistan was a nuclear power, and there were no terrorist groups or Mujahideen. Pakistan was then led by ruthless generals like Tikka Khan, Niazi, and Rao Farman Ali — not the Mullah generals of today. Back then, Pakistani generals would command wars while drunk on whiskey, whereas now, they fight with the Quran in hand, reciting Hadith. The global geopolitical landscape, economic connections, and arms market were also quite different. In 1971, global public opinion was strongly in favor of India and Bangladesh, exemplified by the Madison Square concert. How many of us know that a Frenchman named Jean Kay even hijacked a plane on December 3, 1971, to support Bangladesh?
The core point is that comparing 1971 with 2025 is illogical — neither the situation, context, causes of conflict, scale, nor level are comparable. Similarly, equating Indira Gandhi with Narendra Modi is also unreasonable. Both have led according to the demands of their respective times. In 1971, Pakistan sought help from the United States (and China); now, it seeks IMF loans. Indira Gandhi had to sign a treaty with the Soviet Union, while Modi did not need to do anything similar, given India’s current military strength. Viewing 2025 through the lens of 1971 is inherently flawed — it might make sense in political rhetoric, but not in a realistic evaluation. Moreover, only a fool would think that two nuclear powers could engage in war while the major global powers stand by, merely watching. With platforms like G-20, G-7, QUAD, and SAARC, it’s inconceivable that they would remain silent and not engage in diplomatic efforts.
Did Really USA mediated ?
There is one more thing that goes amiss: Amid widespread speculation and a tweet from former US President Donald Trump claiming that the United States mediated the end of the recent conflict, India has categorically denied any third-party involvement in the cessation of hostilities with Pakistan. The Indian government’s stance directly contradicts the claims of US mediation circulating in media and social platforms. As per India, the decision to cease hostilities was solely a bilateral understanding between the DGMOs of both countries, with no involvement from the United States or any other foreign entity. According to official statements from the Indian government, it was Pakistan’s Director General of Military Operations (DGMO) who reached out to his Indian counterpart at 15:35 hours on Saturday, requesting a halt to military actions. India firmly stated that the resolution was not a result of any negotiated settlement or external mediation — including from the US — but rather a consequence of Pakistan’s inability to sustain further escalation.
Indian officials highlighted that the cessation came after Indian forces had dismantled eight Pakistani air bases, neutralized over 100 high-value terrorists, and significantly crippled Pakistan’s terror infrastructure and military assets. Faced with mounting losses, Pakistan unilaterally sought to de-escalate.
They Never said ‘Ceasefire’ : Read in between lines
Apart from that it has to be noted that in a careful choice of language, neither the Indian Foreign Minister S Jayshankar nor the Foreign Secretary Vikram Misri used the term “ceasefire” when discussing the end of hostilities. Instead, they referred to an “agreement” or “understanding” for the “stoppage” or “ending” of firing and military actions. This deliberate phrasing reflects India’s strategic position, as the term “ceasefire” often implies a long-term, binding status quo.
It is now can very well be argued that given India’s earlier assertion that any future act of terrorism would be deemed an act of war, avoiding the term “ceasefire” allows India the flexibility to resume military actions if provoked again. The absence of a formal ceasefire agreement ensures that Pakistan remains aware of the potential for a robust Indian response to any future threats.
