The Unseen Hands, How Superpower Rivalry and a Changing World Once Pushed India and Pakistan to the Table
In the long and tormented history of Indo-Pakistani relations, moments of potential reconciliation stand out as rare and fragile anomalies. The archival news report from October 29th captures one such moment, a fleeting juncture where the stars of geopolitics seemed to align, creating an opening for dialogue. The document reveals a “rather strange nonetheless beneficial combination of international influences” pressuring the two South Asian rivals toward negotiation. This was not a story of bilateral goodwill, but a classic Cold War drama where the superpowers—the United States and the Soviet Union—driven by their own strategic anxieties, found a rare point of convergence: the dangerous instability of the subcontinent could no longer be ignored. Examining this historical moment is more than an academic exercise; it provides a critical lens through which to understand the enduring patterns of external influence on the region’s peace process and the missed opportunities that continue to haunt it today.
The Cold War Chessboard: A Shifting Calculus of Power
To understand the significance of this period, one must first appreciate the entrenched positions of the early Cold War. For decades, the subcontinent was a neatly divided arena: India, under Prime Ministers Nehru and later Indira Gandhi, was the leader of the Non-Aligned Movement but shared a strategic affinity with the Soviet Union, cemented by the 1971 Treaty of Peace, Friendship and Cooperation. Pakistan, in stark contrast, was a formal American ally, a member of both the Southeast Asia Treaty Organization (SEATO) and the Central Treaty Organization (CENTO), designed to contain Soviet influence.
This alliance structure had a direct and corrosive effect on Indo-Pakistani disputes, particularly over Kashmir. The United States, viewing Pakistan as a crucial “frontline” state, often turned a blind eye to its military ambitions, providing arms and diplomatic cover that, from India’s perspective, “tended to hinder and not help the settlement.” Pakistan, emboldened by this support, felt less pressure to compromise. Similarly, the Soviet Union’s unwavering diplomatic support for India in international forums like the UN Security Council allowed New Delhi to dig its heels in.
By the early 1970s, however, this rigid framework was fracturing. The report highlights a critical shift: the US was now taking a “less partisan view.” This change was driven by several factors. The 1971 war, which resulted in the creation of Bangladesh and a decisive Indian victory, had humiliated Pakistan and demonstrated India’s regional primacy. Continuing to back a weakened Pakistan unconditionally made less strategic sense for Washington. Furthermore, the overarching context of US foreign policy was now dominated by the Nixon-Kissinger policy of détente with the Soviet Union. If Washington and Moscow were seeking to manage their rivalry in Europe, it became increasingly irrational to allow their proxy conflicts in South Asia to spiral out of control. The “mutual recognition of the basic reality” was dawning: without subcontinental tranquillity, the Indian Ocean would become a “hotbed of tensions,” jeopardizing global stability.
The Soviet Strategy: Pressuring a Wounded Pakistan
The Soviet Union’s role, as described in the report, was notably proactive. Moscow was “exerting some healthy pressures on Pakistan to shed some of its pet obsessions.” The phrase “pet obsessions” is a clear reference to Pakistan’s singular focus on the Kashmir issue, often to the exclusion of other potential avenues for normalization.
The Soviet strategy was multifaceted. Having secured its position as India’s pre-eminent partner, the USSR could now afford to play a more nuanced role. By encouraging Pakistan to engage with India, Moscow was pursuing several objectives simultaneously. First, it aimed to reduce the risk of another war that could potentially draw in China or the US, creating a scenario that could challenge Soviet influence. Second, by positioning itself as a potential mediator, it enhanced its own prestige as a global power capable of managing complex regional disputes. Third, it sought to wean Pakistan away from its deep dependence on both the United States and China.
The advice for Pakistan to “strengthen its own bargaining position by grasping and not spurning India’s hand of friendship” was a stark assessment of Pakistan’s weakened post-1971 position. The Soviet message was pragmatic: your maximalist demands are untenable; your best hope for recovering from a catastrophic military defeat is to engage in diplomacy from a position of weakness, not stubbornly insist on negotiating from an imagined position of strength.
The Elephant in the Room: The Rising Shadow of China
While the US and USSR were the primary actors, the report identifies a third, crucial player influencing their calculus: China. It notes the superpowers’ growing awareness of “the dangers of allowing a country like China to impede the process of Indo-Pakistan reconciliation.”
The Sino-Indian relationship was frozen in hostility following the 1962 war, and China had developed a “all-weather friendship” with Pakistan, providing it with military hardware, economic aid, and diplomatic support as a counterweight to India. For both Washington and Moscow, a perpetually hostile India-Pakistan relationship created a strategic opening for Beijing to deepen its influence in South Asia. For the US, a China-Pakistan axis complicated its own partnership with Islamabad and threatened to draw the region further into the communist orbit. For the Soviet Union, this axis represented a direct challenge on its southern flank, with its two primary adversaries—China and the US—potentially collaborating through their mutual partner, Pakistan.
Thus, a rare tripartite interest emerged: the US, USSR, and India all shared a desire to limit China’s ability to exploit Indo-Pakistani tensions. This shared, albeit uncoordinated, concern became a powerful, if unstated, incentive for pushing the two South Asian nations toward dialogue.
The Limits of Superpower Influence: Why a “Joint Initiative” Never Materialized
Despite this convergence of interests, the report is careful to note the limits of superpower cooperation. It states that the US and USSR had not developed their “spirit of moderation to the point of developing a common interest in making a combined contribution through some joint initiative.”
This is a crucial distinction. While both powers independently saw the value in stability, a formal, joint US-USSR initiative to mediate between India and Pakistan was a bridge too far in the context of the Cold War. Such a move would have been viewed with extreme suspicion by both New Delhi and Islamabad. India, proud of its non-aligned status, would have vehemently rejected any superpower “directorate” imposing a solution on a matter of national sovereignty. Pakistan, already feeling abandoned by the US, would have seen it as a betrayal, a collusion between its former patron and India’s ally.
Furthermore, the inherent rivalry between Washington and Moscow meant that neither trusted the other to manage such a process fairly. Any joint initiative would have been bogged down by mutual suspicion and competitive maneuvering. Therefore, the superpower role remained one of behind-the-scenes “encouragement” and “pressure”—a subtle orchestration rather than an overt intervention.
A Legacy for the 21st Century: Enduring Patterns and Contemporary Echoes
The dynamics described in this 1970s report are not mere historical artifacts; they echo powerfully in the 21st-century geopolitical landscape, albeit with changed actors.
-
The US Pivot: Then, as now, the United States views a stable South Asia as critical to its broader Indo-Pacific strategy, aimed at managing the rise of China. Washington’s need for a strategic partnership with India as a counterweight to Beijing mirrors its 1970s desire to prevent China from gaining influence, though today the partnership is far more explicit and robust.
-
Russia’s Diminished Role: The Soviet Union has been replaced by a Russia that remains a key arms supplier and partner for India, but its capacity to pressure Pakistan is vastly diminished. Its own confrontation with the West and deepening ties with China limit its ability to act as an independent, stabilizing force.
-
China’s Ascendancy: China is no longer a peripheral concern but the central actor. Its colossal investments in Pakistan through the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) have created a strategic nexus far deeper than in the 1970s. This gives Beijing significant leverage over Islamabad, which it can use to either encourage or sabotage dialogue with India, depending on its own strategic needs vis-à-vis New Delhi.
-
The Absence of Bilateral Trust: The fundamental lesson from the 1970s is that external pressure can create an opening, but it cannot manufacture lasting peace. The report mentions India’s “hand of friendship,” but the subsequent decades have shown that without a fundamental building of trust, a shared vision for the region, and a political consensus within both countries, these externally-induced openings are destined to close.
Conclusion: The Perennial Gap Between Opportunity and Achievement
The archival report captures a moment of possibility, a time when the self-interest of global powers momentarily aligned with the stated desire for peace in South Asia. It demonstrates that the fate of India and Pakistan has rarely been theirs alone to decide; it is often shaped in the chancelleries of Washington, Moscow, and now, most decisively, Beijing.
Yet, the ultimate failure of that moment to yield a lasting breakthrough is a sobering reminder. External powers can alter the cost-benefit analysis of conflict; they can provide incentives and disincentives. But they cannot instill the political courage required for compromise, nor can they heal the deep-seated historical wounds that fuel the rivalry. The “strange and beneficial combination” of international influences could push leaders to the table, but it could not force them to agree. As the modern world grapples with a new, more complex great power competition, the lesson of this historical moment endures: the key to peace in South Asia lies not in the hands of outsiders, but in the ability of India and Pakistan to finally write their own, more hopeful, chapter.
Q&A Section
Q1: According to the report, what was the traditional US policy towards Indo-Pakistani disputes, and how was it changing?
A1: The report states that the United States had historically pursued policies that “tended to hinder and not help the settlement of Indo-Pakistani disputes.” This refers to the Cold War era, where Washington’s unwavering military and diplomatic support for its ally Pakistan emboldened Islamabad and removed incentives for compromise. The change was that the US, post the 1971 war and in the spirit of détente, was beginning to take a “less partisan view,” recognizing that regional stability served its interests more than blind support for one side.
Q2: What specific role was the Soviet Union playing in encouraging dialogue?
A2: The Soviet Union was actively pressuring Pakistan to “shed some of its pet obsessions,” a clear reference to its singular focus on the Kashmir issue. Moscow’s advice was pragmatic: Pakistan’s bargaining position was weak after its 1971 defeat, and its best course was to “grasp” India’s offered “hand of friendship” to achieve an “honourable reconciliation” rather than continue a futile and confrontational policy.
Q3: Why were both superpowers concerned about China’s role in the subcontinent?
A3: Both the US and the USSR saw a perpetually conflicted India-Pakistan relationship as a strategic opportunity for China. Beijing’s close partnership with Pakistan allowed it to extend its influence into South Asia, complicating the strategic calculus for both Washington and Moscow. They shared a concern that China could “impede the process of Indo-Pakistan reconciliation” to keep India destabilized and thereby strengthen its own regional position.
Q4: Did the US and USSR launch a joint initiative to mediate peace? Why or why not?
A4: No, they did not. The report is explicit that while they shared a “spirit of moderation,” they had not developed a “common interest” in a “joint initiative.” The primary reasons were the enduring mistrust of the Cold War and the certain rejection of such superpower mediation by both India and Pakistan, who would have seen it as an infringement on their sovereignty and an unacceptable imposition.
Q5: What is the key takeaway from this historical episode for understanding modern Indo-Pakistan relations?
A5: The key takeaway is the enduring impact of external powers on the India-Pakistan dynamic. While bilateral trust is the foundation for peace, the geopolitical interests of major powers—today, primarily the US and China—can either create openings for dialogue or act as a major impediment. The 1970s episode shows that external pressure can bring parties to the table, but it cannot create the genuine political will and compromise needed for a lasting resolution, a challenge that remains just as relevant today.
