logo
Did Indira Gandhi Really Ignore Richard Nixon's Call During 1971 India-Pakistan War?

Did Indira Gandhi Really Ignore Richard Nixon's Call During 1971 India-Pakistan War?

News1813-05-2025
Last Updated:
To verify this claim, one must examine historical sources, declassified US documents and credible archival records for a clearer picture of what truly transpired
The latest India-Pakistan conflict has renewed interest in the previous wars fought between the two rivals, especially the 1971 war that led to the creation of Bangladesh.
Before the 1971 war broke out, then US President Richard Nixon warned India against taking military action. During a meeting with Nixon and his Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, then Indian prime minister Indira Gandhi reportedly felt insulted and walked out.
Amid the recent India-Pakistan escalation, a claim has resurfaced on social media suggesting that Indira Gandhi also ignored a phone call from Nixon. Some posts claim the US President calls her four times in 16 days but she refused to speak to him.
The story, which has circulated for years, adds a dramatic layer to the narrative of India's defiance against American pressure. To verify the truth behind this claim, it is essential to explore historical sources, declassified documents, and credible records.
What Do US Documents Say?
In 2005, the US State Department declassified taped conversations between Nixon and Kissinger from the period leading up to the 1971 war. These records contain no explicit mention of Nixon personally calling Indira Gandhi or her refusing to take his call. Most communication between the two leaders occurred through formal letters and diplomatic channels. For instance, Indira Gandhi wrote to Nixon on December 12, 1971, a letter recently highlighted by senior Congress leader Jairam Ramesh in a social media post.
On the other hand, Indira Gandhi's advisor PN Dhar noted in his book Indira Gandhi, The Emergency, and Indian Democracy that the PM was deeply engaged in meetings with military commanders and diplomats. Given the wartime urgency, he wrote, any call from Nixon would not have been treated as a priority.
Indira Gandhi May Have Delayed Calls To Avoid Confrontation
According to biographer Katherine Frank in Indira : The Life of Indira Nehru Gandhi, Indira Gandhi was aware of Nixon's hostility and may have deliberately delayed communication to avoid a direct confrontation.
A Symbol Of Indira Gandhi's Unyielding Stand
Historian Gary J Bass, in his acclaimed book The Blood Telegram: Nixon, Kissinger and a Forgotten Genocide, wrote that Nixon was furious India refused to yield to his threats. Whether Indira Gandhi ignored his calls or simply delayed responding remains debated, but many believe that her perceived defiance became a lasting symbol of her firm and uncompromising leadership.
Indira Gandhi's Defiance Became A Symbol Of Strength
Whether or not the phone call incident actually occurred, it became a symbol of Indira Gandhi's resolve during the 1971 war. Political commentators have argued that it reflected her refusal to bow to US pressure and highlighted India's growing strategic confidence, strengthened by the Soviet Union treaty.
While there is no concrete evidence she ignored Nixon's calls, it's clear she resisted American pressure. Many see this episode as emblematic of India's assertive foreign policy and Indira Gandhi's unshakable leadership.
The crisis in East Pakistan, marked by severe repression and a mass refugee movement into India, prompted Indira Gandhi to take the bold step of declaring war on Pakistan in December 1971. This led to a swift 13-day conflict, resulting in the creation of Bangladesh.
Many believe that the world, especially the United States, was taken aback by her resolve, having underestimated her determination and believing their threats would deter her. Despite US pressure, it was reported that Gandhi remained steadfast, reshaping the region's geopolitical landscape and reinforcing India's independent foreign policy.
First Published:
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Bihar voter rolls revision unreasonable, say Opposition parties in Delhi meet
Bihar voter rolls revision unreasonable, say Opposition parties in Delhi meet

India Today

time31 minutes ago

  • India Today

Bihar voter rolls revision unreasonable, say Opposition parties in Delhi meet

Eleven opposition parties led by the Congress, Rashtriya Janata Dal, Samajwadi Party and the Communist Party of India (CPI) on Tuesday strongly objected to the Election Commission of India's decision to carry out a Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of the electoral rolls in Bihar, citing inadequate time before the upcoming state assembly 18-member delegation of INDIA bloc parties met ECI officials in New Delhi and raised concerns over both the timing and the manner of the revision process. Senior Congress leader Abhishek Manu Singhvi, accompanied by leaders including RJD's Manoj Jha, CPI(ML)'s Dipankar Bhattacharya and Bihar Congress president Rajesh Kumar, warned that the move could severely impact the level playing field just months ahead of the questioned the rationale behind announcing the revision as late as June, pointing out that previous SIR exercises had been conducted well ahead of elections. 'When SIR was carried out in 2003, the next general election was a year away and the assembly polls two years later. Now we are just a few months away from elections, and the task of verifying nearly 7.75 crore voters in such a short span is unreasonable,' he said. The leaders also criticised the EC's recent restriction limiting the number of representatives who can attend meetings with the Commission. Singhvi said several senior leaders, including Congress's Jairam Ramesh and Pawan Khera, were made to wait outside as only two members per party were allowed inside, including the party president. He said such restrictions undermine the democratic consultation a post on X, Jairam Ramesh said, 'The Election Commission was literally compelled to meet the delegation after having refused to do so. A few of us could not meet the ECI, which unilaterally imposed a limit of two representatives per party. I myself had to hang around in the waiting room for almost two hours.'Jairam Ramesh further wrote that over the last six months, the ECI had 'conducted itself in a manner which undermines the very basis of our democratic system,' and called the restrictions on party delegations 'arbitrary and confused.' He said the Commission introduced these changes under the pretext of being a 'New Commission', and questioned its motives. 'We shudder to think what this 'New' Commission's gameplan is,' he compared the Commission's decision to the 2016 demonetisation, stating, 'After the PM's notebandi destroyed our economy, ECI's 'VOTE-bandi' in Bihar will destroy our democracy.'- EndsMust Watch

Keep 'secular', drop 'socialist'
Keep 'secular', drop 'socialist'

Time of India

time35 minutes ago

  • Time of India

Keep 'secular', drop 'socialist'

Some people, including big leaders, are saying that two words – 'secular' and 'socialist' – should be removed from the beginning (called the Preamble) of India's Constitution. They say these words were added in 1976 by then Prime Minister Indira Gandhi during a time when people's rights were heavily controlled – called the Emergency. But the Supreme Court of India has said these words are important and mean something special in the Indian context. Let's start with 'secular'. This means the government should treat all religions equally. It should not favour one over another. India has many religions, castes, and languages, so this idea is very important. Our Constitution already supports this through rules like: Article 15 , which says no one should be treated unfairly because of religion or caste Article 25 , which says everyone is free to follow any religion So 'secular' truly belongs in the Constitution. Now about 'socialist'. This word is more complicated. It comes from a system where the government owns most businesses and land so that wealth is shared more equally. But today, India is a mix of capitalism (private business) and social justice (helping the poor and giving everyone a fair chance). Our Constitution supports fairness, not full government control. In fact, a strong economy with private businesses and good welfare schemes (like free schools or health care) works better for India than old-style socialism. Also, being secular helps make social justice happen. In a country with many religions and castes, only a fair, religion-neutral government can treat people equally. So here's the simple answer: Keep secular – because it's essential Drop socialist – because it doesn't fit India's needs today Facebook Twitter Linkedin Email Disclaimer Views expressed above are the author's own.

How will the big beautiful bill become a law: number of votes, approval in both chambers and the complete process
How will the big beautiful bill become a law: number of votes, approval in both chambers and the complete process

Time of India

time39 minutes ago

  • Time of India

How will the big beautiful bill become a law: number of votes, approval in both chambers and the complete process

How many votes are needed in the Senate? How many votes are needed in the House? Live Events What is supermajority? How does a bill become a law in the U.S.? Introduction: A member of Congress (either House or Senate) introduces the bill. It's assigned a number and referred to the relevant committee for review. Committee Action: The committee studies the bill, holds hearings, and may revise it. If approved, the bill moves to the full chamber. Floor Debate and Vote: The bill is debated on the chamber floor. Amendments may be proposed. A vote is taken—if it passes by a simple majority, it moves to the other chamber. The Other Chamber: The process repeats in the second chamber (House or Senate). If the second chamber amends the bill, it returns to the first chamber for agreement. Conference Committee (if needed): If the two chambers pass different versions, a conference committee of members from both chambers negotiates a compromise. Both chambers must then approve the final version. Presidential Action: The bill is sent to the President, who can sign it into law or veto it. If vetoed, Congress can override the veto with a two-thirds majority in both chambers. What's next for the bid beautiful bill? (You can now subscribe to our (You can now subscribe to our Economic Times WhatsApp channel President Trump's much-anticipated 'Big Beautiful Bill,' aimed at extending his signature 2017 tax cuts and reshaping federal spending, has just passed the U.S. Senate after a marathon session. But how many votes did it actually require- and what's the journey from bill to law in the United States?For most major bills, the U.S. Senate needs a simple majority- at least 51 out of 100 votes- to pass. But, if senators try to block a bill with a filibuster, it takes 60 votes (three-fifths of the Senate) to end the debate and move the 'Big Beautiful Bill' used special budget reconciliation rules, which let the Senate skip the filibuster and pass the bill with just a simple majority In this case, the final tally was 50-50 after three Republicans (Susan Collins, Thom Tillis, and Rand Paul) joined all Democrats in opposition. Vice President JD Vance, presiding over the Senate, cast the tie-breaking 51st vote to pass the billAfter nearly 48 hours of debate and a ' vote-a-rama ' on amendments, the bill squeaked through- showing just how tight the margins can be for major a bill moves to the House of Representatives , it faces a tight vote. The House is made up of 435 voting members, and passing legislation requires a simple majority- at least 218 votes if all members are present and previous House version of the ' big beautiful bill ' passed by just 215-214, showing how razor-thin the margins are. The Republican's House majority currently stands at just 220-212, leaving little room for defections.A supermajority is when a higher threshold is required than a simple majority for the bill to pass either of the chamber. It is required for certain actions in Congress . For example, overriding a presidential veto needs a two-thirds majority- 290 out of 435 votes in the House and 67 out of 100 in the Senate. Additionally, constitutional amendments and some impeachment proceedings also demand a two-thirds the Senate's approval, the bill now heads to the House Rules Committee, which will set the terms for debate. The House will then vote on the bill. If the House passes the Senate's version, it goes straight to President Trump for his signature. If the House amends the bill, it returns to the Senate for further negotiation or a conference both chambers agree on the final text, President Trump can sign it into law—cementing another major legislative victory for his administration.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store