Quick Facts
Date:
1971
Participants:
India
Pakistan
Top Questions

What was the 1971 India-Pakistan War?

What was the outcome of the 1971 India-Pakistan War?

When did the 1971 India-Pakistan War take place?

Where was the 1971 India-Pakistan War fought?

What was the significance of the Bangladesh liberation movement in the 1971 India-Pakistan War?

1971 India-Pakistan War, conflict between India and Pakistan in the first half of December 1971 that led to the creation of Bangladesh. The war was rooted in the Bangladesh liberation movement, which opposed Pakistani rule in East Pakistan (now Bangladesh) with the goal of creating an independent country. Following the Pakistani military’s crackdown on Bangladeshi nationalists earlier that year, the local population launched an armed resistance that sparked what became known as the Bangladesh Liberation War. India initially supported the liberation war by covertly providing training and later intervened militarily in East Pakistan, where most of the battles occurred. Fighting also broke out on the India–West Pakistan border, particularly in the western Indian states of Punjab, Rajasthan, and Jammu and Kashmir. The two countries deployed their armies, air forces, and navies. The war ended after Pakistani forces in the east surrendered. Lasting from December 3 to December 16, it was a brief but devastating war, resulting in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people across all three sides.

Historical background

One of the main roots of the conflict can be traced back to the partition of British India into the newly independent countries of India and Pakistan on August 15, 1947. Pakistan was split into West Pakistan and East Pakistan (carved out of Bengal, a region previously partitioned by the British from 1905 to 1911). The partition of India uprooted millions of people, sparked violent communal clashes, and claimed hundreds of thousands of lives.

India-Pakistan Wars
  • October 27, 1947–January 1949: The first India-Pakistan war began after tribal militias backed by Pakistan attempted to capture Kashmir. A ceasefire agreement, brokered by the United Nations, was adopted in January 1949 and signed in July.
  • August–September 1965: The second India-Pakistan war was fought over the Kashmir region.
  • December 3–16, 1971: The third India-Pakistan war was rooted in the Bangladesh liberation movement, which opposed Pakistani rule in East Pakistan (now Bangladesh) and was supported by India.
  • May–July 1999: India and Pakistan fought the Kargil War in India-administered Kashmir.

Soon after the partition, the princely state of Kashmir emerged as the center of a bitter territorial dispute between India and Pakistan. After Pakistan-backed tribal militias attacked Kashmir in 1947, Hari Singh, the Hindu ruler of the Muslim-majority region, acceded to India in return for military assistance. This triggered the first war between the two countries, which ended in a ceasefire in early 1949. India and Pakistan next fought a brutal war over Kashmir in 1965, with a largely inconclusive outcome. In 1971 they fought another war. However, this time Kashmir was not the center of the conflict, and the fighting was concentrated in a different theater—East Pakistan.

Regional perspectives

A liberation movement: Bangladesh’s perspective

The Bangladesh liberation movement was a nationalist campaign that sought the independence of East Pakistan from West Pakistan. There were cultural, geographical, political, and linguistic divisions between the two regions when Pakistan became independent. Pakistan was geographically fragmented, with the west separated from the east by about 1,000 miles (1,600 km) of Indian territory, making governance difficult. Moreover, tensions arose when the West Pakistan government attempted to impose a singular identity. Urdu was declared the official language of Pakistan, despite Bengali being the predominant language of East Pakistan. This sparked widespread protests throughout East Pakistan and culminated in the historic Language Movement of Bangladesh (1947–71). The movement reached a climax in 1952, when several student demonstrators were killed by the police. Other sources of tension were related to clothing. Bengali women traditionally wore saris; however, officials in Pakistan viewed the sari as Hindu clothing and discouraged its use. This further alienated the population of East Pakistan.

In the December 1970 Pakistani general election, East Pakistan’s Awami League party, led by nationalist leader Mujibur Rahman, won a majority. Pakistani Pres. Yahya Khan refused to allow Rahman to form the new government and become Pakistan’s next prime minister, triggering mass protests throughout the region. In March 1971, Khan ordered the military to quash the protests, leading to the loss of numerous lives. Widespread atrocities were committed by Pakistani soldiers, including sexual violence and the rape of hundreds of thousands of women, during the nine-month-long crackdown known as Operation Searchlight. According to estimates, the death toll was between 300,000 and 3,000,000.

In addition to the brutalities by the Pakistani forces, instances of violence by East Pakistani rebels were also reported. Bihari muhajirs—Muslims who migrated to East Pakistan from Bihar, India, during the 1947 partition—were reportedly persecuted by the rebels, who believed that many Bihari muhajirs had collaborated with the Pakistan Army. During this period a loosely organized resistance movement emerged in East Pakistan. Eventually, the resistance evolved into a guerrilla force called the Mukti Bahini (Bengali: “Liberation Force”), which attacked Pakistani troops with support from the Indian military.

Strategic intervention: India’s perspective

Under Prime Minister Indira Gandhi, India backed an independent Bangladesh and provided military assistance to the East Pakistani rebels. India’s intervention in East Pakistan was driven by strategic considerations, though Gandhi claimed that the primary motivation was humanitarian concern. She told British writer Dom Moraes in his book Mrs. Gandhi (1980) that India participated in the war “for purely humanitarian reasons” and “couldn’t stand by and see a whole population liquidated.” Indian scholar Onkar Marwah noted in his article “India’s Military Intervention in East Pakistan, 1971–1972,” published in Modern Asian Studies, volume 13, issue 4 (1979):

Are you a student?
Get a special academic rate on Britannica Premium.

India’s military intervention in East Pakistan was an instance of the clear use of force for the achievement of limited political and security objectives.

Millions of refugees from East Pakistan crossed the border into India, which many Indian leaders viewed as a growing security threat. Through intervention India aimed to stem this influx of people. The political crisis in the region also presented an opportunity for India to assert its regional dominance. According to a declassified American Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) briefing dated December 13, 1971, Gandhi was confident of a victory that would establish India as “the dominant power in South Asia.” She also believed the war would lead to the fall of Pakistan’s military regime and pave the way for a democratic government throughout the country. The report suggested that her motivations were shaped by regional power calculations and Cold War dynamics.

Indian aggression: Pakistan’s perspective

Pakistan justified its military crackdown as an effort to prevent secessionist forces from destabilizing East Pakistan. Pakistani authorities also believed that Indian forces supported the rebels with military training and weapons. In his book The Blood Telegram: India’s Secret War in East Pakistan (2013), Princeton University professor Gary J. Bass noted:

India devoted enormous resources to covertly sponsoring the Bengali insurgency inside East Pakistan, providing the guerrillas with arms, training, camps, and safe passage back and forth across a porous border.

Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, who after the war served as president (1971–73) and prime minister (1973–77) of Pakistan, claimed in a 1973 article in the journal Foreign Affairs that the civil war in East Pakistan was exploited by India as an “opportunity” to intervene. He insisted that Pakistan had been the victim of “unabashed aggression” by India.

Course of the war

Although India had already been supporting the Bangladesh liberation movement for months, including providing training, arms, and assistance to Mukti Bahini guerrillas, war between the two countries officially broke out on December 3, 1971—when Pakistan launched Operation Chengiz Khan, a series of air strikes targeting air bases in northwestern India. Islamabad, Pakistan’s capital, maintained that the air strikes were a response to India’s aggressive support for the Mukti Bahini guerrillas. New Delhi claimed these strikes were preemptive and unprovoked. Indira Gandhi’s government interpreted the air strikes as an act of war and, in turn, declared war against Pakistan.

The Indian armed forces mounted a three-pronged offensive across land, air, and sea. Intense fighting occurred on India’s western frontier, including in the states of Jammu and Kashmir, Rajasthan, and Punjab. The Indian Air Force countered Pakistani strikes by launching multiple air raids on Lahore and Karachi. The Indian Army advanced with a major ground incursion in East Pakistan, supported by the air force. Within a short span of time, the Indian Army captured major cities in East Pakistan. According to the CIA, India “achieved complete air superiority” in East Pakistan. The Pakistan Army stationed in East Pakistan was weakened by intense guerrilla warfare and an Indian military onslaught. At sea the Indian Navy worked to cut off military supplies to East and West Pakistan and launched attacks against Pakistani ships in the Arabian Sea.

With swift victories on the ground, the Indian military quickly encircled the Pakistani troops in the east. The final blow came with the capture of Dhaka, East Pakistan’s capital. On December 16 Pakistani forces in East Pakistan surrendered. The following day Pakistani Pres. Yahya Khan agreed to a ceasefire in West Pakistan.

International reactions

The 1971 war unfolded against the backdrop of Cold War rivalries, with both India and Pakistan seeking international support. The 13-day war drew in major global powers such as the United States, the Soviet Union, and China. The United Nations Security Council and General Assembly became arenas for intense diplomatic maneuvering.

  • United States: Declassified U.S. government documents released by the U.S. National Security Archive show that the United States, under Pres. Richard Nixon and Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, adopted a pro-Pakistan stance during the conflict, driven by Cold War considerations. This was not a publicly declared stance. Despite publicly suspending aid to Pakistan, the United States secretly supplied the country with military assistance. It also dispatched the aircraft carrier USS Enterprise to the Bay of Bengal, a show of force meant to deter India and support Pakistan. India harshly criticized America’s stance during the conflict.
  • Soviet Union: The Soviet Union backed India (a member of the Non-Aligned Movement) during the war. It was India’s principal supplier of military equipment and supported India diplomatically, including by vetoing resolutions critical of India in the United Nations.
  • China: China vocally supported Pakistan and criticized India’s actions as “a large-scale war of aggression” that “gravely disrupted peace on the South Asian subcontinent.”
  • United Nations: The UN became the center of frantic diplomatic activity involving major global powers. However, the world body was unable to take decisive action to bring the war to an end.

Impact

The most defining outcome of the war was the creation of Bangladesh from East Pakistan. The war was short but devastating. According to CIA estimates, more than 3,500 Indian soldiers and about 5,000 Pakistani soldiers lost their lives. Tens of thousands of military personnel were wounded. Nearly 93,000 Pakistani prisoners of war were held in Indian prisons for about three years. The civilian death toll was huge. According to estimates, a total of 300,000 to 3,000,000 people died in the conflict.

In Pakistan, the war left deep scars. Following Pres. Yahya Khan’s resignation, Bhutto assumed the presidency on December 20. Bhutto later wrote in Foreign Affairs, “The country was dismembered, its economy shattered and the nation’s self-confidence totally undermined.” India emerged as a dominant power in the region, and the successful military campaign in East Pakistan boosted Prime Minister Gandhi’s popularity at home.

In 1972 Gandhi and Bhutto signed the Simla Agreement to scale back tensions and pursue peace. However, the terms of the treaty did not materialize. Tensions between India and Pakistan continued. Kashmir witnessed armed insurgency during the 1980s and ’90s. The two countries tested nuclear weapons in 1998 and fought a brutal war the following year in the Kargil region.

Since independence Bangladesh has made rapid economic progress and emerged as one of South Asia’s most promising economies. However, the country has also seen periods of unrest. In 2024 mass protests led to the resignation of Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina Wazed and the launch of an interim government.

Andrew Pereira

News

Israel at War day 611: What's happening in Israel and Gaza? June 8, 2025, 12:41 PM ET (Jerusalem Post)
Israel at War day 610: What's happening in Israel and Gaza? June 8, 2025, 5:58 AM ET (Jerusalem Post)
Israel at War day 609: What's happening in Israel and Gaza? June 7, 2025, 3:06 AM ET (Jerusalem Post)
Israel at War day 608: What's happening in Israel and Gaza? June 6, 2025, 3:10 AM ET (Jerusalem Post)
Israel at War day 607: What's happening in Israel and Gaza? June 5, 2025, 3:41 AM ET (Jerusalem Post)

war, in the popular sense, a conflict between political groups involving hostilities of considerable duration and magnitude. In the usage of social science, certain qualifications are added. Sociologists usually apply the term to such conflicts only if they are initiated and conducted in accordance with socially recognized forms. They treat war as an institution recognized in custom or in law. Military writers usually confine the term to hostilities in which the contending groups are sufficiently equal in power to render the outcome uncertain for a time. Armed conflicts of powerful states with isolated and powerless peoples are usually called pacifications, military expeditions, or explorations; with small states, they are called interventions or reprisals; and with internal groups, rebellions or insurrections. Such incidents, if the resistance is sufficiently strong or protracted, may achieve a magnitude that entitles them to the name “war.”

In all ages war has been an important topic of analysis. In the latter part of the 20th century, in the aftermath of two World Wars and in the shadow of nuclear, biological, and chemical holocaust, more was written on the subject than ever before. Endeavours to understand the nature of war, to formulate some theory of its causes, conduct, and prevention, are of great importance, for theory shapes human expectations and determines human behaviour. The various schools of theorists are generally aware of the profound influence they can exercise upon life, and their writings usually include a strong normative element, for, when accepted by politicians, their ideas can assume the characteristics of self-fulfilling prophecies.

The analysis of war may be divided into several categories. Philosophical, political, economic, technological, legal, sociological, and psychological approaches are frequently distinguished. These distinctions indicate the varying focuses of interest and the different analytical categories employed by the theoretician, but most of the actual theories are mixed because war is an extremely complex social phenomenon that cannot be explained by any single factor or through any single approach.

Evolution of theories of war

Reflecting changes in the international system, theories of war have passed through several phases in the course of the past three centuries. After the ending of the wars of religion, about the middle of the 17th century, wars were fought for the interests of individual sovereigns and were limited both in their objectives and in their scope. The art of maneuver became decisive, and analysis of war was couched accordingly in terms of strategies. The situation changed fundamentally with the outbreak of the French Revolution, which increased the size of forces from small professional to large conscript armies and broadened the objectives of war to the ideals of the revolution, ideals that appealed to the masses who were subject to conscription. In the relative order of post-Napoleonic Europe, the mainstream of theory returned to the idea of war as a rational, limited instrument of national policy. This approach was best articulated by the Prussian military theorist Carl von Clausewitz in his famous classic On War (1832–37).

World War I, which was “total” in character because it resulted in the mobilization of entire populations and economies for a prolonged period of time, did not fit into the Clausewitzian pattern of limited conflict, and it led to a renewal of other theories. These no longer regarded war as a rational instrument of state policy. The theorists held that war, in its modern, total form, if still conceived as a national state instrument, should be undertaken only if the most vital interests of the state, touching upon its very survival, are concerned. Otherwise, warfare serves broad ideologies and not the more narrowly defined interests of a sovereign or a nation. Like the religious wars of the 17th century, war becomes part of “grand designs,” such as the rising of the proletariat in communist eschatology or the Nazi doctrine of a master race.

Louis IX of France (St. Louis), stained glass window of Louis IX during the Crusades. (Unknown location.)
Britannica Quiz
World Wars

Some theoreticians have gone even further, denying war any rational character whatsoever. To them war is a calamity and a social disaster, whether it is afflicted by one nation upon another or conceived of as afflicting humanity as a whole. The idea is not new—in the aftermath of the Napoleonic Wars it was articulated, for example, by Tolstoy in the concluding chapter of War and Peace (1865–69). In the second half of the 20th century it gained new currency in peace research, a contemporary form of theorizing that combines analysis of the origins of warfare with a strong normative element aiming at its prevention. Peace research concentrates on two areas: the analysis of the international system and the empirical study of the phenomenon of war.

World War II and the subsequent evolution of weapons of mass destruction made the task of understanding the nature of war even more urgent. On the one hand, war had become an intractable social phenomenon, the elimination of which seemed to be an essential precondition for the survival of mankind. On the other hand, the use of war as an instrument of policy was calculated in an unprecedented manner by the nuclear superpowers, the United States and the Soviet Union. War also remained a stark but rational instrumentality in certain more limited conflicts, such as those between Israel and the Arab nations. Thinking about war, consequently, became increasingly more differentiated because it had to answer questions related to very different types of conflict.

Are you a student?
Get a special academic rate on Britannica Premium.

Clausewitz cogently defines war as a rational instrument of foreign policy: “an act of violence intended to compel our opponent to fulfill our will.” Modern definitions of war, such as “armed conflict between political units,” generally disregard the narrow, legalistic definitions characteristic of the 19th century, which limited the concept to formally declared war between states. Such a definition includes civil wars but at the same time excludes such phenomena as insurrections, banditry, or piracy. Finally, war is generally understood to embrace only armed conflicts on a fairly large scale, usually excluding conflicts in which fewer than 50,000 combatants are involved.