Nixon’s sexual repulsion for Indians!
How misogyny perverted the American foreign policy in South Asia!
The year was 1971 when the genocide of Bangladesh began. West Pakistan (current Pakistan) launched operation searchlight, a military crackdown in East Pakistan (current Bangladesh). Over 300,000 people were killed and over 200,000 Bengali women were raped in a systematic campaign of Genocide Rape.
Yet, while discussing the matter at hand, Nixon blurted to his National Security Advisor, “Undoubtedly the most unattractive women in the world are the Indian women,” with an emphasis on — “Undoubtedly”. And it is just an ounce of his sexual repulsion, misogyny, and racism.
The aforementioned statement is a part of the archived recordings of White House which are being declassified as a result of a legal request from Gary J. Bass (Professor of politics and international affairs.) The latest batch of tapes released in May this year unearths some of the menacing political conversations around the Cold War and explains how the United States aided in the gruesome outcome for Bangladesh.
I won’t bore you with the history. So here’s a brief context:
Pakistan was flanked in two divisions:
West Pakistan (Current day Pakistan),
East Pakistan (Current day Bangladesh, but you might know it from Chris Hemsworth’s movie Extraction) separated with India in between.The Cold War between the US and the Soviet Union was at its peak.
The US had right-winged Nixon, Pakistan had a far-right military rule,
and India had the first female Prime Minister, Indira Gandhi.As per political allegiances, India tilted towards USSR and for strategic reasons, the United States sided with Pakistan. And that’s where the story gets horrifically interesting.
As I mentioned earlier, Pakistan ordered a military crackdown to suppress people from the Bangali community in East Pakistan (again Bangladesh). That led to mass-murders and mass-rapes followed by the chaos that included riots, migration of more than 3 million people resulting in an unstable establishment.
While all of this was happening, instead of condemning the act and confronting their allies — Nixon turned a blind eye to the genocide, even after the matter was highlighted by the American consulate in Bangladesh. In fact, the cries of Kenneth B. Keating, his ambassador to India, was ignored at large.
What was occupying his mind was mind-boggling yet obvious:
On Nov. 4, 1971
“The most sexless, nothing, these people. I mean, people say, what about the Black Africans? Well, you can see something, the vitality there, I mean they have a little animal-like charm, but God, those Indians, ack, pathetic. Uch.” — Richard Nixon
Oh, the disgust. If anyone can help, I am genuinely interested in knowing how many republicans (or simply Americans) relate to Mr. Nixon? And how deeply rooted this prejudice is?
In another conversation with Mr. Kissinger, he confessed:
“To me, they turn me off. How the hell do they turn other people on, Henry?
Tell me.”
Well, by basic psychology humans are attracted by the kind they are raised with. Be it “animal-like.” Though if people like Mr. Nixon allow their mind to grow out of the prejudice, they will be amused to find that every human being is beautiful in their own sense.
Here’s another psychological analysis, a National leader with a bigotry on his mind, will be biased, not only while dealing with other countries but towards people with whom his ideologies don’t align.
“They turn me off. They are repulsive and it’s just easy to be tough with them.” — Nixon on Indians
And mind the fact that all these boys-locker-room talks between Mr. Nixon and his staff are happening while discussing matters like India-Pakistan tensions, Bangladesh genocide, etc.
I am just glad that Nixon’s prejudices aren’t Hitler-level extremists. They are just racism infused with dehumanizing other human beings based on personal preferences or turn-offs.
Yet both India and the US currently have the most racist national leaders in their respective history. And I wonder why?
In fact, if we had a mechanism of releasing archived tapes, you would find some of the most racial slurs, particularly for the Muslim minorities. But that’s pretty unlikely to happen. There’s a reason we rank 144th in World Press Freedom Index.
A racist person assumes that his religion or nation is above others. This means, that the person is overwhelmed with the feeling of being superior — racially and nationally. Viola! Perfect element to use as political propaganda. People overwhelmed with a nationalist drive, start choosing “strong” leaders irrespective of their racial slurs or their inconsiderate take on a world issue.
Back to the recordings, Mr. Kissinger has skillfully portrayed himself to be above the bigotry of White House, yet here’s how he explains Indians to Mr. Nixon:
“They are superb flatterers, Mr. President. They are masters at flattery. They are masters at subtle flattery. That’s how they survived 600 years. They suck up — their great skill is to suck up to people in key positions.”
Now, it is unclear if Mr. Kissinger truly shared the president’s prejudices or he was just pandering like an opportunist. His prejudice is coming from his interaction with Indian political leaders. And Indian politicians have a thing for sucking up to the people in power.
But Indian political leaders can’t be the representative of the entire nation, same way Mr. Nixon isn’t a representative of the United States. (I hope not!)
The point is that the Institutional racism is capable of normalizing prejudice and bigotry. Racist leaders can be a leader of uni-cultural geography, but not for a diverse state. Why is that the right-wing ideology around the world, while catering to the betterment of their respective cultures, end up giving some of the extremist versions of humanity?
