The Bangladesh War was going on. It was, whichever way you look at it, a just war. NATO makes much of the ethnic cleansing in Kosovo and the subsequent refugee crisis; but the problems in East Pakistan 28 years ago were greater by degrees of magnitude. Up to a million Bengalis were butchered, perhaps more. Eleven million -- five times as many as the Kosovars today -- sought sanctuary in India. Yet India did not declare war on Pakistan until General Yahya Khan, then Pakistan's dictator, lost his head and sent planes to bomb India on December 3, 1971.

Yet did any of our beloved brothers in the Third World, all those members of the Non-Alignment Movement whom India had wooed soassiduously, even try to understand why Indian soldiers were shedding blood?

On December 7, 1971, the issue was discussed by the United Nations General Assembly. (In the Security Council, the Russians had vetoed an American proposal for an immediate ceasefire and withdrawal of Indian forces.) So the United States took it to the larger body -- and had its way by 104 votes in favour to just 11 against. There were some abstentions, but the stark fact is that the vast majority of the so-called Third World refused to back India.

The moving finger stands still for nobody, and much has changed in 28 years. Once again Pakistan has chosen to stage an unprovoked attack on India. But this time there are significant changes in the disposition of the major powers. In 1971, the United States had sent the U.S.S. Enterprise -- an aircraft carrier bristling with nuclear weapons -- into the Bay of Bengal, and the Chinese were making rumbling sounds on the other side of the border.

Today, the Chinese are conspicuouslysilent. The change in the American stance is even more remarkable. Permit me to quote Karl F. Inderfurth, the US Assistant Secretary for South Asia: ``Clearly the Indians are not going to cede the territory that these militants have taken. They have to depart, and they will depart, either voluntarily or because the Indians take them out.'' That is a sea-change from Richard Nixon's infamous ``tilt'' toward Pakistan in 1971!

Part of the reason lies in the satellites monitoring South Asia ever more assiduously since Pokharan II. Those eyes in the sky saw the slow Pakistani build-up over the months. The same satellites also clearly reveal that the fighting is going on for bunkers that were built and constructed by the Indian Army, all clearly on the Indian side of the Line of Control. With the facts before them, it was possible to brush aside moth-eaten fibs - as for instance when the United States openly rejected the story that Indian planes had trespassed into Pakistani territory.

(The question arises, ofcourse, as to why Indian intelligence - in every sense of the word! - failed to predict the oncoming conflict in Kargil. The fact that the Pakistanis found unmanned bunkers in that sensitive sector are proof that somebody was sleeping on the job. As soon as the cleaning-up operation is over, a thorough investigation must be held.)

Let me return now to the reactions from the rest of the world. Where the major powers - NATO, Russia, China - have been remarkably understanding, our `friends' in the Non-Aligned Movement have been less so. Not all of them, of course, but a substantial number nevertheless. External Affairs Ministry officials who attended a briefing to explain India's position to some of these `allies' are still shaking their heads in disbelief at some of the illiterate reactions.

One envoy wanted to know whether Kargil could actually be considered disputed territory. Couldn't it be, he suggested, that the Pakistanis were a confused lot who mistakenly thought that they were entering their ownterritory? After all the lines on a map couldn't be seen on the ground, so it was possible to make a mistake, and what is a small difference of 20 miles here and there? (I am not at liberty to name the gentleman; let us just say that he represents one of the pioneers of the Non-Aligned Movement.)Another envoy came up with an even more remarkable suggestion: why not concede the ceasefire line as the international frontier? In other words, permit Pakistan to swallow Jammu and Kashmir slice by slice -- staging sudden attacks at their leisure and then refusing to let go of their ill-gotten gains. (He represents a country for whose sake the late Rajiv Gandhi once threatened to snap ties with one of India's friends.)

Once you get over the shock, it must be admitted that the fault is not entirely with them. It is also India's failure, at least to the extent that we failed to present them with the facts. And, let us face it, they may have had reason to wonder whether India is really serious about defending thoseHimalayan heights.

In 1965 and again in 1971, the Indian Army had conquered strategic positions. Yet, on both occasions, the Indian governments of the day decided to vacate what the Indian Army had conquered. In the treaties of Tashkent and Simla, India renewed its commitment to honour the Line of Control. It is Pakistan which has broken its word. But that hasn't really been made clear to our friends in the Non-Aligned Movement.

Yet that is no excuse for swallowing rubbishy tales about tribals spontaneously crossing the border, a story first used in 1947. Tribals certainly wouldn't have the long supply lines revealed in satellite photographs. (Speaking of 1947, an American member of the UN team that negotiated the first armistice was Secretary of State Madeleine Albright's father; perhaps that is why the United States is taking a relatively fair stance today.)

As I said, there are a lot of questions to be answered once the invaders are kicked out, and it shouldn't be just the defence establishment thatmust be forced to answer. So should our diplomats, many of whom continue to mouth shopworn rhetoric on non-alignment. It should be made very clear to all our dear friends in the Third World that support is a two-way street. If they refuse to see the facts today, there is no need for us to bend over for them tomorrow.