UNITED NATIONS, N. Y., Dec. 19—The war that brought victory to India and dismemberment to Pakistan has profoundly damaged the moral influence and big‐power leverage of the United States in Asia, a survey by New York Times correspondents in seven capitals and at the United Nations indicates.

The other principal conclusions of the survey were these:

¶The Soviet Union, which has given all‐out support to India, emerges with great strategic and diplomatic gains from the first major confrontation in which its two big‐power rivals, China and the United States, both opposed her.

¶China, which supported (Pakistan, is seen as having suffered a major strategic setback. But her political and psychological losses are judged to be less severe than those of Washington.

¶India has emerged with new self‐confidence while at the same time becoming more closely allied with the Soviet Union and more dependent on Soviet aid than ever.

¶The effectiveness of the United Nations as a peacemaker has suffered another devastating blow through the Security Council's inability to take action while the fighting was going on.

The survey, conducted by correspondents in Washington, Moscow, London, Hong Kong, New Delhi, Rawalpindi, Tokyo and the United Nations, reflected the fact that the Indian subcontinent has long been crucial arena in the big‐power struggle among Moscow, Peking and Washington.

India, with a population estimated at nearly 600 million, is seen to have managed in one stroke to become the vastly predominant local power in the area, and the Soviet Union — having stood alone and effectively in the Indian camp — is considered certain to reap major benefits.

“This is the first time in history that the United States and China have been defeated together,” a Soviet official at the United Nations said.

In London, the prevailing impression is said to be that “the Soviets now can have any position they want in. India, within reason.” Officials of the Conservative Government were especially concerned over the possibility of a Soviet request for a naval base or enlarged naval servicing facilities in addition to its present right, apparently seldom used, to re pair and refuel Soviet ships in Indian ports.

Naval Expansion Noted

The obvious Soviet gains in India thus appear to fit neatly into Moscow's systematic drive to extend Soviet naval power from the Gulf of Aden, where the Soviet Union has a commanding base on the island of Socotra, around the entire southern rim of Asia. Soviet requests for naval servicing facilities have been made to Singapore, the Maldives and Mauritius. And Indonesia, Burma and Thailand have been the objects of Soviet overtures of various kinds.

It was against this back ground that Huang Hue, the Chinese delegate to the Security Council, accused Moscow of pursuing “a monstrous plan” to encircle China.

In Moscow this weekend there was no evidence of meek ness. Diplomats there felt that Soviet arms, airlifted to India less than a month before the outbreak of large‐scale fighting, had played a decisive role in the war and had demonstrated the value of Soviet sup port to other countries that have alliances with Moscow.

In Moscow, it was said that the Indian‐Pakistani war had left relations between Moscow and Peking in a worse state than at any time since the, 1969 border clashes on the Amur and the Issuri Rivers. But Western diplomats there felt that the war was not likely to complicate seriously the Kremlin's important negotiations with the West.

The reports from all seven capitals indicated that on several important aspects of the crisis the Nixon Administration's view of its policies has been strikingly different from the way, others see them.

For instance, a report from Washington said, the Administration is insisting privately that over the long run its ties with India will not be damaged drastically because India will need American economic aid that Moscow will be unable to supply, particularly in food.

In New Delhi, on the other hand, one observer said that “India is no longer the servile supplicant, approaching the rich, nations with an empty alms bowl in hand, asking for aid for its starving millions.”

Profound Anger Reported

President Nixon's policies and actions, particularly the dispatch of the aircraft carrier Enterprise into the Bay of Bengal, has “stirred profound and lasting anger” in India, it was reported.

The report said that Americans in Calcutta feared for their safety, that the Administration policies had strengthened India's alliance with Moscow and that the Peace Corps might be asked to leave.

While attacking the United States, both the Indian Government and press are seen as having made great efforts to play down the role of China in supporting Pakistan. According to Indian officials, the Government would now like to try to continue the improvement in relations with China that began earlier this year.

A similar picture emerged in a report from Hong Kong.

Chinese Limit Losses

China specialists in that city are reported to feel that although the emergence of a Soviet‐Indian alliance is regarded as a direct threat in Peking, the Chinese have managed to limit their psychological and political losses by confining their support for Pakistan to verbal exchanges at the United Nations and a relatively mild Government statement issued in the capital.

As the China specialists in Hong Kong see it, the Chinese, being realists, will shrug off their chagrin and make the most of their new opportunities. The China experts predict that there will be many such opportunities for Peking to further its cause by encouraging dissidents.

As for Pakistan, the view in Washington is that the Administration feels American influence in that country is higher than ever and that this influence will be used in the coining weeks to put pressure on the Pakistani Government to negotiate a permanent settlement.

American officials reportedly concede privately that Bangladesh, as the secessionists call East Pakistan, has become a reality. One informed private guess in the capital is that the Soviet Union will recognize Bangladesh within a week or two and that the United States will do so in a month or two while Peking is expected to wait indefinitely.

Disappointment With U.S.

But from West Pakistan, it is reported that the initial joy over American and Chinese support produced a bitter letdown when the Pakistanis realized that their expectations of an armed American intervention would not materialize.

Both the United States and China are said to have lost much of their goodwill in West Pakistan in the last few days.

Such civilian political figures as Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, the Deputy Premier and Foreign Minister, have privately criticized the United States for having backed the military Government in Islamabad, thus indirectly contributing to the origins of the tragedy.

The United Nations during the two weeks of war reflected the divisions between the United States and China on the one hand and the Soviet Union on the other and was unable to change them.

The United States took the initiative for the emergency session of the Security. Council and introduced the major resolutions for a cease‐fire and withdrawal, which were vetoed by the Soviet Union. The Russians thus bought the time the Indians needed to win the war.

One interesting question that has been raised here is whether the big‐power deadlock in the Council would have been the same if the Chinese had not been admitted to the United Nations a month earlier.

Some delegates feel that the threat of a Chinese veto may have prompted the United States to take a more rigid pro Pakistani stand than it would have taken in the absence of the Chinese.