Generals — theirs and ours

[Mav3rick]

USSR didn't even invade Afghanistan, so why were they going to invade Pakistan?

The PDPA, which was the ruling party of Afghanistan, invited the Soviets to quell the Islamist uprising against their modernization plan.

Had they wanted to invade Pakistan, they would have done so and they had enough reasons to do so. I remember that the Soviets on many occasions did not cross into Pakistan while chasing the "Moojahidoon". They used to lodge complaints through proper channels while Pakistan was fully involved in an external matter.

This whole "Soviet wants access to warm waters of Pakistan" was a line used by the Americans and Zia's government to sell our involvement in the Soviet war.

Whatever Hamid Gul says, believe the opposite.

Perhaps, however even the might USSR was too far away from Pakistan, invasion of Pakistan was never a possibility and the USSR was well aware as the US, NATO, China, UAE, Saudi Arabia, Iran and whoever else may have eventually joined the war, leading to a world war.

 

[deckingraj]

again you have build your defence on wrong premises....

I beg to differ...perhaps i am not explaining myself clear or you are not getting the point...let me try one more time...

Firstly ... you are assuming that if india has so called political vaccum just like Pakistan. IA would have been same as PA. which doesn't have any locus standi.

No i am not saying this...in fact i disagree...but because of a different reason...At that time we did not have threat from any body...which is not true for Pakistan...They had legitimate fears that India will try to undo the partition...Now under those circumstances coupled with political vacuum Army took over...

Look mate i am not sure it is intentional or not but you are not answering my question...i asked you very specific question...Let me paste it here again and share your thoughts...

Tell me one thing...Before Partition our Army was one unit...Their training/culture etc all were same...Now how come suddenly people with same ranks behaved so differently??? Is it something to do with genese/race/religion???? Of-course not...then what the heck went wrong???

and if IA had the same power we had the same fate.

This is subjective....However one thing is for sure Army is best when it concentrates on being an effective war machine...Army typically sucks in geo-politics...I gave an example - In 71 war IA was of the opinion that this is the best time to crush the enemy war fighting capability...This would have disastrous geo-political consequences...Similarly during Kargil Army wanted to cross LOC to make its job easy instead of taking the intruders head on...Now we all know that by not crossing LOC India's position got stronger as a responsible nuclear power...Now imagine had IA enjoyed the same powers as PA...We might have made some blunders...Mind it we might have not....

My basic point is civilian govt. typically handles geo-politics and diplomacy better then Army...Now do you agree here???

now comes to the so called political vaccum...

let me remind you
1. ayub bought the martial law...when Pakistan was very young and young countries do have the issues. But ayub read a PA"s general don't have any rights to imposed himself on others
2. Bhutto was the most charismatic leader pakistan had after Jinnah..when PA did to him ? where was the political vaccum that time?
3. Nawaz sharif had 2/3 majority but he was also toppled by Mushi..where was the political vaccum ?

Now this is where you are going way wrong....Zinnah died in 48...Bhutto came into political limelight rght under Ayub...In short coup was already in place...The political vacuum i am talking about is b/w 48-57...Just try to think from Pakistan perspective...Their chrismatic leader who got them independence was dead..Mighty IA was right at their throat and leaders in India were still not in terms with independent Pakistan..Under such sensitive situation Military was given the priority and was made powerful....I mean what other choice they had??? Now this is where seeds of future coups were sown...

As far your point 2 and 3 is concerned then look buddy democracy is not an easy system to adopt...Leaders are not born out of this air...Look at our system...It is just now that we have started voting for progress rather then caste/religion/sex....Pakistan have never learned to stay under civilian leadership and have full faith in Army control...Though things are changing a bit now...let's see how things unfold in the future...b/w when i was saying political vacuum i was referring to period b/w 48-57...




Once again i am not justifying the coups...All i am saying is how and why it started...

PA created a agency called ISI which consider as a rogue agency.... which had PA's people. So where is the professionalism and discipline of PA ?

What??? How does creating a spy agency has anything to do with Professionalism??? We also created RAW, right??? Again as said that PA was controling the foreign policy when it was not in center and otherwise they were in power anyways...In short it is quiet obvious that they will be taking care of such needs...ISI has done lot of good things for Pakistan though they achieved it by notorious means which unfortunately are backfiring now...

On the other hand can you single out any incident where IA did any wrong purposefully ? By generalizing that PA and IA would have been same if they have the power is obnoxious.

I have already explained this above..

PA always thrive for power ..IA stick to her assigned roles.

So don't paint both of them with the same brush.

Again you have missed the point..I hope my clarification is good enough....Once again there were reasons that people with same background/same training/same culture behaved very differently...It is these reasons that you need to account for before simply calling PA as unprofessional...

 

[sachin@india]

what legitimate fears you are talking about ? If that is the case we always have the problems ..after another thousand years.

They had created a monster to sell to their public. We are muslim can't live with hindus. We are a marshal race.

And the biggest one-- if they had legitimate fears they wouldn't have attacked india in 1948 and later in 1965. this is the first time I'm hearing that weaker one is attacking the mightier.

and what is the basis of your premise that there was a political vacuum ? Jinnah died in 1948 and ayub too over in 1958 where was the vacuum in that period and mind you Pakistan progressed well in that era also.

and let me come to your question...and it has been answered by guru dutt precisely. IA has a secular tradition while PA had this marshall race syndrome. and India is vast … you need a hell of support to do it here in India but given that nobody in IA even had thought of that but Pakistan has different story. They kept on vomiting anti india tirade regarding kashmir.

Kindly prove this rubbish claims

Mighty IA was right at their throat and leaders in India were still not in terms with independent Pakistan..Under such sensitive situation Military was given the priority and was made powerful

You are saying the coup of 1958 was ok because IA at their throat...what rubbish..back it up with some source.

You are just justifying coup in Pakistan by naming India which is what they taught to their public. Why was the zia's coup? why was the mushi's coup ? They are bunch of power hungry and undisciplined people nothing else. No one can justify with that.

why the army had the problem with Democracy why not with the civilians. as we thrive why didn't they thrive well we have the same culture ...isn't it ?

RAW is not notorious like ISI... do you know that RAW always has civilian head ? while ISI people come from military ..it is basically a arm of PA.


and I failed to understand what is professionalism and discipline meaning in your book. To control out of your mandate and control the policies of government or to take the civilian government as an order.

Look what happened in kargil..the rogue general didn't consulted with GOP and our army was following orders from high command. this is what I called professionalism .

And what geo political consequences you are talking about in 1971 war or for say in any other war with Pakistan.. kindly elaborate.

I don't think you even know that how many times our general wrote to niazi to surrender so that war can be stopped. IA has never crossed her boundary. And that is their biggest victory.

Kindly do provide the link of story of legitimate fears, Indira gandhi, kargil etc.etc. by looking at your understanding ..I can't take your point on face value.

 

[sachin@india]

do watch

 

[humanfirst]

Generalising quality of indian and pak generals by comparing gen.aslam baig and hamid gul to indian generals is not fair.They are looniest of the lot and majority of pak generals are way better than those two.

 

[deckingraj]

Hmmm now we are getting into a never ending argument...I believe we should agree to disagree...Feel free to reply but i might chose not to...so please don't mind....

what legitimate fears you are talking about ?

Were indian leaders on-board with the creation of Pakistan??? IA might and Indian leaders not happy with creation of Pakistan...if this is not a legimitate fear then i am not sure what else could be...I have explained to you why this was a legitimate fear...Kindly tell me why it is not...and please answer this specific question...

If that is the case we always have the problems ..after another thousand years.

When was the last time India faced existential threat from anyone...

They had created a monster to sell to their public. We are muslim can't live with hindus. We are a marshal race.

I am not going to lecture you as to why Partition happened...It is very convenient to point all the fingers on Jinnah...Truth might be different...As far as Marshal race is concerned then it is their way of motivating their forces...I am sikh and there is a saying One Khalsa is equal to 1.25 Lakh enemy...Now it is upto you how you want to read it...b/w they very well tasted this marchal race crap in 65....

And the biggest one-- if they had legitimate fears they wouldn't have attacked india in 1948 and later in 1965. this is the first time I'm hearing that weaker one is attacking the mightier.

Your problem is that you are not being consistent with the time frame i am talking about...Let me point out the flaws above...Pakistan did not attacked India in 48..They attacked Kashmir which was a princely state at that time...Their attack stopped once we intervened....Again in 65 they did not attack India(this is their stupid theory)...They attacked J&K....b/w this is the era when Pakistan Army was strongest as compared to India...They modernized rapidly due to coziness with US whereas we just learned the importance of Armed forces after 62 spanking...Also they were able to defend themselves pretty handsomely gives you an inclination that their Army had done the job i.e. safegaurding Pakistan from an Indian onslaught.....The problem was their bravado(prior to 65 war) got into their head and brought their downfall....

and what is the basis of your premise that there was a political vacuum ? Jinnah died in 1948 and ayub too over in 1958 where was the vacuum in that period and mind you Pakistan progressed well in that era also.

Good lord!!! Dude Jinnah died in 48...Give me one good leader of his stature in Pakistan at that time...b/w 48-57 there is whopping 9 years....What made Ayub so strong that it took over without any protest from Pakistani's??? If this is not political vacuum then not sure what is as per you....

and let me come to your question...and it has been answered by guru dutt precisely. IA has a secular tradition while PA had this marshall race syndrome. and India is vast … you need a hell of support to do it here in India but given that nobody in IA even had thought of that but Pakistan has different story. They kept on vomiting anti india tirade regarding kashmir.

This is nonsense and nothing else...I have asked a very precise question...I am again copy pasting it(3rd time)....Try and answer it...once you do that you will get what i am saying...


Tell me one thing...Before Partition our Army was one unit...Their training/culture etc all were same...Now how come suddenly people with same ranks behaved so differently??? Is it something to do with genese/race/religion???? Of-course not...then what the heck went wrong???

Kindly prove this rubbish claims

What's rubbish in it...Indian leaders were not happy with the partition and IA was right next to Pak...I am not saying we tried to take-over but concern was legitimate...Aren't we concerned Chinese will one day attack??? Are they going to?? Who knows...but our concerns are legitimate...no???

You are saying the coup of 1958 was ok because IA at their throat...what rubbish..back it up with some source.
You are just justifying coup in Pakistan by naming India which is what they taught to their public. Why was the zia's coup? why was the mushi's coup ? They are bunch of power hungry and undisciplined people nothing else. No one can justify with that.

Dude you have some serious problems in reading....Atleast read what i writing before replying

Once again i am not justifying the coups...All i am saying is how and why it started...

why the army had the problem with Democracy why not with the civilians. as we thrive why didn't they thrive well we have the same culture ...isn't it ?

It will make much more sense if you quote to what precisely you are replying...

RAW is not notorious like ISI... do you know that RAW always has civilian head ? while ISI people come from military ..it is basically a arm of PA.

What makes you think i don't know this??? RAW is not notorious like ISI...What a bloody joke...Every intelligence agencies are notorious and it doesn't matter it has civilian head or not...CIA has civilian head, are they not notorious...Are they not the arm of US Army??? It was the same ISI which CIA worked very closely, created the same Mujhaideen's which are head-ache for all of us now...Anyhow let me say it clearly I AM NOT DEFENDING ISI....However i can understand why PA created it and why it kept the control with it...Can you???

and I failed to understand what is professionalism and discipline meaning in your book. To control out of your mandate and control the policies of government or to take the civilian government as an order. Look what happened in kargil..the rogue general didn't consulted with GOP and our army was following orders from high command. this is what I called professionalism .

I am not sure why are you harping again and again on professionalism...When did i challenge this notion??? Above you were saying i support coup....What is going wrong with you here...

And what geo political consequences you are talking about in 1971 war or for say in any other war with Pakistan.. kindly elaborate.

Had we gone ahead with what our Army wanted i.e. Complete destruction of PA even in the western sector we would have find ourselves in a very big mess...Russia who was keeping China and USA at bay would not have been able to hold them any further...In fact they had instructed us that they are no longer going to use their Veto power should another UN resolution is passed...

I don't think you even know that how many times our general wrote to niazi to surrender so that war can be stopped. IA has never crossed her boundary. And that is their biggest victory.

What crap are you talking about...Not sure what is wrong in calling spade a spade...We trained Mukhti Bahini and supported them...We provide them arms and what not...Is this not crossing the boundary??? I am not sure from where this NIAZI thing came into our discussion...Let's not get into another debate...Please ignore the comment should you chose to reply...

Kindly do provide the link of story of legitimate fears, Indira gandhi, kargil etc.etc. by looking at your understanding ..I can't take your point on face value.

With due respect your understanding about things doesn't look rosy either...I have already explained you my POV...you have every right to reject it...I am not going to spoon feed such simple facts of history....

 

[sachin@india]

Hmmm now we are getting into a never ending argument...I believe we should agree to disagree...Feel free to reply but i might chose not to...so please don't mind....



Were indian leaders on-board with the creation of Pakistan??? IA might and Indian leaders not happy with creation of Pakistan...if this is not a legimitate fear then i am not sure what else could be...I have explained to you why this was a legitimate fear...Kindly tell me why it is not...and please answer this specific question...


When was the last time India faced existential threat from anyone...


I am not going to lecture you as to why Partition happened...It is very convenient to point all the fingers on Jinnah...Truth might be different...As far as Marshal race is concerned then it is their way of motivating their forces...I am sikh and there is a saying One Khalsa is equal to 1.25 Lakh enemy...Now it is upto you how you want to read it...b/w they very well tasted this marchal race crap in 65....



Your problem is that you are not being consistent with the time frame i am talking about...Let me point out the flaws above...Pakistan did not attacked India in 48..They attacked Kashmir which was a princely state at that time...Their attack stopped once we intervened....Again in 65 they did not attack India(this is their stupid theory)...They attacked J&K....b/w this is the era when Pakistan Army was strongest as compared to India...They modernized rapidly due to coziness with US whereas we just learned the importance of Armed forces after 62 spanking...Also they were able to defend themselves pretty handsomely gives you an inclination that their Army had done the job i.e. safegaurding Pakistan from an Indian onslaught.....The problem was their bravado(prior to 65 war) got into their head and brought their downfall....



Good lord!!! Dude Jinnah died in 48...Give me one good leader of his stature in Pakistan at that time...b/w 48-57 there is whopping 9 years....What made Ayub so strong that it took over without any protest from Pakistani's??? If this is not political vacuum then not sure what is as per you....




This is nonsense and nothing else...I have asked a very precise question...I am again copy pasting it(3rd time)....Try and answer it...once you do that you will get what i am saying...


Tell me one thing...Before Partition our Army was one unit...Their training/culture etc all were same...Now how come suddenly people with same ranks behaved so differently??? Is it something to do with genese/race/religion???? Of-course not...then what the heck went wrong???



What's rubbish in it...Indian leaders were not happy with the partition and IA was right next to Pak...I am not saying we tried to take-over but concern was legitimate...Aren't we concerned Chinese will one day attack??? Are they going to?? Who knows...but our concerns are legitimate...no???



Dude you have some serious problems in reading....Atleast read what i writing before replying

Once again i am not justifying the coups...All i am saying is how and why it started...




It will make much more sense if you quote to what precisely you are replying...


What makes you think i don't know this??? RAW is not notorious like ISI...What a bloody joke...Every intelligence agencies are notorious and it doesn't matter it has civilian head or not...CIA has civilian head, are they not notorious...Are they not the arm of US Army??? It was the same ISI which CIA worked very closely, created the same Mujhaideen's which are head-ache for all of us now...Anyhow let me say it clearly I AM NOT DEFENDING ISI....However i can understand why PA created it and why it kept the control with it...Can you???


I am not sure why are you harping again and again on professionalism...When did i challenge this notion??? Above you were saying i support coup....What is going wrong with you here...




Had we gone ahead with what our Army wanted i.e. Complete destruction of PA even in the western sector we would have find ourselves in a very big mess...Russia who was keeping China and USA at bay would not have been able to hold them any further...In fact they had instructed us that they are no longer going to use their Veto power should another UN resolution is passed...


What crap are you talking about...Not sure what is wrong in calling spade a spade...We trained Mukhti Bahini and supported them...We provide them arms and what not...Is this not crossing the boundary??? I am not sure from where this NIAZI thing came into our discussion...Let's not get into another debate...Please ignore the comment should you chose to reply...




With due respect your understanding about things doesn't look rosy either...I have already explained you my POV...you have every right to reject it...I am not going to spoon feed such simple facts of history....

Please prove and provide links that Indian leadership were not happy with the creation of Pakistan we may be sad.... we were not threat to them at all...show me any provocative speech by any Indian leader against Pakistan ? there was no threat from India at all. and their legitimate fears got vanished in 1965...they had till 1958.....what a holy crap !! did we indulged with Pakistan on a full scale war during 1948 ? NO...first coup in Pakistan because of India … what are you smoking dude !! And you perfectly dodged the argument that there was political vacuum in Pakistan when Pakistan was doing better than India. so there was no political vacuum in Pakistan. How do you make out of it. I think Pakistani members can answer to better about their leaders. Infact Pakistani general didn't have this fcuking business to interfere in political matters.

and coming to your question which was answered perfectly before also...let me reply it again

the ambitions and intentions of PA and IA were different. which has lot to do with the leadership in IA and PA. They were power hungry and forced by greed. please read the history of Pakistan regarding coups. We had a secular structure in our ranks people from all background were in our army from north to south. We followed the principle of non alignment they chose to become subservient to US. if we have the same culture or background it won't make our judgment same. this is ridiculous theory.

I'm consistent with the time fame we are talking ...what you think for how long after independence they had the existential threat from india ?


China are building infra at our border they are providing weapons to Pakistan, they had blocked indian resolution against LeT and Hafeez saeed in UN ? they are getting assertive day by day. This is what I called legitimate threat. when india did the same against Pakistan in given time frame ? when our leaders openly called Jihad against Pakistan ? please provide the links to justify the legitimacy of threats that you are talking about. I know you won't as you don't have any.

Dude ...what is your subjective opinion on the coup..please reply I don't want a yes no asnwer.

RAW is notorious are you serious. ok ...let suppose they are notorious...but are they rogue ? any of this agency are rogue ?Are they work outside the mandate provided by the Government ? Do you know ISI has a political wing to look after their politicians...but as per constitution thy are under PM. Please do some study about mehrangate case. I good video I had posted ...do watch.

Had we gone ahead with what our Army wanted i.e. Complete destruction of PA even in the western sector we would have find ourselves in a very big mess...Russia who was keeping China and USA at bay would not have been able to hold them any further...In fact they had instructed us that they are no longer going to use their Veto power should another UN resolution is passed...

^^^ provide the link of this rubbish...infact we never intended to do that . aaahh ..I'm waiting you to post the link which says that IA wanted to completely destroy west Pakistan. Please do so.


I tell you how niazi cam into discussion...as u said that IA wanted to completely destroyed Pakistan...but IA only wanted their Surrender..that is why they kept on writing to NIAZI.

when I asked for links to support your preposterous arguments you run away

 

[gubbi]

Perhaps the process is different.
One can comment all they want from behind tinted glasses.
You have to see it happen to say otherwise.

Mine was more of a rhetorical question to those who believe in all that "lions led by lambs" BS. Except for those Generals in PA who meddled in Pakistani politics, actively, the rest do seem to be quite capable - in that knowing their strengths and weaknesses they did not launch any (mis)adventures against India.

 

[Kyusuibu Honbu]

USSR didn't even invade Afghanistan, so why were they going to invade Pakistan?

The PDPA, which was the ruling party of Afghanistan, invited the Soviets to quell the Islamist uprising against their modernization plan.

Had they wanted to invade Pakistan, they would have done so and they had enough reasons to do so. I remember that the Soviets on many occasions did not cross into Pakistan while chasing the "Moojahidoon". They used to lodge complaints through proper channels while Pakistan was fully involved in an external matter.

This whole "Soviet wants access to warm waters of Pakistan" was a line used by the Americans and Zia's government to sell our involvement in the Soviet war.

Whatever Hamid Gul says, believe the opposite.

As strange as it might sound, India did believe in the possibility of a Soviet invasion of Pakistan. One of the reasons why India wanted Soviets out of Afghanistan.

 

[rubyjackass]

Not familiar with the names on Indian side but interesting choice of selection of general officers from Pakistan side. I fully respect the author’s choice of selection as it was their book to write but I have my own reasons to object. Aslam baig although went on to become COAS but under circumstances open to debate. Even as CAOS he was a person who was politically involved more than any other general in the service of PA, hence not a true military general in my view. Not many ppl know that Hamid Gul was almost sacked after he questioned his posting to POF and was asked to go home in an honourable way eventually, meaning by not an ideal personality military discipline wise. Dont even get me started on Mr talat hussain.

While I appreciate the personality wise diversity in selection of the generals, I feel that there are more able general officers to comment on such subject. In my opinion few choices could have been Sahabzada Yaqoob Khan, Jahangir Karamat, Qadir Baloch or Ghulam Muhammad Malik to name a few. At least thats my opinion, for whatever weight it has.

It is not a coincidence that Indian generals are not well known. I guess we both know why.
I understand that you did not like the composition of Pakistani generals interviewed which only leads me to believe you did not like the image these generals potray. But I think the selection makes sense. It had diverse people who had historically wielded power in the military. All of these generals had extra-curricular activities, some which you like some you don't. You just want to pick modernist generals. But generals who are not sensible should also be on the list because despite that they had power and their decisions influenced today.

 

[livingdead]

We have our share of bad generals, and they have theirs.
The difference is our generals ultimately have to do exactly as told by civilians, so even the crappy ones cant misbehave.
On negative side though, our good generals feel constrained by lack of strategic planning by civilian govts, but I guess we can always live with that.

 

[blain2]

While I have not read the book myself, I do want to point out some key differences between the senior officers of today vs. the senior officers of the past in the Pakistan Army. Up until the 1971 war, the senior ranks of the Pakistan Army had a lot of officers who were slipped into senior ranks because the Pakistan Army needed Pakistani officers to take over from the British post partition. Officers like Ayub Khan would not have gone beyond Col/Brig. given his experience if the criteria of the day was used.

Brig Shaukat Qadir is a more recent example of officers that are being produced by the Pakistan Army who are extremely professional and are spending much more time getting the right level of professional education, experience and time in respective jobs. Auyb Khan got to the rank of CinC Pakistan Army in 23 years, now to get to the same slot, the officers of today's Pakistan Army spend 33 years in service. This is the difference between the senior leadership of the past and the current officer Corps of the Pakistan Army. I totally disagree with the suggestion by the authors or the journalist who wrote the piece that Pakistani officers of the day are any less professional than their Indian counterparts. Not the case at all.

 

[blain2]

We have our share of bad generals, and they have theirs.
The difference is our generals ultimately have to do exactly as told by civilians, so even the crappy ones cant misbehave.
On negative side though, our good generals feel constrained by lack of strategic planning by civilian govts, but I guess we can always live with that.

Misbehavior is all relative. The vast majority of the Pakistani generals serve faithfully and do not subvert the constitution. Its only one General who from time to time makes a call which results in "misbehavior". Financial corruption happens on both sides of the border but only a small minority of senior officers are involved in it.

 

[livingdead]

Misbehavior is all relative. The vast majority of the Pakistani generals serve faithfully and do not subvert the constitution. Its only one General who from time to time makes a call which results in "misbehavior". Financial corruption happens on both sides of the border but only a small minority of senior officers are involved in it.

I would not blame it on "one general" at a time, he depends on regional commanders to do a coup or retain his power.
It will be wrong to call it misbehaviour in pakistani scenario, because the army is involved in running the country even when civilians rule.
The role pakistan army wants to play is different from Indian army.
In case of India it will certainly a misbehaviour by a "rogue" general, simply because there is no precedent of it, as well as because generals have zero experience and involvement in running the country.

I agree about financial irregularity in Indian armed forces, not sure about majority or minority, but it does exist.

 

[gubbi]

I totally disagree with the suggestion by the authors or the journalist who wrote the piece that Pakistani officers of the day are any less professional than their Indian counterparts. Not the case at all.

Totally agree. The main difference though is how the role of military and by extension the post of COAS is viewed in both our countries. In India, military is an extension of the policies of the GoI. In contrast, PA has diversified interests including politics and commercial ventures which dilute, IMHO, their main purpose for existence, i.e. defense of the state of Pakistan.