What's new

Is the “Pakistan Military” truly Pakistani in origin?

Surge in Donkey population in Pakistan ...

 
. .
.

Bondage ... a sexual pleasure term ..................lolllllllllllllllll
 
.
.

Bondage ... a sexual pleasure term ..................lolllllllllllllllll

ISPR really is cringe….can’t believe I used to believe everything they said like it was the utmost truth. I was seriously brainwashed.

Thankfully I’m no longer under the spell of these thugs.
 
.
Because nehru cut them down to size. Not sure how effective LAK was but nehru nay indian army ko nakail daal dee. See faisal warraich vlog on this
You are right, he (and his pet Raksha Mantri, Krishna Menon) did that, but he, and the nation, had to pay a very heavy price.

No, it has it origins in the forces under Mir Jaffer that betrayed Sirajudollah and joined Lord Clive to give British their first territory in South Asia.
Those formations were not retained.

Reads well, but completely false.

British Pakisani military should have been dismantled on 14 August 1947 and a completely new original Pakistani military should have been setup from scratch. Now its too late. Zia tried but his work was only half done before he was assassinated by British Pakistani alliance
And you think a military - Army, Navy, Air Force - can be set up just like that? In what way would this 'original Pakistani military' been different from what exists today? Who would have led it? Their training? Their recruitment?

Nehru went way too overboard with demilitarization that would ultimately lead to 1962 disaster. Result he had to ask Kennedy for USAF assistance.

It was nothing to do with demilitarisation.
 
Last edited:
. .
LINK to original - From “Ancient Pakistan” facebook page

Pakistan Armed Forces - Origins of Arrogance & Civilian Disdain
View attachment 923521

On the day Prime Minister Imran Khan was at the Kremlin in Moscow meeting with President Putin, little is known that senior representatives of the Pakistan Armed Forces were in Washington meeting with senior Pentagon officials.

While the Government of Pakistan was attempting to build a Eurasian alliance (with China and Russia) and strengthening its geopolitical position in an increasingly vocal "Global South" (Asia and Africa), the Pakistan Armed Forces were busy trying to undermine Pakistan's sovereignty and ouster PM Imran Khan.

It's quite clear now after recent events where the loyalties of our armed forces are, and they certainly are not with Pakistan, despite several ISPR music videos which pretend they do.

The announcement by the former COAS where he termed Russia's military operation as an "invasion" should clearly explain to you the mentality of our armed forces. They have always been a problem for Pakistan politically and for decades we pretended that it wasn’t.

In order to understand this problem, we need to discuss where this all originated from.

> Jinnah's Visit To Army Staff College
On 14 June 1948, Jinnah visited the Army Staff College in Quetta where he met with officers and made a public speech at the Officers Mess. To make a long story short, he was shocked by the mentality of the officers and expressed his alarm at their casual disdain for civilian leadership. There is no record of what discussions took place in private between the senior officers and Jinnah, but it does appear that Jinnah was put off by what they said.

Interestingly, the senior-most officer present, next below the British commandant, was none other than Lt. Col. Mohammad Yahya Khan. Two participants of that training course would later rise to the ranks of lieutenant general - they were none other than Major Sahibzada Yaqub Ali Khan and Major Abdul Majid.

Jinnah's view of the military wasn't hidden and upon making his public speech at the Officers Mess, he made his point clear:

“One thing more. I am persuaded to say this because during my talks with one or two very high-ranking officers I discovered that they did not know the implications of the oath taken by the troops of Pakistan...I want you to remember...that the executive authority flows from the head of the Government of Pakistan, who is the Governor General and, therefore, any command or order that may come to you cannot come without the sanction of the executive head. This is the legal position.”

Interestingly, Jinnah's visit is highlighted on the Army Staff College‘s official website, but makes no mention of the contents of his speech.

The military were well aware of Jinnah's stance and insistence of civilian democratic leadership in the newly independent Pakistan. On the very day of Pakistan's independence on 14 August 1947, Jinnah, who had just become Governor General, scolded one young army officer who claimed to have said:

“Instead of giving us the opportunity to serve our country in positions where our natural talents and native genius could be used to the greatest advantage, important posts are being entrusted, as had been done in the past, to foreigners. British officers have been appointed to head the three fighting services, and a number of other foreigners are in key senior appointments. This was not our understanding of how Pakistan should be run.”

Jinnah was not amused and replied back bluntly:

“Do not to forget that the armed forces are the servants of the people and you do not make national policy; it is we, the civilians, who decide these issues and it is your duty to carry out these tasks with which you are entrusted. I should like you to study the constitution, which is in force in Pakistan at present and understand its true constitutional and legal implications when you say that you will be faithful to the constitution of the Dominion.“

What both these incidents indicate is that some within the army had already developed extra-constitutional ambitions within less than a year of Pakistan's independence, even while the father of the nation was alive. How and why did that happen?

Although a universal disdain for civilian leadership is present in military brass around the world, the situation in Pakistan was a little different. Disdain was coupled with arrogance and a superficial superiority complex. To understand the origins of this, we need yet another history lesson.

Sources:
1. https://www.dawn.com/news/844868/civil-military-relations
2. https://www.nation.com.pk/22-Nov-2012/quaid-s-visit-to-staff-college-quetta
3. http://www.jinnahofpakistan.com/2010/04/responsibilities-of-defence-force-14th.html
4. https://www.aajenglish.tv/news/30305592

> Colonial Origins
Contrary to popular belief, the Pakistan Army was not formed in 1947, but rather 1920. How is that possible? The same reason why the Pakistan Railways was established in 1861 - we simply inherited it from our former colonial rulers. In the case of Pakistan Railways, we inherited it from the North Western State Railway.

But where did the Pakistan Army originate from? Here's a brief timeline:

>1857:
- British Raj established - "Presidency armies" formed throughout the colony.

> 1895:
- Presidency armies abolished.
- Replaced with 4 commands; the Punjab, Bengal, Bombay and Madras commands.

> 1908:
- Punjab Command and Bengal Command merged into Northern Army.
- Bombay Command and Madras Command merged into Southern Army.

> 1920:
- Northern Army and Southern Army abolished.
- Reverted back to four commands; this time as Northern, Eastern, Southern and Western commands.

> 1942:
- Northern and Western commands merged to form the North Western Army.
- This was done to better guard the frontier regions of North West Frontier and Baluchistan.

> 1945:
- North Western Army reverted to Northern Command.

> 1947:
- Northern Command renamed to Pakistan Army.

So the Pakistan Army was essentially inherited from the former colonial force present in what would become Pakistan. Similarly, the remaining commands (Western, Eastern and Southern), in what would become the Republic of India, were inherited by the Indian Army.

This is why Frank Messervy is considered the first General of the Pakistan Army. He was made General Officer Commander-in-Chief of the Northern Command in 1946. In 1947, when it was renamed to the Pakistan Army, he was granted the honourary rank of general until 1948.

> North Western Army Culture
The imperial culture of the British Indian Army was one of divide and control.

  1. British officers, who were always higher ranking, were kept separate from "native officers", who were normally lower ranking.

  2. Interaction between officers and civilians was discouraged, especially after 1857, where resentment and distrust against civilians had been further entrenched (especially against the Muslim population as highlighted in the Hunter Commission). The common people of British India were seen as its biggest enemy, and hence the military wanted to ensure that officers were separated as much as possible from the civilian population.

  3. British Indian Army, apart from hospitals, decided to build their own gated neighbourhoods, clubs, golf courses, resorts etc. These were very well maintained and among the best in the entire colony. As a result, the civilian population viewed officers living a luxurious lifestyle.
  4. Furthermore, the North Western Army had a particular daunting task as it had to regularly come in contact with rebelling Pashtun tribes, Baloch tribes and skirmishes in Punjab and Sindh. Of all the commands, the North Western Army was the most stretched and heavily utilized. You would well imagine what the average officer thought of civilians during this period.
> Pakistan Army Inheriting A Mess
Unfortunately in 1947, the Pakistan Army inherited this military culture and nothing was done to expunge the new Pakistan Army of its colonial arrogance and disdain for civilians. Even prior to independence, there was minimal interaction between the political leadership and the future leaders of the Pakistan Army.

After independence, the interaction remained cold and was not helped by the unwise administrative decision to keep civil and military leadership separated, with Karachi as the capital and Rawalpindi as the army headquarters.

Even the nearest provincial capital (Peshawar) was about 200 kilometers away. The farthest provincial capital, Dhaka, was light years away. This perhaps explains why the people of East Bengal hardly ever figured in the calculations of the GHQ, except as an irksome nuisance.

> Questions To Ask Yourself

Place yourself in 1857 and ask yourself these questions:

Why would a colonial power want to establish a military force in its colony? Would it be to protect the common people (the colonized) and serve them? Or would it be to protect the integrity of the colony (the colonizer)?

The answer is obviously the latter. The British formed military forces in all of its colonies to keep the common people (or “natives”) in line by any means necessary. The 1857 War of Independence obviously played a big role in having such a strong force, but it appears the Bolshevik revolution in Russia and subsequent expansion of the USSR also scared the British. Then World War 1 and subsequent rise of Nazi Germany and Colonial Japan leading to World War 2 did not help matters either - all were used as an excuse to maintain a large military force. Sound familiar?

So, if we inherited this colonial military, why today are all of you surprised at the history of military coups?

Why are you surprised by arrogance of military generals or gated communities like DHA or the fact English is still the official language of the military? Has ISPR ever heard of a language called Urdu?

In contrast, the Turkish Army to this day has maintained some of its Ottoman traditions going back over 900 years. Why couldn't the Pakistan Army similarly adopt changes in 1947 to rid itself of colonial disparagement and become a truly independent military force for the people?

We need to have a serious discussion on the role of the Pakistan Armed Forces in politics and where the loyalties of this military actually are.

70 years have past, yet GHQ still thinks it's 1945.

Now do you understand why no PAF jet ever intercepted drones in our airspace?
Now do you understand why the Abbottabad raid was allowed to happen?
Now do you understand who pushed for military coups in our country?

any explanation why Pakistani army deviated from the British Royal Army and Indian Army traditions ?
 
.
There’s no point crying over spilt milk.

Now that the Military Inc has been exposed to the bone, what are the solutions?

Some practical options for a start

1. Civilian head leading ISI
2. Summon all foreign diplomats against meeting the COAS
3. Jinnah’s golden words of army remaining in their aukaat in every office (instead of Jinnah’s pics). Maybe even print it on every bank note for good measure (went overboard there)
4. Limiting Chief’s tenure to 2 years and no options for extension
5. No military secretary to eavesdrop on political leader’s conversations
6. Military personnel able to approach civilian courts
7. Cut down to ISPR to size, atleast by 90%.

More solutions welcome.
Sell the tanks; you don't need them, they achieved nothing in any of the wars.
Increase the artillery; you want to play defensive, defend your territorial integrity, you need more guns.
Convert most of the mechanised infantry (two divisions) into HAT/LAT equivalents. Arm them to the teeth with A-T MANPADs.
Reduce the Corps in the Punjab to 2, instead of 4 (I, IV, V, XXX).
More reduction possible, but this is good to calm the raging testosterone of the Army.

any explanation why Pakistani army deviated from the British Royal Army and Indian Army traditions ?
Mir Jafar's descendant and another traitor who stopped making cars and got into politics (Jinnah's single worst selection of personnel) got too big for their boots, and tried to introduce the habits of the Indian Political Service into Pakistan. Ayub Khan, considered unfit for higher command just a decade or so before, came to power. End of fairy tale.

Fortunately Jinnah never lived to see this desecration of all that he had fought for.
 
.
Oh not just that.
The day Fauj's official language is changed to Urdu,
our Units give up colonial silver and other memorabilia
wear shalwar qameez as uniform
and live in the city like everyone else, instead of ASKARI

We will fix the issue.
Get this done.

PLEASE.

Officers cannot be promoted past Lt Colonel, unless details of their family ( specially connections abroad ) are provided.
.....AND for each step up after that.
 
. .
Glad to see this view spreading….I’ve been reading a lot of stuff on Twitter these days and listening to podcasts. Seems like generally this view is becoming more and more popular.
 
.
Just bumping this up again because it’s more true now than ever
 
.
India inherited the same as what Pakistan Army inherited, the western ideology and the hegemony and coerion prevalent in the British Raj.

Why this discrepancy, the clear difference in the Indian Army, compared to the Pakistan Army. Are they more equal than the others, so as to say.

Or the sheer size of India and the instilled democratic traditions. It should be more holier than thou, the Indian Army looking at the caste divide, and the upper caste superioity, or maybe this is the reason there is a divide in the Indian Army, with Brahmins taking the top slots but that is not manifested in the India, overall as country with 1.4 billion people.

Like internally there is a divide but that is not visible outside the Indian Army.

Many reasons for this:

1. Historically:
The North Western Command was essentially at war throughout its existence…when they weren’t fighting Baloch sardars, they were fighting Punjabi chieftains. They viewed civilians with suspicion and were at war with them mostly. When the North Western Army was renamed to Pakistan Army, the culture remained the same.

2. Timeline
Another point which isn’t raised in the amount of time the British had occupied the subcontinent. They only reached Sindh in 1842 and the last remaining regions of what is now Pakistan came under British rule by 1890 (and that too by flimsy peace agreements). Less than 60 years later the Union Jack would be lowered in Quetta and Peshawar.

In contrast Bengal and most of the Ganges plain/Deccan plateau was under British rule since the 1790s which mean about 150 years of British rule.

This point is important because the British had time to pacify the locals, whereas in our region they didn’t.

3. Post-Independence
India worked hard in regards to civilian rule - land reforms and patience in allowing democracy to mature Is now being felt, although the rise of Hindu nationalism and caste is a huge issue still in India. Pakistan didn’t do any of that…and the results are before you.
 
. .

Country Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom