State of teaching (and recording) military history (MH) in Pakistan

[Joe Shearer]

My dear Joe,

with all due respect Sir. That you are correct about Jinnah. He did talk about lumping Muslim majority provinces, however he differed from Plan B on the following aspects.

1. There was no chopping off of Muslim vs. Hindu areas.
2. The Muslim majority provinces were still to remain under Delhi rule and thus preserving unity of the subcontinent.

Looking back, we could have avoided the bloodshed and all the problems associated with separation, had we followed Jinnah's approach with adjustments here and there.


Do keep the discussion going. I assure you that I won't mock your postings out of "sheer respect" for Shearer.


peace

I do not expect mockery from you; you are too well-informed not to be able to separate fact from wish.

Regarding your two comments, let me take them in time sequence.

Jinnah, I now believe, contrary to what I thought even weeks before, seems to have decided on partition even before the Cabinet Mission came to India, with its plan for three semi-independent 'groupings'. For reasons not very clear to anyone' perhaps due to his residual feeling for the unity of the country, and this is personal surmise, he reluctantly acquiesced to the CMP. When Nehru made his famous qualifying remarks in his 10th of July press conference, he reverted to his old position and demanded total partition, with all powers to the new entity.

Regarding your second part, it is quite true that he did not much fancy the idea of partitioning the Punjab or Bengal. So much so that he even was open to the idea of Suhrawardy's bid for an independent Bengal, with the support of Sharat Bose and Kiran Shankar Roy. The Congress central leadership was unable to do much about this state-level initiative, involving both Muslim League and Congress. I am told by experts on the subject on PTH that it was a popular movement by the terrified Hindus, who remembered the bloodshed of Direct Action Day, that scuttled this plan.

While Jinnah was against partitioning these two provinces, he was eventually open to the idea of partition with provincial partition. Almost all the bloodshed was associated with provincial partitioning, as you have said.

 

[Ticker]

Why are you averse to finding out? There was a clear historical event that marked this. And it was not due to the nature of the accession.

OK, I would. Thanks.

 

[Joe Shearer]

I don't know the dates of these recordings - but I know the date Nehru made his decision.

Nehru’s speech in the Lok Sabha was on June 26, 1952, when he said, “It just does not matter what your Constitution says. If the people of Kashmir do not want it, it will not go there.” If the plebiscite went against India, he would accept the verdict “and we would change our Constitution about it”. This he tells his people in the Lok Sabha.

Whereas, he had made the decision to not to hold the plebiscite at the end of 1948 as per his own admission.

He had done nothing of the kind.

He had merely accepted that it was not going to be held' due to reasons that we all know. The idea remained alive, and the hope always was that Pakistan would withdraw and allow it to be held.

 

[Ticker]

He had done nothing of the kind.

He had merely accepted that it was not going to be held' due to reasons that we all know. The idea remained alive, and the hope always was that Pakistan would withdraw and allow it to be held.

Oh for heavens sake, not again.

Why don't you stop putting words in other peoples mouth. He said what he said and everybody can see those statements - people can see them Joe and read them as well, unless those with a bit of cataracted vision.

 

[Joe Shearer]

OK.

Now we are talking about 1952 (related but different set of events).

1952 was a turning point for Indian Kashmir. How?

This is the year when all-weather Banihal tunnel was completed by the hard work of Indian military.

Why this tunnel change the history?

Because until the completion of this tunnel, Kashmir valley had only access through Punch and also cutoff during winter season.

Thus the Indian military was at the mercy of Pakistani forces during these difficult times.

For an honest historian, Nehru's begging in the UN were just to bide for time. And he did that tactfully.

Pakistanis sat around due to lack of resources, and utter ignorance that Kashmir valley will always be dependent on Pakistan like it did from the time of written history.

But aggressive nations tend to alter history with sheer will power.

And this is what Indians did in 1952.

Once the tunnel was complete, Nehru said bye bye to the UN resolutions.


Thus anyone in Pakistan today who talks about UN resolutions is just wasting his/her time.


There are solutions to the Kashmir problem, but that is for future and not for history (we can only learn from an honest analysis of history. That's all).


to be continued.

You are better read, hence better informed than I had suspected, but perhaps also a little too cynical.

Hand in hand with these military precautions, there was a very stressful series of negotiations going on - some perusal of the draft proceedings would really be illuminating - in the UN Commission offices. I had suggested earlier that you read them; subject to correction, the summary is as follows.

The Commission met in the presence of the Indian and Pakistani delegates, and asked Pakistan for its timetable of withdrawal.

The Pakistanis promptly asked for the Indian plan of withdrawal (India had been asked to withdraw all those not required to maintain law and order throughout Kashmir).

The Commission said that the two matters were not connected. Pakistan replied that they were. The Commission said that they wished to withdraw Indian troops after withdrawal of Pakistani armed personnel, including troops. Pakistan disagreed, and insisted that she had a right to information about Indian withdrawal.

This was where the Commission came to a dead halt.

It then went back to the UN. The General Assembly confirmed that it was right to proceed as it did. The Commission met again, and Pakistan disagreed again.

At that point, Owen Dixon decided, on his own, that the situation was incurable.

When we read those accounts now, we must be on our guard against applying the conditions of today to circumstances then.

Today Pakistan is not too popular.

At that time, having joined both CENTO and SEATO, having allowed American military Advisors to flood in, reform its Army, put in NATO compatible structures, including massively increasing the artillery resources, and absorbed huge quantities of arms and ammunitions, and having started the long procession of PA officers to US training establishments, Pakistan was the blue-eyed boy of the western bloc.

India, with its quirky behaviour, open support for the Communist Chinese, organisation of the Non-aligned movement, with the support of Nasser, Tito and Sukarno, refusal to vote y along with the western powers, refusal to join the Korean War with more than a medical detachment, and decidedly anti-military civilian attitudes, was not.

When we read the accounts of the UN Commission, we need to bear this in mind.

India was the awkward customer, Pakistan the sweetheart du jour. There was every reason to favour Pakistan, every reason to slight India. There was nothing flowing the other way.

I say this because there is an incurable Pakistani tendency to assume that the whole wide world is against them. They are the most misunderstood country and people, and like the younger brother to be in the haveli about to be kicked out. Until this deep stark of self-pity is exorcised, everything that happens will be seen as the machinations of Fate, through the instrumentality of Big Brother next door, against poor little Pakistan.

Oh for heavens sake, not again.

Why don't you stop putting words in other peoples mouth. He said what he said and everybody can see those statements - people can see them Joe and read them as well, unless those with a bit of cataracted vision.

Yes, they can, just as they have been able to read every bit of evidence that I have adduced, and you studiously ignored.

 

[Wickerman]

Oh for heavens sake, not again.

Why don't you stop putting words in other peoples mouth. He said what he said and everybody can see those statements - people can see them Joe and read them as well, unless those with a bit of cataracted vision.

I am quoting from your own post:

“Towards the end of 1948…. it became clear to me then that we would never get the conditions which were necessary for a plebiscite… so I ruled out the plebiscite for all practical purposes.”

So as you can see, the 47 war came to an end by December 48. So by that time Nehru knew, that there wont be a plebiscite because Pakistan was never gonna give up Azad Kashmir and withdraw, and implement the necessary conditions as set forth by the UN (Pakistani demilitarization of Azad Kashmir). I dont see any inconsistencies here. Except for you ignoring everything and interpreting that statement bluntly, even though you know the history of that time period.

 

[Joe Shearer]

I am quoting from your own post:

“Towards the end of 1948…. it became clear to me then that we would never get the conditions which were necessary for a plebiscite… so I ruled out the plebiscite for all practical purposes.”

So as you can see, the 47 war came to an end by December 48. So by that time Nehru knew, that there wont be a plebiscite because Pakistan was never gonna give up Azad Kashmir and withdraw, and implement the necessary conditions as set forth by the UN (Pakistani demilitarization of Azad Kashmir). I dont see any inconsistencies here. Except for you ignoring everything and interpreting that statement bluntly, even though you know the history of that time period.

About people reading what Nehru wrote, and the other bits I added, I rest my case.

 

[Ticker]

You are better read, hence better informed than I had suspected, but perhaps also a little too cynical.

Hand in hand with these military precautions, there was a very stressful series of negotiations going on - some perusal of the draft proceedings would really be illuminating - in the UN Commission offices. I had suggested earlier that you read them; subject to correction, the summary is as follows.

The Commission met in the presence of the Indian and Pakistani delegates, and asked Pakistan for its timetable of withdrawal.

The Pakistanis promptly asked for the Indian plan of withdrawal (India had been asked to withdraw all those not required to maintain law and order throughout Kashmir).

The Commission said that the two matters were not connected. Pakistan replied that they were. The Commission said that they wished to withdraw Indian troops after withdrawal of Pakistani armed personnel, including troops. Pakistan disagreed, and insisted that she had a right to information about Indian withdrawal.

This was where the Commission came to a dead halt.

It then went back to the UN. The General Assembly confirmed that it was right to proceed as it did. The Commission met again, and Pakistan disagreed again.

At that point, Owen Dixon decided, on his own, that the situation was incurable.

When we read those accounts now, we must be on our guard against applying the conditions of today to circumstances then.

Today Pakistan is not too popular.

At that time, having joined both CENTO and SEATO, having allowed American military Advisors to flood in, reform its Army, put in NATO compatible structures, including massively increasing the artillery resources, and absorbed huge quantities of arms and ammunitions, and having started the long procession of PA officers to US training establishments, Pakistan was the blue-eyed boy of the western bloc.

India, with its quirky behaviour, open support for the Communist Chinese, organisation of the Non-aligned movement, with the support of Nasser, Tito and Sukarno, refusal to vote y along with the western powers, refusal to join the Korean War with more than a medical detachment, and decidedly anti-military civilian attitudes, was not.

When we read the accounts of the UN Commission, we need to bear this in mind.

India was the awkward customer, Pakistan the sweetheart du jour. There was every reason to favour Pakistan, every reason to slight India. There was nothing flowing the other way.

I say this because there is an incurable Pakistani tendency to assume that the whole wide world is against them. They are the most misunderstood country and people, and like the younger brother to be in the haveli about to be kicked out. Until this deep stark of self-pity is exorcised, everything that happens will be seen as the machinations of Fate, through the instrumentality of Big Brother next door, against poor little Pakistan.



Yes, they can, just as they have been able to read every bit of evidence that I have adduced, and you studiously ignored.

You induced what you though were facts, which were not facts but facts twisted to suit your point of view.

I thought this was a History thread. But you still manage to cleverly link the current underpinnings with unrelated historical events to bash Pakistan.

Somebody was asking what a mindset is.

 

[Wickerman]

You induced what you though were facts, which were not facts but facts twisted to suit your point of view.

I thought this was a History thread. But you still manage to cleverly link the current underpinnings with unrelated historical events to bash Pakistan.

Somebody was asking what a mindset is.

Since it is a history thread, why dont you ignore the parts that is someone's point of view and concentrate on refuting his argument with relevant facts? Calling every bit of relevant history and evidence as "twisted", without even justifying HOW it is twisted and then proceeding to use an ad-hom attack to talk about a person's mindset is an evasive maneuver. It does not give your points any credibility.

 

[Wickerman]

Repetitive post self deleted

 

[Ticker]

I am quoting from your own post:

“Towards the end of 1948…. it became clear to me then that we would never get the conditions which were necessary for a plebiscite… so I ruled out the plebiscite for all practical purposes.”

So as you can see, the 47 war came to an end by December 48. So by that time Nehru knew, that there wont be a plebiscite because Pakistan was never gonna give up Azad Kashmir and withdraw, and implement the necessary conditions as set forth by the UN (Pakistani demilitarization of Azad Kashmir). I dont see any inconsistencies here. Except for you ignoring everything and interpreting that statement bluntly, even though you know the history of that time period.

About people reading what Nehru wrote, and the other bits I added, I rest my case.

Then why did he lie to his own people as late as 1952, and also continued negotiations with the UN when in 1948 he decided not to hold the plebiscite.

yaar tum log samajhtay ho ke yahan saaray andhay bethay hein aur tum jis ka chaho phuddu laga lo.

 

[Joe Shearer]

Since it is a history thread, why dont you ignore the parts that is someone's point of view and concentrate on refuting his argument with relevant facts? Calling every bit of relevant history and evidence as "twisted", without even justifying HOW it is twisted and then proceeding to use an ad-hom attack to talk about a person's mindset is an evasive maneuver. It does not give your points any credibility.

But that's all he does - ever - apart from an initial opening statement outlining what he thinks is the historical record. It usually turns out to be what he wishes had happened, but nothing will convince him otherwise. Facts just bounce off him; he is proof against them.

P. S.: somebody's been teaching the young man bad words. Now he makes a brave show of being grown up by strewing vulgarities through his posts.

 

[Ticker]

Since it is a history thread, why dont you ignore the parts that is someone's point of view and concentrate on refuting his argument with relevant facts? Calling every bit of relevant history and evidence as "twisted", without even justifying HOW it is twisted and then proceeding to use an ad-hom attack to talk about a person's mindset is an evasive maneuver. It does not give your points any credibility.

Please go back and read the stuff. I have refuted what I thought was incorrect and twisting of facts.

When there is a reflection of a person's mindset cleverly imbued within a topical discussion, I point out. This is my right as a poster.

 

[Ticker]

But that's all he does - ever - apart from an initial opening statement outlining what he thinks is the historical record. It usually turns out to be what he wishes had happened, but nothing will convince him otherwise. Facts just bounce off him; he is proof against them.

P. S.: somebody's been teaching the young man bad words. Now he makes a brave show of being grown up by strewing vulgarities through his posts.

I think such remarks are uncalled for.

When you make such nauseating commentary it is kosher, but when it is responded to, it becomes vulgarity strewn.

Ironic isn't it.

 

[SamantK]

I think such remarks are uncalled for.

When you make such nauseating commentary it is kosher, but when it is responded to, it becomes vulgarity strewn.

Ironic isn't it.

And all along you pointing out subtle but rude remarks on his age were fine because those were not responded to? If you have the heart to play dirty, expect some dirt to fall on your clothes too..