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

[FaujHistorian]

It appears, without any explicit 'smoking gun' kind of proof being available, that the racist and bigoted mentality that stemmed from the defective and distorted version of the 'narrative of Pakistan' that was current in those years influenced the strategic planning of Pakistani military planners to a significant extent in 1965. Here, it needs to be pointed out that the original, keystone strategy was Operation Gibraltar. It appears that Operation Grand Slam was a contingency plan drawn up at divisional level by the division commander, with the full approval of the high command, of Ayub, but without the participation of the rest of the Army. What follows is this paraphrase of the thought that drove the campaign:

"The timid and fearful Hindus will be intimidated when a small handful of dedicated and zealous professionals mount a violent attack on them, and they will abandon their prepared positions and retreat in panic."

This was at the Army level; at Division level, the argument continued:

"Just in case things go wrong, because they rush more troops in, we have another opportunity for victory, with the bloated extra mass of troops in Kashmir fed by only one roadway. If we cut the roadway, the Indians will have to surrender because of hunger."

It appears, in contrast to the first, there was no religious or religion-born misplaced assessment of strategic outcomes in the second plan. This second plan, Grand Slam, was far more professional in approach, inasmuch as it took into account only the numbers and probabilities into account, not a hidden additional capability inculcated by religious fanaticism.

However, this was an individual commander's plan, not that of the Army. The strategic planning of the Army tolerated this variation on its theme within the overall context of disparaging the 'timid, Hindu' response of the Indians, which did not see a reaction outside the boundaries of Kashmir as a possibility. This strategic blindness displays two, not just one of the ill-effects of the religious influence on strategic planning. At its core, it demonstrated the wholly-mistaken force equation of 1 Pakistani equalling 10 Hindus; outside that core, there is the mistaken notion that the whole of India, colony and princely India alike, were partitioned by the British between Muslim and Hindu before they left. This is a stupid and ill-educated notion that has been mentioned even by seemingly knowledgeable commentators, and arises, in my opinion, from the fact, that with the untimely deaths of Jinnah and Liaqat Ali close together much of the informed knowledge that they would have brought to the understanding of the situation. Instead the entire field was left to the dulled and insensitive discourse of the religious right.

In strategic terms, having been misled by their own assessments, the strategic staff made no attempt at all to consider an Indian counter-attack elsewhere, along the international boundary, and it is possibly due to

• an ill-concealed contempt for Indian courage and fighting spirit of the 'Hindu' Indian;
• an unshakeable belief that partition was not over until Pakistan had achieved all her own objectives, based on the mistaken notion that all Muslim-majority areas within and without the direct and indirect control of the British belonged to Pakistan, never mind what others thought;

These are the ways in which religion infuses nationalism and that in turn infuses the thinking of decision makers, military and foreign service alike.

Joe yaar.

Please go easy on us. OK. You are the last person I'd expect to see a bit carried away.

My reference to religious stuff was for the "historians" that are the focus of this thread.


Believe you me, Pakistani officers are not blinded (at least not totally) by the religious mumbo jumbo. How could they? Pak officers and Indian officers in 65 mostly came from the same stock. Many of the seniors had already fought side by side in WWII, in Wazirastan, and other places. They knew each others' innies and outies.

So let's not try to destroy the whole of Pakistani nationalism, otherwise you too will be getting into Mullah trap, that I have begged to be avoided.

Where we get hit is the amount of money, and as a result amount of weapons that we have.

What Pakistan did in Kashmir was very similar to what Indian army did in the states of deccan, and Junagarh, and E. Bengal.

So let's not get too emotional. We have plenty of other threads to do pak-india chest thumping.


Thank you.

 

[FaujHistorian]

This is true not only for pakistani ,but to some extent all asian histories.I see enormous chest thumping in indian,iranian and arab circles too.Sometimes totally unrealistic stories are made up,but as history student i can say that in india once u go past the basic 'treat me like a king' glorification in basic studies,the upper levels are pretty accurate.And this partly because of good indian historians like romilla thapar and irfan habib.Some of these being of the marxist school are pretty brutal on unecessary glorification.

Thank you.

You Sir are honorable person. I salute you .

 

[Joe Shearer]

Joe yaar.

Please go easy on us. OK. You are the last person I'd expect to see a bit carried away.

My reference to religious stuff was for the "historians" that are the focus of this thread.


Believe you me, Pakistani officers are not blinded (at least not totally) by the religious mumbo jumbo. How could they? Pak officers and Indian officers in 65 mostly came from the same stock. Many of the seniors had already fought side by side in WWII, in Wazirastan, and other places. They knew each others' innies and outies.

So let's not try to destroy the whole of Pakistani nationalism, otherwise you too will be getting into Mullah trap, that I have begged to be avoided.

Where we get hit is the amount of money, and as a result amount of weapons that we have.

What Pakistan did in Kashmir was very similar to what Indian army did in the states of deccan, and Junagarh, and E. Bengal.

So let's not get too emotional. We have plenty of other threads to do pak-india chest thumping.


Thank you.

As a matter of fact, I happen to believe that the core of the Pakistani military, including the Army, is far more liberal than society at large. Obviously my English has decayed over the years; my references to the Maududi lot and to politicians like ZAB seem to be referring to the fauji as a whole, which was wholly unintended.

What was intended was to infer that the professional soldier might be misled by the prevailing atmosphere and might make plans which were based on considerations not strictly professional. When they did their job in a professional way, as Akhtar Hussain Malik did, or as later, in the same sector, Eftekhar did, they did a great job. Let us not forget that Eftekhar actually broke through in 71, in the teeth of the trend prevailing everywhere else.

When they were fooling around with subjective criteria, they got punished - severely.

I am very annoyed with myself at having conveyed such a poor impression of my basic point.

 

[FaujHistorian]

As a matter of fact, I happen to believe that the core of the Pakistani military, including the Army, is far more liberal than society at large. Obviously my English has decayed over the years; my references to the Maududi lot and to politicians like ZAB seem to be referring to the fauji as a whole, which was wholly unintended.

What was intended was to infer that the professional soldier might be misled by the prevailing atmosphere and might make plans which were based on considerations not strictly professional. When they did their job in a professional way, as Akhtar Hussain Malik did, or as later, in the same sector, Eftekhar did, they did a great job. Let us not forget that Eftekhar actually broke through in 71, the teeth of the trend prevailing everywhere else.

When they were fooling around with subjective criteria, they got punished - severely.

I am very annoyed with myself at having conveyed such a poor impression of my basic point.

No harm done Joe Sahib.

Thank you for your comments.

 

[Wickerman]

Oh By the way Indians too are fed on lies just like us. The only difference is that they are 10 times bigger so they can commit 10 times more mistakes and get away with it.

I agree to a certain extent. For instance, I distinctly remember back in 1998, in geography class in my 10th grade, we were asked to mark all the states and territories in India on a India map. Every map that I bought from the stationery, showed Jammu and Kashmir in its ENTIRETY. There was no Pakistan Occupied Kashmir/Azad Kashmir. There was no Line of Control. There was no Aksai Chin. But that is not what facts are, and for a long time I grew up not knowing that Pakistan and China actually controlled almost 50-60% of that state. I dont know if recently things have changed in Indian textbooks. Am not in school anymore

Apart from this, we are not taught any lies. 1962 is presented as a loss. Although they dont go into details about Nehru's foreign policy. 1965 is presented as neither a victory nor a loss - which was actually the case. The only victory for us was that we didnt let Pakistan achieve its objectives, and therefore even though the Pakistani army did not surrender, per se, they still failed to meet objectives.

When it comes to the Kashmir issue, yes Kashmir is always held as an Indian state. We are taught about how it was acceded to India etc., But not sure what other details they should present to make it unbiased. Certainly they dont present, Pakistan's pov.

So I dont think history is THAT distorted from this end. Yes to a certain extent its biased, I agree. But to what extent can only be commented on by a person that knows all aspects of history. Personally I think not that much.

 

[notorious_eagle]

from: www.ndu.edu.pk/SOPs/war_wing/books_list.doc

Appreciate the link but can you please find me the specific highlighted part where it clearly states that 10 Hindus are equal to 1 Muslim. From what i know is that this opinion was held by some officers but never followed by Pakistan Army as a policy.

 

[Joe Shearer]

Appreciate the link but can you please find me the specific highlighted part where it clearly states that 10 Hindus are equal to 1 Muslim. From what i know is that this opinion was held by some officers but never followed by Pakistan Army as a policy.

Now this (Notorious Eagle's comments) is what I was trying to say: some officers held this view, acted on it, and got punished. Others reacted to a military situation in military terms, and did rather well.

Further, those officers who held such views were persuaded that way because of prevalent trends in influential circles of society.

 

[Contrarian]

I read your last post - thank you. And it is not like I played the last post for you...... a joke

If I may, in professional armies there are methodologies and professional practices and procedures which are preceded by all undertakings. Yet I do not know of any war that went exactly according to the prepared plans. Because there always is a dialectic which functions. National psyches, religious history and precedents etc etc will always be assessed and taken in to account before a plan against an enemy is carved out or to put in place one's own plan in practice. Like Chanakya's Arthshastra (I hope I name it correctly), relevant examples from Mahabharata or other examples like lessons from our Prophet's (PBUH) wars or other Islamic wars etc etc. However, these things and many other relevant aspects relating to psyche of enemy and own nation, its societal precedents, national characteristics including fears and perceptions etc etc are all assessed and necessary conclusions are drawn. Based on these aspects certain response measures are suggested for implementation.

All this is part and parcel of professional planning for higher direction of war.

I agree entirely, misuse of religious text without understanding the grounds for it will lead to nothing but fallacy and foolishness in action.
But as to how much of these actually reflect in decisions as compared to the need for personal glory needs to be ascertained further.
Many foolish strategic and tactical decisions had less of the "Hindu" perception in mind and more of simple professional incompetence. The perception bait was used more often to allay fear and concerns on the soundness of a plan down the ladder.
After all, Ayub Khan writes very negatively of the "Hindu" mentality in his "ghost writer" books but was Op Gibraltar just the outcome of this perception or his wish to claim glory?

You are write. There is nothing wrong with studying past wars and wars in religious history and learning from them. Infact one should do this, not just from one religion but atleast the major religions of the world.

The problem however in this case is that when the books that you teach to your Officers include bigoted material not worth anything more than burning during winters to teach about your enemy, you make the biggest mistake possible.
You give a wrong impression of your enemy and his capability, to your military.

Now While initially the people who may have written this material and the earlier generations would know the truth, but write falses to bloat national psyche for the younger generations, conduct these operations its ok. But when the younger generation comes, who knows of your principal enemy through these books only and has grown up with a certain bent of mind fed from young on these falses, he is likely to conduct major mistakes!

And Pakistani Army is a classic testament to conducting mistakes after mistakes and not learning from them.
What is the common theme that emerges from this: Pakistani Army constantly underestimates India's response to its military actions.

May i ask Why is this? Why this repeated mistake?

Could it have anything to do with the fact that from young Pakistani's are taught that Hindus and weak and coward and not warlike? They will submit if pressure is brought upon them? And the same young children grow up to join the army. Now you expect that suddenly the Army will wipe clean all these notions brought up from childhood? this inherent belief?

Add to that the Army itself teaches these aspects at a much lower level, but a level nonetheless - reading the book i mentioned.

Think about these questions.
And it is in this notion that i say when the book like the one i mentioned, indirectly but clearly ascribes that Hindus are cowards among other jewels.

 

[Contrarian]

Appreciate the link but can you please find me the specific highlighted part where it clearly states that 10 Hindus are equal to 1 Muslim. From what i know is that this opinion was held by some officers but never followed by Pakistan Army as a policy.

The book does not say that 1 Muslim=10 Hindus.
It ascribes in indirect but clear ways that Hindus are weak, cowards, etc

 

[Contrarian]

Believe you me, Pakistani officers are not blinded (at least not totally) by the religious mumbo jumbo. How could they? Pak officers and Indian officers in 65 mostly came from the same stock. Many of the seniors had already fought side by side in WWII, in Wazirastan, and other places. They knew each others' innies and outies.

So let's not try to destroy the whole of Pakistani nationalism, otherwise you too will be getting into Mullah trap, that I have begged to be avoided.

Where we get hit is the amount of money, and as a result amount of weapons that we have.

What Pakistan did in Kashmir was very similar to what Indian army did in the states of deccan, and Junagarh, and E. Bengal.

This is not about destroying Pakistani nationalism, unless you are of the view that Pakistani nationalism is based on notions about how Hindus are.

The point is that why is it that PA makes the same genre of mistakes again and again. Could it have anything to do with how they view India as Hindu and how they view Hindus and the qualities(or lack thereof) they ascribe to them.
We (all of us) know that PA is not blinded to religious crap. But we do know they are highly influenced by it despite being the most secular organization of Pakistan.
And we are talking about what those influences may or maynot have resulted in.

Btw you are wrong in your post about Kargil. PA gave hundreds of Stinger missiles to its soldiers in Kargil. They were successful in shooting down 1 plane and 1 chopper because of it.
However, after this IAF changed its strategy from low level bombings to high level precision bombings where Stingers are ineffective.

 

[VCheng]

Appreciate the link but can you please find me the specific highlighted part where it clearly states that 10 Hindus are equal to 1 Muslim. From what i know is that this opinion was held by some officers but never followed by Pakistan Army as a policy.

I posted the link merely to indicate the books being read by the leadership, that is all.

All I will say is that it is the right of any armed force to indoctrinate its cadres with the type of ideology it perceives as best suited to meeting its responsibilities.

It should also be kept in mind that opinions of the leadership, however formed, do affect the formation and implementation of policies.

 

[Ticker]

An aspect which is brought up again and again by the Indian posters here and some Pakistanis as well is that the some how strategic planning and response actions resorted to are the result of Pakistan Army’s religious inclination and thought. And somehow that Pakistan Army has a thinking which is more akin to Taliban school of thought. And that the Army at the decision making level thinks that 1 Muslim = 10 Hindus etc.

Nowhere in the strategic planning, religion comes in as an influencing factor. It is plain unabashed real-politik and is based on your capability against my capability. Religion may be used as a motivating factor, which is a perfectly workable option and many many nations in the world including India resort to such practices.

At the same time, it is pushed in that the political leaders and the public at large are more open and that Pakistan Army and its actions are at cross purpose with those of the nation. And then it is mentioned separately, and again and again, that there is a clear divide between the corrupt political leaders and public which demands honest and patriotic people at the helm. To me, the purpose behind such a propagandist diatribe and approach is more than apparent.

It is also said that Pakistan is weak due to use and application of proxies, because in post 9/11 environment proxies were equated with terrorism by the same people who earlier used these proxies and practices. Pakistan is in a bit of weaker state due to certain other factors and the major one being the war going on in our neighbourhood which has affected us negatively – it is coming to an end and we will gradually get out of its negativities.

Every body thought that the space for application of proxies has squeezed or has finished in this world. Libya, Syria, India through Afghanistan and certain other places have ruled this out. The space is still there and is being exploited and would continue to be exploited.

The relation of history and exploitation of history are well known. I thought it appropriate to highlight some of these aspects.

 

[FaujHistorian]

.....
Btw you are wrong in your post about Kargil. PA gave hundreds of Stinger missiles to its soldiers in Kargil. They were successful in shooting down 1 plane and 1 chopper because of it.
However, after this IAF changed its strategy from low level bombings to high level precision bombings where Stingers are ineffective.

Two planes were downed on the Pakistani side of LOC. Yes. After that IAF got careful and their pilots kept very strict course while bombing our guys sitting in Kargil.

That's why PA didn't fire at them as long as they were on the Indian side of LOC. This was perhaps a de-facto recognition by PA that NLF was sitting on Indian side of the LOC.

.......
The point is that why is it that PA makes the same genre of mistakes again and again. Could it have anything to do with how they view India as Hindu .

Both PA and IA make the same mistakes as did the Indian rajas for the last 1000+ years.

IA being 10 times bigger raja (maha-raja) means they make the same successful raids again and again.

While PA being smaller raja makes the same "mistakes" again and again.

Both of them are sons of soil and thus continue repeating the behavior over and over again.

Being superior in numbers, maharaja IA uses it to extend its influence in the region.

Being inferior in numbers, smaller-raja PA uses non-conventional methods to respond to the Indian designs.

Off course you can only see this if you take a macro view, an independent non-nationalistic view of the comical and tragic situation in our region.

I mean what the f, two sons of soil trying to nuke each other?

This is crazy. sheer madness.

But then we must realize this is how things were centuries ago, and unless we are honest about ourselves, things unfortunately will remain so for the foreseeable future. We are treating nukes like just bigger and better weapons, and thus refuse to see their long term, disasterous results on our soil and on our people.


peace.

 

[Ticker]

Both of them are sons of soil

I strongly disagree with use of such a frivolous connotation.

We belong to two different countries having different histories, even the military one.

If you are the son of Indian soil why have you opened such a thread in the first place. Then, as per your thought process, our histories should also be the same.

It is perfectly understandable to be friendly with any foreigner, however it is not understood when in your exuberance you forget your own separate identity - that is if you believe that you have one.

I belong to Pakistan and I am not a son of Indian soil - and I don not under any circumstance accept that any Indian is son of Pakistani soil.

Pull up your chin and learn to stand tall - or else change your flags and confront us like a man.

 

[FaujHistorian]

I strongly disagree with use of such a frivolous connotation.

We belong to two different countries having different histories, even the military one.

If you are the son of Indian soil why have you opened such a thread in the first place. Then, as per your thought process, our histories should also be the same. .

It is easy to say about 3 dominant ethnicities of Pakistan that both Indians and Pakistanis share the same soil,


1. Sindhis share the Sindh soil both Indians and Pakistanis. Thus their histories are same as their geography.
2. Urdu Speaking share UP and Bihar and old Hyderabad Deccan. Thus their histories are same as their geography.
3. Punjabis share the soil of Punjab. Thus both Indians and Pakistanis share the Punjabi history and geography.

These three constitute almost 160+ million people of Pakistan out of a total of 200 millions.


Pashtuns though do not have direct share of modern day India. However most of the cities of KPK have a long history with Indians as far as Kolkatta. All thanks to the Grand Trunk Road (GT Road).


So when I talk about sharing histories, you gotta understand the proper reference,

The parts we share, we should be proud,

and the parts where we are unique, we should be proud.


Just remember that Europeans share a history even though they can still maintain their distinct identities.

Every Gora is not an Englishman

And

Every Brown is not an Indian.

Only uneducated people would equate all goras or all browns or all blacks or all ...........



peace