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

[Ticker]

He mentioned Pakistan very specifically and since Islam is the beyond dominant religion in Pakistan and Pakistan Military is never averse to pointing out its territorial (and political)ambitions as 'Islamic Jehad', use of religion to analyze becomes almost obvious.
Religion is used by your army to get support.

Aspects related to morale boosting methodology are followed all over.

So does Indian Army or American Army or Israeli Army etc etc. Tell me something new.

What does a Sikh regiment shouts when they launch an attack. What does a Jat or for that matter other Indian Hindu majority regiments shout before attacking - religious slogans used while attacking soldiers of other religions. What does this prove - should I relate it to the superiority of your God against the God of the other soldier.

Why does such aspects being singularly pointed out against Pakistan or for that matter Pakistan Army, when religion or an ideology has remained and is part of all armies operating in the world.

American Army has Chaplin, Imam, Rabbi in their regiments. They perform a variety of functions, including reading out the last rites of a dead soldier. They are also used as part of motivating methodology prevalent in different formats in all armies.

There was also a recent hype about a certain anti-Islam teaching course being run for the American officers in the US.

I think instead of pointing fingers towards only one entity, we need to grow up and understand the reasons behind such pronouncements, however one may disagree with these.

What the OP said in this forum was religious bigotry and I maintain may viewpoint.

 

[Wickerman]

Aspects related to morale boosting methodology are followed all over.

So does Indian Army or American Army or Israeli Army etc etc. Tell me something new.

What does a Sikh regiment shouts when they launch an attack. What does a Jat or for that matter other Indian Hindu majority regiments shout before attacking - religious slogans used while attacking soldiers of other religions. What does this prove - should I relate it to the superiority of your God against the God of the other soldier.

Why does such aspects being singularly pointed out against Pakistan or for that matter Pakistan Army, when religion or an ideology has remained and is part of all armies operating in the world.

American Army has Chaplin, Imam, Rabbi in their regiments. They perform a variety of functions, including reading out the last rites of a dead soldier. They are also used as part of motivating methodology prevalent in different formats in all armies.

There was also a recent hype about a certain anti-Islam teaching course being run for the American officers in the US.

I think instead of pointing fingers towards only one entity, we need to grow up and understand the reasons behind such pronouncements, however one may disagree with these.

What the OP said in this forum was religious bigotry and I maintain may viewpoint.

You are conflating religious practices vs practices that are considered racism.

For example, if a Muslim soldier yells Allah hu Akbar before attacking, then that is not wrong. If he performs namaz before attacking, then that is not wrong. If the Pakistani army for example does something according to Islam then that is not wrong. Cuz armies worldwide follow their respective religions.

But if someone is gonna say, "1 muslims equals 10 hindus", then it does not refer to statistics. It refers to capability. What they mean by that is that this muslim guy is superior to the Hindu. Meaning he is a better fighter, he is intellectually more capable etc., That is racism 101. When history is rewritten based on such principles, then it becomes false history. That is what FaujHistorian wants to talk about. It is not bashing on any religion. This has nothing to do with Islam at all. It is about Pakistani history. And about how it is viewed. Is it viewed objectively for facts as they are, or is it viewed through a religious prism? Where one is considered better than the other? That is what is supposed to be in discussion here.

 

[Ticker]

You are conflating religious practices vs practices that are considered racism.

For example, if a Muslim soldier yells Allah hu Akbar before attacking, then that is not wrong. If he performs namaz before attacking, then that is not wrong. If the Pakistani army for example does something according to Islam then that is not wrong. Cuz armies worldwide follow their respective religions.

But if someone is gonna say, "1 muslims equals 10 hindus", then it does not refer to statistics. It refers to capability. What they mean by that is that this muslim guy is superior to the Hindu. Meaning he is a better fighter, he is intellectually more capable etc., That is racism 101. When history is rewritten based on such principles, then it becomes false history. That is what FaujHistorian wants to talk about. It is not bashing on any religion. This has nothing to do with Islam at all. It is about Pakistani history. And about how it is viewed. Is it viewed objectively for facts as they are, or is it viewed through a religious prism? Where one is considered better than the other? That is what is supposed to be in discussion here.

This is what he wrote .......

That's True.

However if a Pakistani historian can rid himself from "Muslim have always won" and "1 Mulsim can fight 1000 non-Muslims". Won't that be a good start?

He pre-disposed the discussion through expression of his ethnic and religious bias and bigotry by singularly attacking a Pakistani and a Muslim as an entity.

The fact that this is a part of motivational methodology and if he had appropriately commented to discuss such methodological aspect without displaying his bias and bigotry, it could have been acceptable.

And then you state that this is statistical and describes capability - this indeed is laughable and frivolous.

You may not agree that this is a part of motivational methodology, that is your viewpoint. I disagree with it.

And my viewpoint stands.

 

[notorious_eagle]

Then you would have to disagree with the PMA as well.

In their mandated reading list for Officers is India: A Study in Profile that says that Hindus are weak, etc, etc.

Secondly, you would also have to argue with the myths that PA perpetuated in '65 that 1 Pakistani Muslim=10 Hindus.

You would know that there is a genesis to this statement.

When used for propaganda purposes you make common cause, its ok. But when a comment comes that PA must use its head and not believe in pushing false notions of Muslim victory in Pakistan to a domestic audience, it becomes racist?

Can you please post a link for this claim?

From what i have gathered by reading several books about Pakistan Army is that at no point of time was this an official policy of PA as an organization. These claims were made by individuals on a personal level, but never as an institution. Anyways, clarification would be appreciated.

Thanks

 

[Wickerman]

He pre-disposed the discussion through expression of his ethnic and religious bias and bigotry by singularly attacking a Pakistani and a Muslim as an entity.

Attacked how???? By saying that they have a wrong view of history? There are three possibilities here:

1. They have no such view AT ALL, and FaujHistorian is cooking up a story. This is highly unlikely.
2. EVERYONE, EVERY HISTORIAN has that attitude, which is again highly unlikely
3. There are a few that actually do believe that Muslims are superior etc etc - Which is the truth!!

So if someone be it muslim or non muslim comments on point 3, then that is categorically NOT racist or bigoted. It is a criticism aimed at the person irrespective of his religion. This is like say for example criticizing a white nationalist who will say that the white man created everything, which is actually not true. It is actually taking a stand AGAINST bigotry.

The fact that this is a part of motivational methodology and if he had appropriately commented to discuss such methodological aspect without displaying his bias and bigotry, it could have been acceptable.

Motivational methodologies work by giving hope. Not by dehumanizing another bunch of people by branding them incapable or unintelligent or inferior or violent or whatever. That is racism. Not motivation. This is akin to saying "All muslims are terrorists". As an example if an American soldier is told by a superior officer that everyone in Iraq was a terrorist and he could engage them at will, would you consider it racist or motivational? I would consider that racist. According to you you would consider that motivational.

And then you state that this is statistical and describes capability - this indeed is laughable and frivolous

Errr what? If you read it right, then I said this statement (1 muslim equal to 10 hindus) is not about actual population statistics (I didnt use the word population, but I am sure you understand, what I meant by statistics here). I said this is about capability (inherent quality in people that differs from one person to another). That IS racism.

And my viewpoint stands.

It does, but its irrelevant and invalid.

 

[Ticker]

Attacked how???? By saying that they have a wrong view of history? There are three possibilities here:

1. They have no such view AT ALL, and FaujHistorian is cooking up a story. This is highly unlikely.
2. EVERYONE, EVERY HISTORIAN has that attitude, which is again highly unlikely
3. There are a few that actually do believe that Muslims are superior etc etc - Which is the truth!!

So if someone be it muslim or non muslim comments on point 3, then that is categorically NOT racist or bigoted. It is a criticism aimed at the person irrespective of his religion. This is like say for example criticizing a white nationalist who will say that the white man created everything, which is actually not true. It is actually taking a stand AGAINST bigotry.



Motivational methodologies work by giving hope. Not by dehumanizing another bunch of people by branding them incapable or unintelligent or inferior or violent or whatever. That is racism. Not motivation. This is akin to saying "All muslims are terrorists". As an example if an American soldier is told by a superior officer that everyone in Iraq was a terrorist and he could engage them at will, would you consider it racist or motivational? I would consider that racist. According to you you would consider that motivational.


Errr what? If you read it right, then I said this statement (1 muslim equal to 10 hindus) is not about actual population statistics (I didnt use the word population, but I am sure you understand, what I meant by statistics here). I said this is about capability (inherent quality in people that differs from one person to another). That IS racism.



It does, but its irrelevant and invalid.

You are now going around in circles. I made an observation and your counter arguments are not convincing.

I am sorry, I disagree with you.

 

[FaujHistorian]

Guys! please.

Can we get back to the topic now?

There have been in general 4 paradigms used in war fighting.

1. Use of land forces + shallow water navy (Since the beginning of war history till Ottomans)
2. Use of land forces + deep water navy (Spanish+Portuguese)
3. #2 + Introduction of airplane (WWI)
4. #3 + Introduction of helicopters (Vietnam war)


At the boundary of each of these eras, a paradigm shift occurred.

The nations who were able to convert to the new paradigm, and in greater numbers had the upper edge. In each of these paradigms, communications played a vital role. Introduction of telegraph during American civil war allowed commanders to get a better picture of the war. Logistics added to the capacity and survival on the battlefield. Again American civil war shows the mass introduction of the Railway gave an edge to Union forces.

Any comments?


Thank you.

 

[Wickerman]

You are now going around in circles. I made an observation and your counter arguments are not convincing.

I am sorry, I disagree with you

.

No am not going around in circles. I know you disagree, but your disagreement is irrational.

 

[Contrarian]

Can you please post a link for this claim?

From what i have gathered by reading several books about Pakistan Army is that at no point of time was this an official policy of PA as an organization. These claims were made by individuals on a personal level, but never as an institution. Anyways, clarification would be appreciated.

Thanks

Give me time mate. No time for an exhaustive research to where i came upon this information.

 

[VCheng]

Can you please post a link for this claim?

From what i have gathered by reading several books about Pakistan Army is that at no point of time was this an official policy of PA as an organization. These claims were made by individuals on a personal level, but never as an institution. Anyways, clarification would be appreciated.

Thanks

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

12. India

a. Indian Security Perspective K.Subramanyam
b. India’s Security Problems in Rakesh Gupta
the Nineties
c. Facets of Indian Defence Nair, A Balakrishnan
d. India: A Study in Profile Javed Hassan

 

[SQ8]

You are conflating religious practices vs practices that are considered racism.

For example, if a Muslim soldier yells Allah hu Akbar before attacking, then that is not wrong. If he performs namaz before attacking, then that is not wrong. If the Pakistani army for example does something according to Islam then that is not wrong. Cuz armies worldwide follow their respective religions.

But if someone is gonna say, "1 muslims equals 10 hindus", then it does not refer to statistics. It refers to capability. What they mean by that is that this muslim guy is superior to the Hindu. Meaning he is a better fighter, he is intellectually more capable etc., That is racism 101. When history is rewritten based on such principles, then it becomes false history. That is what FaujHistorian wants to talk about. It is not bashing on any religion. This has nothing to do with Islam at all. It is about Pakistani history. And about how it is viewed. Is it viewed objectively for facts as they are, or is it viewed through a religious prism? Where one is considered better than the other? That is what is supposed to be in discussion here.

While it may be considered as religious bigotry.. it is not racism.
And such a tactic of bloating of one's own capabilities is also nothing new..
After all.. "We are Sparta" and other historical records all show a race or nation exalting itself as better over the others to instill confidence in their soldiers.

In my view, that is much hulabullo about nothing and a slight insult to the title of the thread.
Military history is how that strategy was effective in battle and not the ethics of it.
If claiming that a Muslim is equal to a hundred Hindus enabled a victory then by god it can hurt a million sentiments as long as it is successful... However, if that was also the cause for committing both tactical and strategic errors of the idiotic kind.. then it was nothing short of a foolish approach.
Unfortunately the level of understanding of religion is such that statements such as those are taken in a misunderstood and clearly over optimistic light and used to initiate misadventures.. WHICH, should actually be the focus of this thread and not the effectiveness of ten Muslims vs 2 million Hindus or Jai Bajrang bali.

 

[Ticker]

The reference was sought against the following post:

Then you would have to disagree with the PMA as well.

In their mandated reading list for Officers is India: A Study in Profile that says that Hindus are weak, etc, etc.

Secondly, you would also have to argue with the myths that PA perpetuated in '65 that 1 Pakistani Muslim=10 Hindus.

You would know that there is a genesis to this statement.

When used for propaganda purposes you make common cause, its ok. But when a comment comes that PA must use its head and not believe in pushing false notions of Muslim victory in Pakistan to a domestic audience, it becomes racist?

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

please quote what has been written, which was offensive and the page number.

You have quoted the link from National Defence University and I am sure you would be aware that there are a whole lot of civilian students who study there as well.

As I understand, and correct me if I am wrong, PMA is the Pakistan Military Academy.

You have not referred to any PMA mandated list for Officers - India: A Study in Profile, as it was indicated.

In universities and even military institutions, many books may be added as the reading list. Does it mean that such material becomes official mandate - I don't think so.

 

[SQ8]

The reference was sought against the following post:





please quote what has been written, which was offensive and the page number.

You have quoted the link from National Defence University and I am sure you would be aware that there are a whole lot of civilian students who study there as well.

As I understand, and correct me if I am wrong, PMA is the Pakistan Military Academy.

You have not referred to any PMA mandated list for Officers - India: A Study in Profile, as it was indicated.

In universities and even military institutions, many books may be added as the reading list. Does it mean that such material becomes official mandate - I don't think so.

Senior officers(especially that are keyed for higher joint command positions) undergo a stint at the NDU before being assigned to suggest strategy and policy.
So it is reflective of the mentality to a measurable extent.

Authors like Subramanian have left no stone unturned in their expression of anti-pakistan sentiment..and since there are no opposing views in that book list to counter that.. one can assume that there is a certain viewpoint being propagated that sees India ONLY as a ruthless enemy and nothing else..are things any different in the Indian equivalent? I cannot comment..but that is beyond this topic.

 

[VCheng]

Senior officers(especially that are keyed for higher joint command positions) undergo a stint at the NDU before being assigned to suggest strategy and policy.
So it is reflective of the mentality to a measurable extent.

Authors like Subramanian have left no stone unturned in their expression of anti-pakistan sentiment..and since there are no opposing views in that book list to counter that.. one can assume that there is a certain viewpoint being propagated that sees India ONLY as a ruthless enemy and nothing else..are things any different in the Indian equivalent? I cannot comment..but that is beyond this topic.

This is the full list for NDU:

IMPORTANT BOOKS TO BE READ

1. Strategy and Deterrence Andre Beaufre
2. Strategy of Action Andre Beaufre
3. Makers of Modern Strategy Edward Mead Earle
(concentrate on Chapters 3, 4,
5,8,12,13,14,17 and 20)
4. India’s Wars Since Independence Sukhwant Singh
Volumes I, II and III
5. Prepare or Perish Gen K V Krishna Rao
6. Strategy in the Missile Age Bernard Brodie
7. Contemporary Strategy John Beylis and
Ken Booth
8. Deterrent or Defense Liddell Hart

9. Strategy and War

a. Introduction to Strategy Andre Beaufre.
b. The Conduct of War J F C Fuller
c The Conduct of War Lt Gen Colmar Von Der Goltz
d. Strategy the Indirect Approach Liddle Hart BH
e. Contemporary Strategic Theories Henry E Eccles
and Policies
f. Strategy of Tomorrow Andre Beaufre
g. A Study of War Quincy Wright
h. On War Raymond Aron/Carl Von Clausewitz
j. Theory and Practice of War Michael Howard
k. Clausewitz Michael Howard
l. Strategy and Ethnocentrism Ken Booth
m. Strategic Military Deception Donald Daniel
n. On Future War Martin Von
Creveld

10. Maritime Power

a. The Influence of Seapower upon History Mahan, AT
b. Some Principles of Maritime Strategy Corbett
c. Seapower of the State Admiral S.G
Corshkov
d. Seapower Potter and Nimitz

11. Air Power

a. The Impact of Air Power Emme
b. Air Power-A Concise History Robin Higham
c. Air Power in War Lord Fedder
d. Air Power in Modern Warfare Jasjit Singh

12. India

a. Indian Security Perspective K.Subramanyam
b. India’s Security Problems in Rakesh Gupta
the Nineties
c. Facets of Indian Defence Nair, A
Balakrishnan
d. India: A Study in Profile Javed Hassan

13. Pakistan

a. Pakistan’s National Security Problems Farida Aziz
b. Pakistan the Engima of Political Ziring Lawrence
Development
c. Pakistan and Regional Security Mohammad Ahsan Ch
d. Pakistan: A Long View Ziring Lawrence

14. Afghanistan

a. The Soviet Occupation of Afghanistan John Fullerton
b. In Afghanistan’s Shadow Selig S Harrison
c. War in Afghanistan Urban Mark
d. Power Struggle in the Hindu Kush Kamal Matinuddin

15. Nuclear Warfare and Deterrence

a. Evolution of Nuclear Strategy Freedman
b. Strategic Deterrence in a Changed Christoph Bertram
Environment
c. The Future of Strategic Deterrence Christoph Bertram

Priority Two (May Read Books)

16. Strategy and War

a. Strategy for Tomorrow Andre Beaufre
b. Perspectives on Strategic Defence Guerrier Steven
c. Essays on Strategy Volume I and National Defence
Volume II University of US
d. Conduct of War: An Introduction Samuel Payne
to Modern Warfare
e. Studies of War Henk Houwelling
Siccama Jang
f. Science of War Brian Holden
Reid
g. Making War John Lehmen
h. Makers of Modern Strategy Edward Mead
Earle
j. Science and Technology in Pokrovsky
Contemporary War
k. War, Peace and Victory Collin S Gray
l. Strategy and Tactics of the Brigadier Peter
Great Generals and Their Battles


17. Maritime and Air Power

a. Maritime Strategy and Nuclear Geoffery Till
Age Seapower
b. A Guide to Naval Strategy Brodie
c. Sea in Modern Strategy Martin
d. Maritime Strategy Gretton Peter
e. Seapower Admiral Lord Hill
Norten
f. Seapower in Conflict Schubert
g. Air Power in the Next Generation Feucht Wanger
h. Air Power in the Nuclear Age, Air Marshal M.J
945-84 - Theory and Practice Armitage
j. Air Power: An Overview of Roles RA Mason (AVM

18. India, Pakistan and Afghanistan

a. India’s Defence Problems S S Khera
b. Indian The Security Dilemma Victor Cecil
c. Miniaturization of Mother India Ravi Rikhye
d. Defence Production in India Ron Matthews
e. India, Pakistan and Rise of China Wilcox
f. Indo-Pakistan Relations S S Bindra
g. India’s Quest for Security Korne J Kavic
h. Policy for India’s Defence Rohi Handa
j. Politics in Pakistan Khalid Bin Sayyed
k. War and Secession, Pakistan, Richard Sisson
India and creation of Bangladesh
l. The New Pakistan Satish Kumar
m. Pakistan Security and National Ikram Azam
Integration
n. Red Flag over Afghanistan Thomas T Hammond
o. Afghanistan Resistance: The Politics Grant Farr and
of Survival John Marrian
p. Afghanistan Crisis Implications Tahir Amin
and Options for Muslim World,
Iran and Pakistan
q. Inside Afghanistan – End of Reddy, LR
Taliban Era
r. Reaping the Whirlwind: Taliban Griffen, Michel
Movement in Afghanistan
s. Taliban: Islam Oil and New Rashid, Ahmed
Great Game in Central Asia
t. Taliban Ascent to Power Gohri, MJ

 

[Ticker]

Senior officers(especially that are keyed for higher joint command positions) undergo a stint at the NDU before being assigned to suggest strategy and policy.
So it is reflective of the mentality to a measurable extent.

Authors like Subramanian have left no stone unturned in their expression of anti-pakistan sentiment..and since there are no opposing views in that book list to counter that.. one can assume that there is a certain viewpoint being propagated that sees India ONLY as a ruthless enemy and nothing else..are things any different in the Indian equivalent? I cannot comment..but that is beyond this topic.

I am sorry your assessment is incorrect.

I am aware that senior officers do undergo stint at the NDU for understanding of command and warfare at higher echelons where the understanding of policy making and higher strategic application is imperative. The quoted book which may be part of the reading list, as probably a couple of hundred other different books would also be cited, does not in any way is reflective of a particular mentality.

Threat perception at higher echelons is an important undertaking for all the senior officers. And if in such threat perception, books related to India or any other country are indicated for study, it certainly does not reflect a mentality, it is reflective of a teaching methodology which is practiced all around the world.

And if one conducts a threat perception at the national level, emergence of and identification of threats to the national security is an important residual outcome. And if India emerges as a threat during such intellectual discourse, so be it. There is no reflection of and involvement of any mentality. It is pure ascertainment based on professional judgment - and that is what I believe is attempted for inculcation at that level and certainly not a mindset or a mentality.