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

[Contrarian]

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.

2 Questions:
Would you agree that when a war cry or war morale booster becomes embedded in a national psyche such that leaders base their actions and anticipate responses of the enemy based on the characteristics of a (say)religion on it, when these characteristics were also created by them to invent their own superiority or the enemies inferiority, it becomes foolish and self defeating?

Have you felt that Pakistan's leaders have banked on how India would respond to situations based/ attributed to Hindu characteristics and what they are associated with in Pakistan?

@Ticker, please read my last post.

 

[Ticker]

2 Questions:
Would you agree that when a war cry or war morale booster becomes embedded in a national psyche such that leaders base their actions and anticipate responses of the enemy based on the characteristics of a (say)religion on it, when these characteristics were also created by them to invent their own superiority or the enemies inferiority, it becomes foolish and self defeating?

Have you felt that Pakistan's leaders have banked on how India would respond to situations based/ attributed to Hindu characteristics and what they are associated with in Pakistan?

@Ticker, please read my last post.

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.

 

[SQ8]

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.

Please read what you have just said, and Ill focus only on the definitions of those words in the English language

Mentality:
The characteristic attitude of mind or way of thinking of a person or group

Mindset:
1. A fixed mental attitude or disposition that predetermines a person's responses to and interpretations of situations.

Inculcation:
1. To impress (something) upon the mind of another by frequent instruction or repetition; instill: inculcating sound principles.
2. To teach (others) by frequent instruction or repetition; indoctrinate:

So when you inculcate something, you influence the Mentality or Mindset of that person to THINK ALONG THE LINES OF THAT INCULCATION.

So either you chose your words incorrectly, or you have just refuted my argument and then reaffirmed it.

Threat perception is based on what it is laid out to be and at what level. Your threat perception of India is based directly on what you have read, heard ,been taught and experienced.
I have had a lot of time attending open seminars in NDU, and that threat perception among officers(especially those from PA) is highly elevated and extremely narrow.

And yes, while NDU provides a wide array of reading material available as extras .its core material is still focused on a very "immediate" threat perspective.
Students are free to form their own opinions on situations and there are always exceptions in officers that display independent thinking and initiative.. the middle percentiles always lie within this "extreme" view of affairs with regards to India(and otherwise).
The Civilian alumni(along with the brighter military students) of NDU provide a refreshing alternate perspective to these debates and its a joy to watch.

This does not take away from the overall standard of the NDU which is respectable in terms of regional academies.. but its does place an onus on it to place greater emphasis on allowing the individual to develop alternate views and independent thinking especially for those coming from an already very closed loop and established mindset such as that of the PA(where it has been traditionally encouraged)...although the range of officers I have met recently suggests that the trend is going away from the "Yessirs" to the slightly braver "May I offer a Suggestion" types.

2 Questions:
Would you agree that when a war cry or war morale booster becomes embedded in a national psyche such that leaders base their actions and anticipate responses of the enemy based on the characteristics of a (say)religion on it, when these characteristics were also created by them to invent their own superiority or the enemies inferiority, it becomes foolish and self defeating?

Have you felt that Pakistan's leaders have banked on how India would respond to situations based/ attributed to Hindu characteristics and what they are associated with in Pakistan?

@Ticker, please read my last post.

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?

 

[Wickerman]

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.

You are right about motivation. However I was talking more about people's mindsets. Usage of such slogans today, might create a superiority paradigm, which is untrue, in the minds of not just the soldiers in battle but also the people in the country. Then that becomes racist, because it encourages such thinking, knowingly or unknowingly resulting in a society that bases its identity on such principles.

Which might result in whatever you said in the bolded part above. So what happens when they fail? Or if they fail? It hurts them too much, and they cant take it. It causes further hatred. Add to that revisionism in history to suit the propaganda, if you can call it that, then you end up creating an entire generation of a country with a falsified knowledge of history.

 

[FaujHistorian]

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.

Well said.

Case in point. Iran Iraq war, when Mullahs of Iran shouted Islamic slogans and shoved 10000s of young men to face the tanks and machine guns of Iraqi army.

Shoving 10000s of men to face the machinated opponent, is a WWI tactic. The tactic resulted in millions of deaths for armies on both sides. So the generals discontinued it.

However Iranian Mullahs refused to learn from the recent military history, and imagined the same old tactics used by so-called Islamic armies of centuries ago.

Khuda Hafiz

 

[Ticker]

Please read what you have just said, and Ill focus only on the definitions of those words in the English language

Mentality:
The characteristic attitude of mind or way of thinking of a person or group

Mindset:
1. A fixed mental attitude or disposition that predetermines a person's responses to and interpretations of situations.

Inculcation:
1. To impress (something) upon the mind of another by frequent instruction or repetition; instill: inculcating sound principles.
2. To teach (others) by frequent instruction or repetition; indoctrinate:

So when you inculcate something, you influence the Mentality or Mindset of that person to THINK ALONG THE LINES OF THAT INCULCATION.

So either you chose your words incorrectly, or you have just refuted my argument and then reaffirmed it.

Threat perception is based on what it is laid out to be and at what level. Your threat perception of India is based directly on what you have read, heard ,been taught and experienced.
I have had a lot of time attending open seminars in NDU, and that threat perception among officers(especially those from PA) is highly elevated and extremely narrow.

And yes, while NDU provides a wide array of reading material available as extras .its core material is still focused on a very "immediate" threat perspective.
Students are free to form their own opinions on situations and there are always exceptions in officers that display independent thinking and initiative.. the middle percentiles always lie within this "extreme" view of affairs with regards to India(and otherwise).
The Civilian alumni(along with the brighter military students) of NDU provide a refreshing alternate perspective to these debates and its a joy to watch.

This does not take away from the overall standard of the NDU which is respectable in terms of regional academies.. but its does place an onus on it to place greater emphasis on allowing the individual to develop alternate views and independent thinking especially for those coming from an already very closed loop and established mindset such as that of the PA(where it has been traditionally encouraged)...although the range of officers I have met recently suggests that the trend is going away from the "Yessirs" to the slightly braver "May I offer a Suggestion" types.



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?

Mentality:
Characteristic attitude

Mindset:
fixed mental attitude

Inculcation:
1. To impress
2. To teach


Mr. Oscar,

You may have a perceptual bias because you have been exposed to certain set of environment, which is normal. You have attended seminars and have interacted with students of particular rank and service who are being taught higher direction of war. These people, even after successfully completing the curriculum may still have biases, because they are not yet exposed to the ground realities wherein they may have to take certain critical decisions. These are people who are also equipped with a certain sets of opinion/biases when they join the training. Here they are taught a methodology which is internationally prevalent in other modern armies of the world. They probably have a variety of exercises to practice such methodologies and are prepared to follow the guidelines for their future assignments.

And I believe that a large majority of them are posted on various appointments to assist senior officers. Here, they get the hands on experience and the lucky ones get promoted to the next level and it does take a long time for them to reach a stage where they themselves start exercising the actual higher direction of war which was taught to them at NDU a long time back, but offcourse with much enhanced experience under their belt.

Yes, people may carry certain biases even at higher level as well. After all Mr. Bush also became the Commander in Chief of US Armed Forces and people have written a bundle on his intellectual acumen. But he had a team that advised him and so does these senior officers who reach a stage where they direct the higher direction of war.

The methodology which is taught, attempts to negate the biases and mindsets through a process which conducts appropriate analyses to bring out conclusions. Yet the biases do effect, but these are diluted to a great extent when it strews through the vagaries of the command structure that exists. However, certain command decisions taken may not be the right ones, due to commander's own biases or perceptions or downright ineptness.

One thing we must understand, however we may not like them or may not agree with their opinions or so-called biases, or may think that they are not literate enough, yet they are the professionals in their own right, and we are not professionals of their field. At least I am not - I do not know about you. We can only offer our comments based on our own judgment, our own biases and our own perceptions about them.

Please forgive me, my English language prowess is not enough and I may use words or terminologies which, when translated in the manner, may tend to embarrass me.

About how one may reach a perception about India, we can discuss a bit later.

 

[SQ8]

Mentality:
Characteristic attitude

Mindset:
fixed mental attitude

Inculcation:
1. To impress
2. To teach

..
One thing we must understand, however we may not like them or may not agree with their opinions or so-called biases, or may think that they are not literate enough, yet they are the professionals in their own right, and we are not professionals of their field. At least I am not - I do not know about you. We can only offer our comments based on our own judgment, our own biases and our own perceptions about them.


Please forgive me, my English language prowess is not enough and I may use words or terminologies which, when translated in the manner, may tend to embarrass me.

About how one may reach a perception about India, we can discuss a bit later.

agree with most of what you said, but that all depends on the professional context of what is being ingrained. You may memorize the art of war, but if you cannot implement it properly.. then whats the point.
Being brilliant tacticians is useless when you have failed to come up with even one successful strategy in terms of this so called "imminent perceived threat" in the 65+ years of your existence.

The whole object of this thread was to revisit those strategic decisions..and to look upon in what light are those decisions revisited?
Is kargil still taught as some glorious victory or is it given an objective critical look?

If the mindset has been attuned to believe in military glory or at best "bad luck" ..then its not goint to get very far...even if they practice clausewitz in their sleep.

As for inculcate.. its closest thesaurus result is Brainwash or implant..
So you have to excuse my trepidation at considering it an accurate term for what I believe you were actually trying to express.

 

[SQ8]

Which might result in whatever you said in the bolded part above. So what happens when they fail? Or if they fail? It hurts them too much, and they cant take it. It causes further hatred. Add to that revisionism in history to suit the propaganda, if you can call it that, then you end up creating an entire generation of a country with a falsified knowledge of history.

Thats already how it is, 65 is taught as some brilliant strategic and military victory from grade 1 for over 40 years now. Thats generations being brought up on lies.
The fact that it(like Kargil) were Hara Kiri for Pakistan is simply ignored.. and everybody in this country is happy taking that hook , line and sinker.

Are there not propaganda machines in India the likes of Pran Chopra and others? Yes, but there has been a greater effort to ascertain the mistakes made in the pas..ACCEPT them and act on them within the ranks of the military..and this has been spurred on by civilians asking for accountability.

The same has literally not happened at any effective scale within Pakistan.. which has acted against those legitimate military success that our fighting men have achieved..since actual feats have been ignored for bloated false accounts.
It is the responsibility of Military strategists to analyze and publish their fallacies ... and act on fixing them. The problem is, that list of fallacies has now grown so big that a publishing of those will severely effect the standing of the military withing society and to a certain extent within themselves.

The Hamood-ur-Rehman commission on the 71 war was not published until an eon later.. and generally its effects would have little effect then compared to if it had hit the news during those raw times.
A read of K.K Aziz's "Murder of History" is a must for all trying to understand the dynamics of Pakistani Psyche.

However.. currently the younger ones are asking questions, it was impossible for the PA to "avoid" the information age.. and change is afoot.. something that should become concern for its adversaries..
That slowly but surely.. professionalism may be returning as the SOLE governing force within the Pakistan Military(and connected establishments)

 

[Joe Shearer]

The post by Xeric, and this one, are immensely encouraging. They are very well-argued efforts at concentrating the attention of the most important constituent of this forum, the Pakistani constituency, back on the original purpose of the forum, military affairs. Again, within the examination of military affairs, the study of military history becomes important, subject to all the usual cautions about amateurs taking it on themselves to re-interpret history, or, worse, to write it.

Yesterday, while these lines were being written by Fauji Historian, some of the better intellects of Pakistan were in conclave, and their discussions are very pertinent to PDF, considering some of the more heated and extended discussions that have taken place here.

The attention of readers is particularly drawn to the sections on Education of History and Pakistani Identity. For the rest, the note (copied without a by-your-leave from PTH) speaks for itself.

Pak Tea House

Report: Meetup with Dr Ayesha Jalal
Posted: 24 Oct 2012 02:31 AM PDT

‘Young people in Pakistan need to wrest back their perspective from people like Hakimullah Mehsud’ said Dr. Ayesha Jalal in a session with bloggers at Nairang Gallery, Lahore on 22nd August. It was attended by 20 bloggers and media personnel from Lahore including Cheif Editor Pak Tea House, Raza Rumi, Saroop Ijaz, Mehmal Sarfaraz, Yasir Latif Hamdani, Aisha Sarwari, Saadia Gardezi, Zebunnisa Burki, Adnan Rasool, Awais Aftab, Rabia Mahmood, Sabahat Zakriya, Sher Ali,Aun, Samar Ataullah,Ali Sethi, Rab Nawaz and Abdul Majeed.

The purpose for which this meet-up was organized as to discuss How bloggers can make a difference in the political narrative of the country and how should they work to bring back the narrative of Pakistanis. Dr. Jalal initiated the session by pointing out that Pakistan’s perspective is not the one that people like Hakimullah or Baitullah Mehsud peddle. We need to project our own perspective. She also said that bloggers have a special responsibility which they themsleves do not yet recognize. It is the duty of bloggers to challenge the narratives that corruption, politicians or Army is resposnible for all our ills. This has become very cliched. Why don’t we highlight the fact that only 9% people in this country pay taxes. Why don’t political parties present their views and solutions regarding this issue? This is where bloggers come in. They make this issue an electoral issue and present it like this to the masses. The political power of social media needs to be tapped and used effetcively.


Blogging in Urdu or English?

The issue that interaction with audience should be in Urdu or English took most of the time during the discussion. The fact is that very few of our fellow Pakistanis understand and like to read in English Language.(Raza Rumi pointed out that this trend is being reversed slowly due to the increasing prevalence of English Language Institutes in every nook and corner of the country.) The circulation of all the English Newspapers combined is less that circulation of an established Urdu Newspaper. The same situation is present in the Pakistani Blogging Arena. Very few bloggers write in Urdu Language. There are certain technical glitches in this respect. Adnan Rasool pointed out that there are only two Urdu Scripts which can be used online. Both are difficult enough for beginners which makes learning them a hard task. Adnan also added that Pakistani bloggers, till now, are talking ABOUT people, not TO people,that they have little influence among even the upper middle class. He cited M BILAL M - Urdu Font - Urdu Keyboard - Urdu Software - Free Download as one of the Pakistani efforts to solve the ‘Urdu Font’ problem. Dr. Ayesha was of the view that engagements with the masses is necessary(and thus the need for Urdu as the language of blogs). There has been too much ‘preaching to the converted’.* Ammar Aziz opined that content is more important that language and we need better content.

Education of History

Dr Ayesha was of the view that history is not an exact science, which is why it is not called ‘Historical Sciences’. History is a Methodology. A post-modern reading of history is necessary. History should be taught in a proper manner, from schools till the University level. We have created a ‘Cognitive Dissonance’ in Pakistani children as the ideas that are imparted to them in schools are different from reality. Due to constant indoctrination, there is a wide-spread break from reality evident in Pakistani students. *

Pakistani Identity

Dr. Jalal contended that Pakistanis, by and large, are confused about their own identities. This confusion is compounded by the narratives found in textbooks and the mainstream media. Raza Rumi added that ‘Imagined’ Identity of Pakistanis is a harbinger of a certain narrative that is based on historical myths and blatant lies. On the topic of self-hatred among Progressive Pakistanis, Dr. Jalal said, ‘It is a bad habit, Kick it Out’. She also said that we are not a failed state as western standards of a ‘Failed State’ should not be applied to Pakistan. Our systems work when we want them to work. Labelling this ‘Lack of willingness’ to make things work on the part of the state does not necessarily that we have failed as a nation.

Lack of Documentation

Dr. Ayesha was of the view that one of the major problems facing Pakistan is the lack of documentation about trends, demographics and development indicators. Adnan Rasool added that no I/O charts are available for Pakistan, regarding economic indicators and the base year for economic statisics that is assumed for Pakistan is 2004.

A Concerted Effort

It was agreed upon by all the participants that we need organized, effective and tactical blogging, to fulfill the political potential that we have. Dr. Ayesha Jalal suggested formation of a focus group of bloggers which translates the most important english blogs into Urdu.

Blasphemy Law

During the Question/Asnwer Session, the discussion drifted towards the infamous Blasphemy Law. Dr. Jalal said that the onus regarding Blasphemy Law and its effects on our society lies with the state and the attitude of state is not serious enough to tackle this issue. Blasphemy Law is a political issue, not a religious one. It was a law introduced by the British rulers to contain incitement caused by books such as ‘Rangeela Rasool’(which resulted in death of its publisher at the hands of Ilm Din). The unfortunate fact is that blasphemy law has been used by Muslims against each other more than it has been used agains Non-Muslims. The history and politics behind this Law needs to be understood and the law should be discussed in public sphere.

 

[Ticker]

agree with most of what you said, but that all depends on the professional context of what is being ingrained. You may memorize the art of war, but if you cannot implement it properly.. then whats the point.
Being brilliant tacticians is useless when you have failed to come up with even one successful strategy in terms of this so called "imminent perceived threat" in the 65+ years of your existence.

The whole object of this thread was to revisit those strategic decisions..and to look upon in what light are those decisions revisited?
Is kargil still taught as some glorious victory or is it given an objective critical look?

If the mindset has been attuned to believe in military glory or at best "bad luck" ..then its not goint to get very far...even if they practice clausewitz in their sleep.

As for inculcate.. its closest thesaurus result is Brainwash or implant..
So you have to excuse my trepidation at considering it an accurate term for what I believe you were actually trying to express.

I don not know what do you mean by "what is being ingrained". You need to explain this a bit further.

What do you mean by "imminent perceived threat". Please elaborate if there is any such threat.

How do you know that Kargil is taught as "some glorious victory." I have my perception about Kargil. Many of the army guys may have theirs - so. I have read most of what Indians have written and have some idea about our actions and Indian counter actions.

There are terminologies which are used as a norm in strategic parlance and your thesauruses may have different meanings. In any case one can google and find different meanings of same word or terminology every time one refreshes. And I have not heard inculcation translated in military or strategic parlance as brainwashing, I can be wrong though and may not be all that well read.

You have a clear bias and it shows. And if I can understand it from your expressions here, it is not favourable about the army. Good enough - we all have our viewpoint and our own biases.

The only thing I wish to say is that what you are seeking for this thread is an apparent clear picture of various wars, operations etc etc. Getting their, is certainly not an easy task.

 

[Ticker]

Thats already how it is, 65 is taught as some brilliant strategic and military victory from grade 1 for over 40 years now. Thats generations being brought up on lies.
The fact that it(like Kargil) were Hara Kiri for Pakistan is simply ignored.. and everybody in this country is happy taking that hook , line and sinker.

Are there not propaganda machines in India the likes of Pran Chopra and others? Yes, but there has been a greater effort to ascertain the mistakes made in the pas..ACCEPT them and act on them within the ranks of the military..and this has been spurred on by civilians asking for accountability.

The same has literally not happened at any effective scale within Pakistan.. which has acted against those legitimate military success that our fighting men have achieved..since actual feats have been ignored for bloated false accounts.
It is the responsibility of Military strategists to analyze and publish their fallacies ... and act on fixing them. The problem is, that list of fallacies has now grown so big that a publishing of those will severely effect the standing of the military withing society and to a certain extent within themselves.

The Hamood-ur-Rehman commission on the 71 war was not published until an eon later.. and generally its effects would have little effect then compared to if it had hit the news during those raw times.
A read of K.K Aziz's "Murder of History" is a must for all trying to understand the dynamics of Pakistani Psyche.

However.. currently the younger ones are asking questions, it was impossible for the PA to "avoid" the information age.. and change is afoot.. something that should become concern for its adversaries..
That slowly but surely.. professionalism may be returning as the SOLE governing force within the Pakistan Military(and connected establishments)

some queries .....

How do you say that 1965 was not a victory - I am not saying that it was or not even saying that it wasn't. All I am asking is that you are making statement without highlighting facts. Justify it with some appropriate reasoning at least.

I agree with you that Pakistani historians have not written much about all this and what little has been written may not be well worth it. But how can you be so sure that the Army had not conducted its own analyses - just because these have not been published. To be in a position to declare judgmental opinion one should at least know the details of what all happened and how and under what circumstances certain decisions were taken and how the war was fought.

1971 happened long time ago and so was 1965. Where do we stand now. Have we improved ourselves or are we still there where we were.

Interesting posts none the less.

 

[Joe Shearer]

agree with most of what you said, but that all depends on the professional context of what is being ingrained. You may memorize the art of war, but if you cannot implement it properly.. then whats the point.

Being brilliant tacticians is useless when you have failed to come up with even one successful strategy in terms of this so called "imminent perceived threat" in the 65+ years of your existence.

The whole object of this thread was to revisit those strategic decisions..and to look upon in what light are those decisions revisited?

Is kargil still taught as some glorious victory or is it given an objective critical look?

If the mindset has been attuned to believe in military glory or at best "bad luck" ..then its not goint to get very far...even if they practice clausewitz in their sleep.

As for inculcate.. its closest thesaurus result is Brainwash or implant..

So you have to excuse my trepidation at considering it an accurate term for what I believe you were actually trying to express.

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.

 

[AUSTERLITZ]

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.

 

[Joe Shearer]

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.

Precisely, although the way the sentence is written, one gathers the mistaken impression shared by the entire chest-thumping Hindutva brigade, that Thapar is a Marxist.

 

[FaujHistorian]

Thats already how it is, 65 is taught as some brilliant strategic and military victory from grade 1 for over 40 years now. Thats generations being brought up on lies.
The fact that it(like Kargil) were Hara Kiri for Pakistan is simply ignored.. and everybody in this country is happy taking that hook , line and sinker.

Are there not propaganda machines in India the likes of Pran Chopra and others? Yes, but there has been a greater effort to ascertain the mistakes made in the pas..ACCEPT them and act on them within the ranks of the military..and this has been spurred on by civilians asking for accountability.

The same has literally not happened at any effective scale within Pakistan.. which has acted against those legitimate military success that our fighting men have achieved..since actual feats have been ignored for bloated false accounts.
It is the responsibility of Military strategists to analyze and publish their fallacies ... and act on fixing them. The problem is, that list of fallacies has now grown so big that a publishing of those will severely effect the standing of the military withing society and to a certain extent within themselves.

The Hamood-ur-Rehman commission on the 71 war was not published until an eon later.. and generally its effects would have little effect then compared to if it had hit the news during those raw times.
A read of K.K Aziz's "Murder of History" is a must for all trying to understand the dynamics of Pakistani Psyche.

However.. currently the younger ones are asking questions, it was impossible for the PA to "avoid" the information age.. and change is afoot.. something that should become concern for its adversaries..
That slowly but surely.. professionalism may be returning as the SOLE governing force within the Pakistan Military(and connected establishments)

Overall I agree. However we must analyze Pak history from strategy POV.

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.

---------------- Size does matter when all else is comparable (for the armies off course) ------

You have brought up important topics like 65 and Kargil.


In 65, Pak army made a blunder from strategic pov.

OK so we want to do some hanky phanky in Kashmir. Fine (pure from military reference please). But why the f our generals leave Lahore and areas down south totally unguarded?

Even little Tommy knew, and so did little Johnny. Indians were making clear statements in the fing press. If Pakistan moves into Indian Kashmir, we will invade the soft belly of Pakistan. And yet Lahore border had no serious defenses setup? Heck not even on the Wahgah. let alone the flanks.

During Kargil hanky phanky, our soft belly was defended as much as we could, but why the f our generals didn't count on Indians using air force and precision bombing?

You want to plan a push in Kargil. Fine!

But do remember Kargil is not Siachin. Air force could be used there. At the minimum we should have given those poor souls of NLF, some stingers. Why were those jawans and officers made sitting ducks? Why? I mean if Pak airforce was not ready to send some birds in the air to defend NLF, at lease some hand held air-defense stuff should have been part of the planning.



To be continued....



p.s I beg Ticker and his Indian bros, to not get into army courses and Islam. My reference was really general.

Religion and nationalism can distort an honest analysis, That's what I really wanted to say.

We are discussing MH from civilian perspective, What historians should focus on etc, So please make sure you are concentrating on how Pak army deployments were made or wars were fought, and not what the f is taught in NUST. Please!