Fall of Dacca

In genereal, in all these episodes, hatred of
Hindus was so intense, that evreything else took
backseat.

Now that Hinjews are out of the equation, all these
faults are suddenly visible and causing damages
and resentment and fissures.

Re: # 19 Pavocavalry
Hats off to you Amin Sahib. I can clearly see why you didn't last in the army. A person of your conscience and intelligence cannot survive in an institution essentially teeming with blockheads.

If Pakistanis do not reign in the army, it will destroy whatever is still left of Pakistan.

Re: # 35
Gul Sahib,
What were you expecting from people who were failures in their younger days? Had they done better in school/college, do you think they would end up in the armed forces and/or in madarssahs?

jinnah once said, muslims in india are a separate culture in comparison with hindus! i donot have jinnahs brains, im just a kid whos curious, but what is the connection between a kerala mappilla muslim and a punjabi muslim, other than faith?
one is dravidian, dark & short, eats rice & fish, the other is caucasian, fair & tall and eats chapathis & mutton.
one lives in a matriachal system, the other is patriachal.
one speaks malayalam and the other urdu?
faith alone cannot unite, biggest example is east pakistan.

If for a moment we accept that separation of East Pakistan was a political failure, we must then ask how? Surely it was the military at the helm of political affairs and therefore must accept the singular responsibility for this surrender. It has been far too long that the military has hid itself behind this smokescreen sometimes blaming Mujeeb and sometimes Bhutto. The fact is that the military came to patrol the society early and will be responsible for even bigger blunders if the march on its own citizens and society is not arrested. It carries a disproportionate bias on national security and views everything through a military periscope. Yet this periscope failed miserably in 1971. It and its elite institutions have failed to comprehend that, ‘national power rises from a relatively stable platform of geography to the fleeting opportunities of national character and morale’ and that military power in itself is a very small contributor in averting rather than fighting wars, so much so that even a nuclear capability has left us feeling more vulnerable. Why this happened and continues to happen is because the military has not metamorphosed through an intellectual revolution. The cadre of elite General Staff has its own periscope, view and perspective of security matters and enforces it as such on all matters related to operational planning and training.

The army learnt to patrol society early by taking over the Kashmir war of 1948, followed by a series of military interventions and conflicts with India and Afghanistan. It developed a mindset where war invariably dictated policy and not vice versa. Hence 1965 was ill planned resulting in back rolling the entire development years of MAP. Similarly, there was not real effort at seeking political solutions in 1971. Kargil was planned and executed in a political vacuum and has shrouded the Kashmir Cause. Now its closest allies are forcing it to fight its own people in its heartland.

Capacity of military strategy and higher direction of war is limited. War is not seen in the realm of a political paradigm, but is assuming that politics must take a back seat when hostilities commence. The Clauewitzian principal of, ‘war as an instrument of policy in concert with other means’ is meant to just mean ‘war an instrument of policy’. Over the years, the army has learnt to study this great philosopher of war through a pathetic essay written by J F C Fuller in his book ‘Conduct of War’. Similarly other cardinal principals like ‘Friction, Centre of Gravity and Trinity’ have neither been understood nor an effort ever made to dilate them.
The General Staff is stuck with clichés like, ‘Defence of East Lies in the West’, ‘Strategic Depth’ and ‘Politico-Economic Corridor’ etc and Andre Baufre’s saying like, ‘Strategy is a dialect of two opposing wills’.

Plagued with such shortcomings in the higher direction, it will continue to blunder as it has done repeatedly in East Pakistan, Afghanistan and now. They will always listen and think; and then feel convinced they are right.

As for BanglaDesh, as I commented in a previous post, separation of East Pakistan was a foregone conclusion 1913, when the UP Lobby disgraced Nawab Salim Ullah of Bengal. Later the Bengalis were excluded in the official language, unicameral 1956 constitution, and 1962 Constitution. Based on the premise of martial race, they were considered bad soldiers but fought a civil war.

It is bad on part of Pakistanis who think that past is pirogue. It remains a very bad chapter of our history and the notion of a united Muslim nation our politicians created immediately after 23March 1940.
Cheerios

Re:kaal and arjun

The other thing to keep in mind is that Pak army has given up all ideological posturing and has now become a mercenary outfit that is more interested in its own perks and privileges than anything else. It will fight for whoever is the highest bidder. The way the US controls the levers in Islamabad is an eye opener.

Given that we have the same interest as the US in terms of controlling jihad and we are not exactly lacking in economic means any more, why shouldnt we hire them to fight on our behalf and keep things under control in our neighborhood?

If Pakistan collapses and jihadis run riot, our army would have to go in there and clean things up. That would be far, far more expensive than putting the pak army on our payroll.

Re:kaal and arjun

Its a matter of choosing the lesser evil. We Indians enjoy any spectacle where the pak army or the establishment is in trouble, given that we have a legacy of rivalry with them. However, lets give the devil his due. For all the rivalry of the pak army and establishment, they are far better than any taliban type outfit that may take over Islamabad some day. Its not as far-fetched as it sounds since it is quite possible that the pak army can itself fracture along the US vs jihadi faultlines as well as ethnic faultlines. While we may get the satisfaction of seeing pakistan collapse, it may lead to a far worse situation on our borders.

Its a historical legacy of the subcontinent to see two desi neighbors fight each other, only to see some third party come over and take the spoils. Most of the time, that third party is terrible for everyone. Remember Prithivraj vs Jaichand and how Ghauri benefited from that feud? These jihadis are the new Ghauris. The Pakistanis pretend to be Islamists but in reality are the same as us.

#25 Posted by Ranjit on December 16, 2007 3:30:19 am


If there is one thing that the Pakistani elite cannot give up, it is their love for the good life.


wow: either you're completely deluded, high on the kool-aid or you forgot the sarcasm tags.

People who love allah more than moolah are now fighting the ruling class, the class that loves moolah more than allah.

The best part is, India didn't have anything to do with this situation..it's entirely of pureland's own making..of course, america's stone age threat and the occasional hellfire helped move things ahead..

Indians just need to stock up on beer and popcorn, sit back and enjoy the fun as the jihadis and the people who created and supported the jihadis whack each other..

Re: # 30 u saw what shameless lifter this colonel jafri is.may be he got some material benefit from this musharraf.

Re: # 29 Indians are not that stupid.Americans and Saudis are.

FakirIppi sahib, they are making rokra from the Americans, from the Saudis, and from Pakistani public. Ranjit bhai wants they make rokra from poor Indians too.

Ranjit shows up once every six month to astound us with his logic, and his trust in everything except the common sense of Indians.

Re: # 27 they will never do this ...they are making a lot of rokra pretending they are custodians of Islam.

Ranjit, so India should start forming alliances/cooperating with Pakistani army and Pakistani elite (who supposedly don't like Islamists)? And Pakistani elite and Pakistani army will form alliances with/cooperate with Indians and Hindus against the Islamists?

Given who rules over Indians today, I too will not be surprised if that is the route these rulers over Indians take, but is the above your recommendation as well?

While it is fashionable to whine about Bangladesh, the fact is that the creation of Bangladesh - excluding the loss of lives and the economic costs - matters not one bit today to the average person in Bangladesh or in Pakistan.

If anything, it has been for the better for all concerned: 1. takes away the smokescreen of interprovincial issues from politicians, and forces them to focus on local issues; 2. removes resentments of perceived injustices, and thus paves the way for friendlier relations (When visiting Bangladesh in the late 1990's, I was embraced like a brother by an ex-mukti bahini leader who told me how he had fought for 6 months against us and yet had fond memories of Pakistan).

Also, while it is fashionable (particularly ex-army men) to whine about the surrender - the fact is that that meant avoiding unnecessary further deaths. There is no shame in saving lives - the ones who are truly disgraceful individuals are for example the Japanese emperor hirohito who had no problem with sending suicide bombers to die in his name but who quickly surrendered when he realized his own neck was on the line if the US tossed one nuclear bomb on his palace in Tokyo.

So, quit whining, Jafri sahib.

Re:pavocavalry
"Today in 2003 Pakistan's strategic dilemma is not India , not Phalcon system , not Israel but its nationality problem ! Today the passions of secessionism and mutual distrust in Pakistan's three provinces Baluchistan ,Sindh and NWFP are clearly present and can explode into civil war if political solution is not found"

Very insightful analysis!! One thing that has changed dramatically from the past is India's perception of Pakistani threat. India realizes that Pakistan is not a serious military threat in any manner. Pakistan's policy of encouraging jihadis has pretty much ended with the jihadis turning their sights on Pakistan itself. While the US policies have pressured Pakistan on this, the fundamental reason is Pakistani elite's unwillingness to become jihadis en masse. If there is one thing that the Pakistani elite cannot give up, it is their love for the good life. Therefore, it will never accept life as a Taliban state or even as a theocracy like Iran. So Pakistan's jihadi policies have a natural limit which has now revealed itself fully under US pressure. As a result, the Pakistani army and a relatively liberal Pakistani state is now becoming a bulwark against the jihadis and fundamentalist islam.

India has observed this situation closely. India's main objective is to become an economic superpower and project its economic muscle across the region and beyond. Its primary concern moving forward is to maintain peace and stability so that its economic growth can accelerate even further and spread across all sections of society. For that to materialize it is very important to keep things under control within India as well as on India's borders. India's economic growth is strongly dependent on foreign investment and offshoring work to India. That cannot continue if there is risk in doing business in India. It is not surprising that the BJP has lost ground across India, since India's elite has realized that integrating muslims into the national fabric is vital for economic growth.

India has done a reasonably decent job keeping Indian muslims away from jihad given that it is home to 150 million muslims. Its success in controlling Kashmir situation has cooled the situation further. Pakistan has certainly helped out India in this matter by making a u-turn in its policies. It is in India's vested interest that Pakistan remains a bulwark against jihadi and fundamental islam so that its western borders are calm.

Ironically today it is India that is as interested as the USA in a stable and united Pakistan that maintains the status quo of its power structure. In other words, India is beginning to view the Pak army as its de facto ally and its de facto shield in keeping the subcontinent stable for India to prosper. It is of no use for India to see Pakistan collapse, since India has no interest in taking over the land and people. It cannot manage them and it will end up ruining India's economic growth and long term prospects. It is also dangerous to see Pakistan balkanized without a strong military because that provides multiple opportunities for fundamental islam to take over those balkanized states one after the other. So I wouldnt be surprised if we start to see strong cooperation between Indian and the Pak army in the future, just as u see the cooperation between USA and the Pak army.

Re: # 22----Ditto sahib , khoob hooi jo mil bhaitay ham deewanay....thanks to chowk sir.pava thora pagal hai lekin he has a particular thrust.