Pakistan under its Ethnic Shadows

#117 His Excellency

``Do you really think an army that has been sending its generals regularly to attend US military courses for the last 30-40 years can be that ``child-like``?``

Well, let`s take ``Field Marshal`` Ayub Khan. He was a Sandhurst graduate. But nonetheless, Pakistani journalists have written of his child-like trust in martial-races theory. In fact, even his ghost written autobiography (Friends Not Masters) reeks of racist bigotry against the majority of his compatriots!

#114 by nakhok

+++
The ``cowardly part`` is the result of an inane belief and child-like trust in the martial-races theory. In this respect, Pakistan`s army has chosen to remain stuck in the era of cavalray warfare. It was so in all the four wars of 1948, 1965, 1971 and 1999.
+++

This inane beliefs and child-like trust seems to be emanating from your mind alone. Do you really think an army that has been sending its generals regularly to attend US military courses for the last 30-40 years can be that ``child-like``? Do you really think chowkies here are going to accept your ludicrious assertions like ``Pakistan`s army has chosen to remain stuck in the era of cavalray warfare``. I mean c`mon... Your hatred of Pak Army is understandable. This is exactly what makes Pakistanis proud of the Army.

There can be no military solution to differences between Pakistan and India. Pakistan`s military must cease to see itself as the Prussians of the subcontinent. General Pervez Musharraf had done a disservice to the subcontinent by planning a military solution via Kargil even as the civilian leaders of Pakistan and India were talking peace in Lahore. It was as wrong as it was imprudent.

Altaf Gauhar was, by no means, the only writer to blame Pakistan`s military for its Prussian complex in the aftermath of the Kargil fiasco. Here`s one from the doyen of Pakistani journalists, Ardeshir Cowasjee:

---

DAWN, Karachi, Pakistan
18 July, 1999

End Game?
Ardeshir Cowasjee

..... As for our war-mongers and zealots, the uneducated and ignorant majority,
they should be informed by the government in power that India makes a formidable foe.
Its armed forces are twice the size of ours, making it impossible for us to sustain a military conflict. Economically, if reserves are anything to go by, India is forty times our size. It is of no use us propagating the myth that one Pakistani soldier is equal in strength and courage to five Indian soldiers. Our retired generals, colonels, air marshals, wing commanders, admirals and commodores do us a disservice when they air their views on the national media and relate how, whenever Muslims have gone to war, it has been against a foe far superior in number but their spirit of sacrifice and their valour have always made them victors. Wars now cannot be won without global sympathy and support. Propaganda must have credibility behind it. .....

---

The four wars mentioned by Altaf Gauhar (1948, 1965, 1971, 1999) were all wars of the post cavalry warfare era. But so brainwashed were the Pakistani military by its belief in the ``one Pakistani soldier = ten ``Hindu`` soldier`` theory, that they leaped before looking into everyone of the four wars.

I am not sure if martial-races theory had any validity even in the heydays of cavalry warfare. And in the modern era, it is simply an overt symptom of racist bigotry.

HE, Nakhok:

You people are having a very foolish argument. Bbesides, when did Altaf Gauhar become the know all judge of the Pakistan Army? His opinion is just that, an opinion. I would say that the only time the 1 Pakistani = 10 Indian statement was actually spoken on record was 1965 by Ayub. Niazi too made some equally idiotic statements like his ambition to overrun India to connect West and East Pakistan, but his statements were not ethnocentric.

113, 114: My reading of the situation finesse`s the difference between both the responses:

``Firstly, this is not a reflection of martial race theory. It is a reflection of Pakistan`s accurate assessment of India`s military preparedness in 1999. The fact is that India was ill-organised and unprepared for Kargil.``

Well this assesment wasnt so accurate wasnt it? Indian Army showed an ability (after the initial misreading of the situation) to move a very large amount of troops and artillery rapidly into the region (we could have moved an entire corps if we wanted). It is this tremendous increase in logistical capability that took the Pak army by surprise. To bring the Air Force into play early also showed ability in the higher command to take a combined arms approach. These are the responses that Pak`s were ``ill-prepapred`` for.

To assume that Indian troops are demoralized, ill-prepared, disorganized and that the Indian army will immidiately run to the political leadership and sue for peace, is but another form of delusion similar to the ``martial race theory``. This argument is similar to the Pakistani teenagers on the net who insist that PAF due to its ``superior`` training/jazba is more than a match for the IAF.

``(d) India will not expand the theater of conflict due to fear of nuclear escalation``

Fact is that India did not escale anywhere along the international border. But between the two extremes of all-out war and right away sueing for peace there were a wide range of options available to the Indians which the Paks didnt think through clearly.

#113 by His Excellency

++++
The cowardly part is pure exaggeration; Armies plan operations for geo-strategic reasons, not to prove their bravery
++++

The ``cowardly part`` is the result of an inane belief and child-like trust in the martial-races theory. In this respect, Pakistan`s army has chosen to remain stuck in the era of cavalray warfare. It was so in all the four wars of 1948, 1965, 1971 and 1999. Altaf Gauhar made that clear very very explicitly in his ``Four Wars, One Assumption`` when he wrote:

``..... all these operations were conceived and launched on the basis of one assumption: that the Indians are too cowardly and ill-organised to offer any effective military response which could pose a threat to Pakistan.``

Mercifully, General Pervez Musharraf has been jolted, first by the Kargil fiasco, and then by the American ultimatum after 9/11. And that is why he is now perturbed enough to publicly admonish those that continue to dream of unfurling the Pakistan flag atop the Red Fort.

It is important for General Pervez Musharraf to strive to transport the military mentally forward from the age of cavalry to the age of modern wars - otherwise its inane trust in the martial-race theory and in the vulnerability of the ``cowardly and ill-organized`` enemy can accidentally trigger a nuclear war in which no tactical finesse will prevail to prevent a catastrophe for Pakistan and India alike.

#112 by nakhok

++++
Altaf Gauhar was very very explicit in this article written in the aftermath of the Kargil misadventure when he wrote, ``..... all these operations were conceived and launched on the basis of one assumption: that the Indians are too cowardly and ill-organised to offer any effective military response which could pose a threat to Pakistan.``
++++

Firstly, this is not a reflection of martial race theory. It is a reflection of Pakistan`s accurate assessment of India`s military preparedness in 1999. The fact is that India was ill-organised and unprepared for Kargil. (The cowardly part is pure exaggeration; Armies plan operations for geo-strategic reasons, not to prove their bravery)

Secondly, Altaf Gauhar`s article ignores the primary assumptions of Kargil, which had nothing to do with race, bravery, Red Fort, etc. These real assumptions of Kargil were:

(a) China will support Pakistan.

This assumption was proven wrong when Zhu Rhongji and Chief of PLA asked Musharraf to withdraw NLI/Jehadi elements and instead pursue the diplomatic route. This was the biggest shock to Musharraf.

(b) U.S. will stay neutral.

Since Clinton had described Kashmir as a nuclear flashpoint, the assumption was that U.S. will immediately press for summit level talks between India and Pakistan to resolve this dispute. Instead, Clinton refused to discuss Kashmir will Nawaz Sharif until Pakistan withdrew the NLI/Jehadis.

(c) Pakistan`s political leadership will mobilize public support for the intrusion

Musharraf had assumed that since Nawaz had already okayed the Kargil plan months ago, the entire political leadership will stand by the operation. This didn`t happen. Deprived of political support within Pakistan, Kargil became Musharraf`s personal project.

(d) India will not expand the theater of conflict due to fear of nuclear escalation

India instead threatened to blockade Karachi and attack across international border.
Between June 6 and July 9, both countries traded nuclear threats a dozen times.

Unless you are wedded to the defunct `martial race theory`, I suggest you expand your list of favorite Pakistani analysts... to get a richer, more complete understanding. The `martial race theory` was applicable in an era when soldiers fought on horseback with bayonets, swords and rifles. In modern wars, we don`t have horse-mounted cavalries and swordsmen. Howitzers, fighter jets, submarines, missiles and tanks are the new `martial races`.

#109 His Excellency

++++
You have misread Altaf Gauhar`s ``Four Wars, one Assumption`` article.
++++

No, I have not. The title itself, ``Four Wars, One Assumption`` tells it all. Altaf Gauhar was very very explicit in this article written in the aftermath of the Kargil misadventure when he wrote, ``..... all these operations were conceived and launched on the basis of one assumption: that the Indians are too cowardly and ill-organised to offer any effective military response which could pose a threat to Pakistan.``

++++
General Niazi`s troops were outnumbered in East Pak, not outfought
++++

This was just another way of hanging on to the martial-race theory in the aftermath of 1971. ``An army of martial-races cannot possibly be out-fought ..... It was all a grand conspiracy ..... Furthermore, it was outnumbered.``

++++
To build Jehadi morale against a larger Indian Army, the Pakistani generals may even have encouraged such notions. But the Army cadres themselves don`t believe in such theories.
++++

Altaf Gauhar`s article, ``Four Wars, One Assumption`` very clearly indicates that the Army rank and file had continued to believe in the martial-races theory atleast thru the fourth war, namely, the Kargil misadventure of 1999.

In the aftermath of Kargil and the American ultimatum after 9/11, General Pervez Musharraf may have belatedly realized the folly. Hence his admonition to those that dream of unfurling the Pakistani flag atop the Red Fort. Unfortunately, the martial-races theory had been nurtured among Pakistani soldiers (rank and file) for so long, that General Pervez Musharraf cannot force a change overnight. But he must keep on trying because such foolhardiness can accidentally trigger a nuclear war where no tactical finesse will prevail to prevent a catastrophe for Pakistan and India alike.

++++
If the Army believed in martial-race theory, it wouldn`t have bothered to think about such tactical aspects.
++++

Even an army of martial-races thinks about ``such tactical aspects``! And, needless to say, it automatically assumes that the ``cowardly and ill-organised`` enemy is incapable of coping with its superior tactical finesse.

The bottom line is that General Pervez Musharraf and his army continued to believe even after 1971 (perhaps, especially after 1971) that Pakistan`s military can be ``outnumbered`` but cannot be ``outfought``. So a dose of ``such tactical aspects`` is all that was deemed necessary to send the numerically superior Indian army packing!

tahmed

One should not be so blinded by prejudice as to totally denounce a person...
Bhutto had good qualities and bad... to deny either is an injustice to History... In the end his fall was because of his ego... but as the facts of the case have since then revealed... he didn`t deserve to be hanged.

The fact that Bhutto was unable to overcome his character flaws was only to our detriment because the man had tremendous potential.

-YLH

ahmedzai #107 you are quite right in that there was a perception of bhutto being a champion of the poor. and indeed that was the only time i have seen our poor, suffering people actually get excited in huge numbers with any politician.

unfortunately, as you note, the whole thing was a cruel joke he played on the suffering poor of pakistan. His was driven not by any concern for their suffering but by his own ego. The nationalizations you mention were driven by his ego rather than common sense, since he wanted to become the Wadera of Pakistan, even though people had elected him on a different understanding.

The man deserved to be hanged.

More important, is there any hope that there are better days ahead for our people? You seem optimistic with musharaff, and so far he does seem to be focussing on many of the right things. He has made mistakes (most notably in suppressing the secular parties). But there is some hope here. He is certainly not a complete disaster like those before him.

#102 by nakhok

You have misread Altaf Gauhar`s ``Four Wars, one Assumption`` article. While he does impute martial-race theory to Ayub Khan`s 1965 and Yahya`s 1971 wars... he never states that the Pakistan Army started Kargil in 1999 to unfurl Pakistani flag at Red Fort in Delhi or to demonstrate a superior martial race at work. In 1999, the Army based its intrusion on the element of surprise, secrecy and tactical advantage. Not on the basis of martial race theory. The goals of Kargil were also not to conquer Delhi or hoist Pakistani flag at Red Fort. Kargil`s goals were specific: control the Srinagar-Leh highway, alter the LOC, put pressure on Srinagar and internationalize the Kashmir conflict.

It may be that the Jehadis believed they were fighting for conquest of Delhi. But there is a difference between Jehadi assumptions and Army`s assumptions. Jehadis are not the brain behind any operation. They are just the brawn. You may be right about Jehadis believing in martial-race theory. To build Jehadi morale against a larger Indian Army, the Pakistani generals may even have encouraged such notions. But the Army cadres themselves don`t believe in such theories. Such theories died in 1971 when sheer numbers dictated the outcome. (General Niazi`s troops were outnumbered in East Pak, not outfought)

This is evident in the brilliant planning of Kargil itself. Instead of relying on the ``superior martial prowess`` of Pashtun NLI troops, the Pak Army relied on element of surprise, secrecy, early snow meltdown and tactical advantage (of heights) in Kargil. If the Army believed in martial-race theory, it wouldn`t have bothered to think about such tactical aspects.

Scott, 106

I believe that a civil--and hence a developed--society requires political correctness and for one to be sensitive to others’ feelings in terms of race and ethnicity.

``Quite frankly the Pathan probably found nothing abhorring about it.``

I’m not so sure about that. He may not have shown it, but I’m certain that deep inside he resented that a great deal and, if continued, the build-up of that resentment will manifest itself one day in bloodshed.

Your post did make me laugh, though. :)

Tauheed at # 87:

``ahmedzai/rozaiba: bhutto was worse than ethnocentric. he was bhuttocentric.``

LOL.

Indeed, most people believe that he was Bhttocentric and that this is a reality.

I was talking about the perception though. It is well documented that in his election campaign, he addressed and won over the poor, majorly from Punjab and Sindh. Also, he had the support of many Urdu-speaking stalwarts. This he was able to do in addressing each of these ethnic groups in their language.

His major economic blunder was nationalization of institutions that led to lack of quality of products and lack of management skills that confront Pakistan today.

I always thought why some TNTs cannot grow up:

---

I found the solution in the Pakistani text books which clears the riddle

---

The Pakistan Social Studies textbooks prescribed for Standards IX and X under the title `Pakistan Ideology``

``Pakistan ideology is based on the ideas of Islamic system and it was also a reaction to the Hindu and British exploitation of the Muslims of the sub-continent. It was a revolt against the prevailing system of India where the Hindu nationalism was imposed on the Muslims and their culture.`` The textbook further goes on to say ``The Hindus and Muslims, in spite of living for centuries could not forget their own individual cultures and civilisation and kept away from each other. They could not amalgamate in each other`s way of life to become one nation. The main reason for this difference of cultures, civilisation and outlook was the religion of Islam which cannot be assimilated in any other system as it is based on the principle of …oneness of God….On the other hand, Hinduism is based on the concept of multiple Gods. How a nation who believes in the multiplicity of Gods could bestow its belief in oneness of God and there lies the difference between Hindu and Muslim way of thinking.``

Godot 98 - ``The boy made a mistake in doing something. The Punjabi owner turned to him and said (quite loudly) in anger, “You idot. You are a goddamn Pathan and will remain one.” Fresh from the US, I found that attitude abhorring and absolutely mind blowing. I couldn’t believe my ears. What I found most disturbing is that both individuals, the Punjabi and the Pathan, took that as a matter of fact``
Quite frankly the Pathan probably found nothing abhorring about it. The panchod Punjabi will panchod speak his panchod mind quite freely as and when its panchod required. Its as normal as breathing and all of us who have lived in this panchod land know it. And I for one hope that the panchod politically correctness will never influence the panchod Punjabi.
-
Scott

Dear Ballu Khan,

Moderation is required in your understanding of partition... I am surprised how a n intelligent person like yourself can go making such statements.

-YLH