Wednesday, July 8, 2009

Demolishing Indian War Myths about Pakistan


While outwardly claiming to dismiss Pakistan as a defeated and failed state, the Indians continue to show by their actions that they are paranoid about their much smaller neighbor to the West by maintaining most of their troops close to the border with Pakistan.

For example, twenty four of the thirty three Indian infantry divisions are near Pakistan's borders. All three of India's armored divisions are poised against Pakistan. All three of India's mechanized divisions are positioned on Pakistani borders.

If Indians have such an impeccable record of successes against Pakistan in past wars as they claim, why is it that, in practice, they are so fearful of their little neighbor? Why are they planning to increase defense spending by 50% to spend $40 billion, 33% more than the entire 2009-10 Pakistani budget of $30 billion, on defense in 2009-10? Could it be that, in their heart of hearts, they really do not believe their own propaganda and their claims of victory over Pakistan are really hollow?

Let's examine this reality in a little more detail:

With the special exception of 1971( where Indira exploited the political follies by Bhutto and Mujib and RAW infiltrated the Awami League), Indian military has not scored any clear victories over Pakistan.

Even in 1971, Pakistanis inflicted heavy damage on Indian military.

"This airforce(the PAF), is second to none"
"The air war lasted two weeks and the Pakistanis scored a
three-to-one kill ratio, knocking out 102 Russian-made Indian jets and losing thirty-four airplanes of their own. I'm certain about the figures because I went out several times a day in a chopper and counted the wrecks below." "They were really good, aggressive dogfighters and proficient in gunnery and air combat tactics. I was damned impressed. Those guys just lived and breathed flying. "


(General (Retd.) Chuck Yeager (USAF) , Book: Yeager, the
Autobiography
).

In 1965, Pakistanis really whipped India's rear end.

"Pakistan claims to have destroyed something like 1/3rd the Indian Air Force, and foreign observers, who are in a position to know say that Pakistani pilots have claimed even higher kills than this; but the Pakistani Air Force are being scrupulously honest in evaluating these claims. They are crediting Pakistan Air Force only those killings that can be checked from other sources."

Roy Meloni,
American Broadcasting Corporation
September 15, 1965.

1965 War, the Inside Story by R.D. Pradhan:

In Chapter 8 titled "Of Cowardice and Panic", the author describes the cowardice of Maj. Gen. Niranjan Prasad, the Indian general commanding officer in Lahore sector. When the general was fired upon by Pakistani forces, he "ran away". "On learning that, Lt. Gen. Harbakash Singh and the corps commander drove in a Jonga to the battlefront. Army commander found that the enemy (PAF) air attack had created a havoc on G.T. Road. (Indian) Vehicles were burning and several vehicles of 15 Division abandoned on the road, the drivers having run away, leaving some of the engines still running. Maj. Gen. Niranjan Prasad was hiding in a recently irrigated sugar cane field. As described by Harabakash Singh: "He (Prasad) came out to receive us, with his boots covered with wet mud. He had no head cover, nor was he wearing any badges of his rank. He had stubble on his face, not having shaved." Seeing him in such a stage, Harbakhash Singh asked him: "Whether he was the General Officer commanding a division or a coolie? Why had he removed badges of rank and not shaved? Niranjan Prasad had no answer."

Pradhan's book contains many different entries by Indian Defense Minister Y.B. Chavan. A Sept 9, 1965 entry reads: Had a very hard day on all fronts. Very fierce counter-attacks mounted and we are required to withdraw in Kasur area. COAS was somewhat uncertain of himself. I suggested to him that he should go in forward areas so that he will be in touch of realities. He said he would go next day.

In Line of Duty: A Soldier Remembers, Lt Gen Harbakhsh Singh reveals that not only did Gen Chowdhury play a very small role in the entire campaign, he was so nervous as to be on the verge of losing half of Punjab to Pakistan, including the city of Amritsar. Harbakhsh describes, in clinical detail, how our own offensive in the Lahore sector had come unhinged. The general commanding the division on Ichchogil canal fled in panic, leaving his jeep, its wireless running and the briefcase containing sensitive documents that were then routinely read on Radio Pakistan during the war. Singh wanted to court martial him, Chowdhury let him get away with resignation.

According to Shekhar Gupta, the editor of Indian Express, Harbkhash Singh recounts that a bigger disaster struck a bit to the south where the other division cracked up in assault, just as it encountered a bit of resistance. Several infantry battalions, short on battle inoculation, deserted and Singh gives a hair-raising account – and confirmation of a long-debated rumor – that Chowdhury panicked so badly he ordered him to withdraw to a new defensive line behind the Beas, thereby conceding half of Punjab to Pakistan. Singh describes the conversation with Chowdhury at Ambala where he refused to carry out the order, asking his chief to either put it down in writing or visit the front and take charge of the battle.

The London Daily Mirror reported in 1965:

"There is a smell of death in the burning Pakistan sun. For it was here that India's attacking forces came to a dead stop.

"During the night they threw in every reinforcement they could find. But wave after wave of attacks were repulsed by the Pakistanis"

"India", said the London Daily Times, "is being soundly beaten by a nation which is outnumbered by four and a half to one in population and three to one in size of armed forces."


In Times reporter Louis Karrar wrote:

"Who can defeat a nation which knows how to play hide and seek with death".

USA - Aviation week & space technology - December 1968 issue.

"For the PAF, the 1965 war was as climatic as the Israeli victory over the Arabs in 1967. A further similarity was that Indian air power had an approximately 5:1 numerical superiority at the start of the conflict. Unlike the Middle East conflict, the Pakistani air victory was achieved to a large degree by air-to-air combat rather than on ground. But it was as absolute as that attained by Israel.

UK - Air International - November - 1991

" the average PAF pilot is almost certainly possessed of superior skills when compared with, say, an average American pilot. As to those who are rated above average, they compare favorably to the very best."

Encyclopaedia of Aircraft printed in several countries by Orbis publications - Volume 5

"Pakistan's air force gained a remarkable victory over India in this brief 22 day war exploiting its opponents weaknesses in exemplary style - Deeply shaken by reverse, India began an extensive modernisation and training program, meanwhile covering its defeat with effective propaganda smoke screen.

To prove its air superiority, PAF put its entire fleets on show for inspection after BOTH of the wars in presence of world dignitaries and aviation community. The five times bigger IAF should have been able to annihilate the tiny PAF to prevent such displays.

Yoichi Shimatsu, a Japanese journalist and former editor of Japan Times, wrote as follows about LeT and Kargil:

Blaming the Lahore-based Lashkar is all-too easy since the outfit was once the West Point of the Kashmir insurgency. The Army of the Righteous, as it is known in English, was a paramilitary force par excellence that routinely mauled the Indian Army along the Himalayan ridge that forms the Line of Control of divided Kashmir. In an attack on the strategic town of Kargil in late spring 1999, Lashkar broke through India’s alpine defense line and came close to forcing New Delhi to the negotiating table.

Along the sawtooth LoC, Lashkar is respected by professional soldiers on both side. A Pakistani hero who fought on the Baltistan heights, Corporal Ahmed, told me of his admiration for the stoicism of these jihadis, who wore sandals to battle in the snow. At a checkpoint in Indian-controlled Kargil, an army captain wearing a Sikh turban said frankly that nobody in the Indian Army could fight man-to-man against Lashkar.

Lashkar earned its reputation in clean-fought mountain warfare, pitting lightly armed guerrillas against Indian armor and superior firepower.

In its finest hours, these fighters would never consider the dirty tactics used against civilians in Mumbai, for example, the gangland-style executions using a shot to the back of a kneeling captive’s head. That is more typical of the Mumbai underworld.


Respected American South Asia expert Stephen Cohen of Washington's Brookings Institution recently told his audience: "Not a few Indian generals and strategists have told me that if only America would strip Pakistan of its nuclear weapons then the Indian army could destroy the Pakistan army and the whole thing would be over."

These remarks sharply contrast with the volumes being written in the West, particularly in the United States, about Pakistan's "obsession" with India. Pakistan is being incessantly lectured by the Western leaders and media to stop worrying about the security threat from India and focus exclusively on its western frontiers and the Taliban. Ignoring the past and current realities, these positions are often echoed by some of the liberal media editorials and commentators in Pakistan as well, in spite of substantial evidence to the contrary.

The facts on the ground speak louder than words. These facts clearly show that Indians are far more obsessed with Pakistan than Pakistan is with India. Having numerically and physically a much smaller military, Pakistan does have greater reason to be paranoid of Indian military intentions, and be prepared to deal with them.

Related Links:

Foreign Origin of India's Agni Missiles

India's Military Buildup

1965 War, the Inside Story

In Line of Duty: A Soldier Remembers by Gen Harbakhsh Singh

Challenges of Indian Democracy

India's Female Genocide

Dangers of Military Myths

Pakistan Military Business

India-Pakistan Military Balance

Global Firepower

Chuck Yeager on Pakistan Air Force

India's Research and Analysis Wing

GupShup Forum

RAW's Involvement in East Pakistan

100 comments:

Naveen KS said...

Haq,
Its a pity u r trying to prove something by quoting coldwar era biased news reports by soldout journos and ex servicemen. No one cares a damn about them today. The world saw how the Americans were airlifted out of Saigon embassy as N.Vietnamese forces closed in and thus America was defeated for the first time. But for the American entertainment industry this was a war they won fair and square!

The world acknowledges that all the India-Pak wars were started by Pakistan and each time Pakistan was defeated by India. U cannot quote selective biased reports to prove otherwise and no ones gonna buy it.

Pakistani General Niazi had the "unique distinction" of surrendering to the Indian army by removing his service revolver and being stripped off his regalia. This was the first time it happened to a General after the 2nd World War. Pakistanis will live with this infamy forever.

We Indians will spend on our defence according to our needs. Pakistan can also do the same. But we will still have resources to spend on our poor but for Pakistan u have to beg.

Btw I am still to fathom what that Jap wrote about LeT. India brought to the negotiating table?? ROFL!! It was Nawaz Sharif who ran to the then US President Clinton and begged him to extricate Pakistan out of the Kargil mess created by Pakistanis themselves.

BTW, it was not expected from a person of ur stature to flag some report glorifying a terrorist org.

Pakistan has no option but to obey what the West commands it coz to keep Pakistan running it need Western dole.

Pakistani rulers have to attend meeting called to fix its dole amount by its so-called friends. Whereas India's rulers attend meeting that are called to save the world from recession! The difference is huge my friend, very huge!

Anonymous said...

"These remarks sharply contrast with the volumes being written in the West, particularly in the United States, about Pakistan's "obsession" with India. Pakistan is being incessantly lectured by the Western leaders and media to stop worrying about the security threat from India and focus exclusively on its western frontiers and the Taliban. Ignoring the past and current realities, these positions are often echoed by some of the liberal media editorials and commentators in Pakistan as well, in spite of substantial evidence to the contrary.

The facts on the ground speak louder than words. These facts clearly show that Indians are far more obsessed with Pakistan than Pakistan is with India. Having numerically and physically a much smaller military, Pakistan does have greater reason to be paranoid of Indian military intentions, and be prepared to deal with them."

You are comparing apples with orange. In West, when we talk about Pak. obsession with India, we are indirectly complimenting that India is a diverse, secular, pluralistic democracy with her own identity whereas Pakistan defined itself after independence on Kashmir issue and Jihadism(which they called freedom fighting until 2001). Even now, ordinary Indians don't give a damn about Pakistan and are more obsessed about finding a primary school for their children, whereas Pakiland with its sprawling Madrassas are taught from a young age that fighting Indian Kafir is their life mission. Also in India, there is nothing like a weekly prayer in temples where the priest stands on a podium and pray for Azadi Kashmir and victory against infidels and all others chant "Aameen".

When it comes to budget spending, it has its own dynamics - from a military strategic point of view, India has every right to see Paistan as a "threat", given the reasons mentioned above, and also 3 past wars. Pakistan is criticized because Pakistanis(yes the "educated" sorts) would like to believe that their country is weak and violent because of Indo-Israeli conspiracy, rather being honest that their country did not put any emphasis on building civil soceities and Jihadis within the country are the problem. Now atleast that Sardari admitted a well known fact, that terrorism problem is created by Pakistan herself, hopefully it is a new beginning.

Anonymous said...

Raiz

If you want you can read the surrender statement of the major general of pakistan army in east pakistan to india.

India would not like to do its terrroist operation by making people as refugees that is the reason you require more people

In the name of killing terrorist it does not want to create few million refugees in the country whether it is muslims or hindus.

Anonymous said...

Riazbhai you are 150% correct. Pakistan army is best in world. PAF is pride of nation. Against PAF India will not do any misadventure. But I am not understanding Lashkar part. Lashkar will cause big problem in Pakistan like Jaish. Also Lashkar will do bad thing against Shia in the future. They can hurt India but also they can hurt us.

Riaz Haq said...

Anon:
I personally do not like LeT, its current leadership and its tactics, especially since it was banned. After starting as a genuine Kashmiri freedom movement, it has fallen into the wrong hands. The quote I have is from a respected journalist Yoichi Shimatsu who argues that banning Lashkar under US and Indian pressure has wrongly painted the entire Kashmiri freedom struggle as a terrorist movement and it has turned the remnants of Lashkar into a undisciplined bunch probably being exploited by the underworld criminal figures like Dawood Ibrahim.

Anonymous said...

"The world acknowledges that all the India-Pak wars were started by Pakistan and each time Pakistan was defeated by India. U cannot quote selective biased reports to prove otherwise and no ones gonna buy it."

This is the most delusional piece of crap I have ever heard. India sent its army to invade Hyderabad and Goa.

Pakistan's desire to seek its territory - Kashmir is as justified as India's invasion of Hyderabad.I assumed you haven't been told that the people of Kashmir is under the occupation of India.


India's dirty hand in 1971 is well known.Today,India is worried about the influx of Bangladeshis into their land which one day will lead to disintegration of North-East India.Gee,you get what you sow.

"Pakistan has no option but to obey what the West commands it coz to keep Pakistan running it need Western dole. "

Really, I heard the US just spanked India recently by banning Israel's arm sale to India.The shoooper power India indeed.

"Pakistani rulers have to attend meeting called to fix its dole amount by its so-called friends. Whereas India's rulers attend meeting that are called to save the world from recession! The difference is huge my friend, very huge!"

Whoa.They came to the wrong country - India even with such economic growth has its poverty increase by 5%. I hope the world is not that stupid to seek views from a delusional nation like India.China,Yes.But India,God save humanity.Ask the Pandit of CitiBank.

Anonymous said...

Riaz,

Unlike JKLF, the LeT was NEVER a Kashmiri movement. LeT was formed by ex-Afghan war mujahidin with the blessings and financing by ISI. LeT never looked back and now boasts of global ambitions operating from the Punjab province of Pakistan. There is plenty of research being done on LeT. Its roots run deep in Pakistan and at some point it'll bleed Pakistan heavily.

Riaz Haq said...

Anon:

Do you know if the great Indian poet Iqbal was Punjabi or Kashmiri? While you are at it, figure out for me if Pak politician and former minister Sheikh Rashid is Punjabi or Kashmiri? Do you have any clue how Kashmiris and Punjabis relate to each other? Can you always tell the difference? I certainly can't.

Anonymous said...

Riaz,

Why limit to Kashmir? The sub-continent is filled with ethnic similarities that do not stop at borders. Take the case of Pashtuns on the border of Pakistan and Afghanistan. In their view, all Pashtuns are the same but a Durand line seperates them. I see little difference between the Balochis in parts of Pakistan and those in Afghanistan.

No matter the ethnic, lingusitic or cultural similarities among Pashtuns or Balochis, Pakistan does not hesitate to crush the freedom movements using fighter planes and helicopter gunships. Call it cruelty of history or necessity of nationhood; that is the reality we live in.

Riaz Haq said...

Anon:
You are confusing the issue of ethnicity. My comment was in response to the claim that LeT is Punjabi and not Kashmiri.

Your claims about Pushtoons are baseless as to their freedom. Pushtoons voted to join Pakistan in a referendum, unlike the Kashmiris, Hyderabadis, Junagadhis and Goans who were militarily annexed by India.

Anonymous said...

Riaz

We will have to talk about war then we must have the tak about the war. Indian leader however corrupt are elected in india, in pakistan it is selected by the USA.

Army general would not do anything against the dictate of USA as the resource and logicstic come from there.

As a matter of fact in many technology neither india nor pakistan has reached self sufficiency espeically in the field of nuke.

I read that the calibration and measuring equipment does not getr produced anywhere but with western countries as neither india nor pakistan has the specialization in many chemical and composite industries.

Pakistan wasted its resources in the last sixty bitching about india and india moved far ahead in economy to be considered as four nation for the growth of the world. Yes, pakistan has been considered as one of two nuisan ce states. Great achievement.

Anonymous said...

Riaz,

Your argument is like pot calling the kettle black. I wonder how would you explain the invasion and annexation of Baluchistan in 1947. Despite the Khan of Kalat refused to join Pakistan, Mr. Jinnah sent in the army. Even today, the Balochis feel occupied and the Pak army mows the freedom fighters down with heavy armor.

Soon after Independence there was no fixed formula, communal criteria or mutually agreed strategy for apportioning princely states to either India or Pak. Talking about it now, which many Pakistanis do, is like beating a dead horse.

Naveen KS said...

To the anon @ July 9, 2009 4:36 PM

"This is the most delusional piece of crap I have ever heard. India sent its army to invade Hyderabad and Goa."

Yes India did send her troops into these states coz the people of these states wanted to join the Indian Union but the rulers of these states were holding out. Goa was ruled by the Portuguese and not by any native rulers. Goans were yearning to join the India Union. So were majority of Deccan Hyderabadis. It was within India's right to annex these states with force.

"Pakistan's desire to seek its territory - Kashmir is as justified as India's invasion of Hyderabad.I assumed you haven't been told that the people of Kashmir is under the occupation of India."

The undisputed leader of the Kashmiris was Sheikh Abdullah the grandfather of the present Chief Minister of Jammu & Kashmir. He was for union with India. Pakistan invaded JK b'coz it was the lifeline of Pakistani Punjab as the rivers that watered it originated/flew thru JK. For Pakistan it was another matter that JK was also majority Muslim in population. Pakistan did not have any right to invade JK. Period.

"Really, I heard the US just spanked India recently by banning Israel's arm sale to India.The shoooper power India indeed."

Hahaha! u dont even have ur facts right. Greedy Americans are offering India 2 of its best fighter planes and dont want to lose to Israel/Swedish joint bid. Thats why they asked Israel to withdraw from the bid. Pls google for more info.

As for ur last comment, in the long run India has everything going for it to emerge as a superpower. We are not rash in our decisions. We take our time but in the end slow and steady pays for us.

Subh said...

Whatever you are claiming are not fact. However India is not fear of Pakistan Army all but the terrorist who are prepared at Pak Soil is concerned to India. But these terrorist groups are also danger to Pakistan as we hear and see various attack in Pak. More over we should not compare defense power of two nation. What is needed is progress and development of two nation. If we compare two nation progress in the field of economy India is far ahead of PAK and we expect from Government of Pak as well as People of Pak that they will give more attention on the progress and development which will not only help the people of pak but also give prosperity in the Indian reason.

Anonymous said...

Riaz-either way you think -the truth is read in Wall Street Journal or German headlines or British papers-Pakistan is a sanctuary for terrorists!!! So whats your point about India. Lets keep Kashmir aside--can you survive as nation? Do you know what will happen to Pakistan is US stops funds? It will split in a month!!! If India decides it will happen in a week.But who wants to put his finger in such a religous mess.We want stable Pksitan that will find a respectable place in Islamic world and nothing to with India!!! Infact India will happy to ban cricket ties with Pakistan because India does not need your nation for anything.The only nuisance you can create is shouting like dogs thats all muslims should unite for sake of some crap ideology!!!! The more India keeps you away that harder it is for you to sustain!!!!! As far as Pak army fighting with India---dream as much you can-you have right for that. Again we want a stable Pakistan not anymore than that. We do not want a hell of religious criminals in millions pouring to Our nation when your nation collappses-thats why do not want your nation to collapse.

Anonymous said...

Hahahah.. I thoroughly enjoyed ur post.. hilarious. I always feel sorry for the people who have some language skills, willingness to write but not have their facts correct... anyways keep writing, its fun to read !

Anonymous said...

riaz, Hillary Beegum is in India. Food for next post ? Probably not ;-)

ac said...

Indian elites suffer from inferiority complex. Their "greatest" victory was subduing single division of Pakistan army in 1971 which was trapped by land/sea hit with desertion by Bengal manned air force. Although Pakistan emerged as much stronger strategically and Bengal is still a security thread to Indians, it is celebrated as a glorious holiday.

Jaydev said...

Channel 4 exclusive..
enjoy
http://link.brightcove.com/services/player/bcpid1184614595?bctid=27874456001

Anonymous said...

Indians have no option but to seek Pakistan's stability as they have been effectively deterred by Pakistan's nuclear and conventional forces. Back in 2002 the Indians put 1 million men on the border, and achieved nothing.

Anonymous said...

Seems all Indians have been fed the same lies, India has won all wars against Pakistan and Pakistan started all wars.

1971 saw 90,000 Pakistani soldiers surrender.

The truth is everytime India started wars except kargill, which was not really a war buty a skirmish.

In th enext war between Pakistan and India, the world will witness the breakup of India into smaller states.

Out of 90,000 Pakistanis, half were civil servants, only 40,000 pakistani soldiers did surrender against a force of over 400,000 Indians, and I blame that on cowardly Niazi.

In the air Pakistan won all wars soundly, see Chuck Yeagers comments.

In 1965 Pakistan soundly beat up India, a nation four times bigger with a force 3 times bigger, that is something to be proud of for Pakistan.

Today Pakistan is stronger than ever, and India cannot harm Pakistan unless it wants to risk suicide, it can only shriek and make noise, everyone knows, it has run out of any real options, Pakistan can give it a real bloody nose and even hack off a limb or two.

Anonymous said...

Seems all Indians have been fed the same lies, India has won all wars against Pakistan and Pakistan started all wars.

1971 saw 90,000 Pakistani soldiers surrender.

The truth is everytime India started wars except kargill, which was not really a war buty a skirmish.

In th enext war between Pakistan and India, the world will witness the breakup of India into smaller states.

Out of 90,000 Pakistanis, half were civil servants, only 40,000 pakistani soldiers did surrender against a force of over 400,000 Indians, and I blame that on cowardly Niazi.

In the air Pakistan won all wars soundly, see Chuck Yeagers comments.

In 1965 Pakistan soundly beat up India, a nation four times bigger with a force 3 times bigger, that is something to be proud of for Pakistan.

Today Pakistan is stronger than ever, and India cannot harm Pakistan unless it wants to risk suicide, it can only shriek and make noise, everyone knows, it has run out of any real options, Pakistan can give it a real bloody nose and even hack off a limb or two.

tituraj_doley said...

riazzz bhai,

u r a real frustated looser!!! u cant even reply to the people who replied against your original post.
It is funny even to believe that there is anything like 'India's obsession with pakistan' given the history we have. India has never claimed a single inch of pakistani land!!! I really fail to understand why would India be obsessed about pakistan as India is a far more developed country than pakistan!! And the reason why India is developed than pakistan is that India doesnt have retarted people like you who boasts of waging wars even in 21st century.

As far as the war facts are concerned , i would not like to go on looking for individual persons ratings( though i'm very sure i would manage to collect many more than you)..instead i give you a clear picture of facts on the wars which will hopefully open your eyes!!..

1)1947 war:

Casualties and losses
1,104 killed[1](Indian army)
684 killed (State Forces)[2] [3]
3,152 wounded [1]
1,500 killed[4] (Pakistan army)

2,633 killed, 4,668 wounded[5]

Furthermore the geographical conditions were not supportive for indian military as india had to travel long distances.

1965 war:

Deaths:
3,000 Indian soldiers, 3,800 Pakistani soldiers

Territory held:

India held 710 mi²(1,1840 km²) of Pakistani territory and Pakistan held 210 mi²(545 km²) of Indian territory.

had it not been the ceasefire India would have easily captured Lahore!!!

Also be noted that India at that time was very weak as it was just recovering from the Indo-Sino war. And the coward paskitanis only tried to take advantage of that!!! U boast of 'Extraordinary ' Air space performance by PAF..but my brother do you also know that at that time the US had provided the best Fighter jets of that time to pakistan??? On the other hand India's fighter planes were mostly self made!!!

1971 war:

I hope u know it....

1999 argil war:

Kargil War
Part of the Indo-Pakistani Wars

An Indian Bofors 155 mm howitzer field gun being repositioned during the war.
Date May-July 1999
Location Kargil district, Kashmir
Result Indian victory as India retakes all Pakistani occupied ridges. Pakistan withdraws from rest of Indian-controlled Kashmir to pre-war Line of Control.
Territorial
changes Status quo ante bellum

Belligerents

India
Pakistan,
Mujahideen
Foriegn volenteers
Commanders
Ved Prakash Malik Pervez Musharraf
Strength
30,000 5,000
Casualties and losses
Indian Official Figures:
527 killed,[1][2][3]
1,363 wounded[4]
1 POW Pakistani Estimates:
357 - 4,000 killed[5][6] (Pakistan troops)
665+ soldiers wounded[5]

....so all in all pakistan is the looser!!!

Riaz Haq said...

tituraj: "It is funny even to believe that there is anything like 'India's obsession with pakistan' ....."

If India is not obsessed with Pakistan, then why is it that India continues to deploy most of its troops on Pakistani borders? India has about 33 infantry divisions. Twenty-four are on Pakistan borders. They have three armored divisions, all three against Pakistan borders. They have three mechanized divisions, all three against Pakistan borders.

If Indians are not obsessed with Pakistan, then why is it that Indians engage in obsessive Pakistan-bashing on the Internet, even though India has only 7% of Indians have access to the Internet versus 11% of Pakistanis, according to ITU data?

t is not a secret that Indians suffer from "Israel envy", as described by Sashi Tharoor, and many Indians would like nothing better than to "do a Lebanon", as described by Pankaj Mishra, if they can do so without paying a heavy price.

Let's not forget, it was Kiyani's unambiguous warning of swift response, heard loud and clear in Delhi after Mumbai last year, that deterred Indian air strikes in Pakistan.

As to your numbers that you call "facts", all you have done is repeated the false claims and baseless propaganda of Indian government and pro-government media and analysts, while ignoring the data I have posted. It is shameful for Indians to claim victory over a much smaller neighbor who gave them a good thrashing repeatedly.

About 1965 war you claim," Also be noted that India at that time was very weak as it was just recovering from the Indo-Sino war. And the coward paskitanis only tried to take advantage of that!!!"

First, it was widely reported that India was the first to cross the International border into Pakistan near Lahore in a surprise attack. Pakistan responded forcefully and pushed the Indian military back into Khem Kharan, Indian territoty and took it from India. If Pakistan wanted to take advantage of India's drubbing by China in 1962, why would it wait for three years to do it?

You assert, "And the reason why India is developed than pakistan is that India doesnt have retarted people like you who boasts of waging wars even in 21st century."

First, India is not any more developed than Pakistan. India remains a poor, backward , third world country with the largest number of poor, malnourished and hungry people, according to all of the published indicators of well being.

Second, when you resort to personal abuse and insults (filled with typos), it's clear sign that you have already lost the argument.

anoop said...

"It is shameful for Indians to claim victory over a much smaller neighbor who gave them a good thrashing repeatedly."

When is that? Are you talking about battles? Or war? Pakistan might have one a few battles but not war. I hope you understand the difference between a battle and war.

"India is not any more developed than Pakistan. India remains a poor, backward , third world country with the largest number of poor, malnourished and hungry people, according to all of the published indicators of well being."

True. But, that was 10 years ago. Maybe even 15. We were in the same boat then. Not anymore. Riaz, I advice you visit places like Bangalore, Hyderabad, Chennai, Gurgaon and Pune to really understand how and why India is growing. You are generalizing everything about India. If there is a riot then you will say as if there were riots all over India. Have you any idea how big India is? How many different kind of people live here? If there are slums you make people believe that slums are all over India. There are pockets of wealth in India which are driving India's growth. Economically how can you ever compare the 2nd fastest growing economy in the world,2nd only to China and biggest begging bowl in the world? Do you realize that Pakistan has become the biggest beggar/aid-receiving country in the world? In that case the comparison between the neighbors is silly and laughable.
You only see the slums of Mumbai but you dont see how many people are actually going out of these slums and settling in other areas. You dont see the kind of money Mumbai generates by its institutions. You are not to blame. Its the way you are programmed to look at India and its issues in your schools and newspapers and ego too plays a great part. India is in the league as China. Do you think China has eliminated poverty? China is like India but a little better in this department. But, India is what China will never be, a democracy. There we will have an edge forever.

Sid said...

Right! What a worthless article with incorrect propaganda. If pakistan dominated these wars so much then how on earth did they lose bangladesh? How is it that the pakistan regime was scared into calling for a ceasrfire each time? If the war's had gone on for a few more days, pakistan would have been bankrupt. At the time of the Kargil ceasefire, pakistan had just 6 days of supplies left.

I am sure the "blog author" will moderate true comments. Isn't that why it is enabled?

Pakistan is a beggar now. It's taking life support from the IMF and middle east. What does it have inhouse in the way of industry? The only way it can survive and keep it's dissently populace together is by using anti-india propaganda. Who rules Pakistan? The govenment, military or ISI?

There was an article that I remember reading. It goes something like this;

"why did it take pakistan 7 days to do their tests after india in 1999. ............... It is because all the manuals were in chinese!!

Riaz Haq said...

Here are excerpts from "1965 War, the Inside Story" by R.D. Pradhan, that illustrates how the 1965 war unfolded:

In Chapter 8 titled "Of Cowardice and Panic", the author describes the cowardice of Maj. Gen. Niranjan Prasad, the Indian general commanding officer in Lahore sector. When the general was fired upon by Pakistani forces, he "ran away". "On learning that, Lt. Gen. Harbakash Singh and the corps commander drove in a Jonga to the battlefront. Army commander found that the enemy (PAF) air attack had created a havoc on G.T. Road. (Indian) Vehicles were burning and several vehicles of 15 Division abandoned on the road, the drivers having run away, leaving some of the engines still running. Maj. Gen. Niranjan Prasad was hiding in a recently irrigated sugar cane field. As described by Harabakash Singh: "He (Prasad) came out to receive us, with his boots covered with wet mud. He had no head cover, nor was he wearing any badges of his ranl. He had stubble on his face, not having shaved." Seeing him in such a stage, Harbakhash Singh asked him: "Whether he was the General Officer commanding a division or a coolie? Why had he removed badges of rank and not shaved? Niranjan Prasad had no answer."

Pradhan's book contains many different entries by Indian Defense Minister Y.B. Chavan. A Sept 9, 1965 entry reads: Had a very hard day on all fronts. Very fierce counter-attacks mounted and we are required to withdraw in Kasur area. COAS was somewhat uncertain of himself. I suggested to him that he should go in forward areas so that he will be in touch of realities. He said he would go next day.

Prabhakar said...

Mr Riaz, now that's another funny story of yours.

Here is the image you might like to have a look at:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/e/ec/InstrumentOfSurrender.jpg

The numbers looked something like this:

Branch Number of captured Pakistani POWs
Army 54,154
Navy 1,381
Air Force 833
Paramilitary including police 22,000
Civilian personnel 12,000
Total: 90,368

Speaks something about who is concocting a myth.

Riaz Haq said...

I found some interesting rankings of military strengths of various nations on globalfirepower.com.

Here are rankings:

1. USA
2. China
3. Russia
4. India
5. UK
6. France
7. Germany
8. Brazil
9. Japan
10. Turkey
11. Israel
12. South Korea
13. Italy
14. Indonesia
15. Pakistan
16. Taiwan
17. Egypt
18. Iran
19. Mexico
20. North Korea

The site explains the rankings as follows:

Rank 1-10 Observations: The United States (GFP formula value of 0.184) remains the undisputed leader of our list thanks to their staying "active" in global hotspots, showcasing the world's largest navy and continuing to poor in gobs of money into defense. Our formula sees China edge out Russia but only by the slimmest of margins (0.238 versus 0.241 respectively) with an edge in available manpower and financial capital. France (0.636) and Germany (0.672) are relative equals for the most part but the GFP formula gives a slight edge to France thanks to an aircraft carrier and capable navy as well as a bump in defense spending. Brazil (0.756) is the most powerful South American country on the list thanks to available manpower and a capable navy. Japan (0.920) is a "sleeper" power that sneaks into the top ten with a good navy, strong logistical infrastructure and capital.

Rank 11-20 Observations: Our formula provides for a good disparity between North and South Korea, placing South well-ahead of the North thanks to better infrastructure and capital. Mexico's placement this high on the list is interesting to note - it scored a good balance across the board in all major categories. Israel finally gets a proper placement on this year's list - just out of the top ten - sporting a strong land army with equally strong training, modern equipment and recent combat experience.

http://www.globalfirepower.com/

Riaz Haq said...

Here are some interesting arguments by Juan Cole about ranking militaries:

Figuring expenditures per GDP means that poor countries look more militaristic than they really are and rich countries look pacifist when they are anything but. The CIA listing of countries by military expenditure as a percentage of GDP puts powerhouses like Oman, Eritrea, Burundi, and the Maldives at the top of the world list. The US, which spends more on the military than the next 40 countries combined, comes in 27th on this list behind the countries just mentioned. Of what use is that? Doesn't it just tell us that many of the countries at the top of this list are poor and if they buy so much as a rusty artillery piece, it is a big part of their income? And by the way, if we figure it this way, Iran is 67 in the world. While the poster puts that between India and Vietnam, it is also between the Congo and Portugal. My original point, is that a country that spends $6 or $7 bn a year on military affairs doesn't amount to much of a military threat to the US, is not damaged by this rather silly argument.

http://www.juancole.com/2009/10/on-how-iran-is-military-nothing-despite.html

Riaz Haq said...

Here's an interesting report in India Today about Indian Army's war readiness:

The Indian Army, one of the world's largest, has admitted it is far from being battle-ready. The force is 50 per cent short of attaining full capability.

The admission is part of the army's internal assessment report submitted to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Defence. Headlines Today has exclusive access to the report.

The report says it will take around 20 years for the army to gain full defence preparedness. The infantry, artillery and the armoury would be fully ready for battle only by 2027. This means that in the event of a war in the next two decades, the country may prove to be a virtual sitting duck.

Going by the report, the force seems most vulnerable as far as combat helicopters are concerned. The report says the army has attained an abysmal 17 per cent capability in combat choppers. Full combat capability by helicopters would not be possible before 2027.

Another problem is the army's inability to develop a communication network. India will not have a real-time information sharing network before 2027. The current capability is just 24 per cent despite the country's stellar show in information technology.

What's really shocking is the shortage in fighting arms. The artillery has just 52 per cent of the total capability required to defend the country. The country will near 97 per cent capability in artillery only by 2027.

The infantry too is struggling at a 65 per cent capability. The infantry wants to replace its indigenous INSAS rifles, acquire night-fighting capabilities, new generation anti-tank missiles and rockets. Shields for nuclear, biological and chemical warfare too are not properly in place.

The picture isn't rosy for the mechanised and special forces units either, which are way behind their required defence preparedness.

anoop said...

Riaz,
see you were saying Indian defense budget was bloated. We are way behind.

anoop said...

Riaz,
see you were saying Indian defense budget was bloated. We are way behind.st

Riaz Haq said...

anoop: "see you were saying Indian defense budget was bloated."

Part of globalization in India is to emulate the US military-industrial complex to feed the war machine by crying foul all the time.

Riaz Haq said...

The Pakistani air force says it has acquired the first of four Awacs surveillance aircraft from Sweden to boost its air defenses.

An air force statement said the Swedish Saab-2000 Awacs aircraft landed at one of the main operating bases on Tuesday.

The acquisition of the Awacs comes after arch-rival India bought its own Awacs systems from Israel in June.

The BBC's Syed Shoaib Hasan in Islamabad says the Saab-2000 aircraft will boost the Pakistani military's early warning capabilities in the event of hostilities with India.

The aircraft can be used to provide information on all three spheres of military conflict - aerial, naval and land based.

Earlier this year, Pakistan
had voiced concern over the acquisition of Airborne Warning And Control System (AWACS) aircraft by India and said it would
counter the threat by inducting 500 American Beyond Visual Range (BVR) missiles.

Claiming that induction of AWACS by India would trigger a new arms race in the subcontinent, Pakistan's Air chief Air Marshal Rao Qamar Suleman said Islamabad would match this capability by acquiring its own AWACS by September this year. The delivery of these AWACs systems has finally begun.

The BBC correspondent says the Awacs planes and advanced F-16 fighter-bombers soon to arrive from the US will provide a qualitative edge to the Pakistan air force against its numerically superior adversary.

Pakistani military officials say the planes also have a greater range than similar aircraft in the Indian military and can be used as airborne command centers in case of a possible nuclear conflict.

anoop said...

As usual Pakistan is buying toys that it cannot afford. Glad to know the KLB money is being to "good" use. Only if this could have been used to kill those who attack Pakistan everyday!

anoop said...

Here, is an article by Ahmad Rashid,one of the best brains on South-Asia.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8369914.stm

He says,"Pakistan cannot tackle its real problems unless the country's leaders - military and civilian - first admit that much of the present crisis is a result of long-standing mistakes, the lack of democracy, the failure to strengthen civic institutions and the lack of investment in public services like education, even as there continues to be a massive investment in nuclear weapons and the military."

He aptly sums up Pakistan's situation when he notes nuclear weapons-a technology that Pakistan already possesses-gets more importance than the REAL issues. Remember, the Soviet Union was destroyed by spending more than it can afford on the Military. Pakistan is on the same track. It is currently held together by aid provided by the West,mainly the Americans,whom the average Pakistani is taught by the Military to hate. Isn't it ironic?
A country whom Pakistan should worship is being seen as a villain.

Riaz Haq said...

anoop: You can quote Rashid and many other critics of Pakistan. However, an average Pakistani is still doing better than an average Indian on the basics of access to food, clothing and shelter, in spite of its current difficulties.

The latest Global Hunger rankings just released last month put India at #65 along with many sub Saharan African poor nations. Pakistan fares better at #58.

Last year, Indian Planning Commission member Syeda Hameed acknowledged that India is worse than Bangladesh and Pakistan when it comes to nourishment and is showing little improvement.

Speaking at a conference on "Malnutrition an emergency: what it costs the nation", she said even Prime Minister Manmohan Singh during interactions with the Planning Commission has described malnourishment as the "blackest mark".

"I should not compare. But countries like Bangladesh, Pakistan and Sri Lanka are better," she said. The conference was organized last year by the Confederation of Indian Industry and the Ministry of Development of Northeastern Region.

According to India's Family Health Survey, almost 46 percent of children under the age of three are undernourished - an improvement of just one percent in the last seven years. This is only a shade better than Sub-Saharan Africa where about 35 percent of children are malnourished.

India has recently been described as a "nutritional weakling" by a British report.

CoolAL said...

Part-1
RiazHaq - Take off your tinted lenses. Some Neutral assessments of the 65 war.
Neutral assessments
There have been several neutral assessments of the losses incurred by both India and Pakistan during the war. Most of these assessments agree that India had a upper hand over Pakistan when ceasefire was declared. Some of the neutral assessments are mentioned below: According to the United States Library of Congress Country Studies: The war was militarily inconclusive; each side held prisoners and some territory belonging to the other. Losses were relatively heavy--on the Pakistani side, twenty aircraft, 200 tanks, and 3,800 troops. Pakistan's army had been able to withstand Indian pressure, but a continuation of the fighting would only have led to further losses and ultimate defeat for Pakistan. Most Pakistanis, schooled in the belief of their own martial prowess, refused to accept the possibility of their country's military defeat by "Hindu India" and were, instead, quick to blame their failure to attain their military aims on what they considered to be the ineptitude of Ayub Khan and his government. TIME magazine reported that India held 690 mi2 of Pakistan territory while Pakistan held 250 mi2 of Indian territory in Kashmir and Rajasthan. Additionally, Pakistan had lost almost half its armour temporarily.The same article stated that -
Severely mauled by the larger Indian armed forces, Pakistan could continue the fight only by teaming up with Red China and turning its back on the U.N. Devin T. Hagerty wrote in his book "South Asia in world politics"- The invading Indian forces outfought their Pakistani counterparts and halted their attack on the outskirts of Lahore, Pakistan's second-largest city. By the time United Nations intervened on September 22, Pakistan had suffered a clear defeat. In his book "National identity and geopolitical visions", Gertjan Dijkink writes -
The superior Indian forces, however, won a decisive victory and the army could have even marched on into Pakistani territory had external pressure not forced both combatants to cease their war efforts. An excerpt from Stanley Wolpert's India, summarizing the Indo-Pakistani War of 1965, is as follows: In three weeks the second Indo-Pak War ended in what appeared to be a draw when the embargo placed by Washington on U.S. ammunition and replacements for both armies forced cessation of conflict before either side won a clear victory. India, however, was in a position to inflict grave damage to, if not capture, Pakistan's capital of the Punjab when the cease-fire was called, and controlled Kashmir's strategic Uri-Poonch bulge, much to Ayub's chagrin. In his book "War in the modern world since 1815", Jeremy Black mentions that "Pakistan gambled and lost heavily". He also writes about India's missed military opportunities-India's chief of army staff urged negotiations on the ground that they were running out ammunition and their number of tanks had become seriously depleted. In fact, the army had used less than 15% of its ammunition compared to Pakistan, which had consumed closer to 80 percent and India had double the number of serviceable tanks.
Dennis Kux's "India and the United States estranged democracies" also provides a summary of the war. Although both sides lost heavily in men and materiel, and neither gained a decisive military advantage, India had the better of the war. New Delhi achieved its basic goal of thwarting Pakistan's attempt to seize Kashmir by force. Pakistan gained nothing from a conflict which it had instigated.

CoolAl said...

Part-2
RiazHaq - Take off your tinted lenses. Some Neutral assessments of the 65 war.
Neutral assessments
An excerpt from William M. Carpenter and David G. Wiencek's "Asian security handbook: terrorism and the new security environment"- A brief but furious 1965 war with India began with a covert Pakistani thrust across the Kashmiri cease-fire line and ended up with the city of Lahore threatened with encirclement by Indian Army. Another UN-sponsored cease-fire left borders unchanged, but Pakistan's vulnerability had again been exposed.
English historian John Keay's "India: A History" provides a summary of the 1965 war-
The 1965 Indo-Pak war lasted barely a month. Pakistan made gains in the Rajasthan desert but its main push against India's Jammu-Srinagar road link was repulsed and Indian tanks advanced to within a sight of Lahore. Both sides claimed victory but India had most to celebrate. Uk Heo and Shale Asher Horowitz write in their book "Conflict in Asia: Korea, China-Taiwan, and India-Pakistan"- Again India appeared, logistically at least, to be in a superior position but neither side was able to mobilize enough strength to gain a decisive victory.
Riazzz note. I am posting dissenting opinion too ;-)
Newsweek magazine, however, praised the Pakistani military's ability to hold of the much larger Indian Army.-
"By just the end of the week, in fact, it was clear that the Pakistanis were more than holding their own."

anoop said...

People have been doing well in South Asia inspite of the Governmental institutions not because of it. India's record post 1991 is far better than it has been performing years before that. This growth is because of good policy by the govt in charge and stabilization of democracy and realization in the political circles that economic woes must be addressed to gain political power. Before 1991, I'd assume, the differences between India and Pakistan were bigger in terms of economic indicators. And, there would have been no competition when it comes to these indicators. The way things around me are evolving and improving around me suggests that things have improved at a better rate in India than in Pakistan. The reason for that is the practicing of stable,free-market oriented policies of governments at the center.
There has been a shift in the way the Indian electorate looks at things and democracy in general in India and a natural transition to good economic policies. But, has Pakistan reached that stage. It has not even taken the 1st step towards democracy. The kind of disenchantment towards democracy in a country that has better indicators than a thriving democracy-India is quite alarming.
India has a better curve at improving economic indicators than Pakistan which is increasingly unstable and a bad economy to match. The future economic health in Pakistan is pretty uncertain as the abysmal growth of 2% in the past year suggests at a time when worlds economies are expanding.

Riaz Haq said...

CoolAl:

The fact is that India was the first to accept the ceasefire in 1965, as spelled out clearly in Indian authr and Chavan's personal secretary Pradhan's 1965 War.

On page 100, the last paragraph says as follows:

"India had accepted the (ceasefire) resolution but Pakistan was refusing to do so. At this stage, the Secretary General (UN) suggested to India's representative G. Parthasarthy that India considers declaration of unilateral ceasefire..."

If Pak was in such dire straits, why didn't Ayub Khan jump at the first opportunity to accept the ceasfire?

anoop said...

As usual,Riaz,the language you speak is not at the same wavelength as the world's. You speak a different tone than the majority.Anyway, bottom line is Pakistan invaded India and backed off without meeting ANY of its stated objectives. So, in military terms the mission was a failure. The victim managed (barely,according to you) to hold off the aggressor. This means that India is the victor. I cannot simply that more.
If 1965 had not happened maybe 1971 may not have had happened. Looking back, that misadventure has cost Pakistan half of its country. You cannot have a bigger defeat than that.

Riaz Haq said...

anoop: "You cannot have a bigger defeat than that."

There is no question that Pakistan was defeated in 1971, losing a part of it that preferred separation after Pakistani politicians' monumental failures and India's covert intervention followed by overt invasion of a region completely surrounded by India, cut off from the rest of the country by a thousand miles.

But don't get your hopes up for another round. The fundamentals have changed dramatically since 1971. Any miscalculation and misadventure by India will be extremely costly to India and the rest of South Asia. The likes of Pradhan or Prasds will not live to tell the story, as they did in 1965 or 1971.

anoop said...

Riaz,
I've clearly upset you. In a sense,it just indicates the correctness of my arguments.
I've never called for invading Pakistan. Why should we? What objectives will we be pursuing? Are there any resources in Pakistan that we covet? Is there anything in Pakistan that we crave for? ANYTHING?
Pakistan was inevitable,according to me. It was just a socialogical experiment with results I dont want to dwell upon.
The basic ideology of Pakistan collapsed when certain people belonging to a certain identity started killing their own people,when it was in their name the country was created.
We do not have any designs on capturing any territory of any country. We are a status-quo country and we proved that when we withdrew out of Bangladesh very soon and gave complete control back to the Bengalis. We gave up all the territories captured in the 1965 and 1971 wars.
Infact, we are more concerned about safeguarding those borders that divide us and we cannot do that if we want to change them as you suggest. We want to make sure that the mayhem that is going on in Pakistan doesn't affect us one bit.
Even the creation of Bangladesh was inevitable. The only thing that could have prevented Bengalis from going their own way was pure,unadulterated Democracy. But, that can never happen in Pakistan,can it? Unless, a miracle happens and a "Manmohan Singh" type becomes the Army Chief. Army will never relinquish its hold over the country.
As Ardeshir Cowasjee says in today's piece,"As for this present regime, it is not repressive, it is not a dictatorship, it is not a democracy. Well, what is it? A hotchpotch concocted out of a wickedly mutilated and ravaged constitution of which few can make sense."
http://www.dawn.com/wps/wcm/connect/dawn-content-library/dawn/the-newspaper/columnists/our-haunting-demons-329
I see a country that is under going hell all because of its eternal fear of its neighbour and to counter that perceived threat it has created proxies around and inside its territory. Those proxies have come down to hunt them. As the saying goes,"Chicken have come home to roost". You should not be worrying about India. You should be worrying about the paranoia that affects the one and only institution,that is holding Pakistan together and can hold it together in future,about the perceived threat from India that is clearly a figment of its imagination.

Riaz Haq said...

anoop: "I see a country that is under going hell ...."

Unlike China and Pakistan, India's embrace of capitalism in the name of "reform" has created an economically resurgent India with widespread grinding poverty that has earned it the reputation as home to more than a third of the world's poorest people. The abject poverty poverty and hunger in India is comparable to Haiti and sub-Saharan Africa. Based on ample data from various world bodies like FAO,UNESCAP, etc., Indians have fared worse than their neighbors on basic social indicators of access to food, clothing, healthcare, sanitation and shelter.

The growing rich-poor gap has also caused a rash of farmer suicides ( about 200,000 since 1997, according to LA Times) and intensified the Maoist insurgency that has forced India to deploy 100,000 troops to battle the rebels who control large swaths of land in central and southern states. The only reason why the Indian media and the urban middle class have not taken notice of the violent Maoist insurgency is because it has been confined to the rural landscape, and not targeted cities like Delhi, Mumbai, Hyderabad and Bangalore.

And the problems are likely to get worse, with widespread crop failures and increasing farmer suicides. India has long been plagued by unscrupulous moneylenders who exploit impoverished farmers. But with crops failing more frequently, farmers are left even more desperate and vulnerable, according to a recent LA Times report.

The same LA Times report also talks about several cases of women and children sold by farmers to pay off debts.

I am quite used to the fact that "patriotic" Indians question anything that makes India look worse than Pakistan, here's a report in the Indian media with Indian officials admitting the facts:

New Delhi, July 2 (IANS) India is worse than Bangladesh and Pakistan when it comes to nourishment and is showing little improvement in the area despite big money being spent on it, says Planning Commission member Syeda Hameed.

'There has been an enormous infusion of funds. But the National Family Health Survey gives a different story on malnourishment in the country. We don't know, something is just not clicking,' Hameed said.

Speaking at a conference on 'Malnutrition an emergency: what it costs the nation', she said even Prime Minister Manmohan Singh during interactions with the Planning Commission has described malnourishment as the 'blackest mark'.

"I should not compare. But countries like Bangladesh, Pakistan and Sri Lanka are better," she said. The conference was organised Monday by the Confederation of Indian Industry and the Ministry of Development of Northeastern Region.

According to India's Family Health Survey
, almost 46 percent of children under the age of three are undernourished - an improvement of just one percent in the last seven years. This is only a shade better than Sub-Saharan Africa where about 35 percent of children are malnourished.

Hameed said the government's Integrated Child Development Services (ICDS) programme, which is a flagship programme to improve the health of women and children, had not shown results despite a lot of money being spent on it in the past few years.


Source: http://newshopper.sulekha.com/india-worse-than-pakistan-bangladesh-on-nourishmen t_news_927008.htm

Here's a quote from a recent New York Times story appropriately titled "India's Malnutrition Dilemma":

India is often compared — and often compares itself — with China, but the fact is that as China became an economic powerhouse it greatly reduced malnutrition. In an all-fronts effort, China cut child malnutrition by two-thirds between 1990 and 2002. Today only 7 percent of Chinese children under age 5 are underweight, whereas the figure for India is 43 percent. Even in sub-Saharan Africa, which most people assume to have the direst poverty statistics, the average child-malnutrition rate is 28 percent.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/11/magazine/11FOB-Rieff-t.html?_r=1

Riaz Haq said...

In another recent World Economic Forum report on gender inequality, India came in dead last at #134 on a list 134 nations for its women's health.

The latest Global Hunger Index 2009 released last month reports that hunger in India is comparable or worse than countries in sub-Saharan Africa. On a list of 84 countries, Pakistan ranked 58 while India ranked worse at 65.

According to a UNICEF report, "India might be an emerging economic power, but it is way behind Pakistan, Bangladesh and even Afghanistan in providing basic sanitation facilities, a key reason behind the death of 2.1 million children under five in the country.Lizette Burgers, chief water and environment sanitation of the Unicef, said India is making progress in providing sanitation but it lags behind most of the other countries in South Asia.

AS one of Chowk.com writers Dost Mittar recently wrote on Chowk:

"Anyone who has seen the blockbuster film “Slumdog Millionaire” would remember one scene above all others. I am referring, of course, to the “potty scene” where the young Jamal is shown relieving himself in an open pit. The scene caused a lot of adverse reaction in India as unrepresentative of true India. But according to a joint study conducted by the World Health Organization and UNICEF, 665 million Indians, or nearly two-thirds of them defecate in the open. I am not sure if these 665 included people using indoor toilets without plumbing; if it did not, then the number of Indians defecating in an unhygienic manner is even greater."

I know it's asking a lot, but I'd like the angry mob of Indians to reflect on the following:

1. Do you disagree with UNDP HDI report that shows Pakistanis having an almost three year edge (66 vs 63 yrs) on life expectancy? Are you then questioning the validity of a report that ranks India ahead of Pakistan, which you gladly quoted? And where did the CIA Fact book got its figures for 2009 for life expectancy, which is still not over? Did they make up the figures well ahead of time? Or have someone dream it up for publication? Usually, it takes a year or two to compile such detailed figures before they are published.

2. Do you also disagree with a member of India's planning commission, Syeda Hamid, who has access to a lot more data than you and I, and says India is doing worse than Pakistan on nutrition?

3. Do you disagree with UNICEF that India is way behind Pakistan and Bangladesh, even Afghanistan, in access to proper sanitation?

4. Do you think poor nutrition and lack of sanitation impact overall health and life expectancy figures in India, which is doing worse than Pakistan on both counts?

5. Do you reject overwhelming evidence presented in multiple reports by UN bodies, international NGOs and responsible Indian government officials which show Pakistan is doing better than India in terms of food, clothing and shelter?

In a post on "Hunger and Undernutrition Blog", blogger Nabeeha Kazi Hutchins wrote recently, "I've seen first hand the inability of India's political leaders to fully recognize malnutrition as a crisis. The first step to begin to turn the tide on India's malnutrition dilemma is for Indian officials to declare malnutrition an emergency."

I agree with Ms. Hutchins entirely. Unfortunately, it is not uncommon for many Indians to deny the problems of hunger, poverty and lack of sanitation and sometimes resort to attacking those who bring focus on these problem. Such reactions were typified by anger in India at the showing of extreme poverty and lack of sanitation in "Slumdog Millionaire".
The movie was decried by many in India as "racist poverty porn" and condemned by Bollywood superstar Amitabh Bachan in his blog for showing India as "a third world dirty under belly developing nation (sic)", the movie Slumdog Millionaire has been greeted by howls of protests in India.

anoop said...

I thought the question was who won the 1965 war and about the security situation in general. Anyway, I should not ignore your comments.
I am a citizen of India and I've complete confidence in my country and the present system. It has evolved over the years and has increased in efficiency. Democracy is after all self-healing. I know the pluses and minuses of India. I want to market the pluses to reduce the minuses. I know the fact that India is home to the biggest population of poor in the world. But, the way out is through economic expansion, creation of jobs, simultaneous,co-ordinated rural and urban development. This is all happening but not at a pace at which China was able to achieve. One of the pluses of having nobody to answer to.
The image of India is changing and changing for the better. The list of facts you have at your disposal is also available to every single person in the world with an access to the internet. Still, the world looks up to India,the largest democratic country in asia surrounded by failures. This is not by accident or misinformation but by hope and knowledge. The world knows we are destined to change for the better and have not missed the train and have an appointment with success.
I am not at all comparing India with China. We cannot emulate growth of China but we can catch upto it with steady,all-round development. I envy China but we cannot be under a authoritarian regime like China has been.

anoop said...

Riaz,
I am not denying any of the statistics you have put up. I am only saying we are taking care of it. Have you compared and contrasted the figures before 1991 and after to suggest that India's wealth distribution is uneven?
You say growth is not reaching the masses. But, have you ever got statistics from the 80's and compare with today's statistics? Things were a lot worse then. But, they have improved tremendously. And, the curve is on the up. That is my point. The Future doesn't look bleak.
I am conceding that Pakistan has had better health and nourishment indices than India over the past 60 years. But, not for long.

Mayraj said...

http://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/india/article.cfm?articleid=4156
The Dark Side of the Moon: The Downside to India's Economic Rise

http://urbanhealthupdates.wordpress.com/2009/08/26/india-number-of-urban-poor-to-rise-by-11-in-maharashtra/
India – Number of urban poor to rise by 11% in Maharashtra
http://www.indianexpress.com/news/steep-rise-in-below-poverty-line-numbers-in/262202/
Steep rise in below poverty line numbers in J-K
http://arthedains.com/indiaunplugged/2008/12/22/the-bjp-wakes-up-to-indias-poverty/

http://www.tgfworld.org/critical-Rural%20Poverty%20on%20the%20Rise.htm
Rural Poverty on the Rise
http://money.cnn.com/2007/02/08/news/international/pluggedin_murphy_india.fortune/index.htm
India the Superpower? Think again
India should put aside pride about its growing economy and concentrate on improving the lives of average citizens, argues Fortune's Cait Murphy.

Anonymous said...

Do you know that a fully armed and loaded Gnat fighter jet surrendered to a PAF jet in 1965...and landed in the town of Pasrur...I've seen it myself, capable, beautiful and shiny, still parked in the PAF museum, almost still the way it was in 1965 when its pilot surrendered meekly after having consumed too much veggies probably...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cLwQPKHqfYQ

anoop said...

I think many Pakistanis have taken this martial race thing too seriously. They are obsessed about a war fought 50 years ago which evidence suggests was a failed military mission by the Pakistani army resulting in a loss for Pakistan. Grow up guys. The only martial race is the race with the superior technology in this world. The technology comes from an efficient system and smart brains. Now is the time for brain not brawn.

Riaz Haq said...

Here's a report from India Today on India army-air force debate over cold start:

The army and air force are battling it out over how to beat Pakistan in a flash war if and when that happens.

The Indian Air Force is not convinced about its role in the army's "cold start doctrine" for a future Indo-Pak war.

The strategy envisages the air force providing "close air support", which calls for aerial bombing of ground targets to augment the fire power of the advancing troops.

The growing tension between the two services is evident in a statement of air vice-marshal (retd) Kapil Kak, deputy director of the air force's own Centre for Air Power Studies.

"There is no question of the air force fitting itself into a doctrine propounded by the army. That is a concept dead at inception," Kak said.

A senior army officer disputes the notion of a conceptual difference between the two services. "The air force is supposed to launch an offensive under the doctrine by hitting targets deep inside enemy territory," he said. But he admitted the air force was hesitant about 'close air support'. 'Cold Start' is a post-nuclearised doctrine that envisages a "limited war" in which the army intends to inflict substantial damage on Pakistan's armed forces without letting it cross the threshold where it could think of pressing the nuclear button.

The doctrine intends to accomplish the task before the international community led by the US and China could intercede to end hostilities. Kak said, "The air force has the primary task of achieving 'air dominance' by which Pakistan's air force is put out of action allowing the army to act at will."

But he sees little necessity for the air force to divert frontline fighter aircraft for augmenting the army's fire power, a task that, in his opinion, can be achieved by the army's own attack helicopters and multiple rocket launchers that now have a 100-km range.

But he agrees the two services should work according to a joint plan. It means the air force would launch 'battlefield air strikes' to neutralise threats on the ground based on an existing plan. But that would be different from an army commander calling for air support on the basis of a developing war scenario.

That is not the only problem facing the doctrine. In the past few weeks, many have expressed doubts about the army's ability to launch operations on the basis of the new doctrine.

There are also apprehensions about the army's incomplete deployment of forces, lack of mobility and unattended infrastructure development.

But senior officers say the army has identified the units, which would constitute the eight division-strong independent battle groups out of its three strike corps. These battle groups would comprise mechanised infantry, artillery and armour.

"The forces have exercised as constituted battle groups at least six times since 2004. Each of the identified unit knows where they will be deployed," a senior General said.

According to him, the time for deployment has been cut down to "days". "No longer will the movement of troops require three months like it did when Operation Parakram was launched after the attack on Parliament in 2001," he said.

The army also debunks the idea that the troops lack mobility. Some armed forces observers have said only 35 per cent of the army is mobile inside the country.

They have, thus, concluded that even less numbers would be mobile inside the enemy territory.

The army officials, however, pooh pooh the criticism claiming 100 per cent of the Indian troops are mobile.

Riaz Haq said...

Let me share some more facts on 1965 war, as stated in Pradhan's book in Chapter 12 titled "Retreat to Beas".

"Briefly the origins of the controversy lay in the strategy discussion after the 1962 India-China conflict. Pakistan's acquisition of modern weapons from US had tilted the military balance in favor of Pakistan. There were two schools of thought for framing India's defence strategy in the Punjab. One school favored defending the border, while the second advocated a defence line along the Beas river (well inside Indian territory). Taking into account Pakistan's superiority in armor and firepower, the former felt that a major battle in the west of Beas would end in destruction of the Indian army and thereafter allow the enemy (Pakistani) forces to push to the gates of Delhi without much resistance. They believed that the defence potential of the Beas should be utilized to hold any Pakistani onslaught. It seems that (COAS) General Chaudhry was also inclined towards this view."

In chapter 10, titled "The Stupid Incident", it talks about how Lt. Col. Anant Singh and 126 of his men were taken prisoner, twenty were killed:

"Next morning when 2 Mahar troops approached the Khem Kharan distributary (taken by Pakistanis earlier), they were attacked by the PAF repeatedly. 2 Mahar fell back after suffering heavy casualties. Despite subsequent efforts, theit attacks toward Khem Kharan failed. They lost 11 tanks, 4 JCOs and 83 jawans were wounded. Later, Brig Sidhu was brought down in rank for the failure of the attack."

Riaz Haq said...

What happened in East Pakistan in 1971 was absolutely tragic and unforgivable, and Pakistani military is responsible for major atrocities. The politicians, particularly Bhutto, Mujib and Indira are also partly responsible for the massacre that occurred.

Let's not believe everything we read and hear about what happened. A lot of it has been agenda-driven to create a certain narrative that is not entirely accurate.

For example, let's examine the truth about the Jessore massacre, as reported by Sharmila Bose of Telegraph newspaper in India.

"The massacre may have been genocide, but it wasn’t committed by the Pakistan army. The dead men were non-Bengali residents of Jessore, butchered in broad daylight by Bengali nationalists, reports Sarmila Bose

The bodies lie strewn on the ground. All are adult men, in civilian clothes. A uniformed man with a rifle slung on his back is seen on the right. A smattering of onlookers stand around, a few appear to be working, perhaps to remove the bodies.

The caption of the photo is just as grim as its content: ‘April 2, 1971: Genocide by the Pakistan Occupation Force at Jessore.’ It is in a book printed by Bangladeshis trying to commemorate the victims of their liberation war.

It is a familiar scene. There are many grisly photographs of dead bodies from 1971, published in books, newspapers and websites.

Reading another book on the 1971 war, there was that photograph again ? taken from a slightly different angle, but the bodies and the scene of the massacre were the same. But wait a minute! The caption here reads: ‘The bodies of businessmen murdered by rebels in Jessore city.’

The alternative caption is in The East Pakistan Tragedy, by L.F. Rushbrook Williams, written in 1971 before the independence of Bangladesh. Rushbrook Williams is strongly in favour of the Pakistan government and highly critical of the Awami League. However, he was a fellow of All Souls College, Oxford, had served in academia and government in India, and with the BBC and The Times. There was no reason to think he would willfully mislabel a photo of a massacre.

And so, in a bitter war where so many bodies had remained unclaimed, here is a set of murdered men whose bodies are claimed by both sides of the conflict! Who were these men? And who killed them?

It turns out that the massacre in Jessore may have been genocide, but it wasn’t committed by the Pakistan army. The dead men were non-Bengali residents of Jessore, butchered in broad daylight by Bengali nationalists.

It is but one incident, but illustrative of the emerging reality that the conflict in 1971 in East Pakistan was a lot messier than most have been led to believe. Pakistan’s military regime did try to crush the Bengali rebellion by force, and many Bengalis did die for the cause of Bangladesh’s independence. Yet, not every allegation hurled against the Pakistan army was true, while many crimes committed in the name of Bengali nationalism remain concealed.

Once one took a second look, some of the Jessore bodies are dressed in salwar kameez ? an indication that they were either West Pakistanis or ‘Biharis’, the non-Bengali East Pakistanis who had migrated from northern India.

As accounts from the involved parties ? Pakistan, Bangladesh and India ? tend to be highly partisan, it was best to search for foreign eye witnesses, if any. My search took me to newspaper archives from 35 years ago. The New York Times carried the photo on April 3, 1971, captioned: ‘East Pakistani civilians, said to have been slain by government soldiers, lie in Jessore square before burial.’ The Washington Post carried it too, right under its masthead: ‘The bodies of civilians who East Pakistani sources said were massacred by the Pakistani army lie in the streets of Jessore.’ “East Pakistani sources said”, and without further investigation, these august newspapers printed the photo.

Riaz Haq said...

More on Jessore massacre, as reported by Sharmila Bose of Telegraph newspaper in India.

In fact, if the Americans had read The Times of London of April 2 and Sunday Times of April 4 or talked to their British colleagues, they would have had a better idea of what was happening in Jessore. In a front-page lead article on April 2 entitled ‘Mass Slaughter of Punjabis in East Bengal,’ The Times war correspondent Nicholas Tomalin wrote an eye-witness account of how he and a team from the BBC programme Panorama saw Bengali troops and civilians march 11 Punjabi civilians to the market place in Jessore where they were then massacred. “Before we were forced to leave by threatening supporters of Shaikh Mujib,” wrote Tomalin, “we saw another 40 Punjabi “spies” being taken towards the killing ground?”

Tomalin followed up on April 4 in Sunday Times with a detailed description of the “mid-day murder” of Punjabis by Bengalis, along with two photos ? one of the Punjabi civilians with their hands bound at the Jessore headquarters of the East Pakistan Rifles (a Bengal formation which had mutinied and was fighting on the side of the rebels), and another of their dead bodies lying in the square. He wrote how the Bengali perpetrators tried to deceive them and threatened them, forcing them to leave. As other accounts also testify, the Bengali “irregulars” were the only ones in central Jessore that day, as the Pakistan government forces had retired to their cantonment.

Though the military action had started in Dhaka on March 25 night, most of East Pakistan was still out of the government’s control. Like many other places, “local followers of Sheikh Mujib were in control” in Jessore at that time. Many foreign media reported the killings and counter-killings unleashed by the bloody civil war, in which the army tried to crush the Bengali rebels and Bengali nationalists murdered non-Bengali civilians.

Tomalin records the local Bengalis’ claim that the government soldiers had been shooting earlier and he was shown other bodies of people allegedly killed by army firing. But the massacre of the Punjabi civilians by Bengalis was an event he witnessed himself. Tomalin was killed while covering the Yom Kippur war of 1973, but his eye-witness accounts solve the mystery of the bodies of Jessore.

anoop said...

"The politicians, particularly Bhutto, Mujib and Indira are also partly responsible for the massacre that occurred."

WRONG. India or Indira didnt have any part in any massacre related to pre-1971. It was a civil war between Bengali nationalists and Pakistan army. Bengalis did try violent rebellion but Pakistan army response was far greater. I am sure the text books of Pakistan would not show the brutalities of Pakistan army and even news media would concentrate on the violence of the Bengali nationalists and would make it appear as if Pakistan army was acting in self-defense.
The number of violent acts by the Pakistan state which is entrusted with the task of protecting the commoners is much graver than the act of violence perpetrated by a mob.

Riaz Haq said...

anoop: "WRONG. India or Indira didnt have any part in any massacre related to pre-1971. It was a civil war between Bengali nationalists and Pakistan army. Bengalis did try violent rebellion but Pakistan..."

You are simply repeating yet another myth promoted by Indian govt, media and their supporters. Indian intelligence RAW was heavily involved in East Pakistan well before the 1971 war in sowing discord, arming and training Mukti Bahni and finally invading E Pak to ensure Pakistan's breakup.

There were atrocities by Pak military, but these are highly exaggerated to fit the false narrative. Most eyewitness estimates by fairly objective and independent people put the number at no more than 100,000 killed by all sides, mostly by India-backed Mukti Bahini.

The Telegraph story I shared here is indicative of how the tragedy has been exploited by people with an ax to grind.

anoop said...

Riaz,
Whatever the arguments the fact remains that Pakistan lost Bangladesh more than we won it for them(Bengalis). Pakistan army went on rampage there and targeted civilians and even Hindus,who had no part in the revolution,mind you. They targeted Lecturers,Musicians and intellectuals in general. What do those people have to do with Revolutionaries? They are just like you and me.
Pakistan lost Bengalis by these brutal acts. Have a look at the Hamoodar Rehman commission reports.
http://www.bangla2000.com/Bangladesh/Independence-War/Report-Hamoodur-Rahman/default.shtm

http://www.genocidebangladesh.org/?page_id=2

http://www.liberationwarmuseum.org/liberationwar.html

http://www.gendercide.org/case_bangladesh.html

Want more?? Its a mistake to give the power to the soldier. Proper power should never be in a soldier's hand. Soldiers are good at fighting and taking orders. If the roles are reversed you get a country like Pakistan. Martial race or no martial race, this rule is universal.
Democracy and Civilian supremacy is the only solution to everything. Stop supporting your army and think. Who has done more harm to Pakistan? Your army or India?

Riaz Haq said...

Paul Brass, a US scholar and researcher, has published descriptions of regular pogroms and production of violence and terror against Indian minorities, and subsequent denials in India, including by some social scientists and scholars.

There are also lots of distortions and lies about minority population in Pakistan, propagated by hostile Indian and foreigners. In the western part of Pakistan, the minorities never exceeded single digits even at the time of partition when there was mass migration in both directions.

There have been many instances of violence against minorities in Pakistan. But, unlike India, there is no history of organized, state-sponsored pogroms against minorities in Pakistan. What happened in East Pakistan was a civil war inspired by RAW and its agents, and there were unscrupulous killers on all sides, including atrocities and massacres by some Pakistani soldiers.

Large numbers of non-Bengali civilians and military personnel were slaughtered by Indian-sponsored Mukti Bahini, as reported in Jessore massacre by Sarmila Bose in India's Telegraph newspaper when the pictures of the Punjabis killed by Mukti Bahini were mislabeled and misused as false propaganda against the Pakistani military.

anoop said...

Riaz,
"What happened in East Pakistan was a civil war inspired by RAW and its agents"

Only Pakistanis believe that and clearly you all are in denial. I am sure the Bangladeshis who have lost their sons and daughters to Pakistani army's brutality will beg to differ.
I wanted to show you video of Pakistani army soldiers executing civilians,common everyday civilians like you and me in the streets like the Nazis used to do to the jews. I cant find that link. It was a video from an American TV channel and the video was shot by a Bangladeshi. The violent actions of your army was not just retaliation but sadistic murder. Its sick. What have the hapless,unarmed civilians done to the army?? Are they all Bengali nationalists? Pakistani denial is sickening to say the least.
India might have had a hand but after the civil war broke out. The credit for losing Bangladesh goes to Pakistani military and Bhutto. India doesn't deserve the credits.
Face it. It was a good thing Bangladesh got created. Imagine suicide blasts going off in Bangladesh now. They are living in peace.

Riaz Haq said...

As some of the hyperpatriotic Indians criticize Pakistan and belittle its JF-17 achievements, have they ever thought about what combat aircraft India has developed in the last decade or two? Tejas? Forced to wait for a local replacement for its MiG-21s that has been in development for over 20 years, and forced to abandon purchases because of political interference from within India, the IAF, on the turn of the century, has found itself restrained.

Heck, the IAF can't even maintain the Russian-made aircraft to keep its planes in service. Just last month, Air Vice Marshal Barbora of Indian Air Force acknowledged that "We do not even match up Pakistan as far defense goes."

I believe JF-17 is a great accomplishment of Pakistani engineers and programmers. While China has done the airframe and the hardware design, almost all of the million lines of code (mostly C++ code, not Ada used by Americans and many Europeans) and specialized avionics that make JF-17 so advanced has come from Pakistan. In fact, the reason for China working with Pakistan to source Pakistani software and avionics is because of US sanctions on export of sensitive technology to China.

Riaz Haq said...

Unfortunately, the history is always written by the victors, not the vanquished. Pakistanis clearly lost the 1971 East Pakistan war and lost their right to write the "accepted" version of history of what happened.

As late US War Secretary Robert McNamara said in "The Fog of War", the history of WW2 would have been recorded very differently had the Americans and allies lost the war. McNamara even acknowledged that "We would have been tried and convicted as war criminals, had America lost the war."

Riaz Haq said...

With the 29th anniversary of the Fall of Dhaka, the debate on what happened in 1971 has flared up again, with some insisting on calling it a "genocide" and claiming 3 million killed.

Sisson and Rose use the term "genocide" in two places. On page 147 they state quite unequivocally that AIR "did denounce repressive actions by the Pakistani Army--quite inaccurately termed genocide--in April and May."

On page 194, they state that Indira Gandhi's position was that the West Pakistani military action was genocide.

On page 306, in an extensive footnote, they give the 300,000 (later amended by their source to 500,000) number as the "total deaths attributable to the civil war." They make clear that this is Bengalis, Biharis, W. Pakistanis, soldiers, etc. They then go on to state that "One thing is clear--the atrocities did not go just one way, though Bengali Muslims and Hindus were certainly the main victims."

There is certainly evidence to show that Hindus were often specifically targeted (especially the professionals and intellectuals); was this a genocide of sorts against them? Maybe if you want to really stretch the definition but then that really cheapens the term and makes it much more of an 'ordinary' sort of killing, not something truly horrifying.

Even if it was 'only' 30,000, the 'official' Pakistani figure, that is still a horrifying amount and many officers should be court-martialled for their part in it. My point is simply that it was an incredibly brutal civil war/counter-insurgency campaign; not an actual 'genocide' comparable to what the Nazis did to the Jews or the Hutus to the Tutsi. To the extent that the Pak Army did actually want to ethnically cleanse Hindus out of E. Pakistan, it is a crime, but not genocide as they wanted them out of e. Pakistan, not dead.

A Bangladeshi blogger has questioned Sarmila Bose's conclusions about the exaggeration of rape figures by Bengali nationalists:

"To try to bolster her argument, she claims that the size of the Pakistani army in Bangladesh was only 34,000 men. Then she asserts: "For an army of 34,000 to rape on this scale in eight or nine months (while fighting insurgency, guerrilla war and an invasion by India), each would-be perpetrator would have had to commit rape at an incredible rate."

The actual number of Pakistani forces at the end of the war, and taken POW by the Indians, was 90,368, including over 54,000 army and 22,000 paramilitary forces. It is not unreasonable to conclude that a force of 90,000 could rape between 200,000 to 400,000 women in the space of nine months. To rape 200,000 Bangladeshi women a Pakistani force of 90,000 would have to rape 2 to 3 women each in nine months. Not only is this scale of atrocity possible by an army engaged in a systematic campaign of genocide, it also has parallels in other modern conflicts (for example, the rape of between 250,000 to 500,000 women in Rwanda within 100 days).

I find Bose's arguments, based on her more accurate numbers of Pak military personnel, far more persuasive. The total number of POWs taken by India was about 90,000. No more than half these were military personnel. I know it because one of my relatives was a civilian POW, part of the large civilian bureaucracy in East Pakistan.

I also heard tales of horror from innocent civilian Biharis who fled East Pakistan because of the indiscriminate attacks by Mukti Bahini murderers and terrorists trained by the Indian RAW and military, all of whom now pose as liberators.

I think many Bangladeshis, unlike Bose, have bought into a highly exaggerated narrative about East Pakistan war in 1971 without questioning any of the so-called "nationalists" claims.

Riaz Haq said...

How would Pakistan respond in the event of an Indian air strike? Here's a report on an interesting war game in Washington:

Early last year a group of Indian and Pakistan retired generals and strategic experts sat down for a war-gaming exercise in Washington. The question, predictably enough, was at what point during a conventional war, would the generals in Rawalpindi GDQ reach for the nuclear trigger.

In the event, the simulated war took on an unpredictable turn, which in some ways was more illuminating than the question of nuclear escalation, as columnist Ashok Malik writes in The Great Divide:India and Pakistan, a collection of essays by experts on both sides of the border.

The exercise begins with an Indian military strike on militant camps in Pakistani Kashmir, the most commonly envisaged scenario for the next India-Pakistan war. But the Pakistan response defies conventional logic . They don’t order a military push into Indian Punjab and Rajasthan, they don’t even attack Bombay High, the most valuable Indian oil asset in the Arabian Sea, and well within striking distance of the Pakistani Air Force.

Instead PAF planes fly all way to Bangalore, deep in the Indian south, to attack the campus of Infosys, the much celebrated Indian IT company.

Strange choice of target ? By all military logic it would seem so. It’s not like all of India would be crippled if Infosys were attacked, they don;’t run Indian IT infrastructure. Even the company itself might not suffer lasting damage. Its data would probably be stored in locations elsehwere too, and it wouldn’t take it long to rebuild the campus. Besides. the Pakistani planes would be almost certain to be shot down on their way back, if they managed to penetrate this far in on what seems like a suicide mission.

So why Bangalore, and Infosys? Malilk quotes a Pakistani participant as saying they chose the target because it is an “iconic symbol” of India’s IT prowess and economic surge. The idea was to strike at India’s economic growth and great power aspirations. A raid on the Infosys campus, visited by heads of states and corporate leaders, would underline the dangers of business in India and remind the world that for all its new-found success, it remained a nation of contradictions, and at heart, unstable.

Many people in the room were not convinced by the Pakistani choice. It still seemed more like an academic exercise than anything rooted in military reality. But in the aftermath of the Mumbai attacks later that year, and in the light of renewed warnings this week by Israeli intelligence of another Mumbai-like attack coming in the next few weeks, it is clear that India’s vulnerability appears to be in economic, rather than purely military, targets.

Indeed last year when tensions rose following the Mumbai attack and there was talk of an Indian military response, it was Pakistan’s former chief of intelligence Hamid Gul who warned of Pakistan hitting back where it would hurt the most. India’s so-called Silicon Valley will go up in smoke, Gul is widely quoted to have told CNN, if the Indians sent troops to the border.

Riaz Haq said...

Here is a report in today's Daily Times of Pakistan:

Daily Times Monitor

LAHORE: The Indian military is ready to fight Pakistan and China simultaneously, a report in the India Daily said on Wednesday.

“India’s 1.13-million strong military is now planning to handle two major war fronts at the same time,” it said.

The paper said the Indian Army considered Pakistan and China “part of the same camp”, adding that India knew that the next war would be between India and “Pakistan + China”.

India would be indirectly supported by the US and Russia, “but the Indian Army will have to fight the two wars at the same time,” the paper said.

Mini giant war: The India Daily said the Indian military had been “training for a mini giant war” against the two nuclear powered nations at the same time.

It said China had “used Pakistan for a long time to keep India busy”, adding that the time had come for New Delhi to recognise the massive simultaneous threat from both the countries.

The paper quoted Indian Army chief General Deepak Kapoor as emphasising that India was ready for “the successful firming-up of the cold start strategy (to be able to go to war promptly) in the multiple fronts against multiple militias at the same time”.

“The plan is a full thrust assault into multiple anomies at the same time with massive Air Force superiority,” the India Daily said.

The paper said if attacked by Pakistan and China at the same time, India would launch self-contained and highly-mobile “battle groups’’ within 96 hours, adding that New Delhi planned to end the war decisively within the first 96 hours “forcing the other sides into a fast submission of ceasefire”. The paper said any real war would be between India and China, while Pakistan would be used by China to create adequate disturbance for the Indian military.

“That is the reason why Lt Gen AS Lamba of the Indian Army is so keen on a massive thrust into Rawalpindi to quiet Pakistanis within 48 hours of the start of assault,” the paper said.

Riaz Haq said...

Here is a interesting report in the News on polls conducted in India and Pakistan on relations between the two nations:

By Mohammad Malick

ISLAMABAD: The two nations have repeatedly gone to war in the past. Their governments continue sabre rattling and spewing bellicose rhetoric. But identical nationwide opinion surveys conducted by the Jang Group and the Times of India Group in India and Pakistan show that a majority of the billion and a half people of the sub-continent want to live as peaceful and friendly neighbours and share the same humane goals like any other civilised polity; economic prosperity for all, education for the youth, health for the needy, absence of violence and elimination of existential threats.

In Pakistan, 72 per cent of the respondents desired “peaceful and friendly relations with India” whereas 60 per cent Indians were hopeful of such an eventuality. This relative lesser percentage may be owing to the fact that presently 88 per cent of Indians consider Pakistan as a high/moderate threat to India’s well being. In contrast, 72 per cent Pakistanis perceive India as a high/moderate threat. The 88 per cent threat perception notwithstanding, it is heartening to note, however, that over 59 per cent of Indians think that a peaceful relationship would be established with Pakistan within their lifetime, an optimism shared by 64 percent Pakistanis.

While vested interests on both sides may have led the people to believe that every Pakistani wakes up paranoid with India and that every Indian goes to bed fretting over the next deadly Pakistani move, statistics show otherwise. Half the people polled in India thought about Pakistan “sometimes”, while only 16 per cent thought about us in a more focused manner. As for Pakistanis, 32 per cent appeared to be seriously concerned over the state of our bilateral relations. Hardly the figures for two peoples supposedly obsessed with each other’s ultimate annihilation, would not you agree?

Riaz Haq said...

Here's an Indian newspaper report about Indian war prep against China and Pakistan:

Indian Army chief General Deepak Kapoor emphasizes that India is ready for a “the successful firming-up of the cold start strategy (to be able to go to war promptly) in the multiple fronts against multiple different militias at the same time.”

The plan is a full thrust assault into multiple anomies at the same time with massive Air Force superiority. If attacked by Pakistan and china at the same time, India will launch self-contained and highly-mobile `battle groups'', with Russian-origin T-90S tanks and upgraded T-72 M1 tanks at their core, adequately backed by far superior air cover and artillery fire assaults, for rapid thrusts into enemy territory within 96 hours.

India plans to end the war decisively within the first 96 hours forcing the other sides into a fast submission of ceasefire.

People’s Liberation Army is aware of the capacities of Indian Army and Air Force. It will be exactly opposite of 1962 war. That is why they are busy building massive infrastructure in the Indian border areas especially in Aksai Chin and Tibet.

The real war in that scenario will be between India and China while Pakistan will be used by China to create adequate disturbance for Indian Military.

That is the reason why Lt-General A S Lamba of Indian Army is so keen a massive thrust into Rawalpindi to quiet Pakistanis within 48 hours of the start of assault.

India’s biggest advantage is the its software capabilities in integrating signal intelligence with ground intelligence. India will use algorithmic seek and scan technology to counter the Chinese threats in the North and possible Pakistani nuclear threat in the West.

India is focused on integrating its Navy, Army and Air Force into an integrated command and Control system completely controlled and dominated by the superior software algorithms that can prove deadly in the war front.

Riaz Haq said...

Here's an interesting assessment of Gen Kiyani by analyst-columnist Farrukh Saleem published in the News:

Yes, he is complex, complicated and calculating - all in one. Yes, he has the capacity for abstract thought, cold rationality and coarse creativity - all in one. And, yet he inhales reconstituted tobacco. Yes, he uses a filter and a cigarette holder. Yes, he never takes deep puffs and, yes, he only consumes half a cigarette at a time. I am sure he must have calculated that every cigarette he smokes shortens his life by exactly 11 minutes. And, yet he smokes. I can tell you that he didn't smoke for the first 60 minutes and then went through five half-cigarettes in the following two hours. Cigarettes say a lot about the smoker who smokes them. He knows that some of the things that he is doing are wrong, but still won't give them up. He is hooked on a primary psychoactive chemical and he knows that he can stop but he doesn't.

Hearing what I heard, I can tell you that he is a firm believer in Environmental Determinism - the theory that your environment dictates, and determines, your defense policy. In essence, 6,384 tanks in the Indian Army can't cross the Himalayas into China so they must all be Pakistan-specific. Hearing what I heard I can tell you that he won't second-guess Indian Army's intentions and would keep Pakistan Army fully able and capable to respond to India's military capacity.

I hear that an American who wears four stars and a Bronze Star with Valor V on his chest once told him that Pakistan's nukes were under threat. Hearing what I heard, I can tell you that he must have told the American who wears four stars and a Bronze star with Valor V on his chest that nukes can only be under threat if they are vulnerable; but ours are not vulnerable so they can't be under threat. Please give this bullshit to the press but don't give it to me. After all, he is an ardent golfer and 'an ardent golfer would play Mount Everest if somebody would put a flagstick on top'.

I can tell you that I came back both proud but with a painful realisation; proud knowing that our legions are being led by strategic minds and sad to have discovered the much too visible an intellectual gap between our top political brains in Islamabad and our strategic minds at work in Rawalpindi. And what does he think about our politicians? When it's breezy, hit it easy.

Could it be that the army rules not through the barrel of a gun but because of their intellectual superiority? Could it be that the army rules because our politicians have failed to institutionalise politics? Could it be that the army rules because our political parties do not transcend individual human intentions? Could it be that the army rules because it has structures, mechanisms of social order along with strategic thinking?

Anonymous said...

everybody please see this, The pakistan airforce chief says, pakistan is responsible for all wars

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K57q_914QAU

Riaz Haq said...

Here's a Bangladeshi report about Mujib's plans to disintegrate Pakistan back in 1969, well before the elections:

Dhaka, Mar 7 (bdnews24.com) – Prime minister Sheikh Hasina said on Sunday that her father Sheikh Mujibur Rahman formed detailed war plans for Bangladesh's eventual liberation from Pakistan during a stay in London in 1969, the year he was accorded the title 'Bangabandhu', friend of Bengal.

Hasina was addressing a discussion in Dhaka to mark the historic March 7 speech, the day in 1971 when Sheikh Mujib called on the Bangali nation to prepare for the secession struggle from Pakistan.

She said Bangabandhu made war plans just months after his release from Kurmitola where he had been detained in the Agartala Conspiracy Case, in which the Pakistan government had brought sedition charges against Bangabandhu and 34 others.

"He went to London on October 22 1969, following his release in the Agartala case on April 22 that year. I reached London the next day from Italy, where I was living with my husband.," she recalled.

"It was there that Bangabandhu at a meeting made plans for liberation, including when the war would start, where our freedom fighters would be trained and where refugees would take shelter."

"All preparations were taken there (London). I was serving tea and entered the room several times where the meeting was being held. I heard their discussions," the prime minister said.

Referring to the recent debate over who first proclaimed Bangladesh's independence, she urged all to go through the reports of intelligent agencies and foreign ministries of different countries.

She also said the Aug 15 1975 assassination of her father and family members, and the Jail Killings of four national leaders on Nov 3 the same year, were planned by those defeated in the war to take revenge for their defeat.

"Those who rewarded the killers had never expected Bangladesh's independence. They wanted to impose the principles of the defeated forces on the people," she added.

The prime minister urged leaders and activists of the ruling Awami League, her father's party, to give up intentions of personal gain and uphold the principles of Bangabandhu.

"Every politician has to consider what they have given to the country and not think of what they get," she said.

Terming her father's March 7 address a milestone, the prime minister said Bangladesh in effect emerged as an independent nation following the historic speech.

Senior Awami League figures, including presidium members Syeda Sajeda Chowdhury, Sheikh Fazlul Karim Selim, Abdul Latif Siddiqui and Rajidduin Ahmed Raju, advisory council member Suranjit Sengupta, general secretary Syed Ashraful Islam and cultural affairs secretary Asaduzzman Noor addressed the discussion meeting.

Riaz Haq said...

Here's a Times of India report about Indian Air Force complaining about US arms for Pakistan:

NEW DELHI
: The US military aid to Pakistan is a matter of concern for India which has been conveyed to the Obama administration, Air Chief Marshal P V Naik said on Tuesday.

"The aid being given to Pakistan
is a matter of concern to us definitely and we have made it known. We have not hidden anything," Naik said soon after taking over as the Chairman, Chiefs of Staffs Committee here.

The US has been providing F-16 combat jets, air-to-air missiles and other equipment worth millions of dollars to Pakistan as military aid for fighting the Taliban terrorists on its soil. Pakistan is scheduled to get 18 of the Block 52 F-16s, Oliver Hazard Perry Class frigate by winter and is expected to receive Shadow Drones within a year.

Islamabad is also to receive equipment capable of converting 1,000 traditional munitions into "smart bombs" that can strike targets with precisions.

In the last three years, the US has provided 14 F-16s, five fast patrol boats, 115 self-propelled howitzer field artillery cannons, more than 450 vehicles, hundreds of night- vision goggles, day and night scopes, radios, protective vests and first aid items to Pakistan's security forces.

With this new arms aid, US counterinsurgency assistance fund for Pakistan is slated to increase to USD 1.2 billion in fiscal year 2011 from $700 million in the current fiscal.

India has asked the US to ensure that the weapons supplied to Pakistan to fight Taliban and extremists elements are not directed against this country.

Asked if the military aid issue could have any impact on the chances of the American companies in the fray to supply 126 combat aircraft to the Indian Air Force, Naik said, "As far as 126 multi-role combat aircraft deal is concerned, it will be a fair and square assessment... presently, there is no connection between the two."

He said the IAF was going ahead with the trials of the six companies offering their aircraft and "after that, we will sit down to finalise it (the award of the contract.)"

On reports that the IAF was developing its air fields in the Eastern sector to counter the Chinese threat, the IAF chief said the upgrade of infrastructure in the region was "long overdue" but was not "country specific." He added the air fields were being upgraded to operate the latest modern aircraft in the IAF inventory.

Asked if the recent test-firings of the Agni, Prithvi and Dhanush ballistic missiles were aimed at sending out a message, Naik said, "Whenever we have to give a message to anybody, we give it loud and clear. Whenever there is a message to be given, we will let you know."

Riaz Haq said...

In addition to the kind of conventional warfare fought in 1965 and 1971, any future India-Pakistan war is likely to have two new components of cyber war and missiles war.

Cyber War:

The potential cyber component will have a dramatic impact which could reverberate across the globe as the computers used in South Asia for outsourced work from the United States and Europe come under crippling attacks from hackers on both sides. Here is how Robert X. Cringeley describes it in a June 2009 blog post captioned "Collateral Damage":

"Forget for the moment about data incursions within the DC beltway, what happens when Pakistan takes down the Internet in India? Here we have technologically sophisticated regional rivals who have gone to war periodically for six decades. There will be more wars between these two. And to think that Pakistan or India are incapable or unlikely to take such action against the Internet is simply naive. The next time these two nations fight YOU KNOW there will be a cyber component to that war.

And with what effect on the U.S.? It will go far beyond nuking customer support for nearly every bank and PC company, though that’s sure to happen. A strategic component of any such attack would be to hobble tech services in both economies by destroying source code repositories. And an interesting aspect of destroying such repositories — in Third World countries OR in the U.S. — is that the logical bet is to destroy them all without regard to what they contain, which for the most part negates any effort to obscure those contents."


Missile War:

In a Dec 2008-Jan 2009 series of articles for UPI Asia, Hari Sud, an NRI Indian from Toronto, Canada, laid out very optimistic, wishful scenario of how an Indian attack on Pakistan would play out. Sud's scenarios include Israel's direct attack on Pakistani nukes, US help for both India and Israel, and much heavier losses inflicted on Pakistan than on India, resulting in near-total destruction of Pakistan's nukes, and major cities of Islamabad and Karachi, while Delhi and Mumbai escape unscathed.

Sud has scripted the war as any chauvinistic Indian would wish it to be, and it can be summed up as follows: Israelis are perfect, Indians are a close second, and Pakistanis can't even shoot straight.

In the end, Sud's carefully crafted script fulfills his fantasy of bringing Pakistan to its knees, begging for peace!

Needless to say, Sud's wishful thinking was set aside in New Delhi, saner minds prevailed in India, and India decided to back off and pursue diplomacy instead. But Sud's writings give a pretty good insight into the aggressive Indians' minds, and point to the probability of a serious miscalculation by Delhi.

Here are the links to Hari Sud's dreamy forecasts:

1. India ready to avenge Mumbai carnage

2. Israel Joins India

3. Losses and Gains

4. The Missile War

5. Pakistan Seeks Peace

Riaz Haq said...

Here's a recent news report on Asian nukes from Times of India:

Pakistan is estimated to have more nuclear warheads than India and the two Asian neighbours along with China are increasing their arsenals and deploying weapons at more sites, two eminent American atomic experts have claimed.

While Pakistan is estimated to possess 70-90 nuclear weapons, India is believed to have 60-80, claims Robert S Norris and Hans M Kristensen in their latest article 'Nuclear Notebook: Worldwide deployments of nuclear weapons, 2009'.

The article published in the latest issue of 'Bulletin of the Atomic Science' claimed that Beijing, Islamabad and New Delhi are quantitatively and qualitatively increasing their arsenals and deploying weapons at more sites, yet the locations are difficult to pinpoint.

For example, no reliable public information exists on where Pakistan or India produces its nuclear weapons, it said.

"Whereas many of the Chinese bases are known, this is not the case in Pakistan and India, where we have found no credible information that identifies permanent nuclear weapons storage locations," they said.

"Pakistan's nuclear weapons are not believed to be fully operational under normal circumstances, India is thought to store its nuclear warheads and bombs in central storage locations rather than on bases with operational forces. But, since all three countries are expanding their arsenals, new bases and storage sites probably are under construction," the two nuclear experts said.

Riaz Haq said...

Here is an Indian report which disregards any Pakistani indigenous contribution to its missile programs and gives China and North Korea the entire credit. This might be a good way for the Indians not to feel too sorry for themselves. But the fact is that Pakistan has made tremendous progress in its domestic scientific research capabilities and indigenous industrial manufacture. The Indians have more access to foreign help than Pakistan and yet their program lags behind Pakistan:

With active help from China and North Korea, Pakistan has surged well ahead of India in the missile arena. The only nuclear-capable ballistic missile in India's arsenal which can be said to be 100% operational as of now is the short-range Prithvi missile.

Though the 700-km Agni-I and 2,000-km-plus Agni-II ballistic missiles are being "inducted" into the armed forces, it will take "some time" for them to become "fully-operational in the numbers required".

Defence sources said the armed forces were still in the process of undertaking the "training trials" of Agni-I and Agni-II to give them the requisite capabilities to fire them on their own.

Of the two, the progress report of Agni-I, tested for the first time in January 2002 to plug the operational gap between Prithvi (150-350 km) and Agni-II missiles, is much better. The Army has already conducted two "user training trials", one in October 2007 and other in March 2008, of the Pakistan-specific Agni-I missile.

The fourth test of 3,500-km Agni-III, which will give India the strategic capability to hit targets deep inside China, is also on the anvil now. But Agni-III, tested successfully only twice in April 2007 and May 2008, will not be ready for induction before 2012.

Then, of course, design work on India's most ambitious strategic missile with near ICBM (intercontinental ballistic missile) capabilities, the 5,000-km range Agni-V, which incorporates a third composite stage in the two-stage Agni-III, is also in progress. "We should be ready to test Agni-V by 2010-2011," said an official.

So, in effect, the missile report card is rather dismal at present. "Unlike Pakistan, our programme is indigenous. But a strategic missile needs to be tested 10 to 15 times, over a variety of flight envelopes and targets, before it can be said to be fully-operational. A missile cannot be dubbed ready just after three to four tests," said an expert.

Keeping this benchmark in mind, only Prithvi can be dubbed to be fully ready. Defence PSUs like Bharat Dynamics Ltd, Bharat Earth Movers Ltd and Mishra Dhatu Nigam Ltd, in fact, are stepping up production of the different Prithvi variants.

Army, for instance, has orders worth Rs 1,500 crore for 75 Prithvi-I and 62 Prithvi-II missiles, while IAF has gone in for 63 Prithvi-II missiles for over Rs 900 crore.

Navy, in turn, has ordered Dhanush missiles, the naval version of Prithvi, with a 350 km strike range, for its "dual-tasked" warships, INS Subhadra and INS Suvarna.

India wants to gatecrash into the very exclusive club of `Big-Five' countries like Russia, US and China, which have both ICBMs (missiles with strike ranges over 5,500-km) and SLBMs (submarine-launched ballistic missiles), before 2015.

The SLBM quest is specifically crucial since it's the most effective and secure leg of the "nuclear weapon triad", with land-based missiles and aircraft capable of delivering nuclear bombs constituting the first two components.

The initial range of K-15 SLBM being developed by DRDO will, however, be limited to 750-km, far less than the over 5,000-km range SLBMs brandished by the `Big-5' countries.

Riaz Haq said...

Indian General M Y Bammi, who retired from the Indian army in 1995 published a book on the Kargil conflict in 2003 – Kargil: the impregnable conquest – said as follows in his book:

The Pakistani troops had fought bravely. It was a brilliant action militarily, which had taken India by surprise. However, diplomatically and politically it turned out to be disastrous. India, contrary to Pakistani expectations, retaliated with full force and though it suffered heavy casualties, the Indian army took back every single feature captured by Pakistani troops. He said initially Pakistan had pretended that those fighting in Kargil were “mujahideen” but it later admitted that they were regular Pakistani troops, though they had a smattering of others. In any case, all doubts as to the identity of those fighting in Kargil were set at rest when Pakistan announced 92 gallantry awards at the end of the conflict, many of them posthumous.

Riaz Haq said...

Here's an interesting call-in discussion on NPR Talk of the Nation about Mumbai with NY Times reporter Somini Sengupta.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=99087002

Anonymous said...

Haq,

its getting tired to see the old lies being perpetrated by you on this blog.

and some unifnormed indian readers have failed to correct some pretty obvious errors.

may i know what are you bringing to the table apart from repeating the old lies of thre pak govt and blowing quotes of context?

1. Its illogical to claim india started the war when higher ups in the pak command like asghar ali khan and ayub's secretary altaf gauhar have already exposed the lie . The war was started by
pakistan (more specifically bhutto)
when they launched operation grandslam and operation gibraltar.

http://www.dawn.com/2005/09/06/nat2.htm
here is your famed air force revealing the truth .

"They had planned the ‘Operation Gibraltar’ for self-glory rather than in the national interest. It was a wrong war. And they misled the nation with a big lie that India rather than Pakistan had provoked the war and that we were the victims of Indian aggression”, Air Marshal Khan said."

and prominent commentators like ayaz amir have also clearly demonstrated how pakistan blundered into war.

Friday, October 23, 2009 the news
Ayaz Amir

" Kashmir 1947-48 was the only necessary war we fought. It gave us the parts of Kashmir now in our possession. The 1965 war was a delusional general's supreme folly. The 1971 war was a strategic black hole created by our political failures. Kargil should never have happened."

Altaf gauhar in his groundbreaking articles for the nation "four wars one assumption" saying-

"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. Ayub Khan genuinely believed that,"as a general rule Hindu
morale would not stand more than a couple of hard blows at the right
time and place."

2. Both sides were sucessful in defence and comical at offence showing the immaturity of the two nations in startegic and tactical areas of warfare. major offensives by both sides failed barring a few exceptions like the capture of haji pir pass by india.

3. As for the ceasefire, your assumption is nothing but comical and self deluded. The fact is ayub wanted ceasfire after blundering into war.

read altaf gauhar's "1965 war: boomerang" article with the nation.

here is ayaz amir again

"No sooner had the '65 war started than Ayub Khan realized his blunder and began looking for any half-decent way to end the conflict. "They've got you by the throat, Mr President," (or words to that effect) is what the American ambassador reportedly told the Field Marshal and there was nothing that the Field Marshal could say in reply. "

4. as for pakistan's deluded approach here is
nur khan again

" Since the 1965 war was based on a big lie and was presented to the nation a great victory, the Army came to believe its own fiction and has used since, Ayub as its role model and therefore has continued to fight unwanted wars — the 1971 war and the Kargil fiasco in 1999, he said."

The pakistan govt had asked all army personnel to burn diaries and entries related to the 1965 war.

A book written by gen mahmood of the ISI was bought away by the pak govt of musdharraf for questioning the 1965 war.

The facts brought by primary sources in pakistan. speaks for itself.

your rantings and out of quotes twsiting is all hot air but no substance.

Riaz Haq said...

anon: "The facts brought by primary sources in pakistan. speaks for itself."

You think Ayaz Amir and Altaf Gauhar, both journalists, are primary sources?

Just read my post, and comments, and you'll see there are many more reliable Indian and foreign sources I have quoted to show that the Indian version of "1965 victory" is nothing but a myth.

As to the journalists, here are excerpts from a piece by Shekhar Gupta of Indian Express that explodes the Indian mythical accounts of 1965 war:

" In India, the official history has followed close after the release of In the Line of Duty: A Soldier Remembers, the autobiography of Lt Gen Harbakhsh Singh, one of our tallest generals ever, professionally and physically, at 6-ft-2. As the western army commander during the 1965 war (there was no northern command then), he also led the operations in Kashmir and therefore controlled the entire war.

His revelations, read with his earlier War Despatches and now authenticated by the official history, are devastating. It is, for example, now confirmed that not only did Gen Chowdhury play a very small role in the entire campaign, he was so nervous as to be on the verge of losing half of Punjab to Pakistan, including the city of Amritsar. Harbakhsh describes, in clinical detail, how our own offensive in the Lahore sector had come unhinged. The general commanding the division on Ichchogil canal fled in panic, leaving his jeep, its wireless running and the briefcase containing sensitive documents that were then routinely read on Radio Pakistan during the war. Singh wanted to court martial him, Chowdhury let him get away with resignation.

But a bigger disaster struck a bit to the south where the other division cracked up in assault, just as it encountered a bit of resistance. Several infantry battalions, short on battle inoculation, deserted and Singh gives a hair-raising account – and confirmation of a long-debated rumour – that Chowdhury panicked so badly he ordered him to withdraw to a new defensive line behind the Beas, thereby conceding half of Punjab to Pakistan. Singh describes the conversation with Chowdhury at Ambala where he refused to carry out the order, asking his chief to either put it down in writing or visit the front and take charge of the battle. Chowdhury waffled even on that panicky decision, Singh’s artillery and some rag-tag armour lured the Pattons into soggy ground on a moonlit night and the result was the greatest escape to victory in our post-Independence military history. What was to be a spectacular Pakistani breakthrough right up
to Panipat became a great rout of its armour.

The official history confirms not just this but also another great failing of that war, the inability of the Indian Air Force to not only provide a decisive edge on the battlefield but to even match up to the Pakistanis. It did not participate in any of the big battles. Many of its attacks were casual, half-hearted, even suicidal, as the decision of opening the campaign with four Vampires, one of history’s first jets, made of plywood, to block the Pakistani advance in Chhamb. All four were shot, and IAF opened the campaign with a 0-4 deficit. Then followed a bizarre story of no communication between the army and the air force. The army apparently thought it could sort out the Pakistanis by itself. The air force thought it was fighting a war exclusively with the PAF."

Riaz Haq said...

Here's Shekhar Gupta Part 2 on India's 1965 myths:

There was evidently too little communication between the army, air force and the political leadership. The IAF, for example, was told to stay back in the hangars in the eastern sector even when the PAF launched withering attacks on Kalaikunda and Bagdogra. Even after the disastrous Chhamb engagement, the IAF was so casual as to leave a whole bunch of frontline aircraft exposed at Pathankot, within minutes of flying time from PAF bases, and the result was another disaster in a raid at dusk. The Pakistanis seemed to have such a free run they even shot down the Dakota carrying the then chief minister of Gujarat, Balwant Rai Mehta, deep inside our territory, at night.

Many of us have read with great resentment and scepticism claims of writers like former PAF chief Air Marshall Asghar Khan (India-Pakistan War: The First Round) and British writer John Fricker who give Pakistan a TKO victory in the 1965 air war. Fricker, in particular, gave these claims international currency with his controversial article, ‘30 Seconds over Sargodha’, which described ‘‘how’’ a PAF pilot shot down four Indian Hunters in 30 seconds over the Sargodha airbase. These claims are highly inflated. But the fact remains that in 1965 the IAF failed to tilt the balance in any theatre of the war. Singh says the IAF was simply not prepared for war, physically or mentally. The IAF commanders from that period, including the then chief Arjan Singh, say the army never kept them in the loop. But the fact is that all of them, even the eastern and western command chiefs, were decorated after the war. There were no questions asked.

There weren’t any asked elsewhere either. Every single army general even remotely connected with the war effort was decorated, including the Strike Corps commander in the Sialkot sector who did not cover five miles in 15 days. Chowdhury himself was cast as some kind of a swadeshi Rommel, though he never got within shouting distance of the war. And even the then naval chief was decorated though his fleet remained firmly in harbour, failing to stir out even after the Pakistanis cockily pounded Dwarka.

The dangers in perpetuating mythologies built during a war into a kind of instant military history are obvious. It is impossible to first generously lionise and decorate people and to then hold them accountable for what they did wrong during a war. We obviously learnt some lessons from these in 1965 and the result was a decisive, premeditated campaign and victory in 1971. The key to that lightning campaign was total understanding between the army and the IAF. But if you look back on the way we once again rushed to hand out decorations post-Kargil and how closed we still are to the idea of finding out how on earth we let so many Pakistanis get so well entrenched on so much territory for so long, you wonder if the lessons of 1965 are so thoroughly forgotten that we are willing to make the same mistakes again.

Anonymous said...

your sources have proved nothing except your lack of understanding of war and politics in general.

you are bringing nothing new to the table except regurgigate old propaganda and myths.


Even in the credible sources you quoted, like pradhan's book or the indian official history, you have misintrepreted by a long way because of your lack of understanding of strategic matters.


first of all, can you stop quoting selective news sources like those WARTIME news reports? they are called as "fog of war" and thoroughly unreliable. since scholars and other people have researched the topic to death since then, they are look highly ridiculous and redundant now.
(only that you are not aware of it!)

and since we have primary sources, your sources only look more ridiculus.

which of these foreign sdources qualify as well researched scholarly book pertaining to the 1965 war?

chuck yeager is not a neutral source. he helped the PAF first hand and was highly biased against India as did john fricker.
no self respecting indian would accept them as a neutral source.

in any case i am not too interested in the air war as it is shrouded in shrill claims and counter claims.

but on other areas, scholars and journalists and military officers from BOTH sides have agreed on a number of facts and conclusions.

we will focus on that.

first of all, in your hilarious quoting of shekhar gupta's part 1, you have failed to note that the episode of pakistan's offensive towards amritsar ended in deep embarassment to pakistan at khem karan. This was a major pakistan offensive that failed :)...you are talkin about a possibly disastrous course of india. who cares about "what if"


second difficulty in operations does not win wars for either side. :) most of your quotes are about india's operational difficultties.

our official history only bemoans that we failed to knock out pakistan militarily as we should have done to a smaller power due to failures in certain aspects.nowhere does it suggest
we lost the war !

remember this basics of war. you can lose many a battle and win the war.

Anonymous said...

the reason why pakistan lost is air tight.

bhutto launched the war to grab kashmir before india's modernisation programme reached its peak.

pakistan failed to grab kashmir. hence you lost the war.

if you talk about the military stalemate, let me remind you,
war is politics with violence.if you don't achieve your political aims , you have lost it.

There is no ifs and buts here. its not a myth that pakistan failed to attain kashmir to this day despite launching gibraltar and grand slam.

the major offensives of both sides failed mainly because of our immaturity as nations.only defense succeeded in most places.

while there was a stalemate and a batle of attrition,pakistan as the smaller force would have ill afforded the battle of attrition.
the fact is it was running out of ammunition and logistics.

ayub khan was informed by musa long earlier about that.

ayub khan went to china to get help at the last minute. but china did little more than bark.

that's when he was forced to accept the ceasefire.this is available in ayub's memoirs.again primary source

if 1965 was such a glroious chapter, why did ayub khan devote so little detail in his memoirs?

infact he told someone, "don't hit me at my weakest point"

the war did not go that well for pakistan as you think except that incompetent offensives from both sides failed because of a comedy of errors.

but that's no credit to pakistan.

because pakistan started the war perceiving its position to be an advantage.it was forced to backtrack.


regarding primary sources, altaf gauhar is ayub khan's information secretary and was privy to all the going ons of the war!

he is not a mere journo! shocking ignorance on your part..

and you are interestingly very silent on your air chief hero khan's analysis.

and there are plenty of pakistani sources like articles to back these primary sources.

only that you don't seem to care to read it and instead you are bringing in the old tired claims and myths of the pakistani government, chuck yeager and blah blah.

Riaz Haq said...

anon: "the reason why pakistan lost is air tight."

This just shows that you are the product of indoctrination of Indian society and education which is described by Shekhar Gupta as follows:

In a society where even the writing of ancient history is so politically contentious, it is difficult to expect a realistic appreciation of fairly recent wars. Culturally, we also confuse military science with soldierly heroism. We can spend all our time extolling our troops for the courage they showed in Kargil but avoid talking about what got them in such a near-impossible war in the first place. Even with our bigger wars, propaganda myths created in the course of the engagements are then perpetuated for decades. In the 22-day war in 1965, for example, as schoolchildren we were taught that the Pakistani pilots were so scared of the tiny Gnat that they fled the moment they spotted one. That it was because the then army chief, General J.N. Chowdhary, was such a world-famous hot-shot in tank warfare that the Pakistani armour came unstuck at Khem Karan and other graveyards of the Patton. That Lahore and Sialkot were almost sure to be in our bag if the war had gone on a few more days.

Riaz Haq said...

Here's a news report in the Indian Express on Pakistan receiving US howitzers:

India’s artillery modernisation has been stuck due to scam scares ever since the Bofors scandal but Pakistan has gone ahead, equipping its army with the latest guns that now threaten to give it an edge over the Indian Army.

While India has not received even a single new artillery gun in the last two decades, Pakistan recently received a batch of 67 self-propelled artillery guns from the US using War against Terror funds granted by Washington.

Latest United Nations data reveal that delivery of the M-109 A5 self-propelled artillery guns took place last year. The guns were transferred under the US Foreign Military Financing (FMF) programme that was granted to Pakistan for the fight against militant groups on its border with Afghanistan.

Experts say these M-109 A5 155 mm howitzers give Pakistan a definite conventional edge over the Indian Army that is years away from induction of similar systems. The most modern guns in the Indian Army are the Bofors that were procured in the 1980s.

Riaz Haq said...

Here's a Calcutta Telegraph story about Kargil that debunks Indian clams during and after the war:

Eleven years after the war that peaked around this time in 1999, the way it was fought, the lapses that allowed the intrusions into Indian territory and the role of superior officers are still hotly debated in military and strategic communities.

Not surprisingly, while the BJP-led NDA government that was swept to power in October 1999 celebrated the “victory” in the war with much fanfare, subsequent Congress-led UPA governments have kept the ceremonies low-key. Inside and outside the army, some people deeply suspect that a clutch of generals who were close to their political masters allowed the intrusions to snowball into a war and then manufactured a victory that came about with US pressure.

At the height of the war, then defence minister George Fernandes predicted “victory” in 48 hours but the hostilities lasted 80 days and cost the lives of nearly 550 soldiers and young officers. The then director general of military operations, Lt Gen. Nirmal Chandra Vij, who later became army chief and currently heads (with cabinet rank) the National Disaster Management Authority, also went against military protocol to go to the office of the BJP to brief its leadership on the war.

Riaz Haq said...

Here are a few excerpts from a report of Indian Army Chief Gen V.K. Singh's interview published by Chandigarh Tribune:

What I look at it is that we have an unstable neighbour on our West (Pakistan). Unstable because of internal problems, unabated terrorism out there and unstable because it decided that it will aid some terrorists groups and support some terrorist groups for strategic aims because of political drift and the fissures that are coming up because of all these factors. And we also know that whenever situation become critical with this particular neighbour of ours it tends to direct attention of its people towards India. There is instability; there is a terrorist infrastructure which is in place. Till that time the threat to our country will remain because it looks at dismembering the country as a nation. We also have the so-called border problem because of what happened after 1948.

------------------

We have been looking on this (nuclear) threat for quite sometime. It is not that suddenly it has come, we knew at the capabilities of our neighbourhood and what was happening over there and we have been talking about it, we have been training for it and we have been looking at our own concepts and doctrine etc so far as this particular issue is concerned. As an Army, we are prepared to fight dirty which means not dirty in the sense of street fighting, dirty in the sense of fighting through our area which has been contaminated by a nuclear strike. We are confident that we will get through in such contaminated areas and this is part of our training methodology, doctrine and our concept.

It is not that somebody is going to say I will drop a bomb and therefore you stop on your track. Sorry, it does not happen that way, it is not going to happen. We will take the war to its logical conclusion whether it is a nuclear strike or no nuclear strike. I am quite confident of our nuclear capability. We are clear that as a nation we will be able to withstand whatever comes our way and retaliate in adequate measure.

We are ready to face the challenges that may come up. There are certain focus areas that we have kept for ourselves. Like we are looking at the type of surveillance equipment that can come, we look at our capability to do 24x7 operations where night is not a problem. We are looking at improving our networks centricity. We are looking at high technology items in terms of computer controlled and command controlled systems which provide synergy to the entire process. Some of these are on way and some are these are being given a push. The other area that we are looking is our capability for bringing in precision targeting.

We have embarked on a transformation process for our Army. Transformation is in terms of making the Army more agile, the Army more capable of transmitting its lethality and the Army in which there are no people who will be, in Army terms, left out of battle. Apart from that it is having a more responsive logistic system and ensuring that our Army headquarters are suitably structured so that they can contribute towards faster decision-making. This is what I think we should be able to achieve along with ensuring that whatever modernisation plans that we have they fructify to a large extent. I look at what we can do to increase our joint-manship network centricity so that we can operate in an environment where it should be possible for us to make use of all the acumen and skills that all the services we have.

Riaz Haq said...

In a recent interview, Indian Army chief Gen Singh talks about "fighting through our area which has been contaminated by a nuclear strike. We are confident that we will get through in such contaminated areas and this is part of our training methodology, doctrine and our concept".

It begs the questions: Is Mr Singh breeding super jawans immune to radiation?

I think Gen VK Singh's thinking is naive and dangerously out of date, it's as old as the 1950s when the Americans were building shelters in their basements to survive nuclear attack by the Soviet Union. I hope someone puts some sense into Singh's empty little hand about the reality of modern nuclear warfare.

Riaz Haq said...

Here are a few excerpts from a Wall Street Journal story today on China's defense industry advances and exports:

Today, Russia's military bonanza is over, and China's is just beginning.

After decades of importing and reverse-engineering Russian arms, China has reached a tipping point: It now can produce many of its own advanced weapons—including high-tech fighter jets like the Su-27—and is on the verge of building an aircraft carrier.

Not only have Chinese engineers cloned the prized Su-27's avionics and radar but they are fitting it with the last piece in the technological puzzle, a Chinese jet engine.

In the past two years, Beijing hasn't placed a major order from Moscow.

Now, China is starting to export much of this weaponry, undercutting Russia in the developing world, and potentially altering the military balance in several of the world's flash points....

This epochal turnaround was palpable in the Russian pavilion at November's Airshow China in the southern city of Zhuhai. Russia used to be the star of this show, wowing visitors with its "Russian Knights" aerobatic team, showing off fighters, helicopters and cargo planes, and sealing multibillion dollar deals on the sidelines.

This year, it didn't bring a single real aircraft—only a handful of plastic miniatures, tended by a few dozen bored sales staff.

China, by contrast, laid on its biggest commercial display of military technology—almost all based on Russian know-how.

The star guests were the "Sherdils," a Pakistani aerobatic team flying fighter jets that are Russian in origin but are now being produced by Pakistan and China....

That has compounded Russian fears that China has reverse engineered an Su-33 prototype it acquired in 2001 from Ukraine, according to Russian defense experts.

At last year's Dubai Air Show, China demonstrated its L-15 trainer jet for the first time. In June, China made its debut at the Eurosatory arms fair in France.

In July, China demonstrated the JF-17—the fighter developed with Pakistan—for the first time overseas at the Farnborough Airshow in Britain.

China also had one of the biggest pavilions at an arms fair in Capetown in September.

"They're showing up at arms fairs they've never been to before," said Siemon T. Wezeman, an arms trade expert at SIPRI. "Whereas 15 years ago they had nothing really, now they're offering reasonable technology at a reasonable price."

China is generating particular interest among developing countries, especially with the relatively cheap JF-17 fighter with a Russian engine.

The Kremlin has approved the re-export of the engine to Pakistan, as it has no arms business there.

But it was enraged last year when Azerbaijan, an ex-Soviet republic, began talks on buying JF-17s, according to people familiar with the situation...

China's arms exports could have repercussions on regions in conflict around the world. Pakistan inducted its first squadron of Chinese-made fighter jets in February, potentially altering the military balance with India.

Other potential buyers of China's JF-17 fighter jet include Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, Venezuela, Nigeria, Morocco and Turkey. In the past, China has also sold fighters to Sudan.

The potential customer of greatest concern to the U.S. is Iran, which purchased about $260 million of weapons from China between 2002-2009, according to Russia's Centre for Analysis of the Global Arms Trade.

In June, China backed U.N. sanctions on Iran, including an expanded arms embargo, but Tehran continues to seek Chinese fighters and other weaponry.

Riaz Haq said...

Here's an assessment of PAF capabilities by an IAF leader as reported by Indian Express:

Terming US arms aid to Pakistan as a challenge, India on Friday said the latest F-16s, missiles and munition being supplied to Pakistan Air Force (PAF) could "reduce the technological gap" with the IAF.

"It (US arms aid) is certainly a challenge, no doubt about that," IAF's Western Air Command chief Air Marshal N A K Browne told a press conference here.

"Earlier the difference of assets was a certain amount. But their acquisitions have seen to have reduced (the gap) between the PAF and IAF in terms of capability of their aircraft, Beyond Visual Range missile systems, day and night operations and precision guided munitions," Browne said.

He was replying to questions on the US arms aid to Pakistan including F-16s purportedly for counter-terrorism operations along its Afghanistan border.

"There are things actually that tend to reduce the gap. Pakistan is catching up with the IAF, which has always had an edge in terms of its size and platforms. But I don't think so (that PAF would match the IAF in the future)," he said.

Riaz Haq said...

Here's a Defense News story on how Pakistan plans to counter India's ABMs:

ISLAMABAD - In response to India's pursuit of missile defenses, Pakistan has expanded its countermeasure efforts, primarily through development of maneuvering re-entry vehicles. The Army Strategic Forces Command, which controls Pakistan's ballistic missiles, has since at least 2004 said it wanted to develop such warheads; analysts now believe these are in service.

Mansoor Ahmed, lecturer at the Department of Defence and Strategic Studies at Islamabad's Quaid-e-Azam University, said that in addition to maneuverable warheads, multiple independently targetable re-entry vehicles (MIRVs) may be developed to stay ahead of India's "multilayered ballistic-missile defense system" and potential future countermeasures.

"This, coupled with submarine-launched, nuclear-tipped cruise missiles, would ensure the survivability of its nuclear deterrent and enhance the effectiveness of its missile force that can beat any Indian defenses," he said.
-------------
He (Harsh Pant) further explained, "A missile defense system would help India blunt Pakistan's 'first use' nuclear force posture that had led Pakistan to believe that it had inhibited India from launching a conventional attack against it for fear of its escalation to the nuclear level. With a missile defense system in place, India would be able to restore the status quo ante, thereby making a conventional military option against Pakistan potent again."Such a missile defense system and a second-strike capability "would enhance the uncertainties of India's potential adversaries, regardless of the degree of effectiveness of missile interception, and would act as a disincentive to their resort to nuclear weapons," he said.

Asked whether Pakistan's countermeasures would be effective against such ABM systems, Pant replied, "most definitely."

He said, "According to various reports, Pakistan has been developing MIRV capability for the Shaheen-II ballistic missiles and [the] Shaheen-III missile is under development."
--------------
"Although the current capability of Pakistani missiles is built around radar seekers, the integration of re-entry vehicles would make these extremely potent and defeat the anti-ballistic missile defense systems. This would be especially true of Indian aircraft carriers that would become extremely vulnerable," he said.
------------
Analysts have for years speculated that the Navy will equip its submarines with a variant of the Babur cruise missile armed with a nuclear warhead. However, whether a cruise-missile-based arm of the nuclear triad at sea would be effective and survivable in the face of Indian air defenses is uncertain.
------------
When this was put to analyst Usman Shabbir of the Pakistan Military Consortium think tank, he said the interception of cruise missiles is not so simple."I think Babur will form the sea-based arm of the Pakistani nuclear deterrent" he said, "but the problem in targeting subsonic cruise missiles is that they are harder to detect due to their lower radar cross-signature, low-level navigation, and use of waypoints to circumvent more secure and heavily defended areas."

"By the time you detect them, there is not much time left to vector aircraft for interception."

However, Shabbir conceded it would be possible for an airborne interceptor to shoot down a missile like Babur. "An aircraft already on [patrol] might be lucky to pick it up on its own radar well in advance [if looking in the correct direction], or vectored to it by ground-based radar."

Riaz Haq said...

Here's an excerpt from an Indian website "South Asia Defense and Strategy Review" on the threats to Indian Navy from Pakistani missiles:

Pakistan’s arsenal of a variety of advance ballistic and cruise missiles merits attention. Reports suggest that Pakistan is developing MIRV capability for the Shaheen-II ballistic missiles and Shaheen-III missile is under development. Although the current capability of Pakistani missiles is built around radar seekers and the GPS updates provide enormously accurate CEP, the integration of ‘re-entry vehicle’ would make these extremely potent and defeat the anti-ballistic missile defence systems. In the Indian context, there is as yet no sea based anti ballistic missile system and this gap in their defence can make the Indian aircraft carriers highly vulnerable. The Indian navy may have integrated the anti ship missile threat from surface , sub surface and air platforms of the Pakistan Navy, a salvo of DF-21 or Shaheen-II / III ballistic missiles poses an ‘existential threat’ and could be worth the attention it merits. In essence, the ASBM threat necessitates an equal priority as acquisition of aircraft carriers.

Riaz Haq said...

As Pakistani Army comes under unprecedented sharp criticism by the politicians, the public and the media, here's an excerpts from an interesting piece by Vir Sanghvi on how the Indians treat Indian Army:

Equally, we will never blame the Army for anything. In 1962, we were thrashed by the Chinese but the consensus was that politicians had lost the war while our brave soldiers had done their best. The 1965 war was at best a stalemate (the Pakistanis also claimed they had won) but we treated it as a glorious victory for the Indian Army. Operation Blue Star was a fiasco. But even today, it is Blue Star we remember favourably rather than Black Thunder (conducted by the paramilitary forces to clean up the mess left behind by Blue Star), a bona fide success.

By and large, the social contract has worked. The Army has nearly always got us out of jams when we need its services. Whether it was Delhi in 1984, Bombay in 1993, or Gujarat in 2002, we needed the Army to restore order. And during the Kargil War, young officers led from the front, sacrificed their lives and displayed astonishing bravery in the service of their country.

Consequently, the army sometimes appears to live in a state within a state. Visit a cantonment and you will be struck by the contrast with the civilian part of the town or city where it is located. The roads will be broad and well-maintained, the buildings will be freshly painted, the surroundings will be clean, and an air of good manners and civility will prevail. Visit an army town (Wellington, for instance) and the contrast will be even more striking. The order and cleanliness of the cantonments serves as a contrast to the chaos and filth of modern India.

There is, however, one important aspect of the social contract that now seems to be failing. As corruption has spread in modern India, we have reluctantly accepted that most parts of our society are tainted – civil servants, the schools and even the lower judiciary. But somehow, we have always believed that the army is different.

Oh yes, we hear the stories. We hear about Generals who take kickbacks on arms deals and about officers involved in canteen purchase scandals. But because this corruption appears to be restricted to the Army itself and because we believe that it is not widespread, we are happy to look the other way.



The problem with the Adarsh scandal and the controversies over other land deals that have erupted recently is that they encroach into the civilian space. Senior army officers are seen to be conniving with politicians, bureaucrats and contractors to make millions.

Worse still, at least in the case of the Adarsh scandal, there is a cynical abuse of the social contract. When we say that we will respect and pamper the army, we do not expect senior officers to grab flats for themselves in the name of Kargil martyrs.

Earlier this week, the Army chief spoke about his resolve to cleanse his force. I am not sure he fully grasps how serious the situation is. The problem is not just that there are ‘a few bad apples’ in the army. It is that Army corruption has now spilled out into the civilian space and that Generals are making big bucks by exploiting the regard we have for the heroism of the Army and the sacrifices made by its soldiers.



If more such instances come to light, then the press will begin looking critically at the Army. The politicians will have an excuse to delve deep into the workings of the officer corps. This will give them the opportunity they need to play favourites. And the public, regretfully recognising that the Army has breached the social contract itself, will reluctantly acquiesce in the muck-raking by the press and the interference by politicians.

Once this happens, the social contract will not survive. The image of the Army will not recover. And the perfect balance we have built between the Army and the Indian people will topple over..

Riaz Haq said...

There was an article in Forbes magazine issue of March 4, 2002, by Steve Forbes titled "India, Meet Austria-Hungary" which compared India with the now defunct Austria-Hungary. Here is an excerpt from the text of that article:

Influential elements in India's government and military are still itching to go to war with Pakistan, even though Pakistan's President Pervez Musharraf has taken considerable political risks by moving against Pakistani-based-and-trained anti-India terrorist groups. Sure, Musharraf made a truculent speech condemning India's ``occupation'' of Kashmir, but that was rhetorical cover for cracking down on those groups. Washington should send New Delhi some history books for these hotheads; there is no human activity more prone to unintended consequences than warfare. As cooler heads in the Indian government well know, history is riddled with examples of parties that initiated hostilities in the belief that conflict would resolutely resolve outstanding issues.

Pericles of Athens thought he could deal with rival Sparta once and for all when he triggered the Peloponnesian War; instead his city-state was undermined and Greek civilization devastated.

Similarly, Hannibal brilliantly attacked Rome; he ended up not only losing the conflict but also setting off a train of events that ultimately led to the total destruction of Carthage. Prussia smashed France in 1870, annexing critical French territory for security reasons, but that sowed the seeds for the First World War. At the end of World War I the victorious Allies thought they had dealt decisively with German military power. Israel crushed its Arab foes in 1967, but long-term peace did not follow.

India is not a homogeneous state. Neither was the Austro-Hungarian Empire. It attacked Serbia in the summer of 1914 in the hopes of destroying this irritating state after Serbia had committed a spectacular terrorist act against the Hapsburg monarchy. The empire ended up splintering, and the Hapsburgs lost their throne. And on it goes.

Getting back to the present, do Indian war hawks believe China will stand idly by as India tried to reduce Pakistan to vassal-state status? Do they think Arab states and Iran won't fund Muslim guerrilla movements in Pakistan, as well as in India itself? Where does New Delhi think its oil comes from (about 70%, mainly from the Middle East)? Does India think the U.S. will stand by impotently if it starts a war that unleashes nuclear weapons?

Riaz Haq said...

Here's an Economist magazine story about Indian interference in Bangladeshi politics on the side of the Awami League:

NOT much noticed by outsiders, long-troubled ties between two neighbours sharing a long border have taken a substantial lurch for the better. Ever since 2008, when the Awami League, helped by bags of Indian cash and advice, triumphed in general elections in Bangladesh, relations with India have blossomed. To Indian delight, Bangladesh has cracked down on extremists with ties to Pakistan or India’s home-grown terrorist group, the Indian Mujahideen, as well as on vociferous Islamist (and anti-Indian) politicians in the country. India feels that bit safer.

Now the dynasts who rule each country are cementing political ties. On July 25th Sonia Gandhi (pictured, above) swept into Dhaka, the capital, for the first time. Sharing a sofa with Sheikh Hasina (left), the prime minister (and old family friend), the head of India’s ruling Congress Party heaped praise on her host, notably for helping the poor. A beaming Sheikh Hasina reciprocated with a golden gong, a post humous award for Mrs Gandhi’s mother-in-law, Indira Gandhi. In 1971 she sent India’s army to help Bangladeshis, led by Sheikh Hasina’s father, Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, throw off brutal Pakistani rule.

As a result, officials this week chirped that relations are now “very excellent”. They should get better yet. India’s prime minister, Manmohan Singh, will visit early in September to sign deals on sensitive matters like sharing rivers, sending electricity over the border, settling disputed patches of territory on the 4,095km (2,500-mile) frontier and stopping India’s trigger-happy border guards from murdering migrants and cow-smugglers. Mr Singh may also deal with the topic of trade which, smuggling aside, heavily favours India, to Bangladeshi ire.

Most important, however, is a deal on setting up a handful of transit routes across Bangladesh, to reach India’s remote, isolated north-eastern states. These are the “seven sisters” wedged up against the border with China.

On the face of it, the $10 billion project will develop poor areas cut off from India’s booming economy. The Asian Development Bank and others see Bangladeshi gains too, from better roads, ports, railways and much-needed trade. In Dhaka, the capital, the central-bank governor says broader integration with India could lift economic growth by a couple of percentage points, from nearly 7% already.

India has handed over half of a $1 billion soft loan for the project, and the money is being spent on new river-dredgers and rolling stock. Bangladesh’s rulers are mustard-keen. The country missed out on an earlier infrastructure bonanza involving a plan to pipe gas from Myanmar to India. China got the pipeline instead.

Yet the new transit project may be about more than just development. Some in Dhaka, including military types, suspect it is intended to create an Indian security corridor. It could open a way for army supplies to cross low-lying Bangladesh rather than going via dreadful mountain roads vulnerable to guerrilla attack. As a result, India could more easily put down insurgents in Nagaland and Manipur. The military types fear it might provoke reprisals by such groups in Bangladesh.

More striking, India’s army might try supplying its expanding divisions parked high on the border with China, in Arunachal Pradesh. China disputes India’s right to Arunachal territory, calling it South Tibet. Some Bangladeshis fret that if India tries to overcome its own logistical problems by, in effect, using Bangladesh as a huge military marshalling yard, reprisals from China would follow.


http://www.economist.com/node/21524917

Riaz Haq said...

Here are some excepts from an article Jayshree Bajoria of Council on Foreign Relations:

..... Experts say RAW's powers and its role in India's foreign policy have varied under different prime ministers. Successes that RAW claims it contributed to include:

* the creation of Bangladesh in 1971;
* India's growing influence in Afghanistan;
* Sikkim's accession to India in the northeast in 1975;
* the security of India's nuclear program;
* the success of African liberation movements during the Cold War.
----
RAW had two priorities after its formation, writes B. Raman, a former RAW official, in the 2007 book ,The Kaoboys of R&AW: Down Memory Lane. The organization worked to strengthen its capability for intelligence gathering on Pakistan and China and for covert action in East Pakistan (now Bangladesh). Some experts say that RAW's efforts in East Pakistan, which was created from the partition of the Indian state of Bengal and completely separated from the rest of Pakistan, was aimed at fomenting independence sentiment. Over time, RAW's objectives have broadened to include:

* Monitoring the political and military developments in adjoining countries, which have direct bearing on India's national security and in the formulation of its foreign policy.
* Seeking the control and limitation of the supply of military hardware to Pakistan, mostly from European countries, the United States, and China.
----
RAW had two priorities after its formation, writes B. Raman, a former RAW official, in the 2007 book ,The Kaoboys of R&AW: Down Memory Lane. The organization worked to strengthen its capability for intelligence gathering on Pakistan and China and for covert action in East Pakistan (now Bangladesh). Some experts say that RAW's efforts in East Pakistan, which was created from the partition of the Indian state of Bengal and completely separated from the rest of Pakistan, was aimed at fomenting independence sentiment. Over time, RAW's objectives have broadened to include:

* Monitoring the political and military developments in adjoining countries, which have direct bearing on India's national security and in the formulation of its foreign policy.
* Seeking the control and limitation of the supply of military hardware to Pakistan, mostly from European countries, the United States, and China.
----
From the early days, RAW had a secret liaison relationship with the Mossad, Israel's external intelligence agency. The main purpose was to benefit from Israel's knowledge of West Asia and North Africa, and to learn from its counterterrorism techniques, say experts.
------------
In retaliation, in the mid-1980s, RAW set up two covert groups of its own, Counter Intelligence Team-X (CIT-X) and Counter Intelligence Team-J (CIT-J), the first targeting Pakistan in general and the second directed at Khalistani groups. The two groups were responsible for carrying out terrorist operations inside Pakistan (Newsline), writes Pakistani military expert Ayesha Siddiqa. Indian journalist and associate editor of Frontline magazine, Praveen Swami, writes that a "low-grade but steady campaign of bombings in major Pakistani cities, notably Karachi and Lahore" was carried out. This forced the head of ISI to meet his counterpart in RAW and agree on the rules of engagement as far as Punjab was concerned, writes Siddiqa. The negotiation was brokered by then-Jordanian Crown Prince Hassan bin-Talal, whose wife, Princess Sarvath, is of Pakistani origin. "It was agreed that Pakistan would not carry out activities in the Punjab as long as RAW refrained from creating mayhem and violence inside Pakistan," Siddiqa writes.

..... experts point out that India has supported insurgents in Pakistan's Balochistan, as well as anti-Pakistan forces in Afghanistan.....-------....

Riaz Haq said...

Here's the human face of India-Pakistan war and personal tragedies of 1965, as reported by the BBC:

The daughter of a dead Indian pilot has thanked a Pakistani fighter pilot for apologising after shooting down the aircraft that her father was commanding more than four decades ago.

Farida Singh said the incident happened in the "confusion of a tragic war".

Her father Jahangir Engineer was flying the plane which had apparently drifted off course along the border.

Qais Hussain, who was a Pakistani pilot during the 1965 war with India, shot down the eight-seater plane.

Earlier, he wrote to Mrs Singh saying he was sorry for the loss of precious lives during the incident and was acting under orders from his superiors.

The Pakistanis suspected the craft of being on a reconnaissance mission to open a new war front.

Mr Hussain was ordered to shoot it down, despite pleas for mercy by Mr Engineer.

The former fighter pilot said that when he landed back at an air base at Karachi, he felt highly elated for having completed the mission.
'Overwhelmed'

But the mood changed later that evening when All India Radio announced that the plane had been a civilian Indian aircraft with eight people on board.

In a letter to Farida Singh, Mr Hussain said that everyone connected with the incident felt sorry and dejected.

Mrs Singh replied that she was "somewhat overwhelmed" at receiving the letter. She said the death of her father had "defined our lives".

"But in all the struggles that followed, we never, not for one moment, bore bitterness or hatred for the person who actually pulled the trigger and caused my father's death," she wrote.

"The fact that this all happened in the confusion of a tragic war was never lost to us. We are all pawns in this terrible game of war and peace."

Describing her father as an "ace pilot, a great leader of men [and] a willing team player", Mrs Singh said he was also generous of spirit.

"Hence it is now easy for me to reach out my hand to receive your message. This incident is indeed a prime example of what damage strife and mindless battles can drive even good men to do," she said.

Mr Hussain said he decided to write to the family after all these years when an opportunity arose through his contacts in India, who put him in touch with the pilot's daughter.

"I feel sorry for you, your family and the other seven families who lost their dearest ones," his letter stated.


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-14486283

Riaz Haq said...

Here's an AFP story on Bangladesh war trial ignoring Bihari killings by Bengali Nationalists in 1971:

DHAKA: Suspects accused of collaborating with Pakistani forces in Bangladesh’s war of independence are now on trial, but claims of appalling crimes are also tarnishing the “heroes” of that bloody struggle.

Migrant families who moved to what was then East Pakistan after the subcontinent was partitioned in 1947 say they were targeted as outsiders during the 1971 fight to become the independent nation of Bangladesh.

Thrown out of their homes and often murdered during the country’s bloody birth, they believe their suffering at the hands of native Bengalis has been forgotten as Bangladesh focuses instead on alleged collaborators with Pakistan.

The day after Bangladesh declared independence from Pakistan on December 16, 1971, Sairun Nesa survived a massacre in which 15 of her family – including her husband, son and daughter – were killed by “freedom fighters”.

As one of tens of thousands of Urdu-speaking Muslims who had migrated to East Pakistan, Nesa said she and her family were rejected by those fighting to establish independent Bangladesh.

“We were stripped naked at gun-point. Bangladeshi fighters herded us onto the bank of a river. Then they slaughtered us one after another with machetes and knives,” she said.

“With a knife one of them gouged out my right eye and stabbed me several times in the chest,” she said, adding that she was left for dead in a pile of bodies in Goalonda, a small town west of Dhaka.

Bangladesh’s government says up to three million people were killed and hundreds of thousands of women raped during the savage nine-month battle for independence.
-------
But the separate attacks carried out by Bengalis against Nesa and other “Biharis” – the migrants who had left India for East Pakistan – remain a hidden crime, experts say.

Even well-documented killings of Biharis have never been investigated, much less brought to trial.

“Everyone talks about the killings of Bengalis (by the Pakistani army) in 1971. But none dares to mention the pogroms that were carried out against Biharis,” said Ezaz Ahmed Siddiqui, a prominent Bihari community leader.

“We estimate that hundreds of thousands of Biharis were killed. In (northwestern) Santahar town alone, several thousand were killed in a matter of days,” Siddiqui told AFP.

After the war, Biharis were not granted citizenship rights in newly independent Bangladesh, lost their property and social status, and were forced to live in refugee camps under UN protection – where many remain to this day.

For decades, Bangladeshi historians and authors have downplayed the Bihari killings, casting them as isolated instances of mob violence.

“We agree some Urdu-speaking people were killed in isolated riot-like incidents,” Mofidul Hoque, a trustee of Bangladesh’s Liberation War Museum, said.

“But it was not a systematic or state-sponsored genocide like what the Pakistani soldiers did to Bengalis,” he said.

A new wave of academics is trying to shed light on the killings, with Oxford University researcher Sarmila Bose’s 2011 book, “Dead Reckoning: Memories of the 1971 Bangladesh War” leading the way.

Bose argues that Bangladesh authorities are in a “state of denial” about the murder of Biharis.

“The nature and scale of atrocities committed by the ‘nationalist’ side had been edited out of the dominant narrative,” she wrote after her book was heavily criticised in Bangladesh.

Ishrat Ferdousi, who recently finished a book on the 1971 atrocities, said attacks on Biharis could be seen as “genocide”.

“I saw at least a hundred Bihari children had been killed, their bodies were floating in the Rupsha river. Some (Bengalis) even boarded boats with machetes to hunt for any Biharis who had survived,” he told AFP......


http://www.dawn.com/2011/11/23/bangladesh-war-trial-sparks-rival-calls-for-justice.html

Riaz Haq said...

Here are parts of a Daily Times Op Ed by Javed Jabbar on 40th anniversary of the Fall of Dhaka:

In the narrative adopted by Bangladesh and echoed by India and most of global discourse, about three million Bengalis were killed and about 300,000 women were allegedly raped by the Pakistan Army during the nine-month conflict resulting in the secession of Bangladesh. These numbers fail spectacularly on the anvil of factual scrutiny, documentation and rationality. In the 262 days between March 26 and December 16, 1971, Pakistan’s armed forces did not exceed 45,000 troops at optimal levels. The 90,000 prisoners-of-war held by India included over 50,000 non-combatant, unarmed West Pakistani civilians.

Spread out in small, embattled formations across East Pakistan, facing a newly unfriendly or uneasy population, an India-supported insurgency, preparing for an Indian invasion, constantly under-supplied and under-equipped, the Pakistani forces would have had to kill 11,450 Bengalis and rape 1,145 women every single day for 262 days to reach the levels claimed. Not a single credible document has been cited in 40 years to substantiate such absurd allegations of scale.

By unverified frequent repetition of the grotesque figures, the names of Pakistan and Pakistan’s armed forces have become synonymous with the charge of a ‘genocide’ in East Pakistan, which actually never took place. The unfounded charge amounts to the character assassination of a nation’s armed forces.

The Pakistani version is diametrically different. The official Commission of Inquiry headed by a former chief justice could only estimate 36,000 dead. Other estimates go between 100,000 to 200,000 killed. To contrast the two claims is not to demean the gravity of the catastrophe by cold statistics. Every human life is sacred. Every human being’s dignity is sacrosanct. Any violation of either is reprehensible.

Some atrocities by Pakistani troops did take place. Several eye-witness accounts state that the targets were almost always adult males, that women and children were spared. The killings were not one-sided. Many thousands of non-Bengalis and West Pakistanis, including women and children, were brutally slaughtered by Bengalis between 1st March and March 26, 1971, and subsequently as well, as also after December 16, 1971. About 4,000 Pakistani troops also perished in the conflict.

The need to revisit this facet of history to conclusively establish the truth is superbly highlighted by the meticulous research recorded by a scholar who is neither a Pakistani nor a Bangladeshi. In her unusually sensitive and remarkably balanced book, Dead Reckoning: Memories of the 1971 Bangladesh War, Sarmila Bose — an Indian Bengali Hindu by birth, a senior Research Fellow at Oxford University — powerfully and persuasively presents the case for a rigorous, evidence-based search for the truth.


http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2011\12\17\story_17-12-2011_pg3_5

Riaz Haq said...

Who attacked first and started 1965 war? Here's a BBC report on Sept 6, 1965:

1965: Indian Army invades W Pakistan

Indian troops have invaded West Pakistan, crossing the border at three points in an attack which appears to be aimed mainly at the city of Lahore.

Authorities in Delhi say their action was intended to prevent a direct attack by Pakistani forces against India.

On 25 August, Pakistani soldiers launched a covert operation across the ceasefire line, established in 1949 after the first Indo-Pakistani war, into Indian-administered Jammu and Kashmir.

Since then there have been a number of clashes along the ceasefire line, but this is the first time Indian troops have crossed into West Pakistan in what is being seen as an act of war.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/september/6/newsid_3632000/3632092.stm

Riaz Haq said...

Here's Hindustan Times on Indian Army lies about the Battle of Logewala in 1971 in Rajhastan:

One of the most glorious moments of the Indian Army, the victory in the Battle of Longewala in the 1971 war with Pakistan, is based on blatant falsehood, claims an upcoming book by a general decorated in the same operations.


The battle was immortalised by the 1997 Bollywood blockbuster "Border", starring Sunny Deol as victorious army hero major Kuldip Singh Chandpuri. In a tell-all account of one of the first engagements in the western sector during the 14-day war, major general Atma Singh (retd) has alleged that the army's version of the battle is built on "exaggerated claims" when it had little to do with crushing Pakistani forces.

Atma Singh, then a major, has credited the Indian Air Force for saving the day for the country. He was commanding the No. 12 Air Observation Post (AOP) flight, tasked with directing close air support firepower toward enemy targets. AOP units were under the IAF. "If our own troops had vacated the post (Longewala) at first light on December 5, then when and where was the big battle of Longewala fought?" he questions in his book, "Battle of Longewala: The Real Story", which will hit the stands on December 3, the day the war began 42 years ago....


http://www.hindustantimes.com/punjab/chandigarh/new-book-claims-to-nail-longewala-lies/article1-1156480.aspx