Bharat Rakshak Forum Announcement

Hello Everyone,

A warm welcome back to the Bharat Rakshak Forum.

Important Notice: Due to a corruption in the BR forum database we regret to announce that data records relating to some of our registered users have been lost. We estimate approx. 500 user details are deleted.

To ease the process of recreating the user IDs we request members that have previously posted on the BR forums to recognise and identify their posts, once the posts are identified please contact the BRF moderator team by emailing BRF Mod Team with your post details.

The mod team will be able to update your username, email etc. so that the user history can be maintained.

Unfortunately for members that have never posted or have had all their posts deleted i.e. users that have 0 posts, we will be unable to recreate your account hence we request that you re-register again.

We apologise for any inconvenience caused and thank you for your understanding.

Regards,
Seetal

Kargil War Thread - V

Kakkaji
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3041
Joined: 23 Oct 2002 11:31

Postby Kakkaji » 04 Oct 2006 07:02

surinder wrote:Interesting. They reserve special hatred for Punjabi Hindus? Coming to think of it, it makes sense. How would they react to Punjabi Sikhs? i am not sure, but somehow think they would be nicer.

surinder


surinder:

Here is an example of what the Pakis thought of Sikhs during Kargil:

http://www.geocities.com/menofvalor2001 ... rkhan.html
The task of isolating the Western Spur post was given to the Indian 8 Sikh Regiment (800 - 1000 men).

Manning the Western Spur post was Captain Karnal Sher Khan with 21 ORs (Other Ranks, men who are ordinary sepoys and do not hold any specific rank).

Under these circumstances some infantrymen from 8 Sikh also fired at the posts held by Sher and his men, and 'dared them to recite the Kalima, for it will be their final one'. Obviously, the Pakistanis and the Kashmiris did not get any sleep during this time.

As the 8 Sikh regiment began to retreat, Kernal Sher left his position and came out in the open. He started reciting the Kalima aloud. Picking up his machine gun he started charging towards the retreating forces.

"Cowards!" he said, "Where are you running off to? I will not let you run away like this."

"I am reciting the Kalima as you had dared me to." he shouted, "Where are you running off to? Stop and fight. Make this my last Kalima if you can". While saying this he was seen running after the retreating troops, firing at will, with little or no opposition except from the ongoing artillery shelling. 10 or 12 of Sher's men, who had taken up positions on the Western Spur, also opened havoc wreaking fire on the retreating troops to add to their woes.

Captain Karnal Sher followed the Indian troops until he reached the proximity of the 8 Sikh Regiment base camp.

While the 8 Sikh soldiers were taking their defensive positions, they were greeted with the sound of 'Allah O Akbar' followed by intense machine gun fire on those areas where any movement was taking place.

Anticipating a company sized attack, the CO was stunned to see one man, reciting the Kalima aloud, charging towards the center of the camp.

"Come out cowards!" Captain Sher shouted having reached the center, "I will show you how to fight a battle".

Angered by the dare inside their own camp, two Sikh soldiers tried to attack Sher. Their attack was of no avail; the captain, who had started firing in their direction the moment they tried to move, killed both.

Seeing that he no longer had any ammunition, the Indian soldiers, including their CO, came out in the open and showed Sher that he was indeed surrounded from all sides. They started moving closer and closer to him, tightening their circle around him.

"Look around yourself" he said to Sher, "There is nothing more that you can do".

Sher looked around. There were more than fifty men who had surrounded him and could shoot him at point blank range. Instead of giving up, he started reciting the Kalima aloud once again. Seeing that the closest to him was the CO, he charged him and pushed him back by hitting him on the head with his empty machine gun. Seeing that Sher was not surrendering, and was in fact going to attack him for the second time, the 8 Sikh regiment Commanding Officer told his men to open fire on the militant.

The 8 Sikh regiment soldiers opened fire on Captain Sher. Hit many times, he tried to attack the CO for the third time, but of no avail.

Sher had always believed in not dying at the enemy's feet. He was about five feet away from the CO, who could see the desperate attempt Sher was making in not to fall down. Finally, Sher sat down, with his knees bent and touching the ground, and his machine gun still in his hand. The Kalima that he had been reciting so far became lower and lower in volume until it finally stopped. Captain Karnal Sher Khan had died.

Some of the Sikh soldiers became ecstatic that they had indeed made the 'intruder' recite his final Kalima. Two of them ran to Sher Khan's body to kick it from a sitting position into a one where his head was touching the ground.

Seeing the intent of his men, the CO ordered them to stop. He told them that this was a brave man and his body should not be desecrated at any cost. He ordered that Sher's body be brought back to Srinagar rather than being left at Tiger Hill. Upon finding out that Sher was a Pakistani Captain, he made sure that Sher gets a proper military treatment from the Indians. It was he who wrote the citation of Captain Sher, recommending him for the highest gallantry award in Pakistan. The citation can be found at Captain Sher Khan's residence in Fajounabad Charbagh, Swabi.

The government of Pakistan awarded Captain Karnal Sher Khan with Nishan-e-Haider, the country's highest gallantry award.


This about a guy whose body was honorably returned by India to Pakistan and praised by IA for his bravery. The Pakis took a while before deciding to accept the body.

The Pakis are equal opportunity haters.

IMHO, recommending Paki soldiers for bravery awards by IA does not in any way enhance the average Paki's esteem for India, or lessen their hatred towards Kaffirs. It is an unnecessary morale-booster for the enemy.

abhishek
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 70
Joined: 07 Jun 2004 11:31

Postby abhishek » 04 Oct 2006 07:26

Does anyone else think that recommending the Paki Officer for a bravery award was also a way of exposing real Paki army’s involvement in the intrusion at that time?

RayC
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4333
Joined: 16 Jan 2004 12:31

Postby RayC » 04 Oct 2006 09:25

ShibaPJ wrote:
...Did they air these sentiments of wanting to cross the LC to anyone in authority during the battles or even after the ceasefire? Penny for their thoughts and unfortunate that the war terminated too early for them. It would have surely passed on to the powers that be that visited the battlefield from time to time. In fact, it would have shored up the morale of many in Delhi!

Is it practically possible for someone on the ground level to really go up to the high command and suggest something so blunt? With the military,which is considered the epitome of discipline this would be heresy. It does not happen in govt. service and certainly would not be tolerated in IA.


Unlike the govt bureaucrats who are confined to files and the office, in the Army, the top brass meets all levels; and quite regularly since it is their job also to "feel the pulse". In war, it is more frequent. Not doing so would be catastrophic.

In Kargil War, where the troops were located cheek by jowl since there was only one highway and mountains on either side. It was well nigh impossible for anyone to not know the other or not to interact. Maj Gen Mohinder Puri went to some unit or the other every day and met the troops and officers since it was essential to keep the morale high and to check on how things were moving. He was quite an informal type and interacted with the troops all the time. So was Lt Gen Kishen Pal. Discipline does not mean one cannot speak out one's mind in a polite manner. And since the rank and file were the ones who were to deliver, it was absolutely essential to chat with them and check their 'go'.

To my mind, with all humility at my command, I feel both smells a CYA attitude and playing to the gallery and appearing to be all blood and guts after the war is over! ;)

I would disagree; I didn't feel their anger and disgust was fake. Can it be that IA top brass is not in touch with the feelings at the grass roots level? (May not be the most prevalent, but festering nonetheless)


Answered above. If one does not interact with the grassroots in a war, then the roots may not take roots! Fine, I will go with you, for discussion'sake, that the anger was genuine. Why bottle that up and then talk afterwards? Where is all the moral courage that is also supposed to be the cardinal principle? Are they not duty bound to ensure the prestige of their troops and the Nation? Agreed they cannot change the plans, but they can surely speak their mind when it should be spoken and not after the fact.

..It is not the time to be a General Musharaff and go into delusion and imagined grandeur!

Absolutely.. Wish our leaders could get rid of some self-delusional stuff themselves and stop being played for a fool by all & sundry. (Lest someone takes offence, I am refering to the political leadership here).
[/quote]

I would also go one step further. Even military leadership and the rank and file!

RayC
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4333
Joined: 16 Jan 2004 12:31

Postby RayC » 04 Oct 2006 09:34

abhishek wrote:Does anyone else think that recommending the Paki Officer for a bravery award was also a way of exposing real Paki army’s involvement in the intrusion at that time?


No one recommended anyone for a medal. All one said that it was an act that is worthy of a soldier.

Likewise, it was so in Shakargarh.

If anyone wants to see the letter by Airy, all one has to do is go to the 54 Inf Div Museum and see the copy of the letter.

As far as the geocities story goes, after the war, many a patriotic story is spun.

Who calls another a coward or dare someone? A person who is mortally afraid of the consequences. By daring someone, one wants the anger to grow in that someone so that he makes a daredevil and foolish error. It also cloaks one's own fear.

And anyway, it is commonplace to do namecalling at the front which to my mind is unproductive since it does not produce any result except to give some satisfaction in a perverse way for realease of impotent anger and display of misplaced 'bravery'..

Prem
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20416
Joined: 01 Jul 1999 11:31
Location: Weighing and Waiting 8T Yconomy

Postby Prem » 04 Oct 2006 09:59

Kakkaji wrote:
surinder wrote:Interesting. They reserve special hatred for Punjabi Hindus? Coming to think of it, it makes sense. How would they react to Punjabi Sikhs? i am not sure, but somehow think they would be nicer.

surinder


surinder:

Here is an example of what the Pakis thought of Sikhs during Kargil:
.
This about a guy whose body was honorably returned by India to Pakistan and praised by IA for his bravery. The Pakis took a while before deciding to accept the body.

The Pakis are equal opportunity haters.

IMHO, recommending Paki soldiers for bravery awards by IA does not in any way enhance the average Paki's esteem for India, or lessen their hatred towards Kaffirs. It is an unnecessary morale-booster for the enemy.


The onlee thing this hot air story proves is Pakis , especially Punjabi Musal1/2man fear Khalsa. See , A Phuki was able to fight the Sikhs :lol: No doubt boor bakis always complaining 47... a lesson not learned by rest of India.

A monumental achievement for incest born Baki. IA say so claim Pukes. :twisted:
Retard Bakis dont get this and proudly making making ass of themselves.

Sharma
BRFite
Posts: 108
Joined: 10 Aug 2004 02:02
Location: Quarter Guard
Contact:

Postby Sharma » 04 Oct 2006 10:30

@RayC

May you please let us know some thing about Army handling the media? Was it effective? What role did Lt Gen Arjun Ray played there and was it soemthing to do with this media liasioning that he left the army in haste?

RayC
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4333
Joined: 16 Jan 2004 12:31

Postby RayC » 04 Oct 2006 10:41

Arjun Ray was not there during the Kargil War.

I would say he did some excellent work while he was there in so far as the local upliftment was concerned.

I would be honest in stating I know very little of the games played in Delhi and personally I did not have the inclination to know about these 'inside' hatchet jobs, if any.

Army's handling of the media is far from the desired.

Sharma
BRFite
Posts: 108
Joined: 10 Aug 2004 02:02
Location: Quarter Guard
Contact:

Postby Sharma » 04 Oct 2006 11:25

RayC wrote:Arjun Ray was not there during the Kargil War.

I would say he did some excellent work while he was there in so far as the local upliftment was concerned.


You mean Op Sadbhavna. But I heard that he was managing media during Kargil war and specialy flown in from ARTRAC. And later he was made Corps Comm of 14 C.

Gen is in contact with me and I am persuading him to write a book on that (He has written a book "Kashmir Diary: Psychology of Militancy" ). He is determined not to do so and quite reluctant to talk about his stint in Army especialy his last few years after he was moved to ARTRAC from as GOC of an Armoured Div. He is more into his school job and you will be surprised to know that he still carrying Op Sadbhavan in his personal capcity. I thought may be you know something about how he fared in his media liasioning appointment.


RayC wrote:I would be honest in stating I know very little of the games played in Delhi and personally I did not have the inclination to know about these 'inside' hatchet jobs, if any.


Same here, Sir. But I have the inclination to know that as I am a bloody civvie.

RayC wrote:Army's handling of the media is far from the desired.


Some times they overshot and some time they missed alotogether. Barkha Dutt was happily announcing forthcoming attack on Tiger Hill as if it was some Poltical rally and some journalists were allowed to take interviews of jawans and offrs before commencing some attack.

I wanted to know if media handling and ops interefered with Unit or Brigade level routine of Kargil war? I remeber Col Lalit Ray was very enthu about giving interviews and also very good with pen.

JCage
BRFite
Posts: 1562
Joined: 09 Oct 2000 11:31

Postby JCage » 04 Oct 2006 12:51

I wanted to know if media handling and ops interefered with Unit or Brigade level routine of Kargil war? I remeber Col Lalit Ray was very enthu about giving interviews and also very good with pen.


Col rai personally led his gurkhas into attack & held off repeated pak counteroffensives with 8 wounded survivors. It didnt affect his ability to command or lead.

RayC
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4333
Joined: 16 Jan 2004 12:31

Postby RayC » 04 Oct 2006 14:06

Arjun Ray is a person who is different from most.

He was a thinking General and not a gungo ho type.

I was in touch with him and I am glad that he is busy with his school. I am sure he will do something good for the people.

JC,

Rais are never great with the pen! ;)

Surya
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5029
Joined: 05 Mar 2001 12:31

Postby Surya » 04 Oct 2006 19:54

deleted

Primus
BRFite
Posts: 674
Joined: 06 Mar 2002 12:31
Location: Ground Zero

Postby Primus » 04 Oct 2006 20:59

abhishek wrote:Does anyone else think that recommending the Paki Officer for a bravery award was also a way of exposing real Paki army’s involvement in the intrusion at that time?


Long time lurker here.

The Kargil war affected me deeply for reasons that I cannot explain fully. Growing up with the names of Tarapore, Abdul Hamid, Sekhon and others on my lips, I now have Batra and Kalia and Yadav imprinted on my memory.

I am finding this thread very interesting and informative and I very much appreciate the first-hand account from Brig RayC.

I do have an opinion (as we all do) on the above issue of the 'gentlemanly' behavior of the IA.

Having interacted with Pakis very closely for about 20 yrs now in a professional and sometimes social capacity too, the one thing I've realized is that there is intense indoctrination that goes on in schools and society in general in Pakistan. A lot of this has already been discussed on BRF, eg. the lies and alternate versions of history vis a vis India, the supposedly servile status of Muslims in India and so on. Along with this comes a certain sense of superiority, of being invincible. Winning a cricket match suddenly becomes tantamount to having won all the wars with India.

One consequence of such 'brain-washing' of an entire society is the inability to accept defeat in any form and the need then to transform it somehow to victory. The attitude of overt aggression, brutality, barbarism and downright cruelty towards the foe is also uniquely Pakistani. Lopping off heads post-mortem aside, I don't believe there is ANY documented or otherwise incident of deliberate torture of Pakis by the IA, ala Kalia. My own opinion is that this is somehow related to the unique upbringing and jihadi culture that has become so much a part of the Paki psyche.

Coming back to the original quote above, I too am in the JCage camp that it is NOT doing us any good to be praising the enemy soldiers, regardless of their 'valor'. Where is the valor in dressing up in civvies, infiltrating your neighbor's home soon after you've signed up a friendship treaty, with the express purpose of killing him?

From a slightly different perspective, I am sure that Mohammed Atta and Co are revered by the Jihadis as demi-gods. After all, it DOES require a certain kind of steel to willingly go kill yourself in such a deliberate manner. To launch a suicidal attack in the heat of battle is what valor is about, but to go about your business for weeks, preparing for what is eventually certain death in such an cold and calculating manner requires a different kind of courage (if you can call it that).

BUT, did ANYBODY, other than the Jihadis, call the 911 perpetrators 'brave', 'courageous', 'patriotic', 'valorous'? Did anybody praise them for fighting so well for their 'army of the pure', for their 'nation of Islam', for following the 'orders' of their 'government'? NO! If anything, they were called 'terrorists', 'evil', 'treacherous' persons who entered a country by guile, for the express purpose of killing its citizens.

What's the difference between the 911 terrorists and the Paki scum who infiltrate into India?

ShibaPJ
BRFite
Posts: 146
Joined: 20 Oct 2005 21:21

Postby ShibaPJ » 04 Oct 2006 21:23

Thank you, RayC for your clarifications. I didn't discuss on anyone willingly overlooking the 'official' policies, because I believe discipline and existing ethos should be respected. Thanks to the inculcated discipline and ethos, we are so different from the Puki scums across the border.

Absolutely.. Wish our leaders could get rid of some self-delusional stuff themselves and stop being played for a fool by all & sundry. (Lest someone takes offence, I am refering to the political leadership here).

I would also go one step further. Even military leadership and the rank and file!
[/quote]
I do agree. But only if our leadership had displayed even a fraction of the application and competence that our military has displayed, my country would have been a different country today.. How have they squandered away the gains that our jawans won in the battlefield after shedding so much blood. :evil:

PradeepB,
No difference between the 911 perpetrators and Puki/ BD scums and the Indian-born traitors who cause so much bloodshed in India. They should all be put down ruthlessly.

rsingh
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3056
Joined: 19 Jan 2005 01:05
Location: Pindi
Contact:

Postby rsingh » 04 Oct 2006 21:46

Rais are never great with the pen! Wink


Never mind Sir.......I wonder if you had time to go through Zhuth-Nama,written by the moobish Gola.

cbelwal
BRFite
Posts: 129
Joined: 03 May 2001 11:31

Postby cbelwal » 04 Oct 2006 22:17

Pradeep,

I will agree with most of what you have said however the belief that suicide bombing require courage is not true.

Courage is a mental setup that allows you do more than what is expected of you. It is something that no training can impart. It is a phsycological state of mind that allows you to go beyond stereotype and take independant concrete actions. Do suicidal jehadis fit the picture ? Unlike a normal human being who is told that life has a value and be optimistic in outlook, the Jehadis are told that true life is after death. Since childhood they are indoctirated that living is surreal and the real luxury is after death. They are shown a lollipop which lies on the other side of karma. They die not for their country or religion but for that abstract lollipop. Since it is a one way street we really do not know if the lollipop actually materializes or not. No suicidal jehadi has ever come back to tell us the real story.

With these facts I consider the jehadis to be the biggest cowards. Courage will require them to question their indoctrination, to question their clergies, do they ever do that ? They are walking talking human robots who have no respect for their life and naturally not for others. If you call a jehadi brave then the poor Robot who sweeps for mines should be awarded the highest galantry award in every country.

PradeepB wrote:After all, it DOES require a certain kind of steel to willingly go kill yourself in such a deliberate manner. To launch a suicidal attack in the heat of battle is what valor is about, but to go about your business for weeks, preparing for what is eventually certain death in such an cold and calculating manner requires a different kind of courage (if you can call it that).

Primus
BRFite
Posts: 674
Joined: 06 Mar 2002 12:31
Location: Ground Zero

Postby Primus » 05 Oct 2006 02:22

cbelwal wrote:Pradeep,

I will agree with most of what you have said however the belief that suicide bombing require courage is not true.
galantry award in every country.

PradeepB wrote:After all, it DOES require a certain kind of steel to willingly go kill yourself in such a deliberate manner. To launch a suicidal attack in the heat of battle is what valor is about, but to go about your business for weeks, preparing for what is eventually certain death in such an cold and calculating manner requires a different kind of courage (if you can call it that).


If you read my post again, I DO say that WE would NOT call a suicide bomber courageous, but HIS lot may. I am not debating the psychology of the suicide terrorist here, but just illustrating the fact that in any conflict, you would not complement the enemy soldier on his bravery. Especially in the case of the Pakis who perhaps in a twisted way have the same ideology and beliefs that the suicide bomber has. After all, it IS a matter of belief. Our soldiers believe they are dying a glorious death for their cause and their country and their people. So does the suicide squad. The difference is that in our case we are defending ourselves. It is possible that the terrorists/infiltrators (same in my book) may also believe they are 'defending the faith'. In this politically expedient world it is entirely possible that some may believe their story over ours, but I like to think we are right (else this whole debate is worthless).

The point that I am trying to make is that whatever the motivations may have been, it is counterproductive to praise the enemy soldier in any way. It only confirms his own beliefs in his ability to prevail and the cycle continues.

JCage
BRFite
Posts: 1562
Joined: 09 Oct 2000 11:31

Postby JCage » 05 Oct 2006 05:07

I was once told- courage is being afraid and going ahead nonetheless and doing your duty. Sure there are many fearless types too, but overall, the average person, irrespective of race, ethnicity faces violent conflict in much the same way..

But blind fanaticism- "if I kill myself Allah taala will give me 72 houris and a place in jannat" is another matter entirely...

With the latter, folks can kill babies, women, murder- do anything and even blow themselves up to become "shaheed"..Hence, the recourse to barbarity- they believe they have religious sanction for their antics- what talk of the Geneva convention or the like..

They also act like utter idiots at times since they are momeen and they will be protected come what may..wasnt it in 1965, the Pak establishment fanned rumours of farishtay in green uniforms who appeared on the battlefield to defeat the kaffirs?

When Pak was formed, they were already bigots- they split because of their belief that they were better, needed to be separate. You can see that attitude in the '65 videos, bragging, or singing about "lalaji" (Indians= banias who for them are nonmartial hindus)..over the years it has blown up into full blown cancer infecting every bit of their society. Islamization thanks to Zia just formalized this process. There was this article on Siachen sometime back..the Indian soldier whom they interview talks of Axl Rose and books...the Paki officers they speak to, swagger around with full ceremony & the like..the authors find it funny. Pakis are one trick ponies...I hope they Islamize even more....all the solutions to their problems are in ancient Arabia..and I hope they find all the answers they are looking for!

Rishirishi
BRFite
Posts: 991
Joined: 12 Mar 2005 02:30

Postby Rishirishi » 05 Oct 2006 05:38

Our accountants son (about 8 years old) said that he would love to get hold of an machine gun and shoot all Indians. Should have seen the damage control effeort by our accountant. He must be considred a moderate, as he even enjoys a pint some times. The girls do not wear burka etc and they have been living in UK for the last 25 years.

Pakis have an intense hate of India and think of Hindus as wicked loosers. It is thought to them at school and they have hate sessions at the mosque. Even on TV, they will display intense hate. They wll dream of marching through to Delhi in their Al-khalid scrapyards.

Comming to my point.
If we start to admire PA soldiers then should we not also admire fiyadins? Isin't that the ultimate sacrifice. Perhaps we can ordinate and start to give then an honrable burrial for their show of corrage.

Make no mistake, if the Pakis had the opportunity, they would not hesitate a second to invade India. It would be a moment of pride for them.

RayC
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4333
Joined: 16 Jan 2004 12:31

Postby RayC » 05 Oct 2006 10:39

http://news.ft.com/cms/s/570f0340-fe...00e2511c8.html


Jihad culture runs deep in Pakistan
By Farhan Bokhari
Published: July 27 2005 03:00 | Last updated: July 27 2005 03:00

"The most supreme jihad [holy war] is offering one's life for sacrifice - the reward for which is eternal life for a martyr."

This line comes neither from a firebrand Islamic preacher armed with anti-western vitriol, nor from a sermon in a predominantly Muslim country where the Taliban brand of Islam influences many.

Instead, it comes from a school textbook, used for teaching Pakistan studies (history, culture and politics) to 15-year-old children.

Fifty thousand copies of its latest edition, titled "Pakistan Studies for Class 10", were printed in April - more than three years after General Pervez Musharraf, Pakistan's military ruler, turned his back on Afghanistan's Taliban regime and promised to root out militancy in his country.


Creating a Pakistan of distortions
Author: Amit Bhattacharya/ New Delhi
Publication: The Pioneer
Date: July 13, 2003

*
Quote:
Hindus worship in temples which are narrow and dark places, where they worship idols. Only one person can enter the temple at a time. In mosques, on the other hand, all Muslims can say their prayers together.

*The religion of the Hindus did not teach them good things - Hindus did not respect women.

*Hindus, who have been opportunists, co-operated with the English

These aren't the views of a blinkered mullah in an obscure madarsa. They are passages from Pakistan Government-approved social studies textbooks being taught to students of Class IV to VI in the Pak province of Punjab.

Such and other illuminating instances of how young minds in Pakistan are being fed on falsehoods and hatred, find mention in a recently released document, The Subtle Subversion - The State of Curricula and Textbooks in Pakistan, prepared by the Islamabad-based Sustainable Development Policy Institute.

The document, part of an independent initiative for furthering a 'progressive, moderate and democratic Pakistan', highlights the extent to which public education is being used as a tool of national and social indoctrination for political ends. This, the study notes, 'has created deep social problems and encouraged the development of a more violent polity."

The trend of resorting to stereotypes, omissions of historical periods and falsehoods, says the study, found fillip during the dictatorship of Gen Zia-ul-Haq. In 1977, Gen Zia called a national education conference, the goals of which were "to redefine the aims of education... and bring education in line with Pakistani faith and ideology."

Under the new policy, Islamiat was made compulsory up to BA, as was the teaching of Arabic to students of all religions. Madarsa certificates were equivalent to university degrees. The measures literally thrust a narrow version of Islam down the throat of Pakistan's minorities. Islamisation was turned into an article of faith, as this line from a curriculum document shows: "The Ideology of Pakistan be presented as an accepted reality, and be never subjected to discussion or dispute."

One of the papers in the document argues that the hate material against Hindus was, in part, a result of promotion of the 'Ideology of Pakistan'. Interestingly, says the paper's author A H Nayyar, despite the bloody partition, school textbooks during Pakistan's first 25 years were relatively free of the current pathological hatred. For instance, "history books contained chapters on not only the Harappan civilisation, but also the mythologies of Ramayana and Mahabharata. The great kingdoms of the Mauryas and Guptas were extensively covered, often with admiration. One still found in school textbooks chapters on M K Gandhi, using words of respect for him and admiring his qualities. Some books mentioned that the most prominent religious leaders were all bitterly opposed to the creation of Pakistan."

Then came the 1970s and 'Indo-Pakistan History and Geography' was replaced with 'Pakistan Studies' and Pakistan defined as an Islamic state. The history of Pakistan became equivalent to the history of Muslims in the subcontinent. So much so that "the Quaid-i-Azam was turned into a pious, practicing Muslim."

In contrast, books like this 1956 edition of Tareek-e-Pakistan-o-Hind, were quite objective even with regard to Mohd bin Qasim, who brought Islam into the subcontinent.

The book says: "(Qasim) laid the foundation for Muslim rule in India. But the first brick of the foundation were defective... Had Qasim and the conquerors relied less on the sword to increase their numerical strength... we would have been spared the events because of which we are presently facing tribulations."

Compare that with this unprecedented piece of 'historical' narration from a current textbook of Pakistan Studies: "Pakistan came to be established for the first time when the Arabs under Mohd bin Qasim occupied Sindh and Multan in the early years of the eighth century and established Muslim rule in this part of the South- Asian subcontinent. Pakistan under the Arabs comprised the lower Indus Valley."

The textbook then proceeds to trace the development of 'Pakistan' during the Ghaznavids, Khiljis and the Mughals: "After the death of Aurangzeb in 1707, the process of the disintegration of Mughal rule set in, and weakened the Pakistan Spirit."

Analysing the use of history as an official imagining tool to conjure Pakistan, Ayesha Jalal is quoted thus: "When petty officials carry the brief of writing history as victory, the imaginings of power can discard the stray 'truths' of pure inspiration and pretend to monopolise the enterprise of creativity. A sort of amnesia descends."

The study, that looked into problems associated with four key areas taught to Classes I to XII - Social/Pakistan Studies, Urdu, English and Civics - also makes recommendations to undo the damage and bring education in line with the democratic aspirations and pluralistic reality of Pakistan.

But, is anyone listening? Textbook case of falsehoods

*Hindus very cunningly succeeded in making the British believe that the Muslims were solely responsible for the (1857) rebellion- Social Studies, Class VIII

*In order to appease Hindus and Congress, the British announced political reforms. Muslims were not eligible to vote. Hindu voters never voted for a Muslim- Social Studies, Class VIII

*Hindus lived in small, dark houses- Social Studies, Class VI

*There ought to come out (in essays) an angle of propagation of Islam and the ideology of Pakistan- Class Iv, V Urdu curricula

*While Muslims provided all types of help to those wishing to leave Pakistan, the people of India committed cruelties against the Muslims. They were murdered and looted- Civics of Pakistan, Intermediate classes


I am aware of all the brainwashing and hatred towards India that manifest itself in Pakistan.

I, however, fail to see how fidayeen lunacy is equated with the soldierlike act of a Pakistani soldier.

In fact, all types of valour by anyone is a mere reminder that if 'A' can do it, I must do the same if such a situation comes to pass.

Shakespeare has written some excellent pieces of work. Why do we read and appreciate them. After all, must we not remember Gen Dwyer's inhuman act of firing on unarmed civilians which should be forgiven! It recalls a painful past burnt into the memory of those who witnessed the massacre and brought about a shocking disillusionment among the Indians who could until then never believe that the ``benign'' British Government would resort to such savagery.

Going by the above logic, why should be speak, write and read in English? The British were brutal! And yet we do! Matter of selective convenience?

One of the immortal lines that I always recalled before any combat is Rupert Brook's
"If I should die, think only this of me: / That there's some corner of a foreign field / That is forever England". (For "England", in my inner eye it was 'India"')
Should I have forsaken this stirring thought because of General Dwyer and other inhuman brutal acts of the British in India?

In fact, inspite of everything that some Britishers did which was not cricket, do we really dislike or hate the British?

Why should we have any CBM with Pakistan? They are such horrid litle tykes.

Why should we eat and relish tandoori chicken? They are, after all, Frontier food!

So figure.

Primus
BRFite
Posts: 674
Joined: 06 Mar 2002 12:31
Location: Ground Zero

Postby Primus » 05 Oct 2006 20:34

RayC, I believe you are confusing (our) hatred of the Paki Jihadis to mean all things across the border and all things muslim. To a civilian, the soldier who sneaks into your house in the middle of the night and kills your sleeping baby is no different from the fidayeen who blows himself up in the high street. Both are driven by a twisted (from our POV) ideology. That the soldier in the first instance was stopped at the border and died fighting ferociously does not make him valorous.

I have lived and worked very closely with Pakis for about twenty years as I've said before. I have hosted them in my house, given them food and shelter, allowed them to pray in the same room where our temple is located. I DO understand the unique nature of every human being in certain situations and you cannot tar an entire culture/country/people with the same brush. However, you CAN assume that when certain people from that same society take up arms against you, they then become the enemy and I would NEVER praise him for his so called bravery in killing me and mine.

Just my humble opinion.

RayC
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4333
Joined: 16 Jan 2004 12:31

Postby RayC » 05 Oct 2006 23:15

PradeepB wrote:RayC, I believe you are confusing (our) hatred of the Paki Jihadis to mean all things across the border and all things muslim. To a civilian, the soldier who sneaks into your house in the middle of the night and kills your sleeping baby is no different from the fidayeen who blows himself up in the high street. Both are driven by a twisted (from our POV) ideology. That the soldier in the first instance was stopped at the border and died fighting ferociously does not make him valorous.

I have lived and worked very closely with Pakis for about twenty years as I've said before. I have hosted them in my house, given them food and shelter, allowed them to pray in the same room where our temple is located. I DO understand the unique nature of every human being in certain situations and you cannot tar an entire culture/country/people with the same brush. However, you CAN assume that when certain people from that same society take up arms against you, they then become the enemy and I would NEVER praise him for his so called bravery in killing me and mine.e

Just my humble opinion.


With all due regards, I would like to state that I differentiate between a terrorist and a soldier.

The Moslems are more wedded to their religion and indeed there are parts of their scripture which ensures that they are encouraged to act a little beyond the realms of humanity. Therefore, when I plan any action, I cater for such a psychological quirk. I wish you all could lay your hands on the Diary of the officer which was captured by 2 MAHAR (AFAI Remember). It is weird beyond comprehension. It was solely devoted to Allah as the guide and was to this officer a great motivator inspite of all the odds he was facing!

While I agree one should not go overboard over the enemy's valour, but one should not also downplay the same. One doesn't have to do that to the troops at all. They are watching what is occurring before their eyes. Can one say that what you are seeing is not what you are seeing? Yo can't fool the troops. Further, if you are watching Madri Gras, can you tell that it is a Bar Dance of Mumbai? Troops will talk after the event. It is better to appreciate the same in the correct perspective and educate them, than allow them to draw wrong lessons and glorify the event once they go home in the same manner as as the stuff about "wanting to cross the LC, but the fool govt got cold feet" or "should have gouged a few eyes like the Pakistanis, but then we wanted a clear policy so that we could CYA". You see, after the event, people become heroes and also a lot of fairy tales emerge (In the Line of Fire). It is always good to face the truth and explain it in the correct perspective so that it is not skewed beyond recognition once the memories fade.

I am not a Moslem and so I do not know if they can say so that they are not seeing what they are seeing in front of their eyes in case of Indian valour, but then we Indians cannot tell lies to our troops or to our conscience.

If that is a weakness. Then so it is!

I also assure you that the above notwithstanding, on the battlefield, a Pakistani is no friend of mine. I will ask for no quarter and neither will I give any. But I will not be a barbarian.

I apologies to you all on behalf of all likeminded soldiers and officers and on my behalf. Sorry, we are such a let down to blood thirsty segment of the Indian population.

I am sure you would have done a better job of it than us and then maybe Paksitan would never attack us.
Last edited by RayC on 05 Oct 2006 23:37, edited 2 times in total.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 48125
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Postby ramana » 05 Oct 2006 23:21

RayC:
Why should we eat and relish tandoori chicken? They are, after all, Frontier food!


I invite you to the Food and Wine thread where there is an article by Jiggs Kalra on the origins of Kebabs etc!

RayC
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4333
Joined: 16 Jan 2004 12:31

Postby RayC » 05 Oct 2006 23:32

ramana wrote:RayC:
Why should we eat and relish tandoori chicken? They are, after all, Frontier food!


I invite you to the Food and Wine thread where there is an article by Jiggs Kalra on the origins of Kebabs etc!


First of all, I congratulate you for allowing Food and Beverages on BR.

Everytime someone started it, they were good people to send it to Kingdom Come.

I perused it and it seems exciting since I cook also (now will someone be king enough to tell me it is most unArmylike!)

Which post is it?

JCage
BRFite
Posts: 1562
Joined: 09 Oct 2000 11:31

Postby JCage » 05 Oct 2006 23:42

RayC wrote:With all due regards, I would like to state that I differentiate between a terrorist and a soldier.

The Moslems are more wedded to their religion and indeed there are parts of their scripture which ensures that they are encouraged to act a little beyond the realms of humanity. Therefore, when I plan any action, I cater for such a psychological quirk. I wish you all could lay your hands on the Diary of the officer which was captured by 2 MAHAR (AFAI Remember). It is weird beyond comprehension. It was solely devoted to Allah as the guide and was to this officer a great motivator inspite of all the odds he was facing!

While I agree one should not go overboard over the enemy's valour, but one should not also downplay the same. One doesn't have to do that to the troops at all. They are watching what is occurring before their eyes. Can one say that what you are seeing is not what you are seeing? Yo can't fool the troops. Further, if you are watching Madri Gras, can you tell that it is a Bar Dance of Mumbai? Troops will talk after the event. It is better to appreciate the same in the correct perspective and educate them, than allow them to draw wrong lessons and glorify the event once they go home in the same manner as as the stuff about "wanting to cross the LC, but the fool govt got cold feet" or "should have gouged a few eyes like the Pakistanis, but then we wanted a clear policy so that we could CYA". You see, after the event, people become heroes and also a lot of fairy tales emerge (In the Line of Fire). It is always good to face the truth and explain it in the correct perspective so that it is not skewed beyond recognition once the memories fade.

I am not a Moslem and so I do not know if they can say so that they are not seeing what they are seeing in front of their eyes in case of Indian valour, but then we Indians cannot tell lies to our troops or to our conscience.

If that is a weakness. Then so it is!

I also assure you that the above notwithstanding, on the battlefield, a Pakistani is no friend of mine. I will ask for no quarter and neither will I give any. But I will not be a barbarian.

I apologies to you all on behalf of all likeminded soldiers and officers and on my behalf. Sorry, we are such a let down to blood thirsty segment of the Indian population.

I am sure you would have done a better job of it than us and then maybe Paksitan would never attack us.


Sir, you are an officer and a gentleman. We are of course, neither, so far be it for us to tell you or the IA on how to be! :)

The topic is now going in circles, so perhaps we should return to Musharraf and his "How I won the war whilst in my underwear, scaring the ladies and the goats with my unmentionables"..errr autobiography!

RayC
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4333
Joined: 16 Jan 2004 12:31

Postby RayC » 05 Oct 2006 23:47

JC

Telegraph wants to interview me tomorrow.

Any advice?

But as far as your post is concerned may I use your side agrument?

"Cowards!" he said, "Where are you running off to? I will not let you run away like this.";) :) :)

JCage
BRFite
Posts: 1562
Joined: 09 Oct 2000 11:31

Postby JCage » 05 Oct 2006 23:53

JC

Telegraph wants to interview me tomorrow.

Any advice?


Sock 1-2 -3 to Musharraf and tell it like it was sir! :)

But as far as your post is concerned may I use your side agrument?

"Cowards!" he said, "Where are you running off to? I will not let you run away like this.


LOL! We sir, like the Pakistanis are attempting to take advantage of the IAs better nature & stage a retreat! :)[/quote]

RayC
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4333
Joined: 16 Jan 2004 12:31

Postby RayC » 06 Oct 2006 00:25

I wish I could tell it as it is.

NO retreat.

Once more unto the breach, dear friends, once more; or close the wall up with our (this oppostion) 'dead'! ;)

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 48125
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Postby ramana » 06 Oct 2006 00:32

RayC,
Far be it for us to give you talking points but these should be emphaized:
It was a covert intrusion by regular troops not withstanding the fiction in Zhut Namah(copy right R Singh) by Mushy.
It was a retreat for all practical purposes.

Harry
BRFite
Posts: 365
Joined: 20 Jun 2000 11:31
Contact:

Postby Harry » 06 Oct 2006 00:35

Anoop wrote:For the most part, the battle-field is lonely and silent with bursts of action in between.


It is still a highly tense situation. A heated situation doesn't mean you have to be firing non-stop.

In any case, it is only in the lull that any negotiation of surrender can take place.


A decision will have to be taken before that happens.

when he can take a few of the enemy with him in a last desparate stand?


It is still suicide. It results in your own death whether you take others with you or not vis-a-vis surrendering to them and living.

It is rather obvious that the word "additional" does not refer to a comparison between worst case expectations and reality. It has to do with a comparison between two possible realities - one where the enemy fights to the end, and the other where he surrenders even though he has the ability to cause further casualties. It is irrelevant what casualties you are prepared to accept - in one case you have lost more men than in the other. Academic posturing as in "Oh, but we expected to lose so many men anyway" is completely irrelevant. I


Additional casualties were brought up by you and that's exactly what I'm disputing.

The above is going off somewhere else. What I said was so very simple - You are prepared for the worst case scenario already - To minimise or have no casualties under that situation - Therefore, an easier situation is irrelevant even if desirable in terms of resource expenditure.

What you can do is in turn, argue that for all that training for the worst case scenarios, casualties still occur and we should take any easier situation we get but given enough preparation time (like what the enemy had) and through the use of airpower, we can dictate the battles to the point that the enemy has little influence. Even in Kargil, 40% of the casualties were due to enemy artillery fire.

I would also like to add that we are talking about a worst case scenario in which both sides are equally matched but I believe that the IA is trained to fight and win in scenarios (and has done so in the past) where the odds are stacked against it.

Actually, that has already been done both by the Brig. and by Johann.


Ok, I will ask again because they have'nt been exactly clear.

RayC, is there a confirmed or at least, significantly desirable tactical advantage to this? (Consider all factors including the jihadi psyche of the pukes) Yes or No?

RayC
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4333
Joined: 16 Jan 2004 12:31

Postby RayC » 06 Oct 2006 00:48

ramana wrote:RayC,
Far be it for us to give you talking points but these should be emphaized:
It was a covert intrusion by regular troops not withstanding the fiction in Zhut Namah(copy right R Singh) by Mushy.
It was a retreat for all practical purposes.


Please give the link to this Zhut stuff. Somehow missed it.

Quote:
Actually, that has already been done both by the Brig. and by Johann.


Ok, I will ask again because they have'nt been exactly clear.

RayC, is there a confirmed or at least, significantly desirable tactical advantage to this? (Consider all factors including the jihadi psyche of the pukes) Yes or No?


Sorry missed out the context.

Ramana,

Link to Jiggs Kalra please, It is as important to me as Kargil!

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 48125
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Postby ramana » 06 Oct 2006 01:51

Boss, Asiacusine.com has deleted the link but I went to google archives and found the original post I made in the deleted F&W thread and posted it there. I will dig up my hardcopy and post it in the F&W thread.
The current F&W thread has post #42 where I remarked on the Ranjit Rai book on the Tandoor, am sure its in a good bookstore, where he traces the origins of the Tandoor to Harappa type excavations. So my point is Tandoor is very much desi. and per Jiggs bhai all the kebabs are known. Pilaf is another matter. See you over there.

Anoop
BRFite
Posts: 250
Joined: 16 May 2002 11:31

Postby Anoop » 06 Oct 2006 02:59

Harry wrote:The above is going off somewhere else. What I said was so very simple - You are prepared for the worst case scenario already - To minimise or have no casualties under that situation - Therefore, an easier situation is irrelevant even if desirable in terms of resource expenditure.


I give up. You are right and I am wrong.

Except that, with every single advantage - tactical and psychological - in the battlefield, a life can possibly be saved. Casualties may be 1 more than originally expected for the action and still be 10 less than what might have happened, if the enemy had chosen to fight to death rather than surrender. According to your accounting procedure, that is still 1 more casualty than "prepared for", whatever that means....

This is the last on this topic from me.

JCage
BRFite
Posts: 1562
Joined: 09 Oct 2000 11:31

Postby JCage » 06 Oct 2006 06:35

The general and his Kargil

Khaled Ahmed


Posted by Vivek A in the other forum

[quote]The Friday Times

The general and his Kargil

Khaled Ahmed
If the book is any indicator, Musharraf may improve Pakistan's prospects in the short run but ruin it in the long run by returning to his swashbuckling credentials while dealing with India and Afghanistan

Generals write books everywhere to analyse the wars they are required to fight. Such books examine the political thinking behind the military decision-making. They tell us how the wars were actually prosecuted by the army; but they also tell us about the strategy on the basis of which they were undertaken.

In the case of Pakistan, generals usually write to exonerate themselves from charges of cowardice. The charges arise out of the perpetual phenomenon of defeat. In Pakistan, few think of the unwisdom of war; everyone wants the generals to win. Pakistan as a revisionist state over-rates itself as a military power. It wants India called to account and made to deliver a status quo ante as per its nationalism. It wants its generals to be brave. It is cowardice to demand that Pakistan’s prosecution of a war be linked to its economic resources.

[b]Pakistani generals have be to non-intellectual to be brave. A thinking general will focus on strategy, the size of India, and Pakistan’s inability to conquer and hold it after conquering it. The Pakistani general has to be “tacticalâ€

ldev
BRFite
Posts: 1533
Joined: 06 Nov 2002 12:31

Postby ldev » 07 Oct 2006 08:08

Ex-Air Force chief alleges Army botched Kargil war

Rahul Singh
New Delhi, October 6, 2006

For seven years, Indians believed that the 1999 Kargil conflict was won, at least partially because of the excellent teamwork between the Army and the Air Force. But Air Chief Marshal (retired) AY Tipnis, who was the air chief then, has a different story to tell.

Breaking his silence for the first time, in an interview to be published shortly in the magazine FORCE, Tipnis has made some damning comments on the army's handling of the conflict. He has claimed there was utter lack of co-ordination between the Army and the Air Force, and expressed "strong sympathy" for the Army, which had not properly assessed the intentions of the enemy.

Tipnis has also said that the Army did not tell the Ministry of Defence about the Pakistani intrusions until very late, "possibly because it was embarrassed to have allowed the present situation to develop".

Tipnis said, "I observed the ground situation was grave. The Army needed IAF help to evict the intruders. But it was not amenable to the air headquarters' position to seek government approval for use of air power offensively as the Army was reluctant to reveal the gravity of the situation to the MoD."

He has also criticised the Army for not communicating intelligence to air headquarters. "There had been no call for a joint briefing, leave alone joint planning. The Army just made repeated requests for helicopter fire support," said Tipnis, who had been against deploying helicopters, believing they would be too vulnerable.

He said the then army chief General VP Malik "appeared to get agitated on my reluctance to use helicopters". In fact, if Tipnis is to be believed, a livid Malik stormed out of a meeting of the three service chiefs on May 24 saying, "If that is the way you want it, I will go it alone."

Tipnis had explained to Malik that helicopters would not be able to mask their approach while heading for enemy locations on the LoC ridge line and would be picked up by the enemy. Tipnis recalled Malik's response: "Do you think in my 40 years of service, I have learnt nothing about helicopter operations?"

Malik, who is currently in Goa, refused to comment on Tipnis's version of Operation Safed Sagar, the code name for the IAF's role in Operation Vijay.

Tipnis claimed too that in the second week of May 1999 the Air Force had had repeatedly offered to help the Army, "but they said they could handle the situation".

He also mocked the army's decision to use "egg-shell-strong" Cheetah choppers in offensive action against hostile fire, saying it like presenting a chicken for an animal sacrifice ritual.

He said the Army was upset that Air Officer Commanding (AOC) J&K had not accepted Northern Command's fire-support demand. The truth was that the AOC did not have the authority to do so and Tipnis was "not successful in persuading the Army to accept the essentially of government clearance for air support".

Tipnis is expected to reveal much more in a book he is currently working on, tentatively titled 'Up and Away into the Blue Yonder'.

After getting the go-ahead from the CCS (Cabinet Committee on Security), the IAF launched its offensive with MiG-21s and Mi-17s on May 26 - more than two weeks after IAF vice-chief Air Marshal `Ben' Brar had asked army vice-chief Lieutenant General Chandrashekhar whether all was well. Tipnis claimed that Chandrashekhar indicated that the Army could handle the situation. The IAF lost a MiG-21, a MiG-27 and a Mi-17 during Operation Safed Sagar.

mohanty
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 45
Joined: 02 Jan 2006 23:26

Postby mohanty » 07 Oct 2006 11:43

These book publishing acts are becoming common these days. Now VP Mallik has to write his own book too.

Nevertheless, among the sensational claims, there is almost always some truth on which rest of the story is built.

putnanja
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4337
Joined: 26 Mar 2002 12:31
Location: searching for the next al-qaida #3

Postby putnanja » 10 Oct 2006 03:47


Nayak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2553
Joined: 11 Jun 2006 03:48
Location: Vote for Savita Bhabhi as the next BRF admin.

Fernandes' Siachen visits were seen as part of a proposed In

Postby Nayak » 10 Oct 2006 19:44

Fernandes' Siachen visits were seen as part of a proposed Indian offensive: Musharraf

From ANI

Islamabad, Oct.9 (ANI): The Pakistan Army brass, including Army Chief General Pervez Musharraf, saw the frequent visits of Indian Defence Minister George Fernandes to the Siachen Glacier and Kargil as part of preparations by the Indian Army to launch an offensive on Pakistani positions




In his book - "In the Line of Fire", Musharraf says those visits prompted General Headquarters (Rawalpindi) to start plugging gaps ranging from nine to twenty-eight miles along the Line of Control, a plan that was given formal clearance and approval in January 1999, just months before the Kargil War.

Musharraf says that when the Indian brought four divisions and the artillery of their strike corps into the area, he ordered the Force Command Northern Areas (FNCA) to shore up defensive positions in "coordination with the freedom fighters to deny access to the watershed by India".

This statement in the book suggests that for all practical purposes, the so-called freedom fighters could have been Pakistan infantry soldiers.

This view is further substantiated by Musharraf's statement that "Our field commanders were fully enagaged in supporting them in the face of the growing momentum of the Indian operations. We wanted to dominate the areas held by the freedom fighters (800 square kilometres) in Mushko, Dras and Kaksar."

He further goes on to say that the Indian build-up continued during the entire month of May, and the evaluations that followed, made the Pakistan Army brass realize that "India had created a serious strategic imbalance in its system of forces. It had bottled up major formations inside Kashmir, leaving itself no capability to attack us elsewhere, and most seriously, had left the field open for a counter-offensive with which we could choke the Kashmir Valley." :lol:

Musharraf says in his book that the Kargil conflict should be seen as a "tactical manouevre of limited dimensions, but with significant strategic effects. :lol:

He emphatically beleives that Kargil brought about a " near parity of forces both in the air and on the ground along the international border, and ruled out the possibility of India deciding on an all-out war."

"I would like to state emphatically that whatever movement has taken place so far in the direction of finding a solution to Kashmir is due considerably to the Kargil conflict," says Musharraf in his book. (ANI)

Copyright ANI

Nayak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2553
Joined: 11 Jun 2006 03:48
Location: Vote for Savita Bhabhi as the next BRF admin.

The problem with Indian forces

Postby Nayak » 10 Oct 2006 20:04

The problem with Indian forces

Ajai Shukla

October 10, 2006
The inglorious build-up to the 1999 Kargil war is back in the headlines. In a literary version of the seven-year itch, the opposing army chiefs who directed that war, Generals Pervez Musharraf and V P Malik, have in quick succession produced autobiographies that unsurprisingly recount very different versions of the conflict.

What is noteworthy, though, is last week's sharp rebuttal of General Malik's account by Air Chief Marshal Anil Tipnis, who led the Indian Air Force during that period. General Malik's book insinuated that the air chief was reluctant to support army operations at high altitudes. Now Tipnis has hit back with the charge that the army chief had lost his nerve and was hiding the gravity of the Pakistani intrusions from the government.

This would be a mere historical aside were friction between the armed services the exception rather than the rule. But the unseemly squabble between the Kargil chiefs is only the visible tip of a nasty iceberg. Sadly, the army, air force and navy find themselves in an increasingly unhealthy fratricidal competition for attention, roles and resources.

The government has never appointed a Chief of Defence Staff, the senior-most military officer who can co-ordinate the requirements of the three services, and the ministry of defence has neither the technical expertise nor the inclination. Many senior generals believe that this is a divide-and-rule strategy to keep the military weak and under civilian control.

Whether or not the conspiracy theorists are right, and whatever the fallout on inter-service camaraderie, the financial outcome is that India's vast defence budget -- Rs 89,000 crore this year -- is spent in a planning vacuum, distributed between the three services in a historically constant ratio. Mature democracies with experience of security planning, also called strategic cultures, plan top-down in order to get "more bang for the buck".

National aims and political objectives, formulated by a country's political leadership, are translated into a defence policy by the MoD. This becomes the military's bible; an integrated headquarters under the CDS, with real control over planning and financial resources, translates the MoD's directive into actual operational plans. To implement these plans, the integrated headquarters allocates responsibility and finances to the army, navy and air force.

How would this tried and tested system work in an Indian context? First, a body like the National Security Council would make the big (and difficult) strategic decisions: for example, should India retain the capability to beat Pakistan quickly in a conventional war? Or, with Pakistan's nuclear capability making full-fledged war unlikely, should India concentrate on combating insurgency and terrorism? If the NSC chose the latter, it could throw in a caveat: retain the ability to strike terrorist camps in the border vicinity. India's nuclear deterrent would also need careful and regular review at this top level.

Why must these priorities be spelt out clearly? Because India simply cannot afford to cater to every possible military eventuality. No developing country can pay for both the mind-numbingly expensive tanks, air defence systems and logistics needed to support deep thrusts into Pakistan, and for building real capability against cross-border terrorism: surveillance and intelligence systems, special forces, and high-tech personal equipment and communications.

Armed with clear priorities, the military would then do its planning. Assuming the government chose to focus on low-intensity conflict (insurgency and terrorism), the CDS would spell out the capabilities needed. He would lay down specific military issues, such as surveillance levels, firepower, and what forces are needed to physically take out a terrorist camp. Inter-service co-ordination is crucial to deciding who is allotted what task. A terrorist camp can be struck with the army's long-range artillery, or with air force ground attack aircraft, or with Special Forces infiltrated across the LoC. Since these capabilities come from different services (Special Forces could someday be an independent service) a CDS would decide who does what.

Instead, today, we retain all options -- nuclear war, conventional war and insurgency/terrorism -- without building conclusive capability in any. The political leadership refuses to provide a clear direction because tough decisions are politically vulnerable; it's much easier to look away. The army, navy and air force, instead of planning cohesively to build a finite set of capabilities, stock expensive arsenals that make each feel good, but that overlap functionally. Glossy brochures from arms companies are key drivers of weapons procurement in each of the three service headquarters, fuelling grandiose visions of "blue-water" or "strategic" capabilities.

But rather than appoint a CDS who could optimise the contribution of all three services from a single headquarters, government after government has chosen to fuel the fratricide.

Historically, inter-service rivalry has always hindered military efficacy. In the Pacific campaign in World War II, the friction between the US Navy, Marines and the Air Force almost brought the campaign to a halt. India cannot afford such a lack of strategic direction: higher decision-making and military planning between the services urgently needs to be harmonised.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 48125
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Postby ramana » 10 Oct 2006 22:30

From The telegrapg, Lokotta, 10 Oct., 2006
BEYOND THE LINE OF FIRE
By telling lies about Kargil, Pervez Musharraf has sowed the seeds of distrust in the minds of his own people, writes Jyoti Malhotra


Feeding half-truths
A few weeks ago, President Pervez Musharraf was being seen as having pulled off another coup under the nose of the toughest Indian hawks when he got Prime Minister Manmohan Singh to agree to a mechanism on counter-terrorism. As New Delhi struggled to explain how and why the Agra summit of five years ago had culminated in the successful agreement in Havana, lo and behold, the general had committed a self-goal. In the course of the scores of talk shows, interviews and press conferences that he subsequently gave to the Western media in America, the Cuba declaration lost potency by the minute.

Instead, Musharraf’s book, In the Line of Fire, and additionally, his visibly recalcitrant mood at the meeting with George W. Bush and Hamid Karzai, shifted international focus once again to the competitive politics of the war against terror on both sides of the Durand Line. Once again, American TV networks are beginning to cry themselves hoarse about which leader is paying lip service and who is fighting the war — body, mind and soul.

In India, though, the Musharraf book is being perceived as a pack of lies. General Ved Malik, the Indian army chief during the Kargil war, has said as much. Other armymen and politicians have wondered why Musharraf has felt the need to concoct so many semi-truths about Kargil. Especially, when one thought that Musharraf was smart enough to either side-step the matter, or, if he truly wished to come to grips with the India-Pakistan problem, to come clear and tell the truth about Kargil.

The book, instead, has once again tried to draw wool over the eyes of Musharraf’s Pakistani readership. The general has tried to come across as a blue-blooded hero, one who either conceived or approved of the Kargil stratagem that would put pressure on India to seriously talk Kashmir. The failure is all Nawaz Sharif’s, of course. First, Sharif was told about the invasion plans and he never did a thing, and secondly, he sold the country for thirty pieces of silver on July 4, to the Americans.

The truth is, Pakistan lost the Kargil war not only because its invasion of Indian territory was a blatant act of treachery — considering that both sides were aglow in the aftermath of the bus ride from Amritsar to Lahore — or because the Indian army was that much better, or because the United States of America intervened and roundly told off the Pakistanis to get back. Pakistan lost the Kargil conflict for all the above reasons in July 1999. However, the fact remains that Pakistan — and General Musharraf has played a big role in this — has refused to come to terms with the defeat at Kargil. And so the Pakistani army will continue to lie and cheat and dissemble, only so that it can continue to tell its own people the semi-untruth.

That, then, is the real value of In the Line of Fire. A large part of the book is inspired prose, but there are large parts too that are economical with the truth. The Kargil war — who lost, who won, how only 5,000 Pakistani soldiers took part in the war, since most of those who fought were Kashmiris waging an armed struggle against the Indian state — is one episode. Another is about India’s copying the Pakistani nuclear programme. Yet another part is about a comment that Richard Armitage, the then US deputy secretary of state denies ever having made, about bombing Pakistan back into the Stone Age if it refused to help in the war against terror.

The Stone Age comment can be contested one way or another. As for the Indian nuclear programme, maybe Musharraf was just being loyal to A.Q. Khan. But denying Kargil? Denying the deaths of Pakistani soldiers at Kargil? Musharraf may be sowing the seeds of permanent distrust of the Pakistani army in the minds of the Pakistani people. Remember, Musharraf has refused to take off his uniform even in the 2007 elections. In time, the people’s distrust of its own army may become so strong that they may demand systemic reform, or that the army has to be subject to the political class.

The tragedy is that Musharraf need not have lied about Kargil. Too much is in the public domain, too many people know what really happened. Television ensured that it became India’s first living-room war. Not telling the whole truth to his own people either betrays a fear of the system or a fear that he may be asked to be counted by his people — and that he may fall short.

Like it or not, Musharraf is a real hero for most of Pakistan. This is not only because he commands real power, but also because he is seen as having tried to reform his country, to cleanse it of the overweening influence of the mullahs, to roll back the creeping religious hold on everyday life.

However, India need not be frothing at the mouth over Musharraf’s Kargil lies. The Pakistani general’s inability to deal with the full truth at Kargil can be a source of strength for India. New Delhi can rest assured that if a leader cannot tell his own country the truth about a major event in the nation’s life, then he has lost touch with his people.

For the first time in years, Musharraf seems human. Even when the summit with Atal Bihari Vajpayee fell apart at Agra in July 2001, the visiting Pakistanis seemed to have been somewhat wronged by a concatenation of circumstances that included out-of-turn speeches by spokespersons of the Bharatiya Janata Party. New Delhi was on the backfoot in Agra as India refused to have a dialogue with the offending party about its offences.

In Cuba, too, Manmohan Singh seemed to have been under some political flak for the counter-terrorism mechanism, especially since the prime minister was hard put to respond to the general’s insistence that the mechanism be led by the intelligence chiefs of both sides. Musharraf even offered that the director-general, Inter-Services Intelligence, lead the Pakistani side. But the prime minister demurred, saying things needed to be discussed first.

All of the above was forgotten as soon as Musharraf left Cuba and flew to the US to launch his book. Lights, camera, action! The sequence of events was worth any Clint Eastwood movie. In fact, it seems that Eastwood, long ago, had actually made one with a similar name.


putnanja
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4337
Joined: 26 Mar 2002 12:31
Location: searching for the next al-qaida #3

Postby putnanja » 10 Oct 2006 23:02

Any idea when RayC's interview in telegraph will be published?


Return to “The Kargil Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest