[DEBATE]Our Ex-Chief of Staff:"... Pakistan doesn't have a national army."

[TheNoob]

As others stated.
Plus
Locals for their regions also prove to be more effective in the region compared to the units brought in from the other regions.

So it is a well thought out process.

 

[Imad.Khan]

Hi brothers and sisters of the brotherly nation Pakistan!

This is a debate, so not necessarily a news subject. Our ex-chief of the general staff literally just said (he is right now speaking live on TV, talking about all the developments around the region including the coup, Syria intervention, ISIS and counter-terrorism in general) and he said (NOT quote!):


And look at Pakistan.. I mean.. It is very saddening for us of course, after all they are our brother nation.. but the same phenomenon is also presence in Pakistan too. I've traveled everywhere, seen and inspected all these armies myself. You travel to the north of Pakistan.. And you see that the army there is made up by people living in those regions. You cannot call that a national army...


Essentially he made this kind of statements along with all other things. The debate I was curious to talk about is...


Is this real? Does Pakistan really not have a national army? I thought we organized the Pak-Army so thought the systems there would be parallel to those we have in our own army. That sounded very strange for us.

I am looking forward to learn more on this subject!


Thank!

Well the short answer is yes and no, let me explain

Pakistan Military is not based on conscription but is voluntary. The people of each province have different preference for which branch of the armed forces they join.

There are 5 provinces in Pakistan, Punjab, Sindh, KPK, GB/Kashmir, Balochistan.

The people in the army are mostly from Punjab, KPK and GB.
The Airforce is mostly made up of Punjab, and the Urdu speaking in Sindh
The Navy is mostly made up of people from Punjab, Urdu speaking from Sindh and Balochistan.

 

[MastanKhan]

The Turkish army consists of compulsory military training for all able bodied males - so the national army. But, I think the Pak army is professional and voluntary, and its units are based on provincial level as designed during the British rule. So, the difference should be quite obvious. The current government is working on a more professional army based on merit and thorough recruitment process. Moreover, they're planning to shorten the military service period for common folks..

Hi,

Pakistan's military is based on volunteers.

Secondly---it was based and designed as it was during the british rule---. The british did not recruit from certain tribes---they did not recruit from certain areas---specially those who had ' muntineed ' against them or had raised arms against them one time or another during their rule.

And even before the english---the muslim rulers in hindustan also did the same thing---recruited from the loyalist areas---

So, the tradition continued for awhile. It is much different now---but still it is a volunteer army---.

I wish there was 4-6 years compulsory military service for all the pakistani male adults---.

You general just whitewashed everything with just one stroke---without digging any deeper.

 

[Hakikat ve Hikmet]

He should rather focus on his own army and rogue elements who tried to stage a coupe instead of the most professional army in the world which is praised even by its enemies and critics for its discipline and professionalism.

You're right. Turkish government is in fact completely rehauling the entire Army specially recruitment. Folks from all walks of society can take Army as a career. It'll be much more professional and diverse in terms of ideology.

As for rogue elements, well each army had its share. Anyway, in Turkish case it became extreme, so the reforms will be extremely thorough. As for Pak Army, I think some of its units revolted in the ethnic line in 1971 and joined the rebels under th Indian command. Unfortunately, brainless folks pop up everywhere...

 

[Imad.Khan]

Pakistani Girls and Indian Macho men.....

What has this got to do with the current thread?

 

[Serpentine]

We look at Iran, they don't even have one army! It is so funny, they have two armies instead and they both operate dependently on separate entities. Can we really say this a national army?

This general has said too many wrong things, both about Pak army and also about Iran.

Iran DOES have a national army, and then there is also IRGC. Their tasks and their duties are separate, but as in constitution, they will cooperate where needed for interests of Iranian nation. Army is usually responsibe to tackle threats that may threaten Iran's territory by any foreign force, while IRGC also has many operations outside Iran. Both army and IRGC answer to the leader unlike what this general said, because he is the commander in chief of armed forces.

So I think this general should read a little bit more about armies around Turkey. I think that's also the same about Pakistan. Its army is nothing but a national army and I haven't seen anything that indicates otherwise.

 

[SouI]

This general has said too many wrong things, both about Pak army and also about Iran.

Iran DOES have a national army, and then there is also IRGC. Their tasks and their duties are separate, but as in constitution, they will cooperate where needed for interests of Iranian nation. Army is usually responsibe to tackle threats that may threaten Iran's territory by any foreign force, while IRGC also has many operations outside Iran. Both army and IRGC answer to the leader unlike what this general said, because he is the commander in chief of armed forces.

So I think this general should read a little bit more about armies around Turkey. I think that's also the same about Pakistan. Its army is nothing but a national army and I haven't seen anything that indicates otherwise.

So you are saying there is no army in Iran that is bound to "a religious leader" or something like that?

 

[Path-Finder]

Interesting! Well he is right that there are people from the very region fighting against terrorist in the armed forces. Infact they are locals to the area and they know the area very well so it helps knowing who is friend and foe. But for the rest of the statement I suppose only the General can shed more light on what he meant.

 

[Serpentine]

So you are saying there is no army in Iran that is bound to "a religious leader" or something like that?

No of course not. Both of them (IRGC and Army) do answer to leader, not because he is also a religious leader, but because he is commander chief. In early years of revolution, president was commander in chief and not the leader, hence army answered to him, but after change of constitution, they now answer to leader. This means, if leader declares war with any nation/entity, both of them should obey.

 

[SouI]

No of course not. Both of them (IRGC and Army) do answer to leader, not because he is also a religious leader, but because he is commander chief. In early years of revolution, president was commander in chief and not the leader, hence army answered to him, but after change of constitution, they now answer to leader. This means, if leader declares war with any nation/entity, both of them should obey.

Oh so there are both a president and "a leader", it is more like your president being PM and your "leader" being President. That sort of an equivalent compared to other countries I guess.

 

[Serpentine]

Oh so there are both a president and "a leader", it is more like your president being PM and your "leader" being President. That sort of an equivalent compared to other countries I guess.

Yes, something like that. President forms government, leader is commander in chief, oversees activities of parliament, president and judiciary chief and can overrule some decisions made by them if against constitution or interests of country (which almost never happens).

 

[Imad.Khan]

No of course not. Both of them (IRGC and Army) do answer to leader, not because he is also a religious leader, but because he is commander chief. In early years of revolution, president was commander in chief and not the leader, hence army answered to him, but after change of constitution, they now answer to leader. This means, if leader declares war with any nation/entity, both of them should obey.

So whats the difference between the army and IRGC? Is IRGC a para-military group/border force, like the Rangers/ FC of Pakistan

 

[Indus Pakistan]

Hi brothers

Okay first of all Pakistan does have a national army. It is highly disciplined and never in it's history strayed from unity of command. The genus of the army goes back to 1870s when the British began to raise regiments from Northern Punjab and Khyber Pakhtunkwa provinces. Those regiments are still around 130 years and have now established histories that men take pride in. Over that time of course the British left and those regiments were constituted into Pakistan Army. I cannot think of any recorded instance where any unit either in peace time or war ever rebelled. The only exception was few Bengal Rifle units that deserted in the Bangladesh civil war because they were recruited from Bengal and they joined their fellow ethnic group.

However the recruitment still follows the British pattern but slowly efforts have been made to recruit from other regions. In the Turkish context this would be like having most of the army recruited from Western half of Anatolia with minimal amount from eastern Anatolia. In same way in Pakistan there is a north south split with north dominating the army.

However that does not detract from the army being "national" and there is no danger of any cracks within its ranks given it's 130 years of history. There have been some issue with Islamists but I think slowly that problem is being sorted out. I hope this helps ...

A life story of ex officer.

 

[war&peace]

Hi,

Pakistan's military is based on volunteers.

Secondly---it was based and designed as it was during the british rule---. The british did not recruit from certain tribes---they did not recruit from certain areas---specially those who had ' munitneed ' against them or had raised arms against them one time or another during their rule.

And even before the english---the muslim rulers in hindustan also did the same thing---recruited from the loyalist areas---

So, the tradition continued for awhile. It is much different now---but still it is a volunteer army---.

I wish there was 4-6 years compulsory military service for all the pakistani male adults---.

You general just whitewashed everything with just one stroke---without digging any deeper.

Compulsion always results in a few dissidents and that's simply human nature. Despite being a voluntary army, it is a highly desirable organisation to which people love to join and serve to safeguard their country and fight for it and get martyred. I meet a lot of people from Iran, Sweden, Israel, Spore etc where there is the compulsory military service rule for male citizens and most of them are not happy with it and they do it because they have to do it while I always wanted to join any of the armed forces especially the airforce as to keep up with our family traditions and serve my country but due to certain physical constraints I couldn't but my younger brother is in military service, my cousins are so part of me is there....that's the dedication and wish for martyrdom of the volunteers.

 

[Talwar e Pakistan]

He defined that term as an army made up by every part of the nation that also operates as a whole, not divided according to ethnicity or sectarian backgrounds in those operations.

Pakistan army is not divided according to ethnicity or sectarian backgrounds.

In Pakistan, most people don't really care about their ethnicity and all links of ethnicity and sects are completely cut off in military indoctrination programs.

Some paramilitary forces only recruit locals from the area; but that doesn't mean our army is divided.

Here in Pakistan - religion and country (for us - religion and country is same) comes above all.

Here is a Gallup survey of "Would you be willing to fight for your country?"