Generals — theirs and ours

[deckingraj]

^^^^

You have messed up a lot by linking intelligence failures with Army's failure.

Are you referring to kargil??

Indian army has done all the jobs which are assigned to her in the most efficient manner except in 1962 which was a political Blunder.

How does it matter whether it is a political blunder or not...Anyhow that is my precise point...PA is as good or as bad as IA however where they loose is the political blunder they commit because they enjoy more powers in the political arean of pakistan....

Have you seen how many anti army articles written in Indian media ? How many people talk about army and do the army bashing ? why don't they do it ?

I have already answered it...it is all related...There is a political vaccum in Pakistan and Army is considered as the saviour and thus have a larger then life image...having said that now we have started seeing that a common Pakistani has started bashing Army where it is required....

It is about professionalism and discipline. They do what they ask for. Their work in not to indulge in politics. they are not competent for that work.

Thanks for saying what i am, though in a more sober manner...As said the real difference is the extra power that PA enjoys over IA...In my eyes Army is best as a war machine and not in geo-politics...

 

[GURU DUTT]

This "so called difference" between Indian & Pakistani Generals is simply an accident of history. India's first Prime Minister, Jawaharlal Nehru lived for 17 years after independence & Pakistan's leader Mr. Jinnah died shortly after Pakistan gained her independence. That simple chance of history was what separated Indian & Pakistani militaries, nothing else, neither their backgrounds nor their religion. By the time Nehru dies, the Indian army & its Generals had been in their barracks for so long & had become accustomed to taking orders. Pakistani Generals & its polity never had that slice of luck. Jinnah's early death & a poor second line of political leadership meant that Pakistan suffered what was generally regarded as the norm - a military takeover. What happened in India was unique & different from the events that happened in almost all developing countries, Nehru's stature put India firmly on a different track. By the time he left the scene, the pattern had been firmly set & regardless of the quality of political leadership that was to come, the military had been firmly consigned to the barracks. Pakistan had the opposite experience & therefore has bred both a different type of military officers as well as a corresponding breed of politicians.

sorry sir but thats not 100% correct...had nehru died earlier say after 2-3 years of indipendence things would not be much different cause the main problem with pakistani officer's across all services & ranks is there socio economic background .....they are basically Zamidar/vadhera class who think its there birth right to rule & dont have any respect for the law oof the land as they think they are above it since there ancesstors ruled before them & there sons will rule after them every thing else is just temporary while in india situation is totally opposite ...kindly correct if i'm wrong..Thanks

 

[sachin@india]

Are you referring to kargil??



How does it matter whether it is a political blunder or not...Anyhow that is my precise point...PA is as good or as bad as IA however where they loose is the political blunder they commit because they enjoy more powers in the political arean of pakistan....


I have already answered it...it is all related...There is a political vaccum in Pakistan and Army is considered as the saviour and thus have a larger then life image...having said that now we have started seeing that a common Pakistani has started bashing Army where it is required....



Thanks for saying what i am, though in a more sober manner...As said the real difference is the extra power that PA enjoys over IA...In my eyes Army is best as a war machine and not in geo-politics...

you are seriously confused I guess.... when you are interfere in political setup there only your professionalism goes for a toss. It is clear violation of oath that you take their ceremony to abide by the rules of the land. that is not their fcuking business.

IA has never hatched any conspircay unlike PA. Opertaion gibraltor and Kargil are epic failure. as a country they lost the face in the world because of the misdeeds of their Generals. We don't have precedent like this. IA does her job silently without making a fuss. what political vaccum you are talking about ? ayub took over pakistan after a decade. they themselves created the myth and sold it to their countrymen that we are your only saviour. never disclose any finding of the commission which were setup to find out the causes of debacle.

 

[Bang Galore]

sorry sir but thats not 100% correct...had nehru died earlier say after 2-3 years of indipendence things would not be much different cause the main problem with pakistani officer's across all services & ranks is there socio economic background .....they are basically Zamidar/vadhera class who think its there birth right to rule & dont have any respect for the law oof the land as they think they are above it since there ancesstors ruled before them & there sons will rule after them every thing else is just temporary while in india situation is totally opposite ...kindly correct if i'm wrong..Thanks

You are unfortunately, not correct. At the time of independence, there was almost no difference between the overall composition of the Indian & Pakistani officers (some differences in seniority & experience existed) and their general attitudes would have been roughly the same. Indian army officers also were somewhat "elite" & might have been tempted to run the country better than the "damned civilians" had it not been for the stature of the first cabinet. Within a few years, quite a few Indian leaders including Sardar Patel were no longer on the scene. Had it not been for Nehru, India would have likely gone Pakistan's way because Shastri was not yet the leader he would become & Maulana Azad's health was failing. The feudal make up was the same across undivided India, it was India's decision to undertake tough land reforms that undercut the power of the zamindars. Pakistan did not do that & suffers the consequences even today.

 

[GURU DUTT]

You are unfortunately, not correct. At the time of independence, there was almost no difference between the overall composition of the Indian & Pakistani officers (some differences in seniority & experience existed) and their general attitudes would have been roughly the same. Indian army officers also were somewhat "elite" & might have been tempted to run the country better than the "damned civilians" had it not been for the stature of the first cabinet. Within a few years, quite a few Indian leaders including Sardar Patel were no longer on the scene. Had it not been for Nehru, India would have likely gone Pakistan's way because Shastri was not yet the leader he would become & Maulana Azad's health was failing. The feudal make up was the same across undivided India, it was India's decision to undertake tough land reforms that undercut the power of the zamindars. Pakistan did not do that & suffers the consequences even today.

well i was also saying the same thing , had at the very inseption of Pakistan Jinaah & his cabinet with full athourity did the same (uprooting feudalism) instead of forcing an unessesary war on both nations the picture in pakistan would hve been much much diffrent ...rest as they say is History...Thanks Again.

 

[meghdut]

You are unfortunately, not correct. At the time of independence, there was almost no difference between the overall composition of the Indian & Pakistani officers (some differences in seniority & experience existed) and their general attitudes would have been roughly the same. Indian army officers also were somewhat "elite" & might have been tempted to run the country better than the "damned civilians" had it not been for the stature of the first cabinet. Within a few years, quite a few Indian leaders including Sardar Patel were no longer on the scene. Had it not been for Nehru, India would have likely gone Pakistan's way because Shastri was not yet the leader he would become & Maulana Azad's health was failing. The feudal make up was the same across undivided India, it was India's decision to undertake tough land reforms that undercut the power of the zamindars. Pakistan did not do that & suffers the consequences even today.

I would say that's a pretty good and dispassionate analysis. We get on a high horse sometimes, but we ignore the reality.

well i was also saying the same thing , had at the very inseption of Pakistan Jinaah & his cabinet with full athourity did the same (uprooting feudalism) instead of forcing an unessesary war on both nations the picture in pakistan would hve been much much diffrent ...rest as they say is History...Thanks Again.

Guru bhai, Bangalore is saying that, had Jinna bin alive for longer, Pakistan's history may have followed a different course. And had we lost Nehru earlier we might have followed Pakistan's route. I tend to agree with his analysis. Our nations were not too different in its military system at the beginning. However during the course of last six decades things have changed.

 

[deckingraj]

This "so called difference" between Indian & Pakistani Generals is simply an accident of history. India's first Prime Minister, Jawaharlal Nehru lived for 17 years after independence & Pakistan's leader Mr. Jinnah died shortly after Pakistan gained her independence. That simple chance of history was what separated Indian & Pakistani militaries, nothing else, neither their backgrounds nor their religion. By the time Nehru dies, the Indian army & its Generals had been in their barracks for so long & had become accustomed to taking orders. Pakistani Generals & its polity never had that slice of luck. Jinnah's early death & a poor second line of political leadership meant that Pakistan suffered what was generally regarded as the norm - a military takeover. What happened in India was unique & different from the events that happened in almost all developing countries, Nehru's stature put India firmly on a different track. By the time he left the scene, the pattern had been firmly set & regardless of the quality of political leadership that was to come, the military had been firmly consigned to the barracks. Pakistan had the opposite experience & therefore has bred both a different type of military officers as well as a corresponding breed of politicians.

I beg to disagree here...What you are quoting is surely one of the reasons but not the only one...We all know that we were not happy with the partition...Pakistan being a smaller state was vulnerable should Indian leaders chose to undo the partition...Thus it was logical for them to have over dependence on their Army....Foreign Policy was one aspect that Army wanted to have their say in(for obvious reasons) and rest we all know...I am not sure if situation could have been way different had Jinnah still been there....

 

[Harry Potter]

We have to thank the Pakistani Generals for teaching us that military rule is not good for the country.
If Pakistan didn't go that way,Indians who hate their politicians would have supported a military takeover.
But,as Pakistan exposed the ill side of khaki rule that didn't happen.

 

[deckingraj]

you are seriously confused I guess....

I am sure i am not...but let's see what you have to say....

when you are interfere in political setup there only your professionalism goes for a toss. It is clear violation of oath that you take their ceremony to abide by the rules of the land. that is not their fcuking business.

I am not challenging it..What you are emphasizing upon is the end-result...What i am emphasizing is on the reasons....PA enjoys more power then IA which is the crux of the problem...To somewhat justify this they were vulnerable against an onslaught from the mighty IA and this gives PA larger then life role in Pakistan's context....Rest is history...b/w where is the confusion????

IA has never hatched any conspircay unlike PA. Opertaion gibraltor and Kargil are epic failure. as a country they lost the face in the world because of the misdeeds of their Generals. We don't have precedent like this. IA does her job silently without making a fuss.

What do you mean by conspiracy??? They simply attacked us under the guise of Mujhaideen which was a pathetic attempt to handle geo-politics...This is the precise reason i said diplomacy is more of a shrewd work and bravado has little scope in it...IA is not able to do this because they are well inside the barracks...Had it been not the case you would have seen extension of 71 war in the west pakistan and disastrous results for us...Again the difference is the extra power which PA enjoys as compared to their counterparts...Again i don't see any confusion here...

what political vaccum you are talking about ? ayub took over pakistan after a decade. they themselves created the myth and sold it to their countrymen that we are your only saviour. never disclose any finding of the commission which were setup to find out the causes of debacle.

You have answered your own question here...Why was Ayub able to sell what he did??? Political Vacuum, no????

 

[sachin@india]

I am sure i am not...but let's see what you have to say....


I am not challenging it..What you are emphasizing upon is the end-result...What i am emphasizing is on the reasons....PA enjoys more power then IA which is the crux of the problem...To somewhat justify this they were vulnerable against an onslaught from the mighty IA and this gives PA larger then life role in Pakistan's context....Rest is history...b/w where is the confusion????



What do you mean by conspiracy??? They simply attacked us under the guise of Mujhaideen which was a pathetic attempt to handle geo-politics...This is the precise reason i said diplomacy is more of a shrewd work and bravado has little scope in it...IA is not able to do this because they are well inside the barracks...Had it been not the case you would have seen extension of 71 war in the west pakistan and disastrous results for us...Again the difference is the extra power which PA enjoys as compared to their counterparts...Again i don't see any confusion here...




You have answered your own question here...Why was Ayub able to sell what he did??? Political Vacuum, no????

well man !! you are terribly confused and don't able to refute any of my arguments....and you keep on messing diplomacy, intelligence failure and army's performance. here we are talking about performance and credibilty of the instituitions. under any circumstances, IA didn't corss her boundary but PA did without having the mandate of political leadership.

This outcomes are only symptons which are only resulted because of lack of professionalism and disciplined.

there was no political vaccum. PA didn't allow the political setup in first place they took over in very first decade without waiting to get them mature

 

[Bang Galore]

I beg to disagree here...What you are quoting is surely one of the reasons but not the only one...We all know that we were not happy with the partition...Pakistan being a smaller state was vulnerable should Indian leaders chose to undo the partition...Thus it was logical for them to have over dependence on their Army....Foreign Policy was one aspect that Army wanted to have their say in(for obvious reasons) and rest we all know...I am not sure if situation could have been way different had Jinnah still been there....

You are correct in your analysis that there were other reasons including, predominantly, the one you have highlighted. However a higher reliance on the army does not necessarily translate to army rule. That happened primarily because Jinnah was sadly removed from the scene. Unlike the Congress where Nehru was the first among equals, Jinnah towered over all others & left no successor who commanded similar respect. The Army was able to move in because of that fact. All other facts would have been secondary. Had Jinnah lived another 15 years, chances are that Pakistan might actually have looked like the state he wanted rather than what it has become.

 

[deckingraj]

well man !! you are terribly confused and don't able to refute any of my arguments....

Earth will not shatter if i am not able to refute your argument...b/w what argument have i been not able to refute...Let's talk about them...who know i may end up learning something from you...after all this is what discussion forums are for....b/w i am seriously thinking that you have made up your mind that i am confused and probably missing my points....

and you keep on messing diplomacy, intelligence failure and army's performance. here we are talking about performance and credibilty of the instituitions. under any circumstances, IA didn't corss her boundary but PA did without having the mandate of political leadership.

What are you talking mate...Please go back to my original post..You might have misunderstood me...I have given the examples of wars to debunk the notion "Lion led by Lambs", "Indian generals are better then Pakistani generals"...My precise point is that such notions are wrong...Every Army has mix of good and bad leaders/soldiers...What is wrong in PA case is there control over foreign policy in Pakistan....In short my point is that PA did not take cognizant of geo-politics(because this is not what Armies are supposed to be good at) and made lot of blunders....I am still at loss as to what are you not agreeing here....

At what point did i say that PA did not cross their mandate??? In fact i am precisely saying this...let me repeat once more....PA enjoys more power then IA...this is the reason they did bad against IA...Now i would appreciate if apart from "You are confused Syndrome", you can tell me what are you not agreeing with me...

This outcomes are only symptons which are only resulted because of lack of professionalism and disciplined.

Tell me one thing...Before Partition our Army was one unit...Their training/culture etc all were same...Now how come suddenly people with same ranks behaved so differently??? Is it something to do with genese/race/religion???? Of-course not...then what the heck went wrong??? Now let's analyze what i said - To somewhat justify Indians were not happy with partition...Pakistan had legitimate concern that India might try to undo the partition and that's whay they had to rely on their Army much more then we do....In india Army weakened because Nehru felt it was waste of resource whereas in Pak Army gained more power because Pakistan had no other choice...This is where things started to change...Now what part you are not in agreement here...

there was no political vaccum. PA didn't allow the political setup in first place they took over in very first decade without waiting to get them mature

You can laugh as much you want...but again why PA didn't allow the political setup??...What happened so suddenly??...Why did Pakistani's not object to PA taking over??? Again political vacuum, yes/no???

You are correct in your analysis that there were other reasons including, predominantly, the one you have highlighted. However a higher reliance on the army does not necessarily translate to army rule. That happened primarily because Jinnah was sadly removed from the scene. Unlike the Congress where Nehru was the first among equals, Jinnah towered over all others & left no successor who commanded similar respect. The Army was able to move in because of that fact. All other facts would have been secondary. Had Jinnah lived another 15 years, chances are that Pakistan might actually have looked like the state he wanted rather than what it has become.

Sir, when my Army is controlling my foreign policy then sooner or later a coup is inevitable...Though this is subjective but who knows Jinnah might have corrected the course soon, yet at that time there was a genuine concern that India might try to undo the Partition and thus they had little choice...

 

[GURU DUTT]

You are correct in your analysis that there were other reasons including, predominantly, the one you have highlighted. However a higher reliance on the army does not necessarily translate to army rule. That happened primarily because Jinnah was sadly removed from the scene. Unlike the Congress where Nehru was the first among equals, Jinnah towered over all others & left no successor who commanded similar respect. The Army was able to move in because of that fact. All other facts would have been secondary. Had Jinnah lived another 15 years, chances are that Pakistan might actually have looked like the state he wanted rather than what it has become.

you are almost right but not fully the main reason for Pakistani officer's to behave i this manner was cause ...it was decided before independence when congress was a mass movement more of socio economic cause there main idiology was freedom from british & there stooges.i.e...Feudal system so it had a mass appeal as al the peasents & working class gave it strenth where as Muslim leauge's sole idiology was hate & fear of being ruled by peasent hindu's & that's the main reason why all the elite,upper middle class & educated muslim's migrated to Pakistan & even contineud the migration even after 10-15 year's of independence....in short Nehru & congress mass support wanted age old Feudalism to go where as mass support of Muslim leauge was to save feudalism which is why Jinnah could never gather support to eredicate feudalism which in tern strenthened the grip on power by these feudal's in form of militarry officer's , beurocracy & Politician's/ Capitalists...& thats the main reason the Pakistani establishment from day one was able to sell the bogus theory of Hate Hindu/India & Capitalism & feudalism instead of Damocracy , Land reform's & socialism & secularism...kindly some Pakistani member also comment whether im right or wrong without prejudice...Thanks Again.

 

[Mav3rick]

Pakistani generals think they are kings but this has changed now people abuse them along with politicians in open public and today zardari and hussain haqqani have more support then bhagora musharaff, Indian generals lol lacks professionalism IA didn't induct a single AA gun in past 12 years, current Indian general is fighting over his age issue, ex-deepker kapoora was dumb from one ear.

Lower rank officers and Jawans are real heroes from both sides.

Zardari & Hussain Haqqani have more support then bhagora Musharraf......is that anything to be proud of? You take pride in Zardari and Hussain Haqqani? Goes on to speak volumes of your morals and of those who support Zardaris and Haqqanis.

It's no wonder really that we are where we are today, although it is disheartening and extremely sad.

 

[sachin@india]

Earth will not shatter if i am not able to refute your argument...b/w what argument have i been not able to refute...Let's talk about them...who know i may end up learning something from you...after all this is what discussion forums are for....b/w i am seriously thinking that you have made up your mind that i am confused and probably missing my points....



What are you talking mate...Please go back to my original post..You might have misunderstood me...I have given the examples of wars to debunk the notion "Lion led by Lambs", "Indian generals are better then Pakistani generals"...My precise point is that such notions are wrong...Every Army has mix of good and bad leaders/soldiers...What is wrong in PA case is there control over foreign policy in Pakistan....In short my point is that PA did not take cognizant of geo-politics(because this is not what Armies are supposed to be good at) and made lot of blunders....I am still at loss as to what are you not agreeing here....

At what point did i say that PA did not cross their mandate??? In fact i am precisely saying this...let me repeat once more....PA enjoys more power then IA...this is the reason they did bad against IA...Now i would appreciate if apart from "You are confused Syndrome", you can tell me what are you not agreeing with me...



Tell me one thing...Before Partition our Army was one unit...Their training/culture etc all were same...Now how come suddenly people with same ranks behaved so differently??? Is it something to do with genese/race/religion???? Of-course not...then what the heck went wrong??? Now let's analyze what i said - To somewhat justify Indians were not happy with partition...Pakistan had legitimate concern that India might try to undo the partition and that's whay they had to rely on their Army much more then we do....In india Army weakened because Nehru felt it was waste of resource whereas in Pak Army gained more power because Pakistan had no other choice...This is where things started to change...Now what part you are not in agreement here...



You can laugh as much you want...but again why PA didn't allow the political setup??...What happened so suddenly??...Why did Pakistani's not object to PA taking over??? Again political vacuum, yes/no???



Sir, when my Army is controlling my foreign policy then sooner or later a coup is inevitable...Though this is subjective but who knows Jinnah might have corrected the course soon, yet at that time there was a genuine concern that India might try to undo the Partition and thus they had little choice...

again you have build your defence on wrong premises....

Firstly ... you are assuming that if india has so called political vaccum just like Pakistan. IA would have been same as PA. which doesn't have any locus standi. and if IA had the same power we had the same fate.

now comes to the so called political vaccum...

let me remind you

1. ayub bought the martial law...when Pakistan was very young and young countries do have the issues. But ayub read a PA"s general don't have any rights to imposed himself on others
2. Bhutto was the most charismatic leader pakistan had after Jinnah..when PA did to him ? where was the political vaccum that time?
3. Nawaz sharif had 2/3 majority but he was also toppled by Mushi..where was the political vaccum ?


PA created a agency called ISI which consider as a rogue agency.... whioch had PA's people

So where is the professionalism and discipline of PA ?

On the other hand can you single out any incident where IA did any wrong purposefully ? By generalising that PA and IA would have been same if they have the power is obnoxious.

PA always thrive for power ..IA stick to her assigned roles.

So don't paint both of them with the same brush.