The Conspiracy Theory

#32 pavocavalry: so, did you serve in the 11 cavalry regiment? and do you know the origins of the prefix "pavo"?

Okhla Mian,

What're you smoking? There's nothing in those two posts (#205/217) of mine on that link which you refer. The closest references I find in them to the gyarhween shareef drama are :

"...almost half the American population does not believe the US Admin`s version which you are parroting"

and:

"How do you even know that Muslims had anything to do with 9/11,"

So ??? ... !

#31 Posted by pavocavalry
Re: # 24;--

You have two really out of the whack statements and I think hamidm is right in questioning how you got to those conclusions.
First: " after the Soviet withdrawal US relations with Zia will become complicated" ! As an officer of the 1st Armoured Division when Zia crash occurred…. bodies by air !”

Was just reading a CIA document enough for you to believe that US relations with Zia would become complicated? How would you analyze that statement given the situation at that time? The US had just destroyed the Soviet myth in Afghanistan with Zia/Pak army help and there appeared to be no reason at all why the US relations with Zia would have deteriorated after the afghan war.

Pak army’s relations are with the Pentagon and the CIA is really a small player when it comes to US foreign relations issues, especially with the countries where the US has some major military involvement. Relying on some off the cuff statements without thinking about it certainly falls within the conspiracy theory boundaries.

#17 Posted by pavocavalry

"Both the civil and military first collaborated with the British an are collaborating with the Americans since 1947.The policy was initiated by Jinnah"

You really took a long hard brush to paint everyone a collaborator. There is no doubt that all Pakistani leaders around 1947 were strongly pro west. But that can also be applied to the Indian National congress leadership too. In terms of being pro west, Gandhi was as pro west as Jinnah was. Barring Nehru and his proclivities, pretty much every leader in the top rank in both Congress and the ML were pro-west.

The Pakistani collaboration with the US as a military and a cold war ally started after the 1951 Korean War and not before that. That was the period when the military and the civil bureaucracy had already taken over the country after masterminding Liaquat’s removal.

There are differences in being pro-west and creating military alliances with the West. Those military alliances have led to where we are in Pakistan now. India had never been anti west and in fact on most occasions its policies have remained pro west even during the Nehru era, but it never signed on the dotted lines what the US wanted during the cold war.

I see that you are aggressively promoting the army line here and are attempting to absolve the Pak army from its anti-Pakistan and anti-Pakistani policies. The army in Pakistan as a whole is the only institution that had effectively destroyed the country and here like many army men; you are attempting to shift the blame on the civilian leadership.

Re: # 35:-- Zia had outlived his utility after the Afghan War and his presence in chair was viewed as an irritant following the agreement on Soviet withdrawal.Note that I have asserted that it could have ben the KGB also.

Ypu cannot compare the Congress with League.The League was a loyalist party composed of toadies.The Congress launched the Non Cooperation Movement he 193O and 1942 Movements.It was an urban dominated party.All Muslim League consisted of feudals who were listed prominenly in Punjab Chiefs and gazeteers.Even Jinnah is on record having said ....all Muslim leaders consult the Deputy Commissioner before doing anything......if we believe Azeem Hussain Jinnah also said " The Punjab is a hopeless place ,I will never go their again".After 1947 Liaquat and all West Pakistani politicians delayed constitution making because it would have brought the Bengalis in power.Liaquat initiated the policy of being a US toady.Lastly for your worthy info I have always criticised the army.This is proven by my book Pakistan Army in 1965 held at US Army Staff College,US Army War College libraries.I have nothing to do with the army since 1993.My article on army's coruption is on the PPP website.Before you make false allegations you need to check your facts Mister .

We have connection with PAVO since it was raised in 1849.I am also PAVO.Originally commissioned in PAVO.

All major Muslim leaders or so called chiefs in 1857 sided with the British.These were what you call leaders of civil society.The same leaders were loyal to British in 1919-21 when Gujranwala was bombed and the Sikhs led the anti British agitation.When the British declared martial law in Punjab in 1919 the leading Muslim leaders like Fazl I hussain and Shafi were attending tea parties hosted by the British governor.95 % Muslim League members of 1946 had a loyalist path.The Muslim League never launched any anti British movement.These are facts of history.The same situation continues.Benazir has come back because she will deliver on the agenda of working against Islamists in Pakistan.ZAB was the only politician who had guts and intellect.

pavocavalry: What I had meant was what the initials P.A.V.O. stand for. I know PAVO has something to do with indian cavalry regiments raised by the british, but since there is nothing much on the internet I was hoping to learn something from you since you have adopted it as your nick. That is all. So, I hope you take the time explain. Thanks in advance.

Re: # 39:--- PAVO means Prince Albert Victors Own 11th Cavalry Frontier Force.Raised by Liet Daly and Lieut Prendergast at Lahore as 1st and 3rd Punjab Cavalry from the nucleus of Hindustani Muslim and Ranghar Muslim JCOs and NCOs of the old Bengal Cavalry.Later these became 21st and 23rd Punjab Cavalry and finally merged as 11 Cavalry in 1921.23 Cavalry was stationed in Lahore in WW One and some Sikhs in it were conspiring against the British.These were caught and sntenced to death.

#40 pc: thanks. I am curious to know what you think of the regiment's performance in 1965. Would you care to describe it from what you understand?

pavocavalry, whatever pavo may mean and whoever you may be, you are an interesting person, with a sweeping view of time. I would have called that an excellent view but then there is considerable opposition to that view on chowk, and such things get more debate time than they deserve.

Welcome.

Re: # 41:-- It did well in Chhamb but suffered serious casualties in Chawinda.It as a matter of fact had marched on tracks from Chhamb to Chawinda,the only regiment to do so.It is the only regiment of Pakistan Army that advanced into indian territory in all three wars.In 1971 it again did very well in Chhamb and was commended by Major General Eftikhar .Detailed account of both battles are available in my articles in Defence Journals of October 1999 and September 2000.

#36 Posted by pavocavalry

“My article on army's coruption is on the PPP website.Before you make false allegations you need to check your facts Mister .”

How would I know your article is on the PPP site? I don’t even know your name. But writing an article on the PPP site does not mean that you are not promoting the army pov. In fact, the PPP was never anti army as long as Z.Bhutto lived. So writing on the PPP site does not prove any thing. What we see here is what we bring under discussion. Please post your article here for us to comment on.

“Zia had outlived his utility after the Afghan War and his presence in chair was viewed as an irritant following the agreement on Soviet withdrawal.Note that I have asserted that it could have ben the KGB also.”

Are you kidding me? The KGB line was first brought in by Richard Clark in his book just a couple of years ago. However, when you say Zia had outlived his utility after the afghan war, you are implying his utility for the US and not for the Soviet Union. So you are in fact saying that the US is responsible for his death because after the agreement with the Soviet Union Zia was of no use to the US. The missionary school that I went to, was owned by New Zealanders and they taught me just enough to figure out when a person is coherent and when he/she is not!

“Ypu cannot compare the Congress with League.The League was a loyalist party”

Where did I compare ML with Congress? I showed one common feature. The league was a loyalist and the Indian national congress was not? That is a subject view of the history from a person who claims to have some credentials as a historian.
The Indian national Congress definitely contributed more to Indian independence and also to Pakistani independence but that by no means implies that the Congress was NOT pro-west. The problem was that Pakistan fell into the hands of military and civilian bureaucracy immediately after the independence and the fault to a large extent lies with Jinnah and the Muslim league for not creating the democratic institutions immediately after the partition. But that is another issue and now where we differ is that your game is to blame the civilian for the ills that have fallen on this unfortunate country. The Pak army is solely responsible for what is happening in Pakistan now!

“The Congress launched the Non Cooperation Movement he 193O and 1942 Movements.It was an urban dominated party.”

I know enough history to figure this out. This is not something that would prove that the Congress was NOT pro-west! You are trying to project a Marxist theory here but obviously you are totally uncomfortable in what the theory means so I see your half hearted attempt to show that you are knowledgeable about the bourgeois or non bourgeois roots of both parties.
Congress also participated in the Khilafat movement and India paid a heavy price of Congress’s misadventure of the Quit India movement. You can’t take one aspect of the political movement and ignore the others. You’re showing the consistency of an army historian who stretches the limits and boundaries of history to prove the army pov.

pc: also - in WWII the brits had made elaborate defensive preparations in case the nazis broke through the Caucusus mountains and tried to enter the subcontinent via Khyber Pass to meet up with the japanese in india. Evidence of those preparations are still there in the form of tank barriers and place for an underground hospital a few miles short of Khyber pass. I assume 11 cavalry was held in reserve as part of these preparations. would you agree? or else, why was it not sent to battle in north africa or burma rather than sitting in lahore?

Re: # 42a:-- My dear I criticised Zia and Musharraf when they were at the height of their power.Now these guys are criticising Musharraf thinking that these are his last days.Read my articles in NATION from July 2001 till June 2004.What I wrote about the army's corruption no one dared to publish in 2003 except great Shaheen Sehbai.I have used my midnight oil.I have six publications to my credit some of them in Columbia University Library.In US Army my publications are regarded as reference books on Pakistan Army.My book on Pakistan Army was banned from libraries in 1999.

It is not necessary that someones opinion is exactly as you think my dear.The pre 1947 Muslims specially after 1857 were loyalists and that is history.The Congress was superior that is why they produced a constitution in 2 years.I do not want to quote all sources about the Zia affair.It was not an individual act.Either USA or USSR was involved.I may add that it was a job for which 100 marks should be given.I studies in Saint Marys Lalazar Pindi.Where did you study ?

It is not necessary that someones opinion is exactly as you think my dear.The pre 1947 Muslims specially after 1857 were loyalists and that is history.The Congress was superior that is why they produced a constitution in 2 years.I do not want to quote all sources about the Zia affair.It was not an individual act.Either USA or USSR was involved.I may add that it was a job for which 100 marks should be given.I studies in Saint Marys Lalazar Pindi.Where did you study ?