Sadia Afroze Ali

RE: Observer # 69

The benefit of doubt always goes to the accused. Lets stick to this convention.

I have more questions than answers.

Take care.

Qanungo-one #68:

You say, ``Do apologize.......but not on MY behalf.``

I did not. To quote, ``I render this overdue apology on my behalf. And if it were in me......``

As for the kitchen sink ... well, I guess they can speak for themselves.

regards

temporal

Urstruly #58

It has always been my impression that Bhutto was loosely translating the American expression, ``they won`t have a leg to stand on``; symbolically meaning pretty much the same thing as you have indicated in your post.

However, I have met ``verbatim`` quotes from Pakistanis fighting this interpretation. Would, does, your research indicate that he may, indeed, have meant that ``they won`t have a leg to stand on``?

Best wishes.

For a dirge to, and for, any tragedy I would, will, and shall, be the first to join you. I shall lead you, in fact. But I am glad to learn that it`s ``not in you`` to apologize in my behalf.

Do apologize, by all means, on behalf of Mr. Bhutto, Indra Gandhi, India, army, the colonial mentality (everywhere in Pakistan; to quite some degree in India) of the Civil Service (bureaucrats, i.e., our old friends but referred to as disembodied entities; Civil Service specifies them more in terms of people we know!), but not on MY behalf.

Somebody referred to you as a ``sacred cow`` of the Chowk some months ago. That you maybe but not for me.

I think you have brought a very special emotional and personal nostalgia to start apologizing for the behaviour of everybody under the sun but the kitchen sink. No, Mr. Temporal, I am glad that you don`t ``have it in you`` to apologize in my behalf! Don`t. Ever. Till, that is, some real culprits have done so.

URSTRULY

thanks for your post ...

for all of those who doubt Bhutto`s commitment to the country and are hell bent on making him the scapegoat for the loss of East Pakistan read URSTRULY`s post ...

it is time that as nation we accept the blame collectivley and say sorry!

-Pakistan Zindabad

Operation Gibraltar was the name given to the 1965 attempt by Pakistan to capture Kashmir. Why is that piece of history relevant today ? Read on to find out.

The following is excerpted from the Foreword to the book on the 1965 war by Pakistani Air Marshal Asghar Khan. He retired a few months before `Operation Gibraltar` was launched in August of 1948. The foreword is by Altaf Gauhar. The book, titled, `The First Round - Indo-Pakistan war`` was published in 1978.,

Air Marshal Asghar Khan is playing an active role in politics these days, (at least, I assume its the same Asghar Khan that I read about in the Pakistani news), and so perhaps some of the statements have to be taken with a pinch of salt.

* * * Begin quote:

Asghar Khan`s version is instructive in two other respects: his description of `Operation Gibraltar` and his evaluation of the role of the Generals and Brigadiers of the Pakistan Army.

`Operation Gibraltar` reflected the outlook and character of the late Major General A.H. Malik who was a bold and imaginative officer. Yet the plan collapsed on the launching pad. We are told that the plan was acclaimed by `top civilian advisors` but their names are not given.

The whole plan was constructed on three assumptions:

(i) widespread support would be available within Occupied Kashmir.

(ii) India would restrict its offensive to the Azad Kashmir territory

(iii) there was no possibility of India crossing the international border

All three assumptions proved wrong.

The operation failed because in its formulation, apart from the element of Foreign Office conspiracy, the fundamental difference between commando raids and `guerrilla ` operations was never clearly recognized. Personnel were selected without taking into account that many of them ``knew neither the area nor the language``.

How could the poor villagers in Occupied Kashmir distinguish between a raider and a partisan ?

It was claimed at the time that `Operation Gibraltar` was foolproof; since everyone involved in it knew only his specific bit the enemy would never discover its full scope and objectives.

The truth is that the first four volunteers who were captured by the Indians described the whole plan in a broadcast on All India Radio on the 8th of August 1965, nearly a month before India crossed the international boundary.

* * *

Interrupt:

Then, just as now (?), that All India Radio broadcast would have been labelled as `anti-Pakistani` propaganda.

* * *

Resume quote:

I mentioned this broadcast to Brigadier Irshad who was then Director, Military Intelligence. I still remember his sad comment:

``The blighters have spilled the beans !``

Asghar Khan attributes the failure of the operation to the fact that the stepping up of the tempo `` was not gradual enough to give it the character of an internal uprising, nor was it controlled sufficiently to keep it within the bounds of Indian political and military acceptability``

* * *

Interrupt:

What do YOU think is going on in Kashmir today ?

* * *

Resume quote:

The escalation was inevitable and the operations were never related to the objective situation inside Kashmir. The Indians would never cross the international border, maintained the Foreign Office and the people of Jammu and Kashmir would rise as a man as soon as our volunteers go into Occupied Kashmir, believed the G.H.Q. These two assumptions provided the basis for an operation which was concieved in an atmosphere of intrigue and conducted with woeful negligence.

* * *

Jumping forward:

A complete and accurate account of the 1948 Kashmir operations was never compiled. The result was that the mistakes of 1948 were repeated in 1965. And since Yahya Khan refused, despite Ayub Khan`s orders, to allow an authentic record of the 1965 war to be prepared, the mistakes of 1965 were repeated this time in a much more aggravated fashion, in 1971. The result was the disgrace and surrender of the armed forces in Dacca.

Asghar Khan is the first person who has offered a critical appraisal of the Pakistan Army at the command level, but unless all the facts of 1948, 1965 and 1971 are made public, our people will go on living in a false world, scoring imaginary victories against fictitious adversaries.

End quote * * *

Comment:

Some people would have us believe that (i) either Pakistani intentions have undergone a sea-change or (ii) that the previous wars were a benevolent attempt to secure for Kashmiris the `right to self-determination`.

-arun gupta ag3L@andrew.cmu.edu

[Re: Ayub Khan]

For all his faults, let us not forget that his speech on 6 September 1965 about ``provoking a sleeping tiger`` fired up a nation that was caught off guard by the treacherous invasion of its mighty neighbour. If, as you say, Pakistan won the war, some credit must go to the Commander-in-Chief, don`t you think?

---

History anyone ? At least two Pakistani military folks have written in detail about the 1965 war.

Please read Retd. Air Marshal Ashghar Khan`s account of events in ``The first round``.

It all started with Operation Gibraltar, which was a scheme to push infiltrators into Kashmir and foment a ``native uprising``. Ashghar Khan writes that in August 65 itself, India had caught some of these folks and broadcast their confessions on All India Radio. Anyway, Pakistan thought then that India would not open up any new fronts, and pushed very hard in one of the sectors in Kashmir. Therefore, India opened up new fronts in Kutch, Rajasthan and Punjab. Asghar Khan talks about this miscalculation.

My addition : Essentially the honors were even by the time the ceasefire was called.

I suggest that Pakistanis read their own military chief`s books before spouting about how they won the war or how they were invaded.

-arun gupta

urstruly:#62

Yours is truly a superb observation and reflects the insight of an independant thinker.

Please help us to resolve some of the issues on other boards too.I would certainly appreciate your analytical input in matters related to the downtrodden & oppressed mussalmaans.

__________________________________________________

wassalaam

Re: ylh # 59

It has been a while since I last recited Latin verbs, but I think that ``jus bellum`` is more to the point, but I will definitely double check and let you know!

As to ZAB, I share Sigalph`s aversion to him not because he was a socialist (though my GOP blood simmers at that too), but because he fell a victim to his own meglomania. He should have paid a closer attention to Lord Acton`s famous dictum. ZAB`s role in 1965 is quite clear and he certainly gained political mileage from that war, just as he used the 1971 war to further his political interests.

Since you are a fan of ZAB, could you please tell me why he never published the Rehman Report, when it was presented to him and why he changed its conclusions; who was he trying to protect?

Yhl, incidently, why do you end all your posts with all these political slogans?

Imran Khan for prime minister? If wishes were horses, beggers would ride......

Ciao!

RE: Ferozk, bahmad, Temporal and others

I just have to ask you one thing, do you believe in “Innocent until proven guilty or guilty until proven innocent”. Doesn’t matter eh! It really depends who bears the burden of proof. So may I ask where and when this case was prosecuted?

I know apologies are in vogue at international political scene. Germans are apologizing to Jews, South Africa is apologizing to the victims of apartheid (both blacks & whites, strange eh?), Australians are apologizing to aboriginal, Japanese are apologizing to Koreans? Is that the reason our stomachs are aching and we are itching to apologize to someone so that we may be able to stand among the “civilized” people? I would say what our grandmothers used to say “Kia doosray ka mooNh Laal Dekh kar hum bhi thapparr mar mar kar apna moNh laal kar lain?” (Translation: If you see someone with a red face you don’t slap your face red).

Don’t forget that the above mentioned nations are apologizing and reconciling after all the procedure of imparting justice have been completed. We, the common people of Pakistan, spent 52 years of our national life whining about those feudal lords who sold India to Britain and then how after emergence of Pakistan their offsprings took charge of the national leadership. I think we will spend next hundred years whining about the offsprings of those culprits who were made Generals, Air Marshals, Governors, and ministers after the EP tragedy. I don’t want to name names because even the Geoffrey Dahmars and Hannibal Lechters are innocent until proven guilty.

Have you ever noticed how we are constantly brainwashed by this statement, “Indira, Bhutto, Yehya and Mujib, the four main characters of the EP drama, have met their “logical” conclusion, thus effectively closing this chapter of history. History has read its verdict and nature has delivered its justice”. Verdict my a *s *s, justice my foot. (Excuse me for being emotional). Please make a note that the main body of culprits of this crime is still at large. As a matter of fact they are doing quite well. Every year in December they try their best to brainwash general public that EP “drama’ has concluded. EP tragedy is still not in our textbooks yet, why? Only the popular but voiceless culture is keeping this wound alive inside their hearts. I don’t know how long it will be able to sustain it.

If WP population apologizes to Bengalis without going through a process of justice, that will mean:

“We are sanctioning an immunity to the culprits with a message that it is OK to commit genocide and to break a union-(it doesn’t matter you can apologize later)”

“WP is admitting that fascism and racism are inherent traits of general WP population”

“WP is admitting that propaganda didn’t play any role whatsoever in this tragedy thus legitimizing the “struggle” of EPs”

“we will officially sign the death warrant for the Two-Nations theory”

“we are also sending a message that the struggle for human rights and regional autonomy is not possible within the federation. So it is Ok to break away.”

To err is human and to forgive is divine. How erroneous it is. It should be read as “To err is human and doing justice is divine”.

Ferozek

jus ad bellum I believe would mean Justice in war ...

Bellum Justum means a just war ... I believe that the term St Augustine used was Jus ad Bellum ... yes but Bellum Justum directly translates into

``just war`` ... but then again I can be wrong.

-Yasser Hamdani

Ferozek

jus ad bellum I believe would mean Justice in war ...

Bellum Justum means a just war ... I believe that the term St Augustine used was Jus ad Bellum ... yes but Bellum Justum directly translates into

``just war`` ... but then again I can be wrong.

-Yasser Hamdani

Ferozek

Yes it was Bhutto`s popularity that got Benazir into power but ZAB earned his popularity ... and you cant deny him that ... then again you have the right to your own opinion ...

Pakistan Zindabad

Quaid e Azam Jinnah Zindabad

Jiye Bhutto

Imran Khan for PM

-Yasser Hamdani

RE: YLH and various others.

“MASHRIQI PAKISTAN JAANAY WAALAY MNAs KI TAANGAIN TORR DI JAINGI”

Bhutto is often accused of saying these words and it is touted that it resulted in the fall of EP. First time those words were reported on March 18, as a headline, in the daily Azad, Lahore, after Bhutto’s speech of March 14, 1971 at Nishtar Park.

Mr. Ahmad Saleem author of the book, “Hamood-ur-Rehman Commission Report-Generals & Politicians”, was one of the audiences at Nishtar Park. He has given us an account of Bhutto’s exact words with a background. It will be naïve of someone to think that Bhutto uttered those words without any motivation.

In one of his public speeches, on February 28th, Bhutto demanded to postpone the first session of Legislative Assembly, that was scheduled for March 3rd . (Bhutto is also crucified for this demand). The reason Bhutto demanded for this postponement is that Yehya, had already made a secret pact with Mujib to change the status of the federation into a confederation. Several politicians, on both sides, and Generals were aware and a party to this pact. According to this pact Yehya would have been appointed as a President of Confederation for the next 15 years and it also called for a reduction in army. The last part was an unconditional demand from Mujib. A negligible minority of Generals was opposed to this last part. However, Bhutto was unequivocally opposed to the whole idea of Confederation. Let’s not give Bhutto and those minority of Generals, the benefit of doubt of being patriotic, yet, and leave it to the future historian.

Yehya and Mujib could not go ahead with this plan with a Presidential Ordinance. They could not go ahead with this plan through a legislative assembly either, unless, leader of opposition (Bhutto) was present in the legislature, thus, satisfying the requirement of 3/4 votes for this kind of legislature. The frustration of Generals, Mujib, and Yehya is evident from the label “Sayasee Haramzada (political b * *tard)” that was coined on Bhutto.

Bhutto rightfully feared that, powers-that-be, may try to buy members of the opposition party, thus, effectively, removing him from the political scene. There was no law to deal with floor-crossing in those days. That is when Bhutto warned those MNAs of the opposition party in the same exact words as below:

“Jo mimbran-e-assembly Dhaka jaain, who yaktarfa ticket par jain. Waapis aa kar who kis Taang (moaqqaf) par kharray hon gay”.

What he meant was, how would the members face their constituents when they would come back from Dhaka.

re ylh

my friend, calling the late Field Marshal Ayub Khan a coward is perhaps stepping over the line. For obvious reasons I am no fan of Ayub. Yet, it takes more than a ``coward`` to become a decorated war hero of the British Army in WW II. For all his faults, let us not forget that his speech on 6 September 1965 about ``provoking a sleeping tiger`` fired up a nation that was caught off guard by the treacherous invasion of its mighty neighbour. If, as you say, Pakistan won the war, some credit must go to the Commander-in-Chief, don`t you think?

I certainly don`t share your adoration or adulation for ZA Bhutto. With all due respect, I have little sympathy for socialists. That said, the late ZAB was one of of the most cultured and educated men ever to be a leader in Pakistan. A phenomenally astute Foreign Minister, his speech to the UNGA on Kashmir in 1965 or 1966 is a masterpiece of eloquence. With the exception of Sir Zafrullah Khan, ZAB was probably Pakistan`s ablest Foreign Minister. When you see the off-the-street leaders today, you cannot but nostalgise about the days when Berkley and Oxford educated men led countries.

Re: yhl # 52

Yhl, the correct term is ``jus bellum``; a just war, and it was the creation of the Vatican to lend legitimacy on the crusades and find a rationale for the Christian knights to feel ``good`` about violating one of the ten commandments!

As to ZAB, it was the myth of Bhutto as the defender of Pakistani virtues that gave us Benazir Bhutto and like her father, she too selfishly served Pakistan!! (folks, I am being really, really sarcastic on this)

Re: Urstrully # 47

Enough! No more excuses!!

I still stand by my last post and I still feel, like bahmad said, we should apologise for our misdeeds.

As to the genocide in Sindh, why is that Bangldeshis` fault and why should it be an excuse to avoid our mea culpa in East Pakistan?

That is our problem that our government is not representive of our interests and it should not be held as an excuse for delaying our apology to Bangladesh.

Urstrully, if you do not like Pakistan to apoligise to Bangladesh, admit it honestly and freely and stop hiding behind the aprons of a guilty conscience!

Ciao!