The Defence College Experience
Nazar Khan July 9, 2003
#112 Posted by raziab9 on November 26, 2006 7:17:41 pm
Re: # 37
--Hopeless for Romair hun.
Bring your hopes down cuz` Romair`s base of argument is not shakin at all!
LOL
--Hopeless for Romair hun.
Bring your hopes down cuz` Romair`s base of argument is not shakin at all!
LOL
reply to this interact
write a new interact
add to favorites
flag objectionable content
#111 Posted by r.a.janjua on July 17, 2003 11:11:42 pm
re: fuzair
cheema was a ds at staff college around 77/78 (?). he was definitely a brilliant officer and earmarked for the general staff. the better ones usually go for the war course instead of the ndc course which is more of a consolation thingee. i think you go for the war course first and then become ds at staff college - but i doubt if there`s a hard and fast rule about this - the ms has to take into account all sort of other things also. i don`t remember when cheema did his war course (before or after the stint at quetta) - don`t know about gulfaraz - what were his arms and when was he in quetta? as for zia - he was in my opinion quite a sick individual - if you were a brigadier or below the rank of a brigadier, you posed no threat to him - all promotions to maj. gen. and above used to be approved by him personally. many of those ``rebel officers`` at quetta were promoted to brig. and given good posts. those were the early days - bhutto was behind bars but still alive - and zia was moving with caution - i guess he was hoping that those chaps would eventually become part of the herd, but most of them retired as brig. i can`t think of any who made it to the rank of maj. gen.
right before executing bhutto, zia sent a questionaire to all formation commanders - brigade and div commanders (corps commanders ofcourse were already with him) asking for the opinion of the commander and his troops on the following: should martial law be lifted? and should bhutto be hanged? you can imagine what happened to the careers of the officers who gave unpleseant replies. there was actually one commander who literally asked his battalion commanders to call darbar and get the opinion of the troops :-) - during the eighties a lot of incompotent and corrupt officers were promoted just so that zia could keep them under his firm control - there are too many to list - i think fazal-i-haq and akhtar abdur rehman were probably at the top the ladder - it was quite prevalant in all services at that time - lots of stories about mrs. & acm anwar shameem - but you probably know all the stories anyway. the good thing is that they have faded away and i hope the likes of begs and nasirs are being sent home by the time they become majors.
cheema was a ds at staff college around 77/78 (?). he was definitely a brilliant officer and earmarked for the general staff. the better ones usually go for the war course instead of the ndc course which is more of a consolation thingee. i think you go for the war course first and then become ds at staff college - but i doubt if there`s a hard and fast rule about this - the ms has to take into account all sort of other things also. i don`t remember when cheema did his war course (before or after the stint at quetta) - don`t know about gulfaraz - what were his arms and when was he in quetta? as for zia - he was in my opinion quite a sick individual - if you were a brigadier or below the rank of a brigadier, you posed no threat to him - all promotions to maj. gen. and above used to be approved by him personally. many of those ``rebel officers`` at quetta were promoted to brig. and given good posts. those were the early days - bhutto was behind bars but still alive - and zia was moving with caution - i guess he was hoping that those chaps would eventually become part of the herd, but most of them retired as brig. i can`t think of any who made it to the rank of maj. gen.
right before executing bhutto, zia sent a questionaire to all formation commanders - brigade and div commanders (corps commanders ofcourse were already with him) asking for the opinion of the commander and his troops on the following: should martial law be lifted? and should bhutto be hanged? you can imagine what happened to the careers of the officers who gave unpleseant replies. there was actually one commander who literally asked his battalion commanders to call darbar and get the opinion of the troops :-) - during the eighties a lot of incompotent and corrupt officers were promoted just so that zia could keep them under his firm control - there are too many to list - i think fazal-i-haq and akhtar abdur rehman were probably at the top the ladder - it was quite prevalant in all services at that time - lots of stories about mrs. & acm anwar shameem - but you probably know all the stories anyway. the good thing is that they have faded away and i hope the likes of begs and nasirs are being sent home by the time they become majors.
#110 Posted by fuzair on July 17, 2003 9:34:18 pm
Re: r.a. janjua #98
Thank you. Glad to be back.
I think you might be correct, Sarwar Cheema did resign his commission but I am sure that he was at NDC doing the War Course--which meant that he was marked as a high-flyer. Since I think he would have been a DS at Staff College before doing the War Course, this then doesn`t make sense. Why send someone who is a known piplia to the War Course? When was a DS? Mid 1970s?
I knew Col. Gulfaraz slightly; met him when he was in the States doing his Ph.D in Petroleum Engineering. He had been approved for Brigadier when he asked Zia at a Staff College dinner what it felt like to sign the death warrant of the man who had been his mentor, etc. etc. Gulfaraz liked to call himself a Brig since he was approved for promotion but was retired before he put on the rank. Was he one of the group of Staff College officers who were ``sorted out?`` Or is this a different group.
Re: the Niazi debate
I knew quite well (family connection) the G1 Ops Eastern Command during Niazi`s tenure as GoC there. He told me that several times he asked Niazi to approve plans for troop redeployment, defense of Dacca (and other large towns), contingency plans, etc. Niazi pooh-poohed every suggestion; said it smacked of defeatism; he was confident that the troops would be able to repel any attack; Chinese and US help was forthcoming; etc etc. Now, a lot of this could be self-serving post-facto nonsense but knowing what kind of a man he was, I believe him. Niazi was perhaps the worst Lt.Gen to have out there but he was a great ``commander type.``
If Dacca had been defended, a negotiated surrender was possible. Anyway, the rest is history.
Thank you. Glad to be back.
I think you might be correct, Sarwar Cheema did resign his commission but I am sure that he was at NDC doing the War Course--which meant that he was marked as a high-flyer. Since I think he would have been a DS at Staff College before doing the War Course, this then doesn`t make sense. Why send someone who is a known piplia to the War Course? When was a DS? Mid 1970s?
I knew Col. Gulfaraz slightly; met him when he was in the States doing his Ph.D in Petroleum Engineering. He had been approved for Brigadier when he asked Zia at a Staff College dinner what it felt like to sign the death warrant of the man who had been his mentor, etc. etc. Gulfaraz liked to call himself a Brig since he was approved for promotion but was retired before he put on the rank. Was he one of the group of Staff College officers who were ``sorted out?`` Or is this a different group.
Re: the Niazi debate
I knew quite well (family connection) the G1 Ops Eastern Command during Niazi`s tenure as GoC there. He told me that several times he asked Niazi to approve plans for troop redeployment, defense of Dacca (and other large towns), contingency plans, etc. Niazi pooh-poohed every suggestion; said it smacked of defeatism; he was confident that the troops would be able to repel any attack; Chinese and US help was forthcoming; etc etc. Now, a lot of this could be self-serving post-facto nonsense but knowing what kind of a man he was, I believe him. Niazi was perhaps the worst Lt.Gen to have out there but he was a great ``commander type.``
If Dacca had been defended, a negotiated surrender was possible. Anyway, the rest is history.
#108 Posted by tahmed32 on July 17, 2003 10:51:43 am
pmishra2 #106 You points are valid. The question I was discussing is, as you correctly point out, the low level (or narrow) one in terms only of military actions. I dont think there is anything wrong in focussing on a narrow issue alone on chowk (God knows we have enough generalities tossed around when it comes to political discussions on chowk).
In terms of the broader political question, like you I too noted in my earlier post on this board that regardless of how one views the military actions, politically 1971 was indeed a victory for India. And indeed it goes to the credit of Indira Gandhi that she did not try to retain control over Bangladesh once it became an independent country. And I agree that our generals made a mess out of Afghanistan with their backing of one faction (the taliban) over others rather than trying to get these different factions to come together as the international community is trying to do now.
I would trade our generals for yours (who stick to military matters only, rather than trying to determine the political direction of the country) any day.
In terms of the broader political question, like you I too noted in my earlier post on this board that regardless of how one views the military actions, politically 1971 was indeed a victory for India. And indeed it goes to the credit of Indira Gandhi that she did not try to retain control over Bangladesh once it became an independent country. And I agree that our generals made a mess out of Afghanistan with their backing of one faction (the taliban) over others rather than trying to get these different factions to come together as the international community is trying to do now.
I would trade our generals for yours (who stick to military matters only, rather than trying to determine the political direction of the country) any day.
#107 Posted by tahmed32 on July 17, 2003 10:51:25 am
nazar #104 The way i understand, the basic objective in any military conflict is almost always one of preserving one`s forces while destroying enemy forces. Gaining or losing ground is important only insofar as it affects this objective.
I too recall that Yahya kept pushing Niazi to hold on to the political objective (i.e. not to yield an inch of territory), but once the Indian army attacked there seems no question that Niazi should have focussed on the military objective alone and pulled his forces back. No doubt somewhere along the way it became impossible to pull back forces anyway (given partisan actions in disrupting transport by the mukti bahini). But there is plenty of blame to go around on 1971, and not one head has rolled. I dont mind the military defeat actually (who cares, except for the many lives on all sides that were lost), but the lack of accountability for the manner in which the Bengali population was treated by our army - THAT is what Niazi and his friends should have been charged with as soon as they returned to Pakistan. This is the real shame of 1971 for us as Pakistanis. Not the military defeat.
I too recall that Yahya kept pushing Niazi to hold on to the political objective (i.e. not to yield an inch of territory), but once the Indian army attacked there seems no question that Niazi should have focussed on the military objective alone and pulled his forces back. No doubt somewhere along the way it became impossible to pull back forces anyway (given partisan actions in disrupting transport by the mukti bahini). But there is plenty of blame to go around on 1971, and not one head has rolled. I dont mind the military defeat actually (who cares, except for the many lives on all sides that were lost), but the lack of accountability for the manner in which the Bengali population was treated by our army - THAT is what Niazi and his friends should have been charged with as soon as they returned to Pakistan. This is the real shame of 1971 for us as Pakistanis. Not the military defeat.
#106 Posted by pmishra2 on July 17, 2003 9:41:02 am
#103 tahmed32
The real indian achievement w.r.t. Bangladesh is that India has allowed Bangladesh to follow its own path. To the credit of Bangladesh this path has been one of democracy; admittedly, like indian democracy this also has a large number of flaws (extreme poverty, attacks on minorities).
At the same time, there is no question that there has been huge progress since 1971 and especially when comparied to Pakistan today. There is no doubt in my mind that Bangladesh will be intact, little more prosperous and closer in spirit and style to Malaysia or India by 2020. One cannot say the same for certain other countries in india`s neighborhood.
I would say this is the real victory for India. It helped liberate a neighboring country from an oppressive regime but it did not destabilize it or destroy it. Low-level arguments about paki army vs. indian army miss the point. One need only look at Afghanistan to understand an alternative path for Bangladesh.
The real indian achievement w.r.t. Bangladesh is that India has allowed Bangladesh to follow its own path. To the credit of Bangladesh this path has been one of democracy; admittedly, like indian democracy this also has a large number of flaws (extreme poverty, attacks on minorities).
At the same time, there is no question that there has been huge progress since 1971 and especially when comparied to Pakistan today. There is no doubt in my mind that Bangladesh will be intact, little more prosperous and closer in spirit and style to Malaysia or India by 2020. One cannot say the same for certain other countries in india`s neighborhood.
I would say this is the real victory for India. It helped liberate a neighboring country from an oppressive regime but it did not destabilize it or destroy it. Low-level arguments about paki army vs. indian army miss the point. One need only look at Afghanistan to understand an alternative path for Bangladesh.
#105 Posted by tahmed32 on July 17, 2003 8:49:03 am
r.a.janjua #98 Many of the civil war battlefields (and indeed the revolutionary war battlefield at Yorktown as well) are indeed very well preserved. At Gettysburg, a lot of the vegetation has been restored to what it was at the time of the battle. One can actually re-trace the actual battle action - walk across the wheat field of Pickett`s charge at Gettysburg for example, and see for oneself how easy it was for the southerners to think the artillery preceding the charge had destroyed northern defenses when in fact the shelling had been largely ineffective, thereby changing Pickett`s charge to a bloodbath for the southerners, thus changing the tide of the battle that changed the tide of the war. Next time you should also visit Antietem, if you havent done so already - 19,000 men died on a single day in what was probably one of the fiercest battles that has ever taken place. No wonder there are so many civil war buffs in this country - they can re-live history for themselves.
Unlike US, one does not find battlefields so well preserved in Europe I think (due to lack of open spaces). In Pakistan, I think we have a number of important battlefields, but given our other unfortunate problems I guess we do not have the resources (at least not today) to restore and preserve them. In Multan, e.g., a couple of years ago I was casually told by someone that Alexander the Great received an arrow wound at the spot we were passing by. The Multan battle was not only fierce but significant in that it marked the turning point for Alexander`s conquests that had started in Greece. Someday hopefully we will have such battlefields also preserved, and the battle actions explained, as well as they do in the US.
Unlike US, one does not find battlefields so well preserved in Europe I think (due to lack of open spaces). In Pakistan, I think we have a number of important battlefields, but given our other unfortunate problems I guess we do not have the resources (at least not today) to restore and preserve them. In Multan, e.g., a couple of years ago I was casually told by someone that Alexander the Great received an arrow wound at the spot we were passing by. The Multan battle was not only fierce but significant in that it marked the turning point for Alexander`s conquests that had started in Greece. Someday hopefully we will have such battlefields also preserved, and the battle actions explained, as well as they do in the US.
#104 Posted by tahmed32 on July 17, 2003 6:44:44 am
harish_hyd #101 I have pointed out many times on chowk to many things that India can be proud of - the development of democratic institutions in a country of 1 billion people is a major major achievement; the lack of meddling of the military in politics; the IITs; secularism (tarnished no doubt by both the muslim family laws on the one hand and the rise of hindu extremism on the other, but nevertheless still present); as well as many aspects of Indian culture (not just movies either).
So, if you feel that I always give a negative spin to India then I think you are wrong in your feelings. I have a right to my views based on my understanding of the situation, and my understanding of 1971 is that it was not such a great military victory. I have been personally attacked by a couple of your disappointed compatriots as a result, but they have not presented any convincing arguments to reject what I wrote.
Also, can you claim, based on your posts on chowk, to have tried to be as balanced in your views on India-Pakistan relations and interactions and in your appreciation of Pakistani culture as I am able to say above??
So, if you feel that I always give a negative spin to India then I think you are wrong in your feelings. I have a right to my views based on my understanding of the situation, and my understanding of 1971 is that it was not such a great military victory. I have been personally attacked by a couple of your disappointed compatriots as a result, but they have not presented any convincing arguments to reject what I wrote.
Also, can you claim, based on your posts on chowk, to have tried to be as balanced in your views on India-Pakistan relations and interactions and in your appreciation of Pakistani culture as I am able to say above??
#103 Posted by nazarhayatkhan on July 17, 2003 6:44:44 am
This thread is coming to an End. Thanks every one for a quality feedback.
Tehmed32 # 92
I differ with your second paragraph. This was a classic example of why the Politicians should make the political decision and military decision should be left to the Generals.
In this specific situation, the issue was hot at the UN. Only a holding out time of about 2 weeks was required before the world community could get a ceasfire between India and Pakistan and a possible retention of East Pakistan in some form with Pakistan.
A political leader would have given a decision ``Hold East Pakistan or at the minumum Dacca for 2 weeks``. And then left it to the Army how it does it. By holding out at choke points or fortress defence of Dacca.
Since Yahya khan himself was a General - his mindset was military ``not losing an inch`` and was micro managing the military strategy sitting 1000 miles away.
Indians politicians knew the UN situation and rightly went for the kill - to get Dacca quickly and sabotage any UN resolution of ceasefire.
So in the last days, East Pakistan became Bangladesh because of Bhuttos greed (having torn the earlier Polish ceasefire resolution) and Yahya`s incompetence. More some other time.
#102 Posted by r.a.janjua on July 16, 2003 11:56:04 pm
re: 100
http://www.cr.nps.gov/history/online_books/mana/map1.jpg
http://www.cr.nps.gov/history/online_books/mana/map1.jpg
#101 Posted by harish_hyd on July 16, 2003 11:02:11 pm
#92 by tahmed32 on July 16, 2003 8:37am PT
[So, as i said earlier: it was a war of the incompetents, with the more incompetent general surrendering.]
Which, in other words means that the BETTER Army won. Trust Tahmed to put a negative spin on any Indian accomplishment (one of the swiftest and the most decisive military victories in recent times). Which proves that he is true-blooded Paki masquerading as a patriotic American.
[So, as i said earlier: it was a war of the incompetents, with the more incompetent general surrendering.]
Which, in other words means that the BETTER Army won. Trust Tahmed to put a negative spin on any Indian accomplishment (one of the swiftest and the most decisive military victories in recent times). Which proves that he is true-blooded Paki masquerading as a patriotic American.
#100 Posted by harimau on July 16, 2003 9:32:01 pm
Ref stuka #96
[Harimau: Are you in DC/Virginia area as well????? Damn!!]
Well, if I were there I would invite Mr. Nazar Hyatt Khan & family to dinner. Used to live there (Silver Spring, Gaithersburg, Reston, Potomac). Still have good friends and try to visit there once a year.
[Harimau: Are you in DC/Virginia area as well????? Damn!!]
Well, if I were there I would invite Mr. Nazar Hyatt Khan & family to dinner. Used to live there (Silver Spring, Gaithersburg, Reston, Potomac). Still have good friends and try to visit there once a year.
#99 Posted by harimau on July 16, 2003 9:32:01 pm
Ref tahmed32 #94
I was wondering how you got your wife to stop visiting the Manassas mall!
You need to stop being so serious all the time!
I was wondering how you got your wife to stop visiting the Manassas mall!
You need to stop being so serious all the time!
#98 Posted by harimau on July 16, 2003 9:32:00 pm
Ref stuka #89
[ But now the Mountain is coming to Mohammad and we can meet right here. :) ]
Surely you could have chosen a more felicitous phrase.
Beware: fatwa closing in rapidly!
[ But now the Mountain is coming to Mohammad and we can meet right here. :) ]
Surely you could have chosen a more felicitous phrase.
Beware: fatwa closing in rapidly!
#97 Posted by r.a.janjua on July 16, 2003 9:32:00 pm
re: 81
welcome back fuzair!
if my memory serves me right, ghulam sarwar cheema was not kicked out of the army - he resigned his commission to protest martial law. i personally know quite a few army officers who did that. cheema caught zia`s attention while he was a ds at staff college - that`s right around the time when martial law was imposed. there were many officers along with cheema who openly protested the imposition of martial law at quetta - which resulted in zia saab`s famous order to the commandant asking him ``to sort out these rebel officers``. what i know of gen. nishat - he would never have allowed those taping sessions at ndc your friend talks about. besides i am not sure why you would want to do that - an officer`s opinions and reputation, other news/views in the armed forces travel quite quickly by just word of mouth.
re: tahmed
i am a great fan of the civil war myself. had a chance once to see some of the battlefields - manassas, gettysburg, and there are couple of them right around the fredericksburg area - have you seen ken burn`s civil war series done for pbs. he did a nice job.
welcome back fuzair!
if my memory serves me right, ghulam sarwar cheema was not kicked out of the army - he resigned his commission to protest martial law. i personally know quite a few army officers who did that. cheema caught zia`s attention while he was a ds at staff college - that`s right around the time when martial law was imposed. there were many officers along with cheema who openly protested the imposition of martial law at quetta - which resulted in zia saab`s famous order to the commandant asking him ``to sort out these rebel officers``. what i know of gen. nishat - he would never have allowed those taping sessions at ndc your friend talks about. besides i am not sure why you would want to do that - an officer`s opinions and reputation, other news/views in the armed forces travel quite quickly by just word of mouth.
re: tahmed
i am a great fan of the civil war myself. had a chance once to see some of the battlefields - manassas, gettysburg, and there are couple of them right around the fredericksburg area - have you seen ken burn`s civil war series done for pbs. he did a nice job.
Interact Index
Latest Interacts
- iron_mask: absolutely timely. Though a... India-Pakistan: Empathy, grief in
- KaalChakra: ha ha, salimbro, you... An Indian Muslim
- neembu: Timely, thoughtful piece. Now watch... India-Pakistan: Empathy, grief in
- masanamuthu: Also, if one checks... An Indian Muslim
- Salim_Chauhan: #161 BJ2, Thank you for... An Indian Muslim
- Salim_Chauhan: #166 Posted by BJ2... An Indian Muslim
- Salim_Chauhan: #166 Posted by BJ2... An Indian Muslim
- Goldfinger: Re: # 222 tahmed... An Indian Muslim
