Pakistan army unfairly assaulted by naieve Christine fair
- Regular price
- $0.00
- Regular price
-
- Sale price
- $0.00 Sale
- Unit price
- /per
- Availability
- Sold out
Shipping calculated at checkout.
Adding product to your cart
myopic analysis
Reviewed in the United States on January 18, 2021
This is an interesting but biased book. At first sight it seems well researched but as you read it , you find it reeking with a rather rabid bias.
Chapter one commences with extreme bias as our so called brilliant scholar starts delivers salvos of hatred against Pakistan.
Right from first chapter her basic facts are fallacious and her assertions inaccurate.
Like she claims that Pakistan has failed to make modest progress towards attaining Kashmir, whereas Pakistan effectively gained control of some 25 to 30 percent of Kashmir in 1947-48 including the most strategic area bordering China.
Her assertion that Pakistan lost half its area in 1971 is also incorrect.Yes Pakistan lost some 54 % of its population but some 20 to 25 % of its area.
Her claim that Pakistan has used Islamist proxies since 1960 on page-2 is not supported by any precise reference, although she vaguely mentions Haqqani etc.
Her questioning about why Pakistan has challenged the status quo in Kashmir is also naive to the extreme limit!
Like stating why France should have given up their claim to Alsace or Lorraine !
Also conveniently forgetting that Kashmir is the source of all rivers of Pakistan and thus vital to Pakistans economy.
While I am no enthusiast of Pakistan’s Kashmir claims , Ms Christine’s question do not suit a scholars intellect , if we can call her one.
Christine cites sources who were in their nappies when Pakistans disputes with India started but forgets direct participants like Lieutenant Sir James Wilson,KBE,MC who in an article published Army Quarterly and Defence Journal,Volume 121,No 3,July 1991, noted on page-304 that :--
“Many influential Indians,most importantly the key minister for the interior ,Sardar Patel never accepted the reality of Pakistan”.They felt it was a ramshackle creation which would collapse sooner rather than later,and resolved to give the new state neither help nor credibility”.
But Ms Christine is infected with preconceived germs of hostility and constantly cites rabidly hostile sources like Haqqani,Arif Jamal,Ganguly etc.
Her assertion on page 4 that Pakistan was repeatedly defeated by India also proves her total ignorance of basic facts of Indo Pak military history which this scribe will re-state for the benefit of the layman reader:--
1- Kashmir War-1947-48- DRAW
2- 1965 Indo pak War- INCONCLUSIVE
3- 1971 Indo Pak War- Pakistan lost its Eastern wing but India failed to destroy Pakistans strategic centre of gravity in West Pakistan and Indias greatest Strategic thinker Ravi Rikhye describes 1971 War as a strategic failure.Even Indias Chief of Staff of Eastern Command General Jacob in his book “Surrender at Dacca” stated that all that India gained in the war was lost at the negotiating table at Simla.
4- Siachen -1984- Ongoing –INCONCLUSIVE
5- Kargil – Pakistani failure but brought no strategic change in Kashmir.
6- Afghanistan proxy war of Pakistan and India . Pakistani proxies called Taliban dominate some 55 % of the country despite US/NATO presence.
How this so called educated lady terms it as repeated defeat for Pakistan is hard to understand.
Her claim on page-4 that Pakistans concerns towards India are ideological rather than security driven is also questionable and debatable.
Pakistan was created by westernized whiskey drinking leaders who were not practicing Muslims and like the Zionists wanted a piece of land which afforded an unfair advantage for the Muslim higher and middle classes.
Thus major driving factors for Pakistan were more economic and materialistic rather than religious.
She forgets that the so called Islamists and Mullahs opposed Pakistans creation just like the religious Jews regard Israel as an anachronism.
But Ms Christine continues her outbursts like a heavy machine gun ! She has not read the history of Pakistan but thinks that she is an authority on Pakistan, just because she is white and has been to so called prestigious Western universities.
I am a bigger critic of Pakistani state and army than Ms Chrustine, but my issue with her analysis has nothing to do with Pakistan or Islam.My dispute with her is that her basic facts are fallacious.I have not been to a mosque for 40 years but I regard libraries which I have visited in London,USA,Canada and Ireland more sacred than any mosque or church or temple or synagogue.
As I read Ms Christines book I became convinced that she has not done her research but merely wrote a commercial book with an eye on the likes and dislikes of her audience.
Her Pakistan bashing is not based on solid facts.Although she could have critiqued Pakistan more ruthlessly with the right facts.
Here we have a case of doing the right thing for the wrong reasons.Thus an analysis as clear as Mud , as my fathers British Army instructor at Military College of Engineering ,Risalpur termed while he was attending the basic military engineering officers course in 1955 !
On page 4 she terms Pakistan as a “Greedy state” which I find shocking in a work that has been acclaimed as a very scholarly analysis !
This scribe finds her style of writing snide to the extreme , and provinicial and vulgar in essence .
If Pakistan is “Greedy” as she alleges how should one define Britain in Opium Wars or in Middle East or the USA in Iraq and Afghanistan !
If one study history dispassionately , every state was greedy ! But Ms Christine finds this vice only in Pakistan !
Her claim that Pakistan army is defending Pakistans ideological frontiers is also fallacious.
Pakistan Army remained non religious and secular till 1976 when General Zia who had severe inferiority complexes based on his humble background became the army chief.
In order to raise his stature he advanced a cosmetic slogan:--
“Iman Taqwa Jahad fee Sabil Illah” ,
discarding Pakistans original slogan coined by Mr Jinnah:--
“ Unity ,Faith and Discipline”.
But Ms Christine has made up her mind to label Pakistani military as a vile Jihadist machine.
Her analysis requires major brushing up.
I served in the army in Zia era and some 75 % of my regiments officers drank alcholhol and smoked hash.
While religion was mis-used as a slogan in Zia era, by and large the officer corps was not some mad Jihadist lot.But Ms Christine prefers civilians like Haqqani,Rizvi and many others.
To write such a book she should have interviewed many Pakistan Army officers but I don’t find this in the list of her sources cited in the book.
While she laments and complains and rants that the army runs Pakistans foreign policy she forgets that Pakistans first military coup in 1958 had US blessings and Ayub Khan and Director CIA Dulles were closest friends.
She also forgets that the 1977 Zia coup had US blessings and USA was foremost ally of this clown under whom Pakistan was militarized and infected with rabid religious bugs.
She forgets that USAs extremely naieve actor turned president Reagan compared rabid Afghan Jihadists and Mujahideen as equal to USAs founding fathers many of whom were not even Christians but deists.
Her claim on page-10 that Pakistan Army was an ideological army right from the beginning is also naïve and false.
As a child I saw bars and waltz dances in many mess functions .Colonel Riaz Mohammad from Engineers was an authority on Waltz.
The officer corps was heavy drinking and as a child aged ten I saw in 1970-71 in pindi .
From where Christine invented this false allegation of Pakistan Army being fundamentalist from the start is a mystery !
Her assertion on page 60 that there were no All Muslim units in British Indian Army is also totally false and incorrect.
This is an interesting failure in so called Western Scholarship and needs to be examined in more detail.
In 1999 while researching my book on Pakistan Army history I cam across this absolutely false assertion by a Pakistani general Fazal Muqeem Khan in his book “STORY OF PAKISTAN ARMY. “
Muqeem made this totally false assertion without any reference but our great American historian Stephen Cohen picks it without confirmation and reproduces it in his book “PAKISTAN ARMY”.
Ms Christine who is supposed to do original research picks this totally false assertion from Cohen Hassan Askari Rizvi and Muqeem and cites it on page 60 of her monumental book !
What happened was totally opposite to what naieve par excellence analysts like Muqeem,Cohen,Rizvi and Ms Christine falsely and erroneously claim.
There were no all Muslim units before 1857 but the British created many All Muslim units after 1857 like they created many All Hindu and All Sikh Units after 1857.
Actually there was no religious quota before 1857 except Gurkha units.
All Muslim units were discontinued but this happened after First World War and not 1857.
But as late as WW Two there was an all Muslim para battalion and as late as 1944 two artillery batteries Jacob and Kohat Batteries were 100 % Muslimised in class composition.
On page 61 she commits another major factual error when she fallaciously claims that Punjabi Muslims were the largest group within the Indian Army.
This is incorrect.Till First World War Sikhs were majority of the fighting arms but Sikh and Tribal Pashtun recruitment reduced and Punjabi Muslim recruitment quotas increased after first world war.However if Sikhs and Hindus were combined , they exceeded Punjabi Muslims in both the whole army as well as fighting arms in both world wars.
This makes complete line of reasoning of Christine lopsided.
Interestingly she does not support her sweeping and fallacious assertions with any references.So much for the caliber and quality of this poorly researched highly mediocre work.
On page-62 she makes illogical assertions like she is surprised why no Bengalis joined the army despite the fact that Japanese reached the borders of Bengal Province.
There were two reasons for this.First recruitment in the army was done by quotas and Bengal had no quota.
Secondly for Indians Japanese were not enemies as Indians regarded British as occupiers.
She misses the point on page-62 that it was Mr Jinnah Pakistans first Governor General who ensured that first two East Bengal Battalions were raised.Mr Jinnah actually made a very famous speech on this occasion where he stated :--
"I am much impressed with the success you have achieved in such a short spell of time.....I am confident you will be second to none as soldiers.During the foreign regime you were classed as non martial ! It is your conntry,your own state now and it is up to you to prove your worth".
She misses the point entirely in her analysis that the main culprit in not raising more East Bengal Battalions after the first three were raised was General Ayub Khan who was deeply biased against Bengalis.
On page-64 she totally misses the point that Pakistani military received major boost from US military aid commencing from 1954 and not from SEATO or CENTO pacts.
She thus totally misses the US four and half division plan under which Pakistan Army was significantly expanded and new cantonments built by US Army Corps of Engineers.
Britain which she mentions here had marginal role in aid to Pakistan.
On page-64 she repeats the fallacious and totally nonsense claim that Pakistan lost all three wars with India whereas two wars were a clear draw with no winners.
She thus clearly proves that she is a highly biased and prejudiced writer whose scholarly credentials are seriously compromised by severe personal biases.
Her claim on page-66 that Pakistan Army from the beginning was an ideological army is totally non factually , unsubstantiated and lacks any reference.
She does not know that Pakistans first war 1947-48 Kashmir war was condemned by Pakistans foremost Islamist party Jamaat I Islami as an opportunist war and a war which could not be called a Jihad.
On page 69 she erroneously claims that Mr Bhutto had an Islamic bug in his mind and cites his cementing ties with Gulf states as evidence.
Now how Islamist is UAE with whom Mr Bhutto had close ties ? It is a joke ?
She claims that Mr Bhutto outlawed liquor but forgets that this happened towards the very end of his regime.
While it is correct that Mr Bhutto declared the Ahmadis non Muslims, this was a tactic to take the wind out of the Mullahs sails.
She conveniently forgets that the rightist movement that brought the bigoted General Zia into power in 1977 was supported by the USA !
Her claims that army embraced ideology of Islam from the beginning are lopsided and fallacious.
After all even Stalin an atheist ordered opening of churches in USSR when the German military advanced and was near Moscow.
These are political gestures and it would be totally factual nonsense to term Ayub or Yahya as persons who Islamised army.
Islam was used as a slogan to mobilize the people but this was not the sort of rabid exercise as carried out during Zia tenure , with US blessings as Pakistan was main CIA proxy in the anti Soviet Afghan war.
On page 82 she makes totally erroneous and un-substantiated claims that under Zia officers from lower incomes were encouraged.
Whereas there is no factual evidence of this false assertion.She has been unable to support this sweeping assertion with any concrete references.
The bottom line is that people from all kinds of backgrounds were joining the army and there was no bias or manipulation in this regard.
The only instance that needs to be researched is that very undue preference was given to applicants from Military College Jhelum in General Kianis tenure from 2007 to 2013.
Kiani was from the same institution which had high proportion of rankers sons.
Brigadier Ajab Khan, an outstanding officer summed up Kianis bias to promote absolutely spineless officers , a large number of whom were from humble backgrounds.
But all these assertions need massive and vast research.
Christine is a confirmed Dodger as far as any intellectual Endeavour is concerned.
She could have researched the Juniour Cadet Battalion Scheme commenced in 1976.
But this scheme was conceived pre Zia in General Tikka Khans tenure and only started in 1976.
In 1989 this scheme was discontinued as generals found JCB cadets too smart and too cocky for the army.
Under this scheme young boys who had graduated from 10th class (matric) were trained as future officers by the army for four years in the Pakistan Military Academys Juniour Cadet Battalion also known as 3rd Pakistan Battalion.
She finds upgrading of Maulvis in Zia era and orders that they go in battle odd on page 83.
This can hardly be called significant.The British Army had chaplains and so did many armies.
Contrary to her assertions the unit Maulvi remained a comical and meek figure as late as 1993 when I left the army.
This super naieve lady never explored the hard fact that the preacher (Maulvi) , who was lowest character in Pakistani and Afghan society was elevated to the highest pedestal only thanks to US CIA and Saudi involvement in US Afghan war.But she does not want to blame the USA for anything.
Even Maulvis and religious minded people were not backward.In late 1920s my relative joined British Indian government as a section officer.
At the Indian summer capital he wanted to rent a bachelors lodging.He learnt that future General Zias father, a headclerk or clerk in the government was renting a room.Akhtar was apprehensive about getting a room since the house lord had young daughters.
But he went and was interviewed by Zias father.
He was rented a room on the condition that he would teach English language to the children of the man including daughters !
Her assertion on page 84 that officers social lives changed under Zia and they abstained from liquor is absolutely false.
I served in the army under Zia from 1981 to 1988.My regiment 15 Lancers organized his last lunch that he never consumed.
As a matter of fact officers drank more liquor in Zia era as a reaction to the so called ban.
A further negative affect was that since liquour became expensive officers started use of Hasheesh which was dirt cheap thanks to US Afghan war !
Interestingly Zia liked officers who drank liquor and many of his generals drank and womanized excessively !
The so called Zia ban was more of a hoax and façade than genuine zeal .After all the Zia regime was a b______d child regime and needed respectability and legitimacy.
On page 84 she laments about sending military brigade to Saudi Arabia and pilots to UAE but forgets that Pakistani pilots were sent as early as early 1960s to Saudi Arabia,Iraq,Jordan, Syria.
My own grandfathers brothers son in laws brother crashed in Syria in 1974 and was awarded a Pakistani decoration SJ and Syrias highest award.
Further many Shia officers went to Saudi Arabia secondment.
She forgets or is totally ignorant of the fact that Pakistans then Major General S.R Kallue took a stand when Saudis asked Pakistan to only send Sunni officers.In the end Saudi Arabia agreed to accept Shia officers also.
The only negative affect in Zia era was that Shia officers were unofficially banned in sensitively ISI appointments as narrated to this scribe by Lt Col Qasim Abbas , the man who trained Afghan insurgents from 1978 till 1992.
Brigadier Syed Raza Ali the real pioneer of Afghan war proxies of Pakistan was removed by a biased and bigoted Lt Gen Akhtar Abdul Rahman in mid 1980s and replaced by a pliant Sunni Yusuf.
She claims that Asif Nawaz Janjua tried to push back Islamists.This again is false.
I remember for first time shorts were banned in army jogging tracks etc around 1990-93 in Asif Nawaz tenure.
Firstly there were no Islamists dominating the army.
The army officers were just plain careerists and apple polishers.
If the army chief was a mullah they drank secretly and prayed openly as was done in Zia era.
If the army chief was a free thinker they drank openly and prayed secretly as in Asif Nawaz,Musharraf,JK,Kiani tenure.
In short they practiced sheer hypocrisy which is practiced world wide.
What is history of Islam after all ! Kill the prophets family for a free Haj ! Khulafa Karbala and Martial Law !
She finds faults with emphasis on Islam as a unifying force but forgets the fact that religion as Mao stated is opium of the masses and a multi ethnic state like Pakistan needs polarized nationalities together by using Islam as a slogan ! Faced with a hostile India every Pakistani regime used this as a cheap slogan ! Even the whiskey drinking Mr Jinnah.
But here it stops.
This so called use of misuse of Islam never made Pakistan Army an army of mad Islamists.Yes they can be called apple polishers and social climbers like any army in the world !
Christine forgets the fact that various Pakistani leaders used Islam as a slogan to strengthen their rule and the west encouraged them primarily the USA in Soviet Afghan war.
She forgets the hard fact that the man who most misused Islam was the so called secular Berkeley educated Z.A Bhutto.
Now how to remedy this HUMAN FAILING.It is a universal failing .
Ambition is a basic human failure and not true only for Pakistan.How long did USA take to overcome bias !
In chaper title defense of ideological frontiers she forgets that it was civilian hawks like Bhutto and Aziz Ahmad who prevailed on the army through Lt Gen Akhtar Hussain Malik etc to go for so called Operation Gibraltar in Kashmir .
She also does not know that the plan almost succeeded , if Ayub Khan had not retarded the thrust towards Akhnur by change of command.
Christine lacks a broad view or a long view.Myopia remains the cardinal hallmark of her writing.
In dealing with Pakistans quest for strategic depth , she ignores the fact that this was a British legacy that Pakistan inherited.
Further she forgets that Pakistan was forced into Afghanistan by an illegitimate US installed proxy Zia and to serve as a US proxy.
Above all she forgets the fact that a state based on religion like Pakistan was culmination of a British policy of divide and rule !
Chapter one commences with extreme bias as our so called brilliant scholar starts delivers salvos of hatred against Pakistan.
Right from first chapter her basic facts are fallacious and her assertions inaccurate.
Like she claims that Pakistan has failed to make modest progress towards attaining Kashmir, whereas Pakistan effectively gained control of some 25 to 30 percent of Kashmir in 1947-48 including the most strategic area bordering China.
Her assertion that Pakistan lost half its area in 1971 is also incorrect.Yes Pakistan lost some 54 % of its population but some 20 to 25 % of its area.
Her claim that Pakistan has used Islamist proxies since 1960 on page-2 is not supported by any precise reference, although she vaguely mentions Haqqani etc.
Her questioning about why Pakistan has challenged the status quo in Kashmir is also naive to the extreme limit!
Like stating why France should have given up their claim to Alsace or Lorraine !
Also conveniently forgetting that Kashmir is the source of all rivers of Pakistan and thus vital to Pakistans economy.
While I am no enthusiast of Pakistan’s Kashmir claims , Ms Christine’s question do not suit a scholars intellect , if we can call her one.
Christine cites sources who were in their nappies when Pakistans disputes with India started but forgets direct participants like Lieutenant Sir James Wilson,KBE,MC who in an article published Army Quarterly and Defence Journal,Volume 121,No 3,July 1991, noted on page-304 that :--
“Many influential Indians,most importantly the key minister for the interior ,Sardar Patel never accepted the reality of Pakistan”.They felt it was a ramshackle creation which would collapse sooner rather than later,and resolved to give the new state neither help nor credibility”.
But Ms Christine is infected with preconceived germs of hostility and constantly cites rabidly hostile sources like Haqqani,Arif Jamal,Ganguly etc.
Her assertion on page 4 that Pakistan was repeatedly defeated by India also proves her total ignorance of basic facts of Indo Pak military history which this scribe will re-state for the benefit of the layman reader:--
1- Kashmir War-1947-48- DRAW
2- 1965 Indo pak War- INCONCLUSIVE
3- 1971 Indo Pak War- Pakistan lost its Eastern wing but India failed to destroy Pakistans strategic centre of gravity in West Pakistan and Indias greatest Strategic thinker Ravi Rikhye describes 1971 War as a strategic failure.Even Indias Chief of Staff of Eastern Command General Jacob in his book “Surrender at Dacca” stated that all that India gained in the war was lost at the negotiating table at Simla.
4- Siachen -1984- Ongoing –INCONCLUSIVE
5- Kargil – Pakistani failure but brought no strategic change in Kashmir.
6- Afghanistan proxy war of Pakistan and India . Pakistani proxies called Taliban dominate some 55 % of the country despite US/NATO presence.
How this so called educated lady terms it as repeated defeat for Pakistan is hard to understand.
Her claim on page-4 that Pakistans concerns towards India are ideological rather than security driven is also questionable and debatable.
Pakistan was created by westernized whiskey drinking leaders who were not practicing Muslims and like the Zionists wanted a piece of land which afforded an unfair advantage for the Muslim higher and middle classes.
Thus major driving factors for Pakistan were more economic and materialistic rather than religious.
She forgets that the so called Islamists and Mullahs opposed Pakistans creation just like the religious Jews regard Israel as an anachronism.
But Ms Christine continues her outbursts like a heavy machine gun ! She has not read the history of Pakistan but thinks that she is an authority on Pakistan, just because she is white and has been to so called prestigious Western universities.
I am a bigger critic of Pakistani state and army than Ms Chrustine, but my issue with her analysis has nothing to do with Pakistan or Islam.My dispute with her is that her basic facts are fallacious.I have not been to a mosque for 40 years but I regard libraries which I have visited in London,USA,Canada and Ireland more sacred than any mosque or church or temple or synagogue.
As I read Ms Christines book I became convinced that she has not done her research but merely wrote a commercial book with an eye on the likes and dislikes of her audience.
Her Pakistan bashing is not based on solid facts.Although she could have critiqued Pakistan more ruthlessly with the right facts.
Here we have a case of doing the right thing for the wrong reasons.Thus an analysis as clear as Mud , as my fathers British Army instructor at Military College of Engineering ,Risalpur termed while he was attending the basic military engineering officers course in 1955 !
On page 4 she terms Pakistan as a “Greedy state” which I find shocking in a work that has been acclaimed as a very scholarly analysis !
This scribe finds her style of writing snide to the extreme , and provinicial and vulgar in essence .
If Pakistan is “Greedy” as she alleges how should one define Britain in Opium Wars or in Middle East or the USA in Iraq and Afghanistan !
If one study history dispassionately , every state was greedy ! But Ms Christine finds this vice only in Pakistan !
Her claim that Pakistan army is defending Pakistans ideological frontiers is also fallacious.
Pakistan Army remained non religious and secular till 1976 when General Zia who had severe inferiority complexes based on his humble background became the army chief.
In order to raise his stature he advanced a cosmetic slogan:--
“Iman Taqwa Jahad fee Sabil Illah” ,
discarding Pakistans original slogan coined by Mr Jinnah:--
“ Unity ,Faith and Discipline”.
But Ms Christine has made up her mind to label Pakistani military as a vile Jihadist machine.
Her analysis requires major brushing up.
I served in the army in Zia era and some 75 % of my regiments officers drank alcholhol and smoked hash.
While religion was mis-used as a slogan in Zia era, by and large the officer corps was not some mad Jihadist lot.But Ms Christine prefers civilians like Haqqani,Rizvi and many others.
To write such a book she should have interviewed many Pakistan Army officers but I don’t find this in the list of her sources cited in the book.
While she laments and complains and rants that the army runs Pakistans foreign policy she forgets that Pakistans first military coup in 1958 had US blessings and Ayub Khan and Director CIA Dulles were closest friends.
She also forgets that the 1977 Zia coup had US blessings and USA was foremost ally of this clown under whom Pakistan was militarized and infected with rabid religious bugs.
She forgets that USAs extremely naieve actor turned president Reagan compared rabid Afghan Jihadists and Mujahideen as equal to USAs founding fathers many of whom were not even Christians but deists.
Her claim on page-10 that Pakistan Army was an ideological army right from the beginning is also naïve and false.
As a child I saw bars and waltz dances in many mess functions .Colonel Riaz Mohammad from Engineers was an authority on Waltz.
The officer corps was heavy drinking and as a child aged ten I saw in 1970-71 in pindi .
From where Christine invented this false allegation of Pakistan Army being fundamentalist from the start is a mystery !
Her assertion on page 60 that there were no All Muslim units in British Indian Army is also totally false and incorrect.
This is an interesting failure in so called Western Scholarship and needs to be examined in more detail.
In 1999 while researching my book on Pakistan Army history I cam across this absolutely false assertion by a Pakistani general Fazal Muqeem Khan in his book “STORY OF PAKISTAN ARMY. “
Muqeem made this totally false assertion without any reference but our great American historian Stephen Cohen picks it without confirmation and reproduces it in his book “PAKISTAN ARMY”.
Ms Christine who is supposed to do original research picks this totally false assertion from Cohen Hassan Askari Rizvi and Muqeem and cites it on page 60 of her monumental book !
What happened was totally opposite to what naieve par excellence analysts like Muqeem,Cohen,Rizvi and Ms Christine falsely and erroneously claim.
There were no all Muslim units before 1857 but the British created many All Muslim units after 1857 like they created many All Hindu and All Sikh Units after 1857.
Actually there was no religious quota before 1857 except Gurkha units.
All Muslim units were discontinued but this happened after First World War and not 1857.
But as late as WW Two there was an all Muslim para battalion and as late as 1944 two artillery batteries Jacob and Kohat Batteries were 100 % Muslimised in class composition.
On page 61 she commits another major factual error when she fallaciously claims that Punjabi Muslims were the largest group within the Indian Army.
This is incorrect.Till First World War Sikhs were majority of the fighting arms but Sikh and Tribal Pashtun recruitment reduced and Punjabi Muslim recruitment quotas increased after first world war.However if Sikhs and Hindus were combined , they exceeded Punjabi Muslims in both the whole army as well as fighting arms in both world wars.
This makes complete line of reasoning of Christine lopsided.
Interestingly she does not support her sweeping and fallacious assertions with any references.So much for the caliber and quality of this poorly researched highly mediocre work.
On page-62 she makes illogical assertions like she is surprised why no Bengalis joined the army despite the fact that Japanese reached the borders of Bengal Province.
There were two reasons for this.First recruitment in the army was done by quotas and Bengal had no quota.
Secondly for Indians Japanese were not enemies as Indians regarded British as occupiers.
She misses the point on page-62 that it was Mr Jinnah Pakistans first Governor General who ensured that first two East Bengal Battalions were raised.Mr Jinnah actually made a very famous speech on this occasion where he stated :--
"I am much impressed with the success you have achieved in such a short spell of time.....I am confident you will be second to none as soldiers.During the foreign regime you were classed as non martial ! It is your conntry,your own state now and it is up to you to prove your worth".
She misses the point entirely in her analysis that the main culprit in not raising more East Bengal Battalions after the first three were raised was General Ayub Khan who was deeply biased against Bengalis.
On page-64 she totally misses the point that Pakistani military received major boost from US military aid commencing from 1954 and not from SEATO or CENTO pacts.
She thus totally misses the US four and half division plan under which Pakistan Army was significantly expanded and new cantonments built by US Army Corps of Engineers.
Britain which she mentions here had marginal role in aid to Pakistan.
On page-64 she repeats the fallacious and totally nonsense claim that Pakistan lost all three wars with India whereas two wars were a clear draw with no winners.
She thus clearly proves that she is a highly biased and prejudiced writer whose scholarly credentials are seriously compromised by severe personal biases.
Her claim on page-66 that Pakistan Army from the beginning was an ideological army is totally non factually , unsubstantiated and lacks any reference.
She does not know that Pakistans first war 1947-48 Kashmir war was condemned by Pakistans foremost Islamist party Jamaat I Islami as an opportunist war and a war which could not be called a Jihad.
On page 69 she erroneously claims that Mr Bhutto had an Islamic bug in his mind and cites his cementing ties with Gulf states as evidence.
Now how Islamist is UAE with whom Mr Bhutto had close ties ? It is a joke ?
She claims that Mr Bhutto outlawed liquor but forgets that this happened towards the very end of his regime.
While it is correct that Mr Bhutto declared the Ahmadis non Muslims, this was a tactic to take the wind out of the Mullahs sails.
She conveniently forgets that the rightist movement that brought the bigoted General Zia into power in 1977 was supported by the USA !
Her claims that army embraced ideology of Islam from the beginning are lopsided and fallacious.
After all even Stalin an atheist ordered opening of churches in USSR when the German military advanced and was near Moscow.
These are political gestures and it would be totally factual nonsense to term Ayub or Yahya as persons who Islamised army.
Islam was used as a slogan to mobilize the people but this was not the sort of rabid exercise as carried out during Zia tenure , with US blessings as Pakistan was main CIA proxy in the anti Soviet Afghan war.
On page 82 she makes totally erroneous and un-substantiated claims that under Zia officers from lower incomes were encouraged.
Whereas there is no factual evidence of this false assertion.She has been unable to support this sweeping assertion with any concrete references.
The bottom line is that people from all kinds of backgrounds were joining the army and there was no bias or manipulation in this regard.
The only instance that needs to be researched is that very undue preference was given to applicants from Military College Jhelum in General Kianis tenure from 2007 to 2013.
Kiani was from the same institution which had high proportion of rankers sons.
Brigadier Ajab Khan, an outstanding officer summed up Kianis bias to promote absolutely spineless officers , a large number of whom were from humble backgrounds.
But all these assertions need massive and vast research.
Christine is a confirmed Dodger as far as any intellectual Endeavour is concerned.
She could have researched the Juniour Cadet Battalion Scheme commenced in 1976.
But this scheme was conceived pre Zia in General Tikka Khans tenure and only started in 1976.
In 1989 this scheme was discontinued as generals found JCB cadets too smart and too cocky for the army.
Under this scheme young boys who had graduated from 10th class (matric) were trained as future officers by the army for four years in the Pakistan Military Academys Juniour Cadet Battalion also known as 3rd Pakistan Battalion.
She finds upgrading of Maulvis in Zia era and orders that they go in battle odd on page 83.
This can hardly be called significant.The British Army had chaplains and so did many armies.
Contrary to her assertions the unit Maulvi remained a comical and meek figure as late as 1993 when I left the army.
This super naieve lady never explored the hard fact that the preacher (Maulvi) , who was lowest character in Pakistani and Afghan society was elevated to the highest pedestal only thanks to US CIA and Saudi involvement in US Afghan war.But she does not want to blame the USA for anything.
Even Maulvis and religious minded people were not backward.In late 1920s my relative joined British Indian government as a section officer.
At the Indian summer capital he wanted to rent a bachelors lodging.He learnt that future General Zias father, a headclerk or clerk in the government was renting a room.Akhtar was apprehensive about getting a room since the house lord had young daughters.
But he went and was interviewed by Zias father.
He was rented a room on the condition that he would teach English language to the children of the man including daughters !
Her assertion on page 84 that officers social lives changed under Zia and they abstained from liquor is absolutely false.
I served in the army under Zia from 1981 to 1988.My regiment 15 Lancers organized his last lunch that he never consumed.
As a matter of fact officers drank more liquor in Zia era as a reaction to the so called ban.
A further negative affect was that since liquour became expensive officers started use of Hasheesh which was dirt cheap thanks to US Afghan war !
Interestingly Zia liked officers who drank liquor and many of his generals drank and womanized excessively !
The so called Zia ban was more of a hoax and façade than genuine zeal .After all the Zia regime was a b______d child regime and needed respectability and legitimacy.
On page 84 she laments about sending military brigade to Saudi Arabia and pilots to UAE but forgets that Pakistani pilots were sent as early as early 1960s to Saudi Arabia,Iraq,Jordan, Syria.
My own grandfathers brothers son in laws brother crashed in Syria in 1974 and was awarded a Pakistani decoration SJ and Syrias highest award.
Further many Shia officers went to Saudi Arabia secondment.
She forgets or is totally ignorant of the fact that Pakistans then Major General S.R Kallue took a stand when Saudis asked Pakistan to only send Sunni officers.In the end Saudi Arabia agreed to accept Shia officers also.
The only negative affect in Zia era was that Shia officers were unofficially banned in sensitively ISI appointments as narrated to this scribe by Lt Col Qasim Abbas , the man who trained Afghan insurgents from 1978 till 1992.
Brigadier Syed Raza Ali the real pioneer of Afghan war proxies of Pakistan was removed by a biased and bigoted Lt Gen Akhtar Abdul Rahman in mid 1980s and replaced by a pliant Sunni Yusuf.
She claims that Asif Nawaz Janjua tried to push back Islamists.This again is false.
I remember for first time shorts were banned in army jogging tracks etc around 1990-93 in Asif Nawaz tenure.
Firstly there were no Islamists dominating the army.
The army officers were just plain careerists and apple polishers.
If the army chief was a mullah they drank secretly and prayed openly as was done in Zia era.
If the army chief was a free thinker they drank openly and prayed secretly as in Asif Nawaz,Musharraf,JK,Kiani tenure.
In short they practiced sheer hypocrisy which is practiced world wide.
What is history of Islam after all ! Kill the prophets family for a free Haj ! Khulafa Karbala and Martial Law !
She finds faults with emphasis on Islam as a unifying force but forgets the fact that religion as Mao stated is opium of the masses and a multi ethnic state like Pakistan needs polarized nationalities together by using Islam as a slogan ! Faced with a hostile India every Pakistani regime used this as a cheap slogan ! Even the whiskey drinking Mr Jinnah.
But here it stops.
This so called use of misuse of Islam never made Pakistan Army an army of mad Islamists.Yes they can be called apple polishers and social climbers like any army in the world !
Christine forgets the fact that various Pakistani leaders used Islam as a slogan to strengthen their rule and the west encouraged them primarily the USA in Soviet Afghan war.
She forgets the hard fact that the man who most misused Islam was the so called secular Berkeley educated Z.A Bhutto.
Now how to remedy this HUMAN FAILING.It is a universal failing .
Ambition is a basic human failure and not true only for Pakistan.How long did USA take to overcome bias !
In chaper title defense of ideological frontiers she forgets that it was civilian hawks like Bhutto and Aziz Ahmad who prevailed on the army through Lt Gen Akhtar Hussain Malik etc to go for so called Operation Gibraltar in Kashmir .
She also does not know that the plan almost succeeded , if Ayub Khan had not retarded the thrust towards Akhnur by change of command.
Christine lacks a broad view or a long view.Myopia remains the cardinal hallmark of her writing.
In dealing with Pakistans quest for strategic depth , she ignores the fact that this was a British legacy that Pakistan inherited.
Further she forgets that Pakistan was forced into Afghanistan by an illegitimate US installed proxy Zia and to serve as a US proxy.
Above all she forgets the fact that a state based on religion like Pakistan was culmination of a British policy of divide and rule !