1965 war: a Pakistani view

I read and re-read this assessment of the 1965 war in Pakistan's Dawn newspaper with some amazement. It is scathing in its comments on the handling as well as the outcome of the war on the Pakistani side:

In fact, the war was started when we launched Operation Gibraltar in early July 1965, infiltrating thousands of Pakistani soldiers into India-occupied Kashmir under the assumption that Kashmiris would rise in revolt against the Indian forces. That never happened and within weeks the entire operation had collapsed. Meanwhile, the Indian forces launched a counteroffensive occupying parts of Azad Kashmir.
Subsequently on Aug 30, we launched Operation Grand Slam that was meant to capture the strategic town of Akhnur and to cut off held Kashmir from India. But it was too late. Another disaster happened when halfway through Grand Slam, the command was changed giving more time to the Indians to recoup and gather reinforcements. As a result this operation too ended in a fiasco.

About the Indian offensive on the Lahore front, the writer says:

...the persons most surprised were the president and the army chief when the Indians launched the attack on Sept 6. Ayub was woken up at four in the morning and given the news of Indian advances towards Lahore by an officer of the air force on reconnaissance duty. Ayub telephoned Gen Musa who said he had also heard the news but was waiting for confirmation!

 The author concludes:

Air Marshal Nur Khan, who led the air force, achieving complete superiority over the Indian air force, called it a wrong war that was planned “for self-glory rather than in the national interest”. History has to be put straight so that the mistakes are not repeated.

On the 1967 war, have you come across anything half as self-critical and objective in the Indian media? If the leading newspaper of a country can carry such an article, I would submit that there is something very right about that country. It cannot be a failed state, indeed, it is a country steadfastly battling any descent in that direction.

I have been an admirer of Dawn for many years now. Its liberalism is not confined to India-Pakistan relations. It has a thoroughly modern and reformist view on matters internal to Pakistan as well. Those who want Pakistan to be a vibrant democracy, free from the taint of terrorism, and also want that India and Pakistan should live together in peace must make it a point to read Dawn.

Pakistan a 'failed state' ?

For me, the big item in today's news about the turmoil in Pakistan was the resignation of Sherry Rehman, the information and broadcasting minister in the government.

Given the sketchy reporting that, alas, has been all too common in the Indian print media, I had some difficulty making out what precisely had prompted the resignation. One paper said it was in protest against the ban on Geo TV. That is absurd because the channel continues to broadcast. Another paper said it was in protest against restrictions placed by President Zardari on the channel's coverage of anti-government protests. That sounds more plausible. Remember, Geo TV is the channel that lost a courageous correspondent to terrorists in the Swat region.

Rehman's resignation is an act of great courage and conviction. It is not that she herself is responsible for any lapse. She has resigned in the cause of freedom of the media. When was the last time any minister in India resigned on an issue of principle?

To me, Rehman's resignation shows how passionate the elite in Pakistan's civil society is about democracy. In the recent past, several sections of civil society have displayed such passion- the media of course, but also lawyers, the judiciary and various political parties. As I have noted earlier in my blog, Pakistan's media remains remarkably vibrant and varied in its expression of views. I used to marvel at the courage that columnist-turned- politician Ayaz Amir displayed in his writings in the Dawn in the regime of General Musharraf. To his credit, Musharraf gave plenty of latitude to the media although he brought about his downfall by showing an inability to tolerate similar independence in the judiciary.

I am also impressed by the vibrant literature that Pakistan has produced recently in the English language - Mohammed Hanif, Kamila Shamsie and Daniyal Moenuddin are some of the names that figure prominently.

All of which makes me wonder how much substance there is to the talk of Pakistan being a 'failed state'? Can a country with such a committed civil society be possibly regarded as a failed state? The international community would like to think so because Pakistan is a breeding ground for terrorists. Many in India would like to subscribe to this thesis because they find in it a refutation of the 'two nation' theory.

I am not persuaded. We do not regard India as a failed state on account of insurgencies in Kashmir and the North-East and the Naxalite problem in about a quarter of all districts. The key difference between the two countries is that India has managed to keep the army in its place whereas in Pakistan, the army calls the shots whether it is running the country or not. Another difference is that the Indian judiciary has come in the way of any attempts at amending the Constitution that change the character of the Constitution.

The judiciary in Pakistan is capable of asserting itself, as events in Musharraf's time showed. So the fundamental challenge in Pakistan is rolling back the pervasive hold of the army. Given the support of the international community, Pakistan's elite may be capable yet of putting democracy on a solid foundation.