The confrontation between India and Pakistan dates from the first day of theirindependence from the British Empire, and the first war they fought was over the possessionof Jammu and Kashmir. The war was a limited affair – limited in its goals, in a limitedtheatre, with limited means. It was the first modern war in which one of the belligerents(Pakistan) relied on an artificially created and nurtured insurgency in the target area to realizeits political goals. The experiment – partly due to lack of doctrinal foundations and lack of experience – had only limited success, but its results encouraged Pakistan to rely oninsurgents and irregular militias in the enemy's rear in it later wars
This short and limited war is a fascinating story for several reasons. Its most significantelement is the employment of non-state actors as combatants in service of a state’s interests.The employment of non-state combatants was only partly successful, but the events haveshown how a modern state can deploy the principles, tactics, techniques and procedures of asymmetric warfare against another, much stronger state. The events of the war also callattention to the fact that contrary to the contemporary western attitude – which lingers on tothis day – there is absolutely no difference between western and Asian soldiers, when thelatter are properly trained and led. Asian officers are able to plan and execute large-scaleoperations, control, move and support divisions and corps without the benefit of westernadvisors, and their command performance can meet the highest standards. Asian soldiersunder Asian officers and NCOs can fight with as much skill as, and their self-sacrificingheroism and professional behaviour ca
THE HISTORICAL BACKGROUND
In spite of the economic and strategic advantages the colonies represented, maintaining alarge colonial empire was a huge burden for Great Britain after World War Two. The Labour
Party made the dissolution of the empire a key part of its post-war agenda, and following itselectoral victory in 1945 it set about granting independence to those colonies that weresufficiently developed to stand on their own as sovereign states – and India was among thefirst.Although the Muslims were in a significant numerical minority in India, they had dominatedthe subcontinent for hundreds of years. This dominant role ended by the middle of the 19
century, as the European empires gradually extended their rule over India. The Muslims couldnot come to terms with the loss of their power, influence and privileges and adjusted to thenew social order with great difficulty. They barely tolerated the rule of the Christian infidels,and simply could not imagine living under the rule of peoples they had subjugated anddespised for centuries – the Hindus, Buddhists and Sikhs – even if independent Indiapromised secular democracy and free exercise of religion.
Their mass organization, theMuslim League, insisted on creating a Muslim state as part of the independence process.Pakistan – the Land of the Pure – was created by combining the Muslim-majority parts of thecountry (in the west Sindh, Baluchistan, the Northwest Frontier Province, and the western partof the Punjab, and East Bengal in the east). (See Figure 1.)According to the law governing the independence process (the Independence of India Act) therulers of India’s nearly 600 states could decide to join India or Pakistan, or remainindependent. Most rulers had no real choice: geography and demographics made the decisionfor them, but in the case of Kashmir the question was more complicated.
The state's locationon the borders of India, Pakistan, Afghanistan and China made it a strategically importantplace for both India and Pakistan. The ruler was Hindu, but the majority (about 2/3) of thepopulation was Muslim. However, even among the Muslims there was no consensus on thecountry’s future: the most influential politician, Sheik Abdullah was opposed to India’spartition, but if that had to be, then he stood for Kashmiri independence. The Maharaja couldnot – or did not want to – make a decision: he hoped that if he delayed the decision longenough, Kashmir could become an independent, sovereign state.India could perhaps have accepted an independent Kashmir, but Pakistan insisted that theMuslim-majority state should join the Muslim Pakistan. Pakistan's head of state, Ali Jinnah,was ready to settle the matter by force, but that would have led to open war with India – and
1
As India’s independence was becoming a reality, the Muslims had reason to fear Hindu, Sikh, Buddhist,Christian, Jaini, Jewish and other religious payback for centuries of abuse. (Goel, no year)
2
"Kashmir" as a geographic term is applied to the Indian state of Jammu and Kashmir; to the Pakistani state of Azad Kashmir; to the Kashmir valley, and to the independent principality of Jammu and Kashmir.
the Pakistani armed forces, which were just being created, were nowhere near strong enough.In order to avoid the embarrassing spectacle of former colonies obtaining independence andimmediately attacking each other, the British government would also have prevented openconflict. Even before independence was declared, the Pakistani government already appliedeconomic pressure: it halted traffic on the only railroad line going into Kashmir, confiscatedKashmiri trucks and blocked the importation of essential staples and fuels (food grains, sugar,salt, gasoline, household kerosene) into Kashmir. Economic blockades generally work slowly,and it was not different in Kashmir’s case either. Since the blockade did not achieve resultsfast enough, the leading politicians of the Muslim League and senior officers of the armedforn be a match to, or even surpass, any European orAmerican regular force,,
Peerbuxbaloch
This short and limited war is a fascinating story for several reasons. Its most significantelement is the employment of non-state actors as combatants in service of a state’s interests.The employment of non-state combatants was only partly successful, but the events haveshown how a modern state can deploy the principles, tactics, techniques and procedures of asymmetric warfare against another, much stronger state. The events of the war also callattention to the fact that contrary to the contemporary western attitude – which lingers on tothis day – there is absolutely no difference between western and Asian soldiers, when thelatter are properly trained and led. Asian officers are able to plan and execute large-scaleoperations, control, move and support divisions and corps without the benefit of westernadvisors, and their command performance can meet the highest standards. Asian soldiersunder Asian officers and NCOs can fight with as much skill as, and their self-sacrificingheroism and professional behaviour ca
THE HISTORICAL BACKGROUND
In spite of the economic and strategic advantages the colonies represented, maintaining alarge colonial empire was a huge burden for Great Britain after World War Two. The Labour
Party made the dissolution of the empire a key part of its post-war agenda, and following itselectoral victory in 1945 it set about granting independence to those colonies that weresufficiently developed to stand on their own as sovereign states – and India was among thefirst.Although the Muslims were in a significant numerical minority in India, they had dominatedthe subcontinent for hundreds of years. This dominant role ended by the middle of the 19
century, as the European empires gradually extended their rule over India. The Muslims couldnot come to terms with the loss of their power, influence and privileges and adjusted to thenew social order with great difficulty. They barely tolerated the rule of the Christian infidels,and simply could not imagine living under the rule of peoples they had subjugated anddespised for centuries – the Hindus, Buddhists and Sikhs – even if independent Indiapromised secular democracy and free exercise of religion.
Their mass organization, theMuslim League, insisted on creating a Muslim state as part of the independence process.Pakistan – the Land of the Pure – was created by combining the Muslim-majority parts of thecountry (in the west Sindh, Baluchistan, the Northwest Frontier Province, and the western partof the Punjab, and East Bengal in the east). (See Figure 1.)According to the law governing the independence process (the Independence of India Act) therulers of India’s nearly 600 states could decide to join India or Pakistan, or remainindependent. Most rulers had no real choice: geography and demographics made the decisionfor them, but in the case of Kashmir the question was more complicated.
The state's locationon the borders of India, Pakistan, Afghanistan and China made it a strategically importantplace for both India and Pakistan. The ruler was Hindu, but the majority (about 2/3) of thepopulation was Muslim. However, even among the Muslims there was no consensus on thecountry’s future: the most influential politician, Sheik Abdullah was opposed to India’spartition, but if that had to be, then he stood for Kashmiri independence. The Maharaja couldnot – or did not want to – make a decision: he hoped that if he delayed the decision longenough, Kashmir could become an independent, sovereign state.India could perhaps have accepted an independent Kashmir, but Pakistan insisted that theMuslim-majority state should join the Muslim Pakistan. Pakistan's head of state, Ali Jinnah,was ready to settle the matter by force, but that would have led to open war with India – and
1
As India’s independence was becoming a reality, the Muslims had reason to fear Hindu, Sikh, Buddhist,Christian, Jaini, Jewish and other religious payback for centuries of abuse. (Goel, no year)
2
"Kashmir" as a geographic term is applied to the Indian state of Jammu and Kashmir; to the Pakistani state of Azad Kashmir; to the Kashmir valley, and to the independent principality of Jammu and Kashmir.
Peerbuxbaloch
