With great interest I read the article “Rethinking the National Security of Pakistan”, published in the May 2003 issue of DJ. I am glad the learned writer, Mr. Ahmad Faruqui, has invited comments.

As a prelude to my comments I want to mention that India has been aspiring to become a big power, a permanent

member of the Security Council and eventually establish sovereignty over Afghanistan, Pakistan, Nepal, Bhutan, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and part of Burma to compare with the great kingdom of Chandra Gupta Muraya/Asoka. Already because of the awesome strength of her Armed Forces, possession of nuclear weapons and dreadful long range missiles the neighbouring countries, except Pakistan, have been covered. How much time would it take her hegemonic dream to come true? It is correct to deduce to safeguard her independence, integrity and self-respect. Pakistan so far has proved a stumbling block against India’s hegemonic designs.

The article is based on arduous research work, very informative and the learned writer deserves commendation. But, can India be trusted despite its long list of broken promises? Can we forget her deceitful and “might is right” behaviour regarding international commitments? My comments are as under:

1. At the time of independence India had failed to honour her commitment regarding the dispatch of our share of the following military stores and equipment.

Ordnance Stores - 135000 tons
Vehicles - 1,461
Tanks - 264
Ammunition - 60000 tons
Engineer stores - 170000 tons
Rifles - 22333 (1/3rd our share)
Sten guns - 148,570 (1/3rd our share)
LMG - 21,533 (1/3rd our share)
MGs - 1,124 (1/3rd our share)
Pistols 42,420 (1/3rd our share)
Artillery guns - 320
2. India had repudiated the financial settlement in respect of factories, stores and other assets.

3. The Indian leaders had also confiscated our share of cash which was released after Mr Gandhi had threatened to fast and die.

4. Gurdaspur, a Muslim majority area, was awarded to India because without this award India would have had no land to access Kashmir. Also Muslim majority tehsils of Fazilka and Ferozepur were awarded to India. The awards of these areas also gave control of the rivers flowing into Pakistan and canals feeding areas of Pakistan.

5. Junagarh had acceded to Pakistan, but it was forcibly occupied by the Indian forces.

6. Over 10 million refugees were driven into Pakistan to create a gigantic economic and administrative problem. At least 40,000 Muslim women were abducted en route. The mass killing of Muslims also left a legacy of ill-will and distrust. The properties of Muslims were burnt and looted mercilessly.

7. Supply of coal for the railway engines was stopped. Also electricity and canal water was cut off.

8. During October 1947, India occupied Kashmir by sending her forces by air and land route. The outstanding and unsolved Kashmir problem is well-known and therefore no need to mention it in detail.

9. During September 1948, Indian forces attacked the Muslim state of Hyderabad and occupied it. This was a flagrant action against the standstill agreement. During 1951, Indian forces were deployed on the borders.

10. In May 1954, Pakistan signed Mutual Defence Assistance Agreement with USA. Soon Pakistan joined Baghdad Pact (later CENTO) and SEATO, but the Indian leaders continued their criticism unabatedly.

11. During February 1956, the Indian forces forcibly occupied Chad Bet in Rann Kutch. Without provocation the Indian forces were deployed on the borders of East Pakistan and shelled the border posts of Sylhet in February 1957. The Indian leaders threatened to deal with Pakistan with superior forces.

12. On Eid Day in April 1959, an Indian Canberra on secret mission over Pakistan was shot down by Pakistani pilots. The secret mission had been going on for many weeks.

13. To ease tension between the two countries President Ayub on 1st September 1960 had a two hour meeting with Nehru at Palam Airport. But according to one historian, the talks ended on the enigma “The hen or the egg”. The Indian leaders criticized the joint defence offer of Pakistan, although confrontation between India and China had been growing at that time.

14. During October 1962 there was a major clash between India and China in NEFA. The Indian forces were routed and Chinese forces advanced towards the plains of Assam. In Pakistan from the “HAWKS” there was a lot of pressure on the President to take advantage of India’s defeat. But it was rejected as a “stab in the back”. However, subsequent events proved that for Pakistan to liberate Kashmir from the tyrannical yoke of India it was a “chance in a thousand years”. India promptly received massive military aid from USA and many countries. Many divisions were raised and air force strengthened. India also received military hardware from Russia. Suddenly the tone of Indian leaders became aggressive and sarcastic for Pakistan.

15. On 14th December 1963, India formally integrated Kashmir into the Indian Union.

16. Suddenly during July 1964 the Ceasefire Line in Kashmir was activated by the Indians. Many people of Azad Kashmir living near the CFL were arrested as suspects, tortured and sent to notorious jails of occupied Kashmir. Till the end of 1964 over 700 violations were reported to the UN observes. From January 1965 to May 1965 a total of 1,987 violations were registered. There was hardly a week when a serious incident did not take place. AK territory and outposts were often shelled and at times subjected to heavy artillery fire. Sick of the Indian intransigence guerrilla bands were sent by AK Government to counter Indian aggression.

17. Between January and April 1965, the Indians established new posts in the area held by Pakistan in the Rann of Kutch. During April the Indians were forced to withdraw and Pakistani troops occupied own area by establishing strongly held posts. A ceasefire was accepted on both sides.

18. On 2nd August 1965, the Indian guns shelled Awan Sharif, a village in Gujarat district. The Indians carried out offensive action deep into AK territory and captured a few posts of tactical importance. To ease pressure of the Indian offensive, action Operation Gibraltar was launched by sending Mujahideens, as infiltrators, into the occupied Kashmir. But soon the strategically important town of Muzaffarabad had been threatened by briskly continued Indian offensive.

19. In view of the dangerous situations created by the Indian offensive action Operation Grand Slam was launched on 1st September in Chamb-Jaurian sector.

20. In retaliation, the Indian forces launched offensive operations in Sialkot, Lahore, Kasur and Sulemanke sector on 6th September. Although the Indian forces were 3 to 4 times stronger in infantry, tanks, artillery guns and air force, but Pakistan had managed to forestall the Indian offensive actions and saved strategically important towns and areas from the clutches of the Indians. Pakistan had occupied 1617 square miles of the Indian territory whereas the Indians were in occupation of 446 square miles of Pakistani territory. The learned writer in his article (pg 26 DJ) has mentioned that India controlled about 720 square miles of Pakistani territory while Pakistan held around 300 square miles of Indian territory, but these figures have not been corroborated even by the Indian historians whose books I have read.

21. The Tashkent Agreement was torn to pieces by the Indians. The Kashmir issue remained unsolved.

22. The ignominious and deceitful part played by India in the secession of East Pakistan is well-known. No doubt the humiliation of the decisive defeat, surrendering of about 65,000 soldiers and above all the loss of East Pakistan was due to the follies of the leaders at the helm of affairs and India had fully exploited the opportunity to her uttermost advantage. It was a stab in the back.

23. India in its continuing quest to intimidate Pakistan has carried out nuclear explosions, held large scale Brass Tacks exercise for attacking Pakistan, sent saboteurs, occupied Siachen, deployed the whole Indian Army on the borders for more than 10 months and frequently issued threats of pre-emptive attack and capturing of AK territory.

These are numerous wounds of hatred, malice and threats inflicted on Pakistan and even a brief mention of which requires many more pages.

In view of the above, should Pakistan adopt a soft path as suggested by the learned writer? I also submit that it is not an attempt to belittle the knowledge and wisdom of the learned writer, but my comments are based on my humble memory of bitter events since I have been a witness to most of these.

Yours sincerely,

Mukhtar Ahmed Gilani.