Imperatives for changing
The Colonial
Defence Concept

Columnist Col (Retd) SG MEHDI, MC discusses important issues on our defence posture published in the PAKISTAN OUTLOOK (Vol 2 No 3) in the 80's and being reproduced by DJ

Only in one of the provinces of British India - the Punjab and Frontier (NWFP, was part of Khalsa Kingdom based in Lahore) - did the Muslim aristocracy not only survive but add greatly to its fortunes. In the Punjab and Frontier the role of the Muslims was reversed. There the British had to defeat Sikh power and feudal Muslim families became the natural and necessary allies of Imperial Raj. The Muslim feudal lords of the Punjab and Frontier, who were to play havoc with Pakistan politics a hundred years later, were among the most loyal allies of British power in India. The sturdy Punjabi and Pathan serfs, controlled by a class of ruthless landlords, became human fodder for the British Indian Army. It is important to note that British policy in the nineteenth century affected the provinces of Punjab-Frontier and Bengal the two wings of the future Pakistan to opposite ways. In the Punjab and Frontier the Muslim feudal families were greatly strengthened whereas in Bengal, Bihar, UP, CP, etc ruined.

The Muslim element of the British India Army, by and large recruited from these two provinces of Northern India. Sindh and Balochistan were ignored as the British had to fight the Ameers of Sindh and Baloch Sardars to establish their hegemony in India. Bengal for the Army recruitments, was bracketed with UP, Oudh, Behar, Sindh, Balochistan. This tragedy was further compounded, in that, freedom did not come to the Indian Sub-continent as a consequence of a social, moral liberation struggle. Algeria, Indonesia, Indo-China style, independence was conferred on the countries of South Asia because the colonial power at the end of the second world war was financially and psychologically exhausted and unable to hold India.

Therefore, the states of South Asia, inherited the political and administrative system which was geared to perpetuate the status quo. It was resistant to change. It is time that we in Pakistan reshape our colonial inherited defence philosophy. Let us begin this analysis with geo-political environment of Pakistan.

GEOGRAPHY AND PAKISTAN'S SHARED COMMON DESTINY:

Pakistan has the unique distinction of being surrounded by three of the world's largest nations - the Soviet Union, China and India. The Soviet Union, a Central Asian and Eurasian superpower, almost touches Pakistan through the Afghan territory of Wakhan. China has a common border with Pakistan in the north, through which the ancient Silk Road (Karakoram Highway) links the two countries, India shares the entire 1200 miles eastern border of Pakistan. As a south - west Asian peripheral state, Pakistan's security is linked with the Indian Ocean. Arabian Sea and the Persian Gulf region, ideologically Pakistanis are strongly attracted to Arab world in general and Hijaz in particular. Traditionally Pakistan has shared a common destiny with its two Muslim neighbours. Iran and Afghanistan, while centuries of rule by Turkish dynasties from Aibak to Moguls, in the sub continent have created a magnetic emotional link between Pakistan and Turkey. Turks regard Pakistanis to be the heirs of Indian Muslim Turkish epoch. Afghanistan with its high mountain ranges and legendary passes (Khyber and Bolan) guards the strategic pathway of the Indo-Gangetic plains of South Asia and no one has reached without getting control of Kabul and Kandhar. The region consisting of Pakistan, Iran and Afghanistan provides a land corridor to any power to the Arabian Sea and the Indian Ocean. The events of the Horn of Africa and the Muslim Crescent of USSR, Central Asia may look distant, but their repercussions have an establishing effect, on South West Asia as a whole, and Pakistan is very much a part of this region. The Strait of Hormuz are famous as a world trade route and international highway, which connects the world's largest site of oil reserves and production with world markets.

Economically, the shortest land and air routes, from the Soviet Union to the Indian Ocean and to India, from China to the Indian Ocean and from Iran to India, pass through Pakistan. Japan, Western Europe and the United States have some strategic interests in the Indian Ocean e.g. oil and certain important minerals, in addition to the existing commercial markets, sea routes to which lie within striking range of Pakistan's coast.

Similarly, air - routes from Europe to the Far East pass over Pakistan or close to it. Thus, Pakistan finds itself in a strategically sensitive position, in that, all the actions, and the non - action, invites reaction of some, if not all quarters around us, Pakistan cannot act in whatever manner it wishes, without giving full and proper thought to the geo-political, situation in which it is placed.

QURANIC CONCEPT OF WAR: The Holy Quran does not interpret war in terms of narrow national interests. Divine as a concept, but human in its evolution, the Quranic philosophy of war consists of both constant and variable factors. The main strength of this philosophy lies in its constants, which in turn provide direction and guidance for the evolution and application of the 'variables'. A pertinent aspect of modern military thought is that it has few, if any constants to base its theory and philosophy upon. Even the principles of war, the very essence of modern military thought, suffer from lack of constancy. Within the confines of its constants, Quranic philosophy can absorb a great deal of the variables of the modern philosophies on war.

The basis to study the 'Islamic' concept of 'Strategy' is to understand the difference between 'Total strategy' that is 'JEHAD' and military strategy. The term 'JEHAD' so often confused with military strategy is, in fact, the near equivalent of total or grand strategy. 'JEHAD' is a continuous and never ending struggle waged on all fronts including political, economic, social, psychological, domestic, moral and spiritual, to attain the object of policy. It is waged at individual as well as collective level and at 'internal' as well as 'external front'.

The first point therefore which requires analysis is the shape, form and cause of wars in general, and threat to our values to our way of life - indeed to the very basis of ideological and geopolitical existence of Pakistan, in particular.

CAUSES OF WAR: In a Sovereign State System War and Peace depends upon the decision of each and every state. India, a colony, till 1947, of the British, could neither declare war on any state nor conclude peace for the entire epoch of Pax Brittainica. What converts potential into strife is an incompatibility between the vital interests of two or more states, so theorised Hartman. Wars come about simply because one Sovereign nation decides on the course of war or takes an action which signals the beginning of war.

Throw in factors of personal ambitions, wrong assessment of the situation by the ruling group, diversion of people's attention from internal political stresses and economic woes and we further strengthen Hartman's theory. Quincy Wright in his book 'A Study of War' adds to these observations by paraphrasing causes of war into:-

THE SCIENTIFIC, THE HISTORICAL AND THE PRACTICAL:- The scientific cause is rooted according to Quincy Wright in immaturities in social knowledge. Of all causes, this is the most dangerous ground as Western Colonizers, and Czarist and Communist Russians in the past, have chauvinistically been using this so called scientific cause in first savaging and then holding vast spaces of Asia, Africa and Latin America in bondage for centuries. India pretending to be a scientific secular state, holds Muslim majority Kashmir in servitude.

1) The Historical Causes of war cover issues like unresolved disputes, new development in military armament, historic claims and historic rivalries. (See Notes below)

NOTES

a) Durrand Line, Kashmir - Siachen issues and suspicion of Pakistan Nuclear Energy Programme.

b) Pakistan sponsored induction of Guerrillas Code named. 'GIBRALTAR' in July-August 1965.

2) The Practical Causes of war. This is the catalyst igniting the fuse and normally originates from the complexities of human nature, its ambitions, aspirations, animosities and irrationalities.

INDIAN STRATEGISTS FORECAST WAR AGAINST PAKISTAN: For the unwary people at home who still think that India's massive arms build-up is meant purely for enlightened self-interest of deterring aggression against her borders we quote one of India's well known strategic thinkers, Subramaniam, as quoted by G.S. Bhargava in Adelphi papers (No. 125).

'That war may break out with Pakistan under any of the following contingencies:

a) Pakistan may try to destabilise the situation in Kashmir.

b) Any of the internal problems of Pakistan may deteriorate ......... into a war.' In simple terms, Subramanism is urging India to attack Pakistan.

Equally serious are the provocating observations of Major General Palit (author of 'Essentials of Military knowledge' and a former Director General Operations, Indian Army) carried by Hindustan Times, stating that no detente in any meaningful context is possible without, first resolving the main source of conflict, the Kashmir problem. Enumerates Palit that:

First priority will clearly have to be awarded to the main source of conflict-the Kashmir problem. Vast areas of that state were forcibly occupied by Pakistan. All of India's efforts in the past to offer compromise formulas for the settlement have been spurned by Pakistan. No other field of accord between the two countries can lead to a lasting detente unless they (Pakistan) can come to an agreement over Kashmir.

Palit's comment that Pakistan can come to an agreement (only), is a euphemism for a defeated Pakistan, accepting Indian dictate. The conclusion emerging from preceding analysis is: That all three causes of war exist between the two sovereign states of Pakistan and India as we enter the last decade of the twentieth century. Indeed, twice during the last five years India marshalled its military might to attack Pakistan. In winter 1986 - 87 under code name 'Brass Tacks' and 'fourteen division raid', planned in 1988, to eliminate the so - called Pakistan bases in Punjab and Azad Kashmir where India alleged that Sikh and other 'terrorists' were being trained ! Russia and USA prevailed upon Rajiv Gandhi to reign in his ambitious Chief of Staff General Sunderji in 1987. The 14 divisions raid planned by India in 1988 was called off at the last moment on direct intervention of President Reagan as revealed by Indian Defence analyst Ravi Rikhi, author of the Fourth Round in the Chandi garh based 'Tribune' February 18, 1990

Independent observers are of the considered opinion that in 1991 India is even better placed to initiate aggression against Pakistan. Five reasons are advanced to support this viewpoint.

Firstly, by purchasing 17.3 billion dollar worth of military hardware, more than any country in the world, between 1985-89, Indian programming for rearming and restructuring of their forces has been completed. 'Military might and not economic development is key to world power, Stated Admiral J.G. Nadkarni, India's Naval Chief of Staff. India's current estimated might: 14 million strong Army 4th largest in the world after USSR, USA and China. IAF comprising 1000 combat and support planes, 3rd biggest fleet in the world after USSR, USA - Blue water navy: 2 A.C Carriers, with vertical take off Herrier Jets and 140 Warships - including two nuclear powered Submarines. The strength of Indian Fleet given here is taken from Admiral Nadkarni's Press statement carried by International Media on December 9, 1990.

Secondly, defeat Pakistan before it has developed its nuclear deterrent.

Thirdly, Indian Army has regrouped after disengagement from the Ceylonese cauldron.

Fourthly, another compelling reason for attack under consideration by Indian chauvinists and military adventurers could be its internal turmoil in Assam, Punjab, Indian held Kashmir, massacre of the helpless, but protesting Muslim community all over India, and to top it all, the demand of fifty per cent downtrodden Indians, for equal social, economic and political rights denied to them from the mists of history by the Brahmin creed, i.e., the Mandel Report factor! History is replete with examples when aggression had been committed as a last course to curb turmoil and silence dissent within the country.

Fifthly, perhaps the most overriding consideration in the minds of Indian Hawks could be to pre-empt and prevent Pakistan developing concept of strategic consensus with Afghanistan and Iran in economic, foreign affairs and defence fields into a geo-political reality, in harmony with the shared past and in answering the call of destiny.

STRATEGY OF DEFENCE AND ITS CHANGING CONTENT: Having analysed the causes and the source of threat to the very existence of Pakistan, let us examine the strategy of defence and its changing content. The modern concept of military strategy as a science did not develop overnight. Man goes from experiment to theory in his study of the universe.

As military experience accumulated and factors in military history could be compared, people began to arrive at conclusions concerning certain recurring phenomenons of war; they began to generalise and formulate certain rules and principles. Initially these generalisations did not take any definite form.

The first attempts to systematise accumulated military experience occurred in the fifth century, A.D.. The military thinkers of the Far East Confucius, Sun Tzu, and Wu Tzu laid down fundamental concepts and principles of war, the law, or the development of unity between the leader and the nation, the heaven, i.e. the accounting for the time factors, the earth or the geographic conditions of the theatre of war, and finally the skill of commander.

At approximately the same time, in both ancient Rome and Greece, there appeared the first military works touching on questions of strategy. (the word strategy comes from the Greek strategic, which means a 'general' or 'leader of troops'. These works include Instructions to Generals by Olisander and a Short Course in the Principles of Military Art by Vegetius. Even though these treatises dealt mainly with the training of troops and with tactics, they devoted some space to the art of war per se.

Until the sixteenth century, little more was contributed to the formulation and developments of military strategy as a science. But in the beginning of the sixteenth century. The Italian, Machiavelli, made a serious attempt to discuss the ideas relevant to the conduct of war. Based on the experience of the classical generals, he wrote his, 'On the Art of War'. In this treatise in the forms of a dialogue, he made recommendations on the organisation and principles of a national militia to replace an army of paid professionals. The main principles of Machiavelli's ideas on military reforms can be easily deduced from these criticisms of the previous system, he advocated an army of soldiers formed on the basis of general conscription. Such military organisation, however, would necessitate political reforms. It could be successful only if accompanied by a new spirit, people who rule themselves will be most willing to fight for themselves; there in an affinity between democracy.

Briefly and in language understood by students of the art of war strategy involved movement and disposition of forces, seeking to overwhelm the enemy on the battlefield, at the time and place chosen by the formulators of the strategic plan of war. In nineteenth and twentieth centuries, strategy inducted the naval and air-force element in its consideration just as in our time the nuclear weapon system and space defence concepts like the S.D. I have become an integral part in the formulation of the strategic concepts, expanding its definition far beyond its original military meaning. Military factors have now become inseparable from the non-military elements in the planning and execution of war: what is more important, in the securing of peace terms and the geo-political design of the region for which wars are fought.

The planners of modern strategy thus find its imperative to include, adjust, correlate political, economic, technological, psychological and above all ideological factors alongwith purely military elements in the formulation of strategic concepts for application with equal effectiveness to the posture of peace and war. The term strategy therefore should be understood as part of understanding and the employing all elements of the power of nation of coalition of nations to accomplish their objective in peace and war.

There is therefore no such thing as a purely military strategy, as consideration of an integration of moral, spiritual, psychological, economic, political, social, factors with purely military factor become an all important and embracing imperative. This modern explanation of all elements of State power fully blends with the Quranic concept of Jehad.

JEHAD: Jehad, the Quranic concept of total strategy, demands the preparation and application of total national power and military instrument is one of its elements. In its wider meaning Jehad embraces the entire conduct of human behaviour. It is in short the consequence of national policies or lack of them as war challenges every institution of the society the social justice and equity of its economic system, the robustness of its political institutions independence of judiciary the adequacy and energy of the country's economy to meet the demand of the sharp edge of the battlefield as well as iron in the spiritual spine of its citizens.

Al-Quran commands the Muslims to wage war with the spirit of a religious duty and moral obligation. 'Fighting is prescribed for ye and ye dislike it but it is possible that ye dislike a thing which is good for you and that ye love a thing which is bad for you. But Allah knoweth, and ye know not', this Quranic injunction adds new facts and depths to the concept of a 'Total War' by Millat at Arms; i.e. , Jehad being waged by the entire Nation.

DEFENCE IMPERATIVE OF THE NATION OF ARMS 'CASUALTIES IN MODERN WARS': Nobody advocates war, certainly not he who has ever been in one. But wars once begun, casualties both to civilians and military personnel must be expected. It is in this perspective that a professional cadre shows its extreme weakness and limitations. e.g., on the first day of the British offensive on the same front in France, 1916, there were 60,000 casualties. The Russians in World War II lost over 6,00,000 prisoners to the Germans, in one battle alone. With a population of nearly 12 million in 1914, Turkey had developed defence capability that took on Russia and the Western maritime nations for four years in spite of suffering huge territorial losses (Hijaz, Sinai, Palestine, Iraq and Syria, including Lebanon) and heavy casualties - Gallipoli 2,50,000 dead. Third Turkish Army of Caucasus 1,00,000 dead. In the war in Vietnam the number of North Vietnamese dead (soldiers) was over 9,26,000. We should ponder these figures and consider the price a nation has to pay when it fights for what it holds dear.' Compare these figures with Pakistan troops casualties in both wings of Pakistan from March to December, 1971. These were 'two thousand six hundred and ninety eight'. These figures of Pakistanis Shaheeds are taken from Major General Fazle Muqeem's book, 'Crisis in Pakistan's Leadership', a former. G.O.C East Pakistan, Director General Military Training and Secretary General Defence.

The point that emerges is: Could the British Army, had it depended in its professional cadre alone, continued to battle month after month, year after year, suffering crippling losses in dead, wounded and prisoners in the two World Wars? No, not a chance. One surrender like that of KUT in the World War I; or Singapore in World War II; one major reverse like that of defeated retreat from Norway, France, or loss of Malaya, Burma, East Africa, etc., and the British would have surrendered. Who carried on the fight? The British citizen's - army the entire nation, in fact.

The same is true of the Russians. Even more so, imagine losing 6,00,000 armed personnel as prisoners in one battle and continuing the War! In that battle, the Russians lost over a quarter million in dead and wounded. Who carried on the fight against the finest war machine the world had witnessed commended by military genius of the calibre of Runstedt, Guderian, Rommel, Von Kluge, Model, Meinstein, to name just a few. The Russian People Armed Forces did. The Russian nation did: Russian total casualties in the Second World War? Over twenty million! Compare these figures with 2033 Pakistani casualties (dead) during September war 1965. This figure is given by General K. M. Arif in an article carried by 'Dawn' September 6, 1990.

MILLAT AT ARMS AND STRATEGIC DEFIANCE THE ONLY ALTERNATIVE: It is about time that our thinkers and writers of defence matters display depth of knowledge, incisive deduction as Pakistan has grievously suffered in this field in the past. We have to get out of the British Indian colonial military heritage and opt for the concept of the Millat at Arms and the Strategic Defiance. Let us, therefore first decide against who we are to fight, what is to be defended? Who is to defend what and where does the centre of gravity of defence of Pakistan is enshrined?

WAR AND CENTRE OF GRAVITY: In depth study of history informs us that, the centre of gravity of defence is differently placed, at different times, in different societies, in different conflicts. Circumstances may at times place this 'centre' in the armed forces - as was the case with the Marhattas who were eventually bled to death on the battlefield of Panipat under the hammer blows of the great Abdali and his Indian Muslim contingents of Oudh Rohillas, Syeds of Barha, Punjabis (under Kharal) Pathan and the Baluch contingents. Within the armed forces, at times the 'centre of gravity' may be their Commander - Hannibal, Napoleon, or Hitler. Please note that Germany did not surrender till Hitler had committed suicide. Similarly Punic Wars of Hannibal period and Napoleonic Wars only came to end after Hannibal was defeated at Zama (B.C.202), and Napoleon at Waterloo - 1815. Sometimes, this centre is to be found in a city - Rome - during the days of the Roman Empire. Or Jerusalem during the Crusade Wars. The Crusade wars, seven in numbers, spread between 1077-1241, were ideological conflicts.

If the country is divided by civil dissension, the centre of gravity may lie in the Capital city-Madrid during the Spanish Civil War, Dacca in 1971 etc. In wars of coalition the 'centre' normally lies in the strongest of the Allies - Germany among the Axis Powers in the two world wars.

Study of military history further points centre of gravity resting, at times with a specific arms of the defence services, e.g., Infantry Phalanx of the Greeks, the Roman Legion, Cavalry of the Mongols, highly motivated and disciplined musket-bearing Jannisarsgs of Ottomans, Naval Power of Great Britain. During the Second World War the centre of gravity shifted to the Blitzkrieg a deadly combination of mechanised forces supported by the Air power. In fact it was the air power's supremacy used strategically as well as in close support of land and sea battles that witnessed the rise and fall of Axis powers in World War II. At sea, the Japanese having destroyed the Naval might of the USA at Pearl harbour and after sinking of British battleships Prince of Wales and Repulse in the Strait of Malaaca, ruled supreme in the vast region of Pacific and Indian Oceans, till the USA through Naval Air actions crippled the Japanese Navy and its air support for the duration of war, in the Battles of Midway etc.

By the time Second World War came to an end, atomic bomb had become the arbitrator of the field of battle. Japan surrendered after the Americans dropped the second atomic bomb on Nagasaki. The nuclear race had begun, USSR soon broke the American monopoly. UK., France, China joined the nuclear club in quick succession. Besides the countries mentioned, Israel reportedly possesses over one hundred nuclear warheads. Bharat tested an atomic device at Pokharan in 1974 and is credited to possess thirty or so atomic warheads with delivery system.

DEDUCTION: We conclude this section of the study by reverting to the ideological aspect of war, where the centre of gravity lies in the public opinion of opposing adversaries. In such a case 'Idea' fights 'Idea' and 'Principle' crosses sword with 'Principle'. A war of this nature is an ideological war in which the superior ideology given dedicated mass support, favourable terrain conditions, sustained political-cum-material support from the outside world, as illustrated in the wars of Liberation of Algeria, Vietnam and recently Afghanistan and the defeat of Western aggression again and again during over two centuries of Crusades.

The 'centre of gravity' for centuries during the Crusade wars rested in a city - Jerusalem. That city would be won and lost and won again. The threat now posed to Pakistan is not to a particular city of Pakistan nor to the armed forces alone. Let it never be forgotten that in 1971 when Pakistan lost more than half of the country, its powerful military machine deployed in West Pakistan on, south-eastern border was never seriously tested in battle and emerged virtually unscathed. The war staring in our face is not for the territorial conquest but conquest of the mind of the Pakistanis, for establishing ideological superiority of Indian secularism. This so called Indian secularism, is a clever disguise for the Brahmin Imperialism. In this coming battle, therefore, the responsibility of defending the country's geographical and ideological frontiers should rest with us all - the civil and military both. Who put up that heroic and sustained resistance in Afghanistan against the Russian Goliath? The Davids; i.e., the people of Afghanistan. The people ... the people ... the people.

DEDUCTION SO FAR: Clearly emerging from the preceding analysis is: That the centre of gravity of defence of Pakistan lies in the will of every single individual citizen, in the fortress mind of every Pakistani to resist aggression. In the field of weapon system the answer to aggression is rooted in the nuclear deterrent. N. P. T. should only be signed by the Government of Pakistan if India is also a signatory - and agrees to destroy its nuclear warhead under U.N. supervision. If Pakistan has already declared so, test the nuclear device and share the technology with our friends - Iranis to begin with, and in richness of time with Afghanistan and Turkey the countries, who should follow the dictate of history, culture, harmony of faith and geography as well as call of the future destiny, by developing strategic consensus in spheres of Defence, Foreign Affairs and Commerce.

NATIONAL ORGANISATIONAL STRUCTURE TO MEET THE TOTAL THREAT: In this section of the Paper three aspects are briefly touched: the defence planning and policy making organisation at the highest administrative level, reformation and reorganisation of Joint Chief of Staff and three services HQ's; mobilisation of manpower resources of the nation in implementing 'Millat at Arms' concept, or the Strategic Defiance, to put it in General Mirza Aslam Beg's words. But I prefer 'Millat at Arms' content of Jehad philosophy.

First: For the highest defence coordination, the Turkish constitutional pattern is presented for serious examination and adoption. What is the Turkish model?

The Turkish law provides for a National Security Council, composed of the Prime Minister, the Chief of Turkish General Staff, the Ministers of Defence, interior and foreign affairs, Commanders of the Army, Navy, Air Force and the gendarme-under Chairmanship of the President.

All decisions of the NSC are submitted to the Council of Ministers. NSC takes decisions 'concerning the measures that it deems necessary for the preservation of the existence and independence of the state, integrity of the country, and peace and security of the society'. In our case the composition should logically be: Chairman - the President of Pakistan: Members: the Prime Minister, Defence, Foreign Affairs, Interior and Finance Ministers. The services are to be represented by the Chief of Joint Services Staff: Heads of three services and Director General of the I.S.I. and the Defence Secretary - a total of 12 members - including the Chairman.

Second: Presently we have a Joint Chiefs of Staff system in which each service head wears two hats. He is a member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and also head of his own service. Because of this, the Joint Chiefs of Staff system has to suffer to a large extent. Then we have, large headquarters for each service; General Headquarters, Naval Headquarters, Air Headquarters. Each controls its own service and also carries out certain government functions, alongside, we have various directorates in the Ministry of Defence led and manned mostly by uniformed personnel not entirely integrated into command channels but otherwise in the Defence Ministry. This area should be tied up for greater efficiency.

It is proposed that the Joint Chiefs of Staff Organisation should be manned permanently by a member from each service who will also represent his service in the NSC under a separate Chairman. This organisation would have under its control a Joint Planning and Operation Staff, a Joint Intelligence, a Joint Logistical Staff. All those directorates presently manned by uniformed personnel would be placed under one or other of the Joint Staffs. The Joint Chiefs of Staff must report directly to the National Security Council.

It is further proposed that for Pakistan, which can ill afford large headquarters staffs, General Headquarters, Naval Headquarters and Air Headquarters should all be eliminated, and the Joint Chief of Staff should deal directly with land, sea and air operational commands whether joint or of a single service. A separate joint base command may also be required to look after training, logistics and administration behind the zones of the operational commands. This is a long overdue reform, which would go a long way in developing an integrated force structure for the Pakistan's Defence Forces.

Third: (Millat at Arms) Iraq with less than two billion population had mustered a million strong army. Iran with 4.5 billion mass can field a force of well over two million Artish (professional Army cadre) Pasdaarans and Baseech. In a Teheran Datelined 28th September, 1980 dispatch, the Guardian informed its readers that, at Khorramshahr and Ababdan, there are numerous children taking part in the fighting, often besides their fathers. One of them, aged 14 proudly told and showed the Journalists, how he destroyed an enemy tank by throwing two Molotov cocktails'.

Israel with hardly four million population, out of which one fourth are non - Jews, can mobilise within three to four days, an integrated, well trained and motivated defence cadre of over 7 lakh soldiers, sailors and airmen. Its peace time content is limited to 1,41,000 personnel; and even out of which 1,10,000 are conscripts.

In this regard it is worthwhile taking note of the figures of certain European countries, which may help in evaluating the need of having a comparatively smaller standing army as against a large territorial force, the National Guards of Pakistan. Switzerland with slightly less than 8 million people, can mobilise 825,000 troops in 48 hours: Sweden with roughly the same population can mobilise 750,000 troops within 72 hours. On the other hand, Britain and France have armed forces of 327,000 and 476,000 respectively.

This brings us to recommend a comparatively smaller standing army, within the resources and security needs of our country, by introducing compulsory military service for 18 to 24 months, for our young citizens with 4 to 6 weeks annual or biannual training, thus creating vast defence deterrent in the shape of National Guards - the Iranian equivalent of Paasdarans but unlike, Iran, the National Guards formations remain part of Pakistan Army structure. The National Guards, of the proposed concept, are to be organised on regional basis. This will provide economical and effective reserve and, most importantly, involve the common man in the defence of his homeland, promoting national unity and giving the smaller provinces a greater stake and role in the defence of the country. In the concept, the regular army would constitute the Force of Manoeuvre while the National Guards divisions play the holding role.

CONCLUSION OF THE STUDY: For the Muslims, National military service has deep historical connections: Starting from Battle of Badr. Even after 1500 years the concept of National Military Service illustrates the concept of Musawat where the rich and middle class citizens would have shoulders with peasant and workers on equal footing to safeguard integrity of Pakistani Millat. In short, peace at home through involvement of the people in the decision making process at all levels; eliminating the void between Pakistani citizens - in particular the citizens of minority provinces and minority communities. No amount of military strength can substitute political stability: Only a stable polity pursuing social and economic justice can ensure that the centre of gravity of the Defence of Pakistan, would be the fortress-mind of every Pakistani, men and women, old and young, fighting alongside with the professional cadre of the nation's defence forces. This is the lesson of history, ancient and current from Algeria to Vietnam, from Lebanon to Afghanistan from Iran to Iraq, development of nuclear deterrent along with strategic consensus between Pakistan, Afghanistan and Iran should be pursued as a national and moral obligation, Relations with China the faithful ally, should be appreciated, reciprocated and strengthened keeping the doors wide open for China to join the Trio forming the strategic consensus. Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iran.This shall be the beginning of the emergence of the Fourth World.

THE MADNESS: 'Life long observation has convinced me that there is a STREAK OF INSANITY IN THE HINDUS and that nobody will (SHOULD) arrive at a correct appraisement of Hindu private and public behaviour on the supposition that they have a normal personality. This madness lurks within their ordinary workday self like a monomania ... defined in psychiatrist's terms ... 'partly dementia praecox and partly paranoia ... It is continuous and permanent and cannot be expected to pass off as the German and Japanese madness had done'.

(Nirad Chaudhry, the celebrated author of 'The Continent of Circe'.)

THE SOLUTION - ONLY SOLUTION: 'Oye who believe What is the matter with you, then, ye are asked to go forth (to fight) in the case of Allah, ye cling heavily to the earth? .. But little is the comfort of this life, as compared with the Hereafter. Unless ye go forth (to fight). He will punish you with a grievous penalty, and put others in your place ...