Dated: November 10, 1998

Dear Editor,

By resurrecting the Defence Journal you have given the field of military history a new life whether it is a highly balanced article by Brig ZA or a highly subjective and self-glorifying article by a troop leader! There are certain observations pertaining to the article by Col Qayyum. I do not know the Colonel directly but old eleven subalterns of his co days remember him as a sadist as all eleven cavalry cos are supposed to be by force of tradition. A close relative who was a cadet captain in Hasanabdal (though later detaped by Catchpole) found him inspiring. The article on Zia was thought-provoking and a little more forthright than any other article on Zia. One observation comparing Zia was however unfair although quoted by the author as views of another friend. Since it is history so the record has to be put straight. Ranjit recovered 8 guns in 1799 from River Jhelum and sent them to Kabul; the ruler was not Ahmed Shah Abdali but Shah Zaman. The comparison with Zia is unfair since Bhutto never requested Zia to recover the Chivas glass; on the contrary Shah Zaman requested Ranjit to take care of his guns since he had to call off his invasion of India and proceed in emergent circumstances back to Afghanistan. He promised Ranjit the title to Administer Lahore on Shah Zaman's behalf if he took care of Shah Zaman's guns. Ranjit kept the promise recovered 8 out of 12 guns and sent them to Kabul. Four were recovered later in 1822-23 and kept in Lahore since Shah Zaman was no longer the king. Ranjit was a much greater man than Zia; a born soldier who fought battles and ejected the Afghans who were cursed by Mir Taqi Mir for looting the muslims of Delhi in the period 1757 to 1761. He created an army which was the toughest opponent of the British in India or Afghanistan. Mind you in the retreat from Kabul there were just about 600 white soldiers and about 4,500 Indians while at Chillianwala where the Sikh army defeated Hugh Gough there were four British infantry regiments well fed with full artillery (unlike Afghanistan where they were on quarter rations for four months) and supported by twelve sepoy regts and two brigades of cavalry. To compare Ranjit the soldier who fought battles and created a state without CIA stingers or aid to silent soldiers who silently created business empires, is unfair as far as Zia is concerned. The soldier who had no war record! During whose time the Indians came 35 miles inside Siachen without the ISI headed by the silent soldier or the MI headed by the visionary soldier or the FCNA headed by an Armchair SSG officer finding out! A supreme intelligence failure for which our army to this day is paying the unnecessary price.

Col Qayyum did not say anything about Zia's orders to officers' wives to line up in the fort colony to greet PM Bhutto. Only one officer captain Kausar from eme refused and he was sent home! Who can forget a Bara Khana where a speech was made; Allah Taallah ney Pakistan ko bohat niamtain dee hain; Lekin sub sey baree naimat wazeerazam Bhutto Sahab hain; Ab mein Zulfiqar ko Zulfiqar paish karta houn'.

Bhutto was not an angel but he was essentially a man introduced by the army rulers of Ayub's time; Zia we got courtesy Mr Bhutto who was following the goof selection syndrome! There is little of any good in most leaders who ruled us. The army, the civil servants and the politicians all played their part in destroying democracy. Saying that Zia was a benevolent despot is no consolation; he had no business to be there at all; just like Mr. Bhutto who had no business to be there at all but was thrust upon us by Iskandar Mirza and Ayub.

The plus side of your journal is freedom of thought but the minus side is your undue projection of Mr. Nawaz Sharif; a journal of your stature should be above political grouping.

Kind regards

A.H. AMIN