Generals — theirs and ours

[OrionHunter]

---

---

We had superior Generals like Manekshaw, JFR Jacaob and Jagjitsingh Arora

And later we had Generals like Gen Sundarjee whom the Chinese were terrified of. As Chief he warned them to back off and withdraw from the Somdorongchu Valley in Arunachal within 48 hours or face the dire consequences of what happened to them at Nathula in 1967 when more than 400 PLA soldiers were killed and scores of PLA artillery gun positions and pill boxes were destroyed by the Indian Army.

The result of that warning? The Chinese quietly withdrew without a whimper and requested for a flag meeting to sort out the issue in an amicable manner!! All that bravado, bluster and audacity of the PLA went totally missing!

In other words, a general should have the balls to stand up and be counted and take on an adversary however strong it may be.

Cheers!

[IND151]

And later we had Generals like Gen Sundarjee whom the Chinese were terrified of. As Chief he warned them to back off and withdraw from the Somdorongchu Valley in Arunachal within 48 hours or face the dire consequences of what happened to them at Nathula in 1967 when more than 400 PLA soldiers were killed and scores of PLA artillery gun positions and pill boxes were destroyed by the Indian Army.

The result of that warning? The Chinese quietly withdrew without a whimper and requested for a flag meeting to sort out the issue in an amicable manner!! All that bravado, bluster and audacity of the PLA went totally missing!

In other words, a general should have the balls to stand up and be counted and take on an adversary however strong it may be.

Cheers!

give link friend

[anoop]

ok off topic but i want to ask dose size (and geography) of nation plays any role in militrary takeover . for eg pakistan is small nation compared to india and thus it is possible to take control all over.same cannot be said about india because its not possible to take control over each part.figi is another eg which comes to my mind

[Ajaxpaul]

And later we had Generals like Gen Sundarjee whom the Chinese were terrified of. As Chief he warned them to back off and withdraw from the Somdorongchu Valley in Arunachal within 48 hours or face the dire consequences of what happened to them at Nathula in 1967 when more than 400 PLA soldiers were killed and scores of PLA artillery gun positions and pill boxes were destroyed by the Indian Army.

The result of that warning? The Chinese quietly withdrew without a whimper and requested for a flag meeting to sort out the issue in an amicable manner!! All that bravado, bluster and audacity of the PLA went totally missing!

In other words, a general should have the balls to stand up and be counted and take on an adversary however strong it may be.

Cheers!

Shhhhh....very less people know that...especially the chinese.

[hinduguy]

Hogwash. That and "lions led by lambs" BS is just a smokescreen to hide PA's inadequacies in the face of Pakistani public. That's what's known as "self-consolation".

Both Indian and Pakistani Generals rise through the commissioned officer ranks. Right? Basic training and other experiences are almost similar in both armies. Then how is that an Indian officer rising through the ranks gains experience and learns from it and goes on to become an accomplished General - a lion so to speak, while a similar officer rising through the ranks in PA slowly metamorphosizes into a "lamb"?

And idiotic is the public which buys into all this propaganda, hook, line & stinker!

Seeing how they allowed their soldiers to be used in kargil, it is more like lambs led by cowboys.

[Oscar]

Hogwash. That and "lions led by lambs" BS is just a smokescreen to hide PA's inadequacies in the face of Pakistani public. That's what's known as "self-consolation".

Both Indian and Pakistani Generals rise through the commissioned officer ranks. Right? Basic training and other experiences are almost similar in both armies. Then how is that an Indian officer rising through the ranks gains experience and learns from it and goes on to become an accomplished General - a lion so to speak, while a similar officer rising through the ranks in PA slowly metamorphosizes into a "lamb"?

And idiotic is the public which buys into all this propaganda, hook, line & stinker!

Perhaps the process is different.
One can comment all they want from behind tinted glasses.
You have to see it happen to say otherwise.

[Bhairava]

Whatever Hamid Gul says, believe the opposite.

That was a nice way of putting it...

[Bhairava]

Oh and the better soldiers is just like the other two...1 Pakistani = 10 Hindus and we have better pilots arguments.

[OrionHunter]

give link friend

Link to what?

[Roybot]

Am sorry but how exactly is a Pakistani soldier better than an Indian soldier?

[indushek]

I don't think there is much difference capabilities or any other wise between ours and theirs. Its just that the conditions faced are different like political and diplomatic etc etc.

[sachin@india]

Am sorry but how exactly is a Pakistani soldier better than an Indian soldier?

I'm also amazed...as history tell you the exact opposite.

[deckingraj]

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

I am in disagreement with most of the members who are posting in this thread...Seems like the notion is "A pakistani soldier is better than Indian one but when it comes to Generals we beat then hands down"...This is nothing but i big farce...Neither our generals are better nor soldiers...In fact there is no such thing!!!!

Like any Army we have mix of good and bad leaders...Same is true for soldiers....Some are exceptional, some are average, some are pathetic...Everything else constant what makes you win or loose the war is the strategy. Now chalking out a strategy and implementing it are two different ball games...And that is where India score better then Pakistan(If history is accounted in)....Let's closely monitor our wars....

71 war - India chalked out the strategy...Civilian govt. handled international community pretty well...Got Ruskies to back us and keep USA/China at bay....Military leadership gave us a handsome victory in just 16 days...Initially Army did not succumb to civilian pressure and took their desired time to prepare...Results are in front of us...


65 war - Pakistan Army chalked out a beautiful plan...A plan which was perfect on Paper...In fact it was so perfect that we almost lost J&K....However even though plan was perfect on Paper yet in limited context..In other words it was good from the perspective of J&K but simply ignored IA reaction in other fronts...How on this earth they missed that IA will chose to cross the border??? Also it simply ignore the geo-politics around it....

Kargil - This was mother of all blunders...However if you consider the plan on paper, it was again perfect...PA caught us pants down...We almost lost Siachen....But then again plan was audaciously stupid when we bring geo-politics and diplomacy into picture....Pakistan not only lost the war but lot of credibility as a responsible nuclear power...whereas India was praised for not overreacting and was termed as a responsible nuclear power....

Conclusion - I believe the roots of all this lies in extra power that PA enjoys viz-a-viz IA...Army is best when it works just as a war machine...Army to my mind is not really good when it comes to handling of geo-politics...You need lot of shrewdness and bravado is the last thing there...There are lot of counts which tell that after initial success in 71 IA was pressuring Indira Gandhi to give a go for destruction of PA in the western sector as well but she did not budge...which to me was a right move for obvious reasons...Imagine if IA had the same powers as PA, we would have been living in a differnt world!!!!

[sachin@india]

^^^^

You have messed up a lot by linking intelligence failures with Army's failure. Indian army has done all the jobs which are assigned to her in the most efficient manner except in 1962 which was a political Blunder.

Have you seen how many anti army articles written in Indian media ? How many people talk about army and do the army bashing ? why don't they do it ?

It is about professionalism and discipline. They do what they ask for. Their work in not to indulge in politics. they are not competent for that work.

[Bang Galore]

---

---

This "so called difference" between Indian & Pakistani Generals is simply an accident of history. India's first Prime Minister, Jawaharlal Nehru lived for 17 years after independence & Pakistan's leader Mr. Jinnah died shortly after Pakistan gained her independence. That simple chance of history was what separated Indian & Pakistani militaries, nothing else, neither their backgrounds nor their religion. By the time Nehru died, the Indian army & its Generals had been in their barracks for so long & had become accustomed to taking orders. Pakistani Generals & its polity never had that slice of luck. Jinnah's early death & a poor second line of political leadership meant that Pakistan suffered what was generally regarded as the norm - a military takeover. What happened in India was unique & different from the events that happened in almost all developing countries, Nehru's stature put India firmly on a different track. By the time he left the scene, the pattern had been firmly set & regardless of the quality of political leadership that was to come, the military had been firmly consigned to the barracks. Pakistan had the opposite experience & therefore has bred both a different type of military officers as well as a corresponding breed of politicians.