Talk:Military of Pakistan

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Removed the following POV statements:

However, they are brutal, commit human rights violations, and are susceptible to coups. In 1971, according to some estimates, they executed over 3 million bangladeshis(this is comparable to Hitler's 6 million). Also, the country has been ruled by the military for the majority of the time that it has been an independent country. The current ruler of Pakistan, Pervez Musharaf, seized power in a coup and is currently the military dictator of Pakistan.

Some of these can be refactored back into the main article. The accusation of human rights violations, etc., should be attributed (e.g., "India accuses the Pakistani military of committing human rights violations..."). —seav 01:55 21 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Can someone remove the Nazi flag from these pages!!! THANK YOU!

THANKS A LOT!!!!!!!!

Contents 1 Recent edits 2 Response 3 Major Editing 3.1 Further editing proposals 4 Proposed structure 5 Marines

[edit] Recent edits

This article seems to be the target of POV edits in favor of Pakistani nationalism. Unfortunately, the links provided do not seem to discuss the topics referenced (meaning that the claims are apparently unsourced) so I reverted. siafu 21:54, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Response

I didn't originally write the sentence in question, so I'm nto exactly married to the wording. However, the sources I was able to come up with just by searching the BBC website do seem to indicate that the Pakistani military has recently been targeting civilians as part of their support for Bush's war on terror. [1], [2] The original edit, which as far as I'm able to tell was placed here, seems to be exclusively in reference to Balochistan, but much of what I'm finding is in reference to Waziristan; here's another on that subject from Amnesty International. siafu 03:53, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Which is why the "brutal" human rights violations is POV ,serious human rights violations probably have been made and duely noted but not against a whole province and/or an ethnic group.Plus the operations mentioned were small scale in Balochistan hence dont even suffice a mention here unlike Operations in Waziristan which are still ongoing but have been left out of the article.The human rights abuses here sholud be carefully reworded if the overall view of the editors is that there is lack of such evidence.--Raju1 06:59, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The "brutal" is in reference to the massacre in Bangladesh. For that, there is ample evidence. siafu 14:00, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

No its not the sentence reads as follows:Recently the army has been engaging in similar human rights violations in Balochistan. The Army of Pakistan's Operation 2005, as reported by the BBC is one of the most brutal in recent years by any country.

Which is obviously taken out of context and not supported.--PrinceA 00:01, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Major Editing

I have made several major edits to the article including removing/rewording controversial material, adding some information, grammar editting and designating special headings for article layout. Personally, I think the article is approaching good encyclopedia standards and the neturality tag is not needed as I have reworded, removed or given counter points to much of the unverifiable and unfactual information. Hopefully this dispute is resolved now. Please tell me what you guys think about these edits. Thanks.--Anonymous editor 01:19, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)

Yes thank you for your participation.I believe its much much better than before and all parties concerned have their view points in the article.So Good job.Thank you!--PrinceA 03:48, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment. Well I'm satisfied. :)--Anonymous editor 03:50, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)

made some edits , in the previous version it seemed like the indians have done nothing & its the pakastinis that have made "the bomb" & "the missiles" for no reasons . For Bangladest U can read any new books by the generals & solders at that time . Farhansher 04:27, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The reference to "Indian agents" is quite dubious. Please refer to the book "Witness to Surrender" by Major Siddique Salique, who was the PR officer of Pakistan Army and was posted in Dhaka to aid General Niaji, Tikka Khan and Rao Forman Ali. It's quite an interesting book, where Salique discusses the war from the eye of a Pakistani Army officer, one related closely to the top command. It has quite detailed references to Operation Searchlight. Here are some more references on the topic:

• Source 1: [United States Library of Congress: Country Studies - Bangladesh. More specifically, please refer to the section on [The War for Bangladeshi Independence, 1971], and [The Liberation War].
• Source 2: [BBC Country Profile: Bangladesh]
• Source 3: [The India-Pakistan War Of 1971: A Modern War], by KYLE, R.G., Major, Royal Canadian Artillery, Marine Corps Command and Staff College.

Surely, the independence of Bangladesh was India's benefit, and they supplied Mukti Bahini with arms and help to fight the Pakistan Army. But to say the massacres of Bengalis by Indians is quite a distortion of history. I do understand that the war was unfortunate, and resulted in bad decision in part of the Pakistan Army and some politicians, but denying the massacre of 1 million to 3 million people is quite a big distortion. The number 3 million is disputed, but that's the official Government of Bangladesh figure. Other credible sources put the number to at least 1 million to 1.5 million. Here is a good link to many different sources for the number of dead. --Ragib 05:01, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Okay. I edited some things and also reworded the allegation ("Indian agents") because we should try to avoid POV. I also want to find some sources for the rest of the material here. Ragib, feel free to add what you said to the article (India benefit thing). Thanks. --Anonymous editor 04:37, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Further editing proposals

User:Farhansher, please don't get me wrong, I do not intend to vilify the Pakistan army beyond reasonable doubt here, and I'd definitely like to remove POV from the article. The issue about the 1971 atrocities belong to Pakistani Civil War a.k.a. Bangladesh Liberation War. However, the sentence that "Indian agents added hatred in East Pakistani's against West Pakistani's" is again somewhat of an overstatement. I am not pushing for putting a huge detailed list of allegation/counter allegation here, as it is not the place for that sort of discussion. But please do not attribute the 1971 war on "Agents", there are more complex socio-economic history behind that. I do propose a major rewrite of the article, which currently looks quite messy. Here is my proposed structure:

• History
• Structure
  • Detailed structure (units, brigades, headquarters)
• Rank Structure
• Equipment
  • Details on equipment
• Major conflicts
  • Indo-Pakistan war of 1948 (brief detail, with link to the article on the war)
  • Indo-Pakistan war of 1965 (brief detail, with link to article)
  • Pakistani Civil War (brief detail, with links to article)
  • Indo-Pakistan war of 1971 (brief detail, with links to article)
• Peacetime activities
• Political links
• See also
• External links

How does this sound? --Ragib 05:34, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

NO hard feelings man , I am searching for the sources right now . Actually I have read a lot of these things ( what I added to the article...the generals' claims )in Daily Dawn & Daily Jung & seen them on local media , but as I can see uptil now , resources are scarce on the net . So feel free to undo what U like . Farhansher 05:46, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Overall, I like your idea about the organization of the layout greatly. I think very brief info should be given on the major conflicts (like you said). Here is my proposal of the structure below. Please note the changes and tell me what you think. Thanks. --Anonymous editor 05:56, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)

Introduction (keep similar to what it already is) Structure (Vital information about organization) Detailed structure (units, brigades, headquarters, includes rank structure) Facts section (keep similar to what it already is) Equipment Details on equipment (very brief) Major conflicts Indo-Pakistan war of 1948 (brief detail, with link to the article on the war) Indo-Pakistan war of 1965 (brief detail, with link to article) Pakistani Civil War (brief detail, with links to article) + including the allegation of agent involvement and sources given Indo-Pakistan war of 1971 (brief detail, with links to article) Peacetime activities (Mainly Africa peacekeeping: Rwanda Genocide, Cote d'Ivoire, Bosnia, etc.) Recent Issues "War on Terrorism" and its controversy See also External links

Well sounds very good . Although peace time activities can also include brief describtion of other events , like bosnia etc .Farhansher 06:03, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Ofcourse. There we go, I added that to the proposal. Thanks. --Anonymous editor 06:05, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)

Sounds good. I'd just say that for the war, we should focus on the facts of the war, not causes/effects etc. For example, in the Bangladesh Liberation war/Pakistan Civil war part, we can mention the start, the number of army/navy/airforce deployed, locations, major battles, who was in charge, number of fatalities (again, not focusing on allegations/counter allegations of massacre/indian agent provocation etc)/outcome etc. This would be definitely a way to stick to facts rather than pass our own judgements on who started the war and who provoked it. A possible wording may be that "Military of Pakistan was involved in the Pakistan Civil war between March 25 and December 16, 1971. It was an armed conflict between the military and the East Pakistani dissidents, rebel factions of East Pakistani members of Army, guerrilla force called Mukti Bahini. Total number of personnel deployed was (90k??). Major battles took place in x,y,z. Total civilian fatality is claimed to be officially 3 million by Bangladesh Govt, but some other sources put the number to between 1 million to 3 million. Military command was headed by Tikka Khan, later replaced by Gen Niazi. The later part of the war between Dec 3 and Dec 16 overlaps with Indo-Pak war of 1971 (see below). The outcome was the surrender of Niaji to Muktibahini-Indian Army joint command on Dec 16 (see below)". By this type of wording, we can be brief, neutral, and also state the facts in a non-POV manner. How does this sound? --Ragib 06:13, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It's good. Lets start the editing. --Anonymous editor 20:11, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)

I have made several edits, improved and tidied up the page added pictures from other articles related to the Pakistan Military and listed the future plans of the Pakistan military Faraz 18:37, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed structure

I have a skeleton for the article at Military of Pakistan/Temp. Please check it out and start filling out the empty sections. Thanks. --Ragib 05:42, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

What do you think of my proposal, I think that the minor modifications I made to the layout might fit the info of this article a little better simply because of the type of info involved. Well anyways tell me what you think and then we can start implementing this the temp and eventually to the original. Thanks. --Anonymous editor 06:03, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Marines

I just got here; isn't there now a Pak Marine Corps?—iFaqeer (Talk to me!) 06:09, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)