Talk:7th Infantry Division (Pakistan)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
This article is part of WikiProject Pakistan which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Pakistan and Pakistan-related topics. This article is related to Military of Pakistan. For guidelines see WikiProject Pakistan and Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.

[edit] Division History

This unit inherited British division's assets and Muslim personnel on partition. However in order to do so, the British Army had disbanded it first under the Army Act of the Parliament of United Kingdom. The division was newly created by the Act of Pakistan's Parliament. Certainly it can not claim history of a British division before Pakistan existed as an independent state. The fact that it retained the formation sign legally means nothing.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 05:39, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Where was the division created?

First sentence says "The division was created on 1 October 1940 at Attock, in present-day Pakistan". In fact the division was, as all formations of the British Empire, first created 'on paper' as part of the India Army Order of Battle in London's War Office in 1939. Only much later was the formation of the division begun in the district of Campbellpur (Campbell town) when officers begun to be assigned to it, and subordinated units begun to arrive from all over India.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 11:59, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

So do you want to say that "The division was created on paper of the London's War Office in 1939" ? --SMS Talk 12:31, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Mrg, are you sure this particular division was authorised to be formed (a) in London, rather than in New Delhi? (b) in 1939 (and if so, what date) rather than sometime in 1940? Are you drawing from a source that describes the authorisation process for British Indian Army divisions in any detail? If so, could you point us towards it? Buckshot06 (talk) 21:51, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
I don't have a date, but I will. A few divisions were created on paper for recruiting when it looked like war was inevitable, and formation begun during the Phoney war. Army, Corps, division and brigade formation is not like combat units, but a long and boring administrative process of finding all the staff and personnel able to do the various specialist jobs, so training courses had to be created, etc. For the most part this could only be done in UK.
Initially the plans were drawn up for moving the Indian formations to Europe as they were during the First World War. However owing to the fall of France, and commencement of the North African campaign plans were changed. They were changed again in 1941/42 when it looked like Germany would advance into Iraq and Iran via the Caucasus, so the 10th Army (I think) was being readied for posible defence of India and operations in Iran, was removed from planning.
I don't have a source as such for this. I spent several hours at the RUSI library last week, and going by several sources one can get an idea what happened by what people wrote about that time. Part of being a historian is that one has to be able to think laterally and analyse diverse sources to "triangulate" the information where it is missing. For example, one doctor in the medical Corps ends up in a large military hospital where he meets his future wife working there as a nurse. She had arrived in August 1940 after completing a hurriedly put together course in Wales. The course was completed in less then six months. Do the maths. If she arrived in India in August 1940, she had spent about 3 months at sea. The course was about 6 months. Planning the course, recruiting students and setting it up with educators, facilities and equipment at most efficient would take a month. Decision to start the course came in late 1939. His wife was not the only one to be shipped to India from a course. In fact her entire class of 42 women was sent, and theirs was one of four courses (first). She was lucky though. Her best friend from the course was sent to a field hospital and found herself living in a plywood hut for a year. Now, the Indian garrisons have ample barracks, and more could be built, but this suggests the degree of urgency with which the formations were created, and the degree of indecision how they were going to be used. I found several books on India during SWW which were not explicitly about war, but provided interesting insights. A casual mention in a Corps service unit give a clue as to the time of the Corps formation, and can place the rest of the structure in a timeline. The biography of Auchinleck was interesting, and I may borrow it to read in full rather then from end of the war. In late 1946 he was still trying to convince the government in UK the decommissioning of the India Army was going to take five years, apparently oblivious of the political realities and Mountbatten's personality. In the end Mountbatten had to order him to set the process in motion in 1947.
However, this is not what convinced me. Firstly theatre planning was done by War Office, not Viceroy in India, or even GHQ India. This is strategic planning. Secondly, the scale of expansion required could not be satisfied from India in terms of officers. Even with all the Vice-regal commissions, and commissioning Indians, there were still shortages. The same shortages occurred after demob in Indian and Pakistani armies after 1947 requiring contracting British officers. How was India going to create formations on its own without officers? The only answer is that the officers had to come off various UK Lists not available to the GHQ India. A very large number could not be known because of Dunkirk and later Sealion planning. However, planning for operations in France begun in 1939, so that had to be a strategic plan that included theatres outside of Europe as happened in 1914-15.
In any case, the actual documents describing creation of the Order of Battle are in the Cabinet collection, and not unsurprisingly not available online. This is called real historical research as opposed to copying stuff from other people's research. Interestingly enough this would be original research, and original research takes about three to five years to get published. What Wikipedia calls "original research" are usually speculative personal theories in lieu of documented facts. For example lineage of Indiana and Pakistani units and formations is original research in Wikipedia sense because no documented proof exists that actually sources the process of this lineage continuity, its official approval in UK, the Crown, or the WO. However, I will get to the bottom of it; my contribution to myth busting.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 14:30, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
I think it is much better to change it like this "The division was raised on 1 October 1940 at .. ....". --SMS Talk 14:48, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
Couple of points. (1) I think that SMS is right, and pending Mrg's further investigations, I will change it to 'raised'. (2) The documents you speak of Mrg, the Cabinet collection, are probably held at the Public Record Office at Kew; I was lucky enough to make my first visit there last year (looking actually at the Turkish Army, among other things). However the Kew files are searchable online, and PRO maintains a list of researchers which can be contracted. However I've just realised it's probably been previously published - the Indian Army's official history of the Second World War would cover the raising process in some detail (though probably not too much). We probably can track the appropriate official history down; after that it's a matter of interloan. Addendum: there's at least a partial list of the Indian Army histories at http://www.lib.msu.edu/unsworth/genhist/ww2/ww2af.htm#india. Don't know quite where you are in Aussie Mrg but if you took that list to the library you interloan with, the volume on the expanision of the defence organisation might give the answer. Second Addendum: seems from your quotes from pp.225-227 of that volume that you've already found it Mrg. Backtrack and take a look at the front, I suppose... Cheers Buckshot06 (talk) 22:23, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
I was unaware that files are searchable online, but then it is not my area of speciality. The "Official History of the Indian Armed Forces in the Second World War, 1939-1945" as the name suggests covers history to 1945. The funny thing about this work is that India as a state did not exist at the time, and it is really an attempt to create history for the Indian Armed Forces of the post-republican period (1950). The expansion section deals with the 1940-41 period, and not the 1947. It documents the British organisational structure. I got my information from the hard copy at RUSI library.
The term raised has a specific meaning. It means to actually individual recruit troops into units. Officers are not raised, but commissioned. A division is not therefore not 'raised', but is formed by having raised units assigned to its commanding officer. This appalling lack of understanding in terminology pervades Wikipedia articles. A formation takes place on its assignment to the Order of Battle. The assignment is accompanied by the appointment of commanding officer and his Staff. The CO and Staff then deploy to field quarters (although they may be based in garrison), and wait for units to arrive. The units are deployed on arrival, or posted to their garrisons. All these require Movement Orders. The UK War Office could not issue Movement Orders to units not on its Order of Battle, and not commanded by its commissioned officers, so these were issued by the Indian and Pakistani officials on the AFRC. The point of ARFC was to divided the units on ethnic grounds and reconstitute them as mono-ethnic entities elsewhere. How the OOB was created was outside of its powers, and in the case of India, was in the power of the Indian Congress. Those files are inaccessible even if they still exist.
I will be in contact with people more able to generate research into the subject, but of course that would be original research!I think the whole thing of associating pre-1947 unit and formation history with post-1947 new states is bogus and nonsensical. The only transfer of forces possible is under constitutions of states union and not through division of a state into its constituent parts. --mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 02:51, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
(a)Mrg, the question I was focusing on was the instructions given on creation of the 7th Division in 1939 or 1940. What does this particular volume say about instructions given for creating new British Indian Army formations? War Office or Indian Army HQ? 1939 or 1940? Those sort of questions. (b) I'm a little cautious about accepting your thoughts on terminology because you previously seemed to imply that the appalling complex present U.S. terminology/procedures were in use by the British Army (forgive me if I've misinterpreted exactly what you were trying to say). Nowhere in my extensive reading on the subject have I ever found any evidence that the British Army use any kind of such complex terms. However, that's a bit of a side note. The actual question is the use of the term 'raised'. I've seen countless references to all sizes of formations being 'raised' in many sources. Where did you find this specific definition of the term? My caution is whether it applies to British/British Indian/Indian/Pakistani army units and formations in this time period. (c) I'm well aware that you consider the association of pre and post 47 history for these formations invalid. But I think we both clearly understand why we disagree: you believe (correct me if I haven't captured your thoughts exactly) that only the 'spiritual' history counts. Myself and others believe that the 'physical' non-change of station, personnel, equipment establishes a connection, a linkage, even if not a formal lineage. Is that a fair summation? Regards from over the Tasman, Buckshot06 (talk) 03:10, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Arbitary break

  • I didn't look at the volume discussing the creation of formations.
Well, that was your specific assertion; what does it say about the genesis of 7 Division, early in the volume? Does it confirm 1939 - that was the most surprising thing for me, rather than 1940?
  • However, I'm curious to know how you think its done - someone just says "I say old chap, why don't we make a new division over in that village"? You really must talk to some service personnel. Armed forces are huge bureaucracies, and everything is done with a lot of process and procedure attached. In the US the officers are moved from desk to field assignments every few years because there are never enough people to manage the administration.The British Empire forces used to be the largest in the World.
  • Are we talking about 'raised'?! Do you find this a complex term? You will have to go further back in history then Second World War to find its origins in the times when a contingent would be raised by feudal vassals to bring to the King's campaign.
No, I was not saying that. I was wondering whether you had a source saying 'It means ONLY to actually individual recruit troops into units.' applied to Br/Pak/Ind formations in this period - and nothing else.
  • The U.S. procedure is a simpler version because there is no Crown, and there is a Constitution.

I disagree. Only the United States does this:

'Activate. To bring into physical existence by assignment of personnel (from 1922-1959, and again after 1968). In 1922, "activate" replaced the term "organize." During the period 1959-1968, however, activate meant to place on the active list, available to be organized. See also "organize."

Assign. To place in a military organization, as a permanent element or component of that organization.

Attach. To place one military organization temporarily with another for operational control and other purposes, including administration and logistical support. An attached organization is one that is temporarily serving away from the establishment to which it is assigned. It is usually attached to another establishment.
Authorize. To designate an organization and place it on the inactive Army list. Used during the middle and late 1920s and early 1930s in place of "constitute," particularly for organizations held for an emergency and not scheduled for immediate activation.
Consolidate. To combine two (or more) organizations, merging their lineage into a single line, thereby forming a single organization. Organizations with concurrent or overlapping periods of activation cannot be consolidated.
Constitute. After 1922, to give an official name, or number and name, to an organization and place it on the inactive Army/Air Force List. See also "designate."
Demobilize. To withdraw all personnel from an active organization and remove the organization entirely from the Army List. Used 1907-1922. See also "disband."
Designate. To give an official name, or number and name, to an organization and place it on the inactive Army List, 1907-1922. After 1922, see "constitute." Also to give an official name, or number and name, to a nonconstituted organization.
Designation. The name of a unit or establishment. The designation includes all parts of the name: numerical, functional, and generic. A designation also applies to named activities and certain functions.
Disband. After 1922, to remove an inactive organization from the inactive Army/Air Force List. Shortly before and during World War II, this action was also used to withdraw all personnel from an active organization and simultaneously remove the organization from the Army List. Replaced the term "demobilize."
Discontinue. To withdraw all personnel from a constituted organization, used only during period, 1959-1968. See "inactivate."
Disestablish. To terminate an establishment concurrent with disbandment of its headquarters organization, until reestablished.
Establish. To assign a designation to an establishment concurrent with the designation or the constitution of the headquarters organization.
Establishment. A military organization at group or higher echelon composed of a headquarters organization and any other components that might be assigned. Personnel are not assigned to an establishment, but to its components.
Inactivate. To withdraw all personnel from a constituted organization and place the organization on the inactive list (from 1922 to 1959 and from 1968 to date). During the period 1959-1968, however, to be inactivated meant to be transferred from the active to the inactive list, after being discontinued.
Order to the Active Service. To place a Reserve or National Guard organization on active duty with the regular Air Force.
Organization. The term organization applies to units and establishments.
Organize. To assign personnel to a designated organization (1907-1922), a nonconstituted organization (1944-1968), or a constituted organization (1959-1968). See also "activate."
Reconstitute. To return a disbanded or demobilized organization to the inactive Army/Air Force List, making it available for activation (1922-current).
Redesignate. To change the designation of an organization.
Reestablish. To return a previously existing establishment from disestablished status to the active list, so that it can be activated.
Relieve from Active Duty. Reserve organizations are relieved from active duty with the regular Air Force upon completion of a period of active duty.' (USAF, in this case, History Support Office) The British Army and Royal Air Force don't get tied around the axle with this sort of stuff, or if they do, I haven't found evidence of it. Formed and disbanded is about the extent of the terminology, and they don't write volumes about what it each means.
  • Part of being an editor is the ability to discriminate between a good source and a bad one. If the author in the source uses words indiscriminately, it is probably not a good source.
  • The Indian and Pakistani Armies have never raised any units since they are, now, republics. They recruit, or conscript as required. During the Second World War UK had conscription although of course there were also volunteers. Those they inherited were volunteers.
  • I do not believe there is a spiritual anything to these formations. What I should have said maybe is the 'legislated organisational establishment' which is not attached to assets and personnel, i.e. non-corporeal. Spiritual seems a better term then 'legislative organisational establishment', but from now on I will use exact words since this avoids misinterpretation.
  • A "connection" or a "linkage" is not same as lineage. I have a connection with Ukraine, and with Soviet Union, but having never had the passports of either, I can not retroactively claim citizenship without going through the administrative process required by the laws of those countries (and successors of USSR) no matter if I speak the language, dress in the traditional clothing and profess my loyalties. Its just the fact of legislative requirements, and they are in every country. Your belief, and all others who think this way, is just your unfounded wishful thinking based on that of the Indian and Pakistani armies assumptions and myth-building practices.
Right, let me try again. I used 'spiritual' because that's the way you put it on your talk page. The core of our disagreement is that you believe that only 'legislative organisational establishment' can count. I believe that 'linkage' is enough - based on physical continuance. I've tried to say several times already on your talk page, maybe without being clear enough, that I am not claiming the lineage continues. That's a matter for the historical offices of the various armies involved, I'm no expert. Again, DO NOT BELIEVE that I am claiming a continuing lineage for 7 Indian Division -> 7 Pakistani Division, Rawalpindi. Cheers Buckshot06 (talk) 09:51, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 08:47, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

The US Army was substantially changed by the experience of 1917, and the post WWI World. The changes in 1920s may have reflected this.
I again repeat that no-one's beliefs are very useful here. I have no beliefs, but provided evidence, albeit not from primary sources, that there is no lineage.
"Linkage" means what, exactly? What is "physical continuance"? When does it cease? I dare say that none of the original personnel or equipment are any longer in service with the 7th Division.
Does it include the right to "link" the history of pre-1947 unit or formation with the post-1947 one? It is implicitly insinuating continuity, and therefore lineage. There is no sentence that says "THIS UNIT OR FORMATION IS NOT TO BE CONFUSED WITH THE UNIT OR FORMATION WITH A SIMILAR NAME xxx". In fact the 7th divisions were merged in one article, and the 7th Pakistani division had the pre-1947 history as part of its history even before AfD.
To me this can only men that one can make the Indian and Pakistani independent, but one can not take them out of the Empire. They choose to cling to the British Empire 60 years after the fact. I say, time to let go.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 23:34, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
My god Mrg you are still at it.58.65.163.248 (talk) 11:44, 31 March 2008 (UTC)