Talk:Military history of Pakistan

Military history of Pakistan is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination was archived. For older candidates, please check the archive.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
April 21, 2006	Peer review	Reviewed
February 3, 2007	Featured article candidate	Not promoted

Current status: Former featured article candidate

Military history: Asian / South Asia C‑class

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 a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

C

This article has been rated as C-class on the project's quality scale.

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Asian military history task force
	South Asian military history task force

Pakistan High‑importance

	Pakistan portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pakistan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pakistan on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PakistanWikipedia:WikiProject PakistanTemplate:WikiProject PakistanPakistan articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Pakistani history.

Missing

Where is battle of hill 3234,during Soviet Afghan war,Pak SSG commandos wearing Mujahiddin uniforms fought against Soviet troop.Ovsek (talk) 05:40, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Some Changes Needed

Over the past couple of days. I have tried to source a lot of statements in the article and have added 10 more sources in the footnotes section. However there is still a need to source more paragraphs.

Forexample The following statement was on the verge of POV and was unsourced and factually incorrect.

Pakistan's birth took place during the early days of the Cold War and in 1947, Pakistan’s founder Quaid-e-Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah foresaw a great period of difficulty ahead for the young nation and asked the United States for aid.

It has been replaced with the following paragraph

With the failure of the United Statesto persuade India to join an anti-communist pact, it turned towards Pakistan which in contrast with India was prepared to join such an alliance in return of military and economic aid and also to find an equalizer against India. By 1954, the Americans had expressed that Pakistan along with Turkey and Iran would be ideal countries to counter Soviet influence. Therefore Pakistan and USA signed the Mutual Defense Assistance Agreement and American aid began to flow in Pakistan. This was followed by two more agreements. In 1955, Pakistan joined the South East Asian Treaty Organization(SEATO) and the Baghdad pact later to be renamed as Central Asian Treaty Organisation(CENTO) after Iraq left in 1959

Source: Author Nigel Kelly, The History and culture of Pakistan, pg. 143-144, ISBN 1 901458 67 9

I believe the following also needs to sourced ASAP

The Soviet Union continued the massive build-up of the Indian military and a US arms embargo forced Pakistan to look at other options. It turned to China, North Korea, Germany, Italy and France for military aid. China in particular gave Pakistan over 900 tanks, Mig-19 Fighters and enough equipment to fully equip 3 Infantry divisions. France supplied some Mirage aircraft, submarines and even the Soviet Union gave Pakistan around 100 T-55 tanks, Mi-8 helicopters but that aid was abruptly stopped under intense Indian pressure. Pakistan in this period was partially able to enhance its military capability but still was caught un-prepared for the 1971 War.

https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Military_history_of_Pakistan#1965-1971

Pakistan’s defense spending rose by 200% during the Bhutto era but the military balance between India-Pakistan which was on parity during the 1960s was growing decisively in India’s favor. United States once again became a major source for military hardware following the lifting of the arms embargo in 1975 but by then Pakistan had become heavily dependent on China as an arms supplier. Heavy spending on defense re-energized the Army, which had sunk to its lowest morale following the debacle of the 1971 war. The high defense expenditure took money from other development projects such as education, health care and housing.

https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Military_history_of_Pakistan#1971-1977

Because as far as I have read, defense spending rose by 33% in Bhutto’s regime.(http://www.abntv.com/PakDetail.asp?linked=544)

In addition statements like heavy defense spending reenergized the army seems to be POV. Is it the author’s point of view or did some analyst actually say that.Gambit 321 12:42, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote this whole Article. If there are some flaws in it, then by all means change it as long as proper citation is given. Mercenary2k 08:03, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How to make this Article a Featured Article

My goal is to make this article into a Featured Article.

I thought it was ready, but good users of wikipedia have pointed out glaring flaws which I will correct.

1 - 1st order of business. To turn the UN Missions from a sub-section into a table.
2 - Add an expanded opening paragraph with a picture
3 - expand short sub-sections such as the "Creation of the Taliban" and merge other small ones such as "1962-1965" into other topics.
4 - Add references, citiations, quotes.
5 - Fix the grammer problems. I need the help of others in this one.

And I think after this, this article should be ready as a Featured Article.

mercenary2k

I would also add that accurate sourcing might be a concern here as well. I will refrain from editing portions of this article for the time being, but I did note that the cited source for the statement on the Pakistani Airfore outperforming the Indian Airforce in the 1965 war is the Amazon Review Page for the Chuck Yeager autobiography. Would it not make more sense to cite a respected military journal or comprehensive account of the war? I don't want to get into some nationalistic argument here; I just want to make the point that if that statement holds true, please use a more appropriate source to support the statement.

Regards,

Devanampriya

1947 war

"....but Kashmir had a very high strategic value and Indian Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru was also from Kashmir and did not want to give up his place of birth.[citation needed] Fearing that India would take over the whole of Kashmir, the newly created Pakistani ..."

Occupied Vs Controlled

People keep on changing here the word "controlled" with "occupied" for indian context. Jammu kashmir was legally acceeded in Indian Union ,Hence the word occupied is utterly wrong. However it is disputed area according to UN. Hence in contrast of indian claim of "integral part", the correct word would be "controlled". And as there is absolutely no legal validity of pakistani claim of Kashmir, so it would correct for pakistan to write "Occupied" as it was only occupied by military operation in comparison to india which acceeded it legally.

So please refrain from reverting the word.

India decided to intervene on the behalf of Kashmir neither because of whimsical reasons like "Nehru was born there so he wanted it..." nor because Kashmir supposedly held strategic significance... It is only because the Maharaja of Kashmir (who (correctly or incorrectly ) was the supposed representative of Kashmiri people)authorised it to do so. So i deleted these sentences.Also I changed the wording from "fearing it will take over 'whole' of Kashmir" to "fearing it will takeover Kashmir".

                 " DO NOT CALL OCCUPIED "KASHMIR" A CONTROLLED ONE"

please do not call the occupied kashmir "the controoled kashmir" as india by force has occupied it. legaly under the law of lord mountbatten for the borders for the partition in 1947 the kashmir was under the state of pakistan as the muslims were in majority in the area. THE india thinking they are at the right point are killing the innocent kashmiris with no mercy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.186.122.215 (talk) 12:59, 29 January 2009 (UTC) "The state of kashmir was legally to be gone under the controll of pakistan as muslims were in majority in kashmir according to the rules for the border of the subcontienent made by lord Mountbatten. but India showing its usual hatered nature occupied the Kashmir by the force and still killing thousands of innocent kahmiris"[reply]

SO this isall not true that the occupied kashmir should be called controlled one.

cheers.

Scourgeofgod

every princely state was allowed to join either India or Pakistan .Acc. to law , ruler of that state had all powers. Ruler of Jammu and Kashmir agreed to be part of India . So legally its Indian--Migelot (talk) 11:02, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Title

Should this article not be at History of the Pakistani Army? "Pakistan" is a noun, not an adjective. —Cuiviénen (Cuivië) 22:04, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I will get the proper citiations from Brian cloughley's new book

Brian Cloughley's new book, the history of the Pakistan Army with the updated version will be released in May 2006.

I will use that to get the proper citations for this article

Possible improvements

This article needs some changes but they shouldn't be too difficult to achieve. My suggestions are:

Make all images the same width and right-aligned
Consider condensing paragraphs and sections – especially one-line sentences do not look good
Avoid using too many templates - it clutters up the article.
Try to maintain as neutral a tone as possible – I’ll try to help with rewriting bits which may seem POV.
The maps should be as neutral as possible, especially with regard to Kashmir.
Check the copyright status on all images and remove any fair-use images and images with uncertain copyright.
Try to reduce the number of subheadings as this will not only reduce your table of contents but also make the article look more like prose.
Try to keep page size about 40-45 Kb as readers will tire of reading lengthy articles. (The average attention span is very low unfortunately)
Perhaps a mention of the role the armed forces played in the relief effort for the recent earthquake?
References – especially when you are dealing with sensitive or controversial points, it is important to have references to back up anything you write. There are several issues which affect Pakistan in this way – Partition in 1947 and communal violence following it, the Kashmir dispute, the Bengal war of 1971 and the events leading up to it, the whole Pakistan-Afghanistan problem (Durand line, Pakhtunistan, opium shipments, ISI involvement, the Taliban and Osama plus the war on terror and especially the recent operations in the tribal areas).
Fill in as many red links as possible
Replace hyphens with – (ndashes).
Once most of this is done, it is time for a good peer review. As this is a military history, I would recommend trying both the common peer review at Wikipedia:Peer_review and the Military History review at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Peer_review.

Most importantly don't tackle all of this alone as the best articles are collaborative efforts :) - I will try to help as much as I can with getting this sorted out. Green Giant 01:13, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In the article named "Military History of India", the history starts from ancient times. No doubt that Indian history is of this much long period. But I believe Pakistan also has a long military history. Thus I recomend that Pakistan's Military History also should include all the events of the past...For instance Muhammad Bin Qasim Invaded Sindh in 712 AD. This did have great impact on the Indus Vally...this link in wikipedia is helpful http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad_Bin_Qasim ALso we can go even further. Alexander's attack on India constituted of the area mainly included in Pakistan now.... the link below inside wikipedia can be used again http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_the_great Thus I suggest all the events that had affect on Pakistan should be included in this article. Also those events in which the indian subcontinent was effected on the whole.....these should be either included solely in Indian Subcontinents Military History..or it should be included in both India and Pakistan's Milatary History

Sajjad Arif Rawalpindi,Pakistan DaDexter 11:17, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

93,000 POWs

I remember reading somewhere in an article that the 93,000 POWs consisted of mostly Urdu-speaking civil servants who had settled in East Pakistan before the war. Pakistan Armed Forces prisoners were around 30,000 as compared to the 93,000 claimed by the Indian Army. Mercenary2k do you agree?? Advil 01:02, 27 July 2006

ya i do 68.48.164.178 07:14, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pakistani Forces in Bangladesh in 1971

There are paramilitary forces included in the 93,000 number. The Breakdown of the formations surrendered in Bangladesh is asl follows: Pakistan Army Formations: 3 Infantry Divisions (the 9th, 16th and the 14th) plus 2 adhoc divisions (36th and the 39th), 11 regular infantry brigades (23rd, 34th, 205th, 57th, 107th, 93rd, 313st, 27th, 117th, 53rd, 97th)and 4 adhoc infantry brigades (91st, 202nd, 314th and Rajshai ad hoc), 35 regular infantry battlions, 6 Field Art. Regiments, 5 Independent Mortar Battries, 1 Light Ack Ack Regiment, 1 Light Ack Ack Battery, 1 Armor Regiment. Approx. 49,973 personnel, including 1,022 non combatants.

Pakistan Navy: 1,413 Personnel.

Pakistan Air Force: 1,141 Personnel.

Para Military Forces: These formations are made of West Pakistani citizens, not part of the regular army but commanded by regular army officers:

West Pakistan Ranger: 70th Wing, 71st Wing, 60th Wing, 61st Wing and one wing each of Khyber Rifles, Tochi Scouts, Thal Scouts. Estimated 6,341 personnel.

Mujahid Battlions: 5. Estimated 5,000.

East Pakistan Civil Armed Forces: 7 Sector Hq Wings and 17 operational wings. Estimated 20,000 personnel.

Police and Civillians attached to Armed Forces: 7,721.

Not included in the number are the Razzakars, Al-Bader and Al Shams personnel and the Mizo Battalions which fought under Pakistan Army command.

The para military numbers are often confusing as some of them were serving i the army adhoc brigades.Sources are "Witness to Surrender" by Siddiq Salik, The Hamoodur Rahman Commission Report and "Surrender at Dacca: Birth of a Nation" by JFR Jacob. Maglorbd 14:56, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Soviet war in Afghanistan

The Afgan War, 1980-1988

The Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in 1979 in support of the pro-Soviet government in Kabul which was being hard-pressed by Mujahadeen rebel forces marked the start of a decade-long occupation. Mujahadeen rebels continued to harass the occupying Soviet military force as well as the forces of the Afghan regime that it was supporting. The war soon spilled over into neighboring Pakistan, with a horde of refugees fleeing to camps across the border in an attempt to escape the conflict. In addition, many of the rebels used Pakistan as a sanctuary from which to carry out forays into Afghanistan, and a steady flow of US-supplied arms were carried into Afghanistan from staging areas in Pakistan near the border. This inevitably resulted in border violations by Soviet and Afghan aircraft attempting to interdict these operations. Between May 1986 and November 1988, PAF F-16s have shot down at least eight intruders from Afghanistan. The first three of these (one Su-22, another one probably an Su-22 and one An-26) were shot down by two pilots from No. 9 Squadron. Pilots of No. 14 Squadron destroyed the remaining five intruders (two Su-22s, two MiG-23s, and one Su-25). In most of these kills the AIM-9 Sidewinder was used, but at least one plane (an Su-22) was destroyed by cannon fire. Flight Lieutenant Khalid Mamood is credited with three of these kills. At least one F-16 was lost in these battles, in an encounter between F-16s and six Afghan Air Force aircraft on 29 April 1987. However, the lost F-16 appears to have been an "own goal", having been hit by a Sidewinder fired by the other F-16. The unfortunate F-16 pilot ejected safely. Pakistani F-16s typically carry two all-aspect AIM-9Ls on the wing tip rails along with a pair of AIM-9Ps on the outermost underwing racks. Pakistani F-16s have an important strike role, being fitted with the French-built Thomson-CSF ATLIS laser designation pod and the capability to deliver Paveway laser-guided bombs. The ATLIS was first fitted to Pakistani F-16s in January 1986. The F-16 became the first non-European aircraft to be qualified for the ATLIS pod.[1]

The source only states about 8 Afghan/Soviet planes being shot down on Pakistan's side of the Durand Line border. I made the correction now.--Khan1982 01:55, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pakistan I Bangladesh 1971 1971 and Pakistan II Baluchi Rebellion 1973 1977

Should mention not be made of these conflicts as Civil Wars?Eog1916 (talk) 11:53, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

File:ChawindaBattel.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:ChawindaBattel.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: All Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status

What should I do?

Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale
If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used.
If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 11:37, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

some corrections

dear admin, in 1948 war first in late october the pukhthun guerillas mostly wazirs and masoods were sent to fight the dogras, they almost captured the entire of kashmir, inflicting heavy losses on the dogras. then the indian army intervened on 26 october 1947, and in 7 months re-occupied ladakh and pushed the guerillas back frm srinagar and jammu, then in may the pakistan army formally entered the war and stopped the indian advance along the LOC. the war went into a dead lock and on 30 december 1948 jawahar lal nehru of india requested a ceasefire which pakistan accepted. in 1965 part if famous battles like chawinda, lahore, chummb-jurian, khemkaran and rajistan are included it wud be of grt info + tat pakistan also captured 1600 square miled of indian terrirtory for the loss of 450 square miles (250 in azad kashmir and the rest infront of lahore). in 1971 it shud be mentioned tat the war in east pakistan started on 21 november when india attacked at 32 different points of east pakistan. and tat both the objectives i.e khulna and chittagong were denied to the indian army and all major cities( bogra, khulna, rangpur, saidpur, dinajpur, comila, sylhet, naogaon, faridpur, rajapur, decca ), except jessore were in pakistani hands till last. famous battles lik hilli, latumura-chanderpur-kasba line, bahaduria, dinajpur, khulna, kushtia, comilla, dhulae, kamalpur, nayachor, hussainiwala, sulaimanki etc all must be refered to, and most importantly that india converted a ceasefire into a surrender deed on 16 december 1971.

thank u! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.185.101.45 (talk) 09:48, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please be bold and make any necessary changes (anyone can edit Wikipedia), interested editors can then object to you on this talk page if there are any objections. Please remember to follow manual of style and add reliable sources to the content. Thanks. --lTopGunl (talk) 14:50, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pakistan was created.

As Pakistan was created in 1947,so it's military history starts from 1947.Ovsek (talk) 04:41, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Before 1947 also, what ever happened on the Land of Pakistan, will also be a part of Military History of Pakistan. At Wikipedia, we are concerned with Today's Countries, and their histories, not with the past empires or states. For Example: Military history of India contains history even of 7000–3000 BC, although India was also founded on 1947! Faizan (talk) 12:05, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Military history of Pakistan of before 1947,is actually military history Pakistan area. So it should be Though Pakistan was created in 1947,the area holds a rich military history or like this.

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ovsek (talk • contribs) 06:40, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Military History of Pakistan will include everything that happened on Pakistan's Land, and for example Military history of India contains history even of 7000–3000 BC. Faizan (talk) 11:14, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I did not say to exclude them,military history of Pakistan starts from 1947,but the area has rich military history,so first few lines need correction.Ovsek (talk) 08:54, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Everything is right in the line, no correction is needed there, it was an un-constructive talk. Pakistan has rich military history and this would be included in the Article, even if Pakistan got independence in 1947. Hope the conflict is solved! Faizan (talk) 15:08, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Un-constructive!!Pakistan as it was created in 1947,it's military history starts from 1947,the area of Pakistan which is inhabited since ancient time,that area has rich military history.It is clear. Republic of India was founded in 1947.Not India.Ovsek (talk) 05:50, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes! Republic of India was created in 1947, but even the history of Mughal empire will be included in it, the Islamic Republic of Pakistan was created in 1947, but it will include information of even BCs! Faizan (talk) 12:14, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I did not say it will be excluded.Ovsek (talk) 15:03, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I know why you guys dont like the word "creation",is not Pakistan an artificial state?Ovsek (talk) 13:42, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 12 external links on Military history of Pakistan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:15, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]