Maj. General Rajendra Nath PVSM (Retd.) [Editor]. Musharraf's War. New Delhi: Lancer's Books, 2003.

Date: 8 July 2003

Commentary: This collaboration describes the historical context and events relating to the 1999 Kargil War initiated by Pakistan to expand Pakistani control in the disputed Jammu-Kashmir region. Many chapters provide detailed reviews and assessments of military operations geared more for the military student than those interested in general history and foreign policy. However, some chapters provide generally interesting discussions of the design and functionality of components of the Indian military and intelligence community. Those chapters that offer strategic discussions regarding Pakistan generally (and understandably) offer a distinctly Indian and distinctly military perspective, but there are also broader discussions regarding the impact of Chinese and American strategic interests.

The book reviews various periods of Pakistani aggression as follows. In the late forties, India repelled Pakistan and gained momentum until pressured to cease advances by Delhi and the U.N. In 1965, Pakistan advanced with superior armor provided by the US, but Pakistan's strategy underestimated India's military and political resolved to repel aggression.

Leading into 1971, due to inequitable treatment, the Bengali populace in East Pakistan opposed the West Pakistani government and military. Eight million Bengali refugees fled to India, including Pakistan's Bengali regiment, which (while in India) formed the basis of the Bangladesh Army. In December 1971, Pakistan attacked an Indian airbase, which led India to liberate Bangladesh (East Pakistan) while maintaining a military stalemate in the West.

Pakistan sought control of the northeast heights of Kargil to gain leverage in its claim on Jammu and Kashmir. India did not maintain in presence in Kargil during the harsh winters, which allowed Pakistan to occupy the region and entrench. The specific operations that ensued are covered in detail.

Dr. P.K. Vasudeva (Col. Retd.) cites intelligence failures during the Kargil conflict and assesses the roles of the Reconnaissance and Analysis Wing (RAW) as the primary intelligence agency (the Indian counterpart to the CIA), the Intelligence Bureau's responsibility for counterintelligence and internal intelligence (the Indian counterpart to the FBI), and Army Intelligence as secondary and relatively under-resourced. He also outlines recent designs for a Chief of Defense Staff and a Defence Intelligence Agency. These and other organizational advances are intended to provide intelligence into the hands of the lower-level commanders and decision-makers that requires such information for operations.

Dr. Rakesh Datta summarizes Sino-Pak agreements and Chinese supplies of technology, weapons, and military hardware to Pakistan, as well as China's peripheral interests in northeast Indian regions.

Air Marshal R S Bedi AVSM, VM (Retd.) roots the ongoing conflict in Pakistan's internal instability and its military's prominent role in national affairs. He describes the conflict as one of Islamic fundamentalism versus secularism and authoritarianism versus democracy, noting the dissolution of Pakistan's parliament in 1954. He makes hard-line claims that India has done too little to deter and punish Pakistan. He also notes that the U.S. does little to dissuade the Pakistani military against both overt and covert operations in Kashmir.

G.V. Gupta interestingly notes that Pakistan was formed on a religious basis, but that the Muslim League had no real presence in the region; rather the Muslim League's presence was in the regions of Uttar Predesh, Bihar, and Sindh. Thus, the first leaders in what became Pakistan were actually immigrants from the Eastern regions of Hindustan. He later discusses the social, economic, and political makeup of Pakistan, asserting that the lack of equitable political representation has created a leadership void that has been filled by various Islamic religious groups.

Various commentaries in the book point to a symbiotic co-legitimizing relationship between the ruling body (in this case the Pak military) and religious fervor. This is similar to the longstanding and noted relationship between the Saudi ruling family and the Islamic Wahhabi sect. One can argue that the prominent role of religion in defining the political authority can be abused so as to undermine the democratic process; which leads me to review my thoughts on the relationship of religion and politics in the US.

The first statement in our first constitutional amendment in the Bill of Rights is stated as follows: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." Since many Europeans migrated to American to flee religious persecution, the second phrase of this statement is paraphrased as our "freedom of religion". As religion inevitably began to dictate the statutes for society, the first phrase came to be accepted as a mandate for "separation of church and state".

An increasing separation of certain social norms from Christian culture and dogma has led many conservative Christians to counter that "freedom OF religion" does not imply "freedom FROM religion". Although a Christian myself, I partly disagree with this dogmatic and leading point of view. True, all citizens must accept a certain degree of religious expression from people of faith (Christian or otherwise)... but no faith (Christianity or otherwise) should be imposed by government saction, regardless of the faith of our nation's early settlers.

As for Christians, Christ certainly in no way advocated state religion, and taught us to show tolerance and charity (rather than legalism and judgement) for the rest of the world. In fact, His life and teachings in scripture clearly direct His followers to seek His spiritual kingdom, rather than an earthly kingdom. The Church should reserve moral judgement for our own community of faith. Of course, as citizens, we should uphold a sense of morals and ethics, and we can and should use our vote in any fashion we see fit, but many Christian organizations and public figures seem more intent on imposing faith-based morality on non-Christians than exemplifying and apologetically sharing the Good News of our faith. Christianity carries enough baggage from a long history of high crimes that have been committed in the name of Christianity by mis-guided or self-serving rulers and clergy. We should not further repel people by substituting social statements in place of faith and charity.

G.V. Gupta compares Pakistan to Israel in that they were both formed on the basis of religion. Although this statement has some merit, I would compare Israel more with India and Pakistan. It seems to me that the Jews who have returned to Israel are an ethic group as much as a religious group. Israel has a coalition government that grants citizenship to Palestinians with the restriction that Palestinians cannot serve in the military (for security reasons). Similarly, India's culture and coalition government is made up predominantly of ethnic Indian Hindus; the current government of which is taking steps to prevent the spread of non-Hindu religions. It does not seem to me that Israel is more inclined to pass laws respecting the establishment of religion than India.

J. Sprigg