Suchergebnisse

The Military in Decision-Making -- The Kashmir War 1947-48 -- The 1965 War: Decision-making and Consequences -- The 1971 War: Pakistani Experiences -- The 1971 War: Bangladeshi Experiences -- Siachen and Kargil -- Low Intensity Operations -- War and Gender: Female -- War and Gender: Male -- Transcending Hatred and Vengeance.

"This book studies the wars Pakistan has fought over the years with India as well as other non-state actors. Focusing on the first Kashmir War (1947-48), the wars of 1965 and 1971, and the 1999 Kargil War, it analyses the elite decision-making which lead to these conflicts and tries to understand how Pakistan got involved in the first place. The author applies the 'gambling model' to provide insights into the dysfunctional world view, risk-taking behaviour, and other behavioural patterns of the decision-makers which precipitate these wars and highlights their effects on India-Pakistan relations for the future. The book also brings to the fore the experience of widows, children, common soldiers, displaced civilians, and villagers living near borders, in the form of interviews, to understand the subaltern perspective. A nuanced and accessible military history of Pakistan, this book will be indispensable to scholars and researchers of military history, defence and strategic studies, international relations, political studies, war and conflict studies, and South Asian studies"--

Pakistan is an ideologically inspired state and Urdu was a part of this ideology. During the development of Muslim separatism in British India it had become a symbol of Muslim identity and was the chief rival of Hindi, the symbol of Hindu identity (Brass, 1974: 119–81. Thus, after partition it was not surprising that the Muslim polemical and methodologically unreliable books. Some of them are, indeed, part of the pro-Urdu campaign by such official institutions as the National Language Authority, because of which they articulate only the official language policy (Kamran, 1992). Other books, especially by supporters of Urdu, invoke simplistic conspiracy theories for explaining the opposition to Urdu. One of them is that the elitist supporters of English have always conspired to protect it in their self-interest; the other that ethno-nationalists, supported by foreign governments, communists and anti-state agents, oppose Urdu (Abdullah, 1976; Barelvi 1987). While such assertions may be partly true, the defect of the publications is that no proof is offered in support of them.