Mastering Military Leadership: A Deep Dive into the Paths of Field Marshals in Pakistan and India

In South Asia, the title of Field Marshal is rare and carries different meanings in India and Pakistan. In India, it’s awarded for genuine military victories, while in Pakistan, it often seems tied to political strategies.

Recently, General Asim Munir was promoted to Field Marshal in Pakistan, despite the Army’s challenges during Operation Sindoor. This promotion echoes the controversial rise of Ayub Khan in 1958, highlighting significant differences in how each country views its military leadership.

The decision to elevate Munir was approved by Pakistan’s cabinet, citing his leadership during Operation Bunyanum Marsoos, which was a response to India’s actions. This contrasts sharply with Indian Field Marshals like Sam Manekshaw and K.M. Cariappa, who earned their titles through battlefield success and strategic brilliance.

Public reaction to Munir’s promotion has been very vocal. Social media, especially the platform X, has seen users mock the decision, with some calling him a “Failed Marshal.” Why does this matter? It illustrates a growing discontent with the Pakistan Army’s credibility. According to the Inter-Services Public Relations (ISPR) of Pakistan, nearly 3,900 people have died in around 3,700 terror attacks in the last 17 months. This troubling statistic raises questions about the Army’s effectiveness and reputation.

Harsh V. Pant, a professor at King’s College London, points out that the Pakistan Army has been losing credibility, and the promotion of Munir is a desperate attempt to bolster its image. “The civilian government in Pakistan operates under the Army’s influence,” he notes, highlighting a long-standing power imbalance between civilians and military leaders in the country.

Historically, Ayub Khan’s rise to Field Marshal was a deeply political maneuver aimed at consolidating power during a time of military coups and political instability. After Partition, he quickly climbed the ranks, becoming Commander-in-Chief by 1951. His political motivations were clear; he aligned Pakistan’s military policies with Western interests, securing his standing both domestically and internationally.

Contrast this with India’s approach. Notable Field Marshals like Manekshaw earned their titles through undeniable military achievements. Manekshaw led Indian forces to victory in the 1971 Indo-Pakistani War, while Cariappa’s contributions included significant military organization during the tumultuous years after Partition.

Cariappa even dedicated himself to the welfare of ex-servicemen, establishing the Indian Ex-Servicemen’s League. He was recognized internationally, receiving honors like the Legion of Merit from the United States.

The differences in how the two countries handle military promotions reveal broader themes about governance, military pride, and public perception. While Pakistan grapples with issues of credibility, India continues to recognize genuine military valor.

The contrasting histories of Field Marshal promotions in India and Pakistan serve as a lens to understand the civil-military relationship in these neighboring countries, highlighting the challenges and complexities each faces today.



Source link

FIELD MARSHAL, INDIAN ARMY, PAKISTAN ARMY, OPERATION SINDOOR, PAHALGAM TERRORIST ATTACK, BECOMING A FIELD MARSHAL THE PAKISTANI WAY AND THE INDIAN WAY