What do you think?
Rate this book
Defeat Is an Orphan: How Pakistan Lost the Great South Asian War
When India and Pakistan held nuclear tests in 1998, they restarted the clock on a competition that had begun half a century earlier. Nuclear weapons restored strategic parity, erasing the advantage of India's much larger size and conventional military superiority. Yet, in the years that followed, Pakistan went on to lose decisively to India. It lost any ability to stake a serious claim to Kashmir, a region it called its jugular vein. Its ability to influence events in Afghanistan diminished. While India's growing economy won it recognition as a rising world power, Pakistan became known as a failing state. Pakistan had lost to India before but the setbacks since 1998 made this defeat irreversible.
Defeat Is an Orphan follows the roller-coaster ride through post-nuclear India-Pakistan, from bitter conflict in the mountains to military confrontation in the plains, from the hijacking of an Indian plane to the assault on Mumbai. Nuclear weapons proved to be Pakistan's undoing. They encouraged a reckless reliance on militant proxies even as the jihadis spun out of control outside and inside Pakistan. By shielding it from retaliation, the nuclear weapons also sealed it into its own dysfunction-so much so that the Great South Asian War, fought on-and-off since 1947, was not so much won by India as lost by Pakistan.
Defeat Is an Orphan follows the roller-coaster ride through post-nuclear India-Pakistan, from bitter conflict in the mountains to military confrontation in the plains, from the hijacking of an Indian plane to the assault on Mumbai. Nuclear weapons proved to be Pakistan's undoing. They encouraged a reckless reliance on militant proxies even as the jihadis spun out of control outside and inside Pakistan. By shielding it from retaliation, the nuclear weapons also sealed it into its own dysfunction-so much so that the Great South Asian War, fought on-and-off since 1947, was not so much won by India as lost by Pakistan.
320 pages, Paperback
Published March 1, 2022
29 people are currently reading
263 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 16 of 16 reviews
December 17, 2018
The seed for the basic Pakistani fault line was planted by its forefathers in their assumption that in Pakistan they were imagining a modern Islamic democratic socialist state which would be the leader of the Muslim world, as compared to the Hindu nation which could never sustain democracy as it was incomparable with the Hindu caste system.
But the bloody Partition engendered a twist of insecurity in the Pakistani psyche which was only exacerbated after the fall of East Pakistan.
As a result of which the Pakistan elite came up with their own version of Plato's 'noble lie'; the draft was prepared by Bhutto, and revised by Zia and blindly followed to this day. And in this'noble lie' Pakistan is supposed to the champion of the Muslim world unity, this meant fighting for Muslim victims states like Palestine, Afghanistan, and Kashmir, thus justifying a huge army, This strong army was then able to manipulate any civilian democracy to stick to this noble lie, as its ideological guardians.
Unfortunately, the nuclear option which most Pakistanis thought would once and for all give them parity with India has proved to be a liability in which now most decisions are taken in order to maintain this arsenal against India's hegemony. But the 2001 showdown with the Indian army has proved that it wasn't the threat of nuclear bombs which stopped India from an all-out attack but their army was too outdated and not large enough to take on the Pakistani army.
Myra concludes rightly that the main difference between India's rise and Pakistan's relative fall is its power structure. In India, the power resides with the Civilians while in Pakistan it squarely resides with its Army. And I am afraid no country in the world has developed under its army.
But the bloody Partition engendered a twist of insecurity in the Pakistani psyche which was only exacerbated after the fall of East Pakistan.
As a result of which the Pakistan elite came up with their own version of Plato's 'noble lie'; the draft was prepared by Bhutto, and revised by Zia and blindly followed to this day. And in this'noble lie' Pakistan is supposed to the champion of the Muslim world unity, this meant fighting for Muslim victims states like Palestine, Afghanistan, and Kashmir, thus justifying a huge army, This strong army was then able to manipulate any civilian democracy to stick to this noble lie, as its ideological guardians.
Unfortunately, the nuclear option which most Pakistanis thought would once and for all give them parity with India has proved to be a liability in which now most decisions are taken in order to maintain this arsenal against India's hegemony. But the 2001 showdown with the Indian army has proved that it wasn't the threat of nuclear bombs which stopped India from an all-out attack but their army was too outdated and not large enough to take on the Pakistani army.
Myra concludes rightly that the main difference between India's rise and Pakistan's relative fall is its power structure. In India, the power resides with the Civilians while in Pakistan it squarely resides with its Army. And I am afraid no country in the world has developed under its army.
November 2, 2021
A deep dive into Pakistani international relations and grand strategy from the 1990s to the present. MacDonald’s writing isn’t exactly punchy and exciting, but the subject held my interest.
Key takeaways:
• Pakistan’s self-image and worldview is created in opposition to India, largely to its detriment.
• Pakistan’s weak government institutions are subservient to its military, leaving the democratic process extremely fragile. This also means that the military has the initiative with respect to foreign affairs.
• The state has relied upon the use of militant proxies to a dangerous and unwise extent, at times losing control of them and threatening the government itself. This reliance contributed significantly to the cooling of relations with the United States, which moved closer to India at least in part as a result.
• The development of nuclear weapons did not provide Pakistan with the conventional warfare shield that it anticipated. Meanwhile, India did not pay a stiff price in the international community for this development while Pakistan did.
• An aside about nuclear weapons: Pakistan has developed tactical weapons designed to blunt an Indian invasion. In other words, they are for use on Pakistani soil.
• MacDonald writes at length about the Pashtuns living in the FATA. She argues that the conflation of Pashtuns with the Taliban/Pakistani Taliban in the West is shared by the ruling classes (mostly Punjabi) of Pakistan itself, and that this conflation is wrong. The Pashtuns were hung out to dry repeatedly during the 2000s, and suffered tremendously both at the hands of the Taliban and the Pakistani government.
• Kashmir is one of those intractable, nearly-impossible-to-solve foreign affairs issues. Even so, Pakistan has managed to make things worse for itself with respect to the region and has alienated a decent portion of the population.
Having finished this just as the United States withdrew from Afghanistan, I wondered at the time what MacDonald would make of the situation with respect to Pakistan. Is this a victory for the ISI and will it provide return on their investment in the Taliban? My guess is that her answer would be no – in addition to possible instability on its western border, the ideological impulses driving the Taliban make it an uneasy partner for a notionally democratic neighbor. What’s more, it will be rather more difficult to control in the form of a foreign power as opposed to a militant group. I suppose that remains to be seen, and I’d be interested to read what MacDonald has to say on the matter.
Key takeaways:
• Pakistan’s self-image and worldview is created in opposition to India, largely to its detriment.
• Pakistan’s weak government institutions are subservient to its military, leaving the democratic process extremely fragile. This also means that the military has the initiative with respect to foreign affairs.
• The state has relied upon the use of militant proxies to a dangerous and unwise extent, at times losing control of them and threatening the government itself. This reliance contributed significantly to the cooling of relations with the United States, which moved closer to India at least in part as a result.
• The development of nuclear weapons did not provide Pakistan with the conventional warfare shield that it anticipated. Meanwhile, India did not pay a stiff price in the international community for this development while Pakistan did.
• An aside about nuclear weapons: Pakistan has developed tactical weapons designed to blunt an Indian invasion. In other words, they are for use on Pakistani soil.
• MacDonald writes at length about the Pashtuns living in the FATA. She argues that the conflation of Pashtuns with the Taliban/Pakistani Taliban in the West is shared by the ruling classes (mostly Punjabi) of Pakistan itself, and that this conflation is wrong. The Pashtuns were hung out to dry repeatedly during the 2000s, and suffered tremendously both at the hands of the Taliban and the Pakistani government.
• Kashmir is one of those intractable, nearly-impossible-to-solve foreign affairs issues. Even so, Pakistan has managed to make things worse for itself with respect to the region and has alienated a decent portion of the population.
Having finished this just as the United States withdrew from Afghanistan, I wondered at the time what MacDonald would make of the situation with respect to Pakistan. Is this a victory for the ISI and will it provide return on their investment in the Taliban? My guess is that her answer would be no – in addition to possible instability on its western border, the ideological impulses driving the Taliban make it an uneasy partner for a notionally democratic neighbor. What’s more, it will be rather more difficult to control in the form of a foreign power as opposed to a militant group. I suppose that remains to be seen, and I’d be interested to read what MacDonald has to say on the matter.
June 3, 2017
Even if the title sounds biased, the content is close to reality
The book starts of with the Kathmandu flight hijacking episode and goes on to connecting all the dots right up to the"surgical strikes".
The key takeaway from this is that Kashmir solution is not in sight until Pakistan turns towards a progressive and secular democracy.
The book goes in depth of how Pakistan lost its way dramatically since nuclear tests.
The book starts of with the Kathmandu flight hijacking episode and goes on to connecting all the dots right up to the"surgical strikes".
The key takeaway from this is that Kashmir solution is not in sight until Pakistan turns towards a progressive and secular democracy.
The book goes in depth of how Pakistan lost its way dramatically since nuclear tests.
August 18, 2017
Am afraid this book is a bit of a letdown. I had expected a fresh perspective on the old problem between neighbours but alas the author seems content to peddle the same old fare.......I have realized after reading a few chapters in this book that you need to be a south Asian living or emanating from the sub-continent in order to understand the intricacies of the great game being played....
July 27, 2020
The Great South Asian War : India Vs Pakistan
--------------------------------------------------------------------
'Victory has a thousand fathers, but defeat is an orphan'.
- John F. Kennedy
Defeat is an orphan, how Pakistan lost the great South Asian war, is another well written book on the tumultuous relationship between the two nuclear armed nations i.e. India and Pakistan. And in this book the author discussed the scenario of the Post-1998, when India and Pakistan, conducted their nuclear test.
Though Pakistan gained the 'Strategic Parity' with India, by acquiring the nuclear weapons in 1998 with the help of Uncle Sam and China, but it has lost the Great South Asian War, economically, diplomatically and politically against their arch-rival India, and became one of the few 'Pariah State' of this 21st century.
And before we discuss that how and why Pakistan lost this great south Asian war, its better if we first talk about some of the basic facts on India and Pakistan, and the ideological difference between the two countries.
Before August 1947 there was no country as such by the name of Pakistan, but the British partitioned India, and a new state by the name of Pakistan was born on 14 August 1947.
And the foundation of Pakistan was based on the concept of 'Two-nation' theory, and according to this theory Hindu and Muslim are two different entities, and they can't live together. Though India and its founding father's outrightly rejected this absurd theory.
Ideologically India and Pakistan are totally opposite to each other, as Pakistan was the world's first Islamic state where there is no place for the religious minorities, unlike India, which is a secular and a multiparty democratic country.
And one of the reasons because of which Pakistan lost this great south Asian war is that the Indian obsession is so deeply ingrained in the Pakistani psyche that they can't think anything other than India. Infact after conducting the nuclear test in 1998, instead of focusing on economic development and making peace with India, Pakistan and its 'Deep-state' used their nuclear weapons to threaten India. As Pakistan knew that they can't defeat India conventionally, so they armed, trained, and funded the jihadis or the non-state actors as their proxies to fight the Indian State.
In fact within a year of acquiring nuclear weapons, five Pakistani nationals hijacked the Indian airline IC-814, and in exchange for the passengers and cabin crew they got three dreaded terrorists from the Indian government. And the name of these terrorist are, Maulana Masood Azar (Founder of the anti-india terrorist organization, Jaish-e-muhammad), Omar saheed Sheikh (the man who killed Daniel pearl), and a kashmiri jihadi Mushtaq Ahmad Zarqer.
In all these acts of terrorism against India, Pakistan and its homegrown jihadi organizations was involved. But sadly Pakistan and its rulers are in a deep slumber, and by differentiating between the 'Good Taliban', and 'Bad Taliban', they are playing with fire.
And the world realized the hypocrisy of Pakistan when the US Navy seals killed the Al-Qaeda chief Osama bin laden on May 2, 2011 in Abbottabad, Pakistan.
So precisely we can conclude that the hatred of India is the cement which bind the Pakistan together. And by playing with the fire Pakistan is damaging their own country.
After reading this book I can say that if you love reading about Geopolitics or precisely about Indo-Pak, then you can surely go for this book. The language of the book is not that tough. And if you are an expert on Indo-Pak relationship then you can skip this book.
My Ratings : ⭐⭐⭐⭐ (4/5)
I hope you like this, thanks for reading, Jai Hind.
For more information You can visit - https://dontbignorant.in/a-history-of...
--------------------------------------------------------------------
'Victory has a thousand fathers, but defeat is an orphan'.
- John F. Kennedy
Defeat is an orphan, how Pakistan lost the great South Asian war, is another well written book on the tumultuous relationship between the two nuclear armed nations i.e. India and Pakistan. And in this book the author discussed the scenario of the Post-1998, when India and Pakistan, conducted their nuclear test.
Though Pakistan gained the 'Strategic Parity' with India, by acquiring the nuclear weapons in 1998 with the help of Uncle Sam and China, but it has lost the Great South Asian War, economically, diplomatically and politically against their arch-rival India, and became one of the few 'Pariah State' of this 21st century.
And before we discuss that how and why Pakistan lost this great south Asian war, its better if we first talk about some of the basic facts on India and Pakistan, and the ideological difference between the two countries.
Before August 1947 there was no country as such by the name of Pakistan, but the British partitioned India, and a new state by the name of Pakistan was born on 14 August 1947.
And the foundation of Pakistan was based on the concept of 'Two-nation' theory, and according to this theory Hindu and Muslim are two different entities, and they can't live together. Though India and its founding father's outrightly rejected this absurd theory.
Ideologically India and Pakistan are totally opposite to each other, as Pakistan was the world's first Islamic state where there is no place for the religious minorities, unlike India, which is a secular and a multiparty democratic country.
And one of the reasons because of which Pakistan lost this great south Asian war is that the Indian obsession is so deeply ingrained in the Pakistani psyche that they can't think anything other than India. Infact after conducting the nuclear test in 1998, instead of focusing on economic development and making peace with India, Pakistan and its 'Deep-state' used their nuclear weapons to threaten India. As Pakistan knew that they can't defeat India conventionally, so they armed, trained, and funded the jihadis or the non-state actors as their proxies to fight the Indian State.
In fact within a year of acquiring nuclear weapons, five Pakistani nationals hijacked the Indian airline IC-814, and in exchange for the passengers and cabin crew they got three dreaded terrorists from the Indian government. And the name of these terrorist are, Maulana Masood Azar (Founder of the anti-india terrorist organization, Jaish-e-muhammad), Omar saheed Sheikh (the man who killed Daniel pearl), and a kashmiri jihadi Mushtaq Ahmad Zarqer.
In all these acts of terrorism against India, Pakistan and its homegrown jihadi organizations was involved. But sadly Pakistan and its rulers are in a deep slumber, and by differentiating between the 'Good Taliban', and 'Bad Taliban', they are playing with fire.
And the world realized the hypocrisy of Pakistan when the US Navy seals killed the Al-Qaeda chief Osama bin laden on May 2, 2011 in Abbottabad, Pakistan.
So precisely we can conclude that the hatred of India is the cement which bind the Pakistan together. And by playing with the fire Pakistan is damaging their own country.
After reading this book I can say that if you love reading about Geopolitics or precisely about Indo-Pak, then you can surely go for this book. The language of the book is not that tough. And if you are an expert on Indo-Pak relationship then you can skip this book.
My Ratings : ⭐⭐⭐⭐ (4/5)
I hope you like this, thanks for reading, Jai Hind.
For more information You can visit - https://dontbignorant.in/a-history-of...
February 1, 2017
Lucid, well-written, journalistic condemnation of modern Pakistan's self-sabotaging, paranoid national security state; not terribly in-depth on any one issue (the treatment of the Kargil War comes the closest), but a very solid overview.
December 1, 2017
one of the most lucid books on Indo Pak relationships
April 12, 2025
This book published in 2017 is a compelling and incisive narrative that traces the turbulent history of India-Pakistan relations through the lens of conflict and diplomacy. I purchased it around the same time it was published but somehow it's been lying unread in my bookshelf for so long. Myra McDonald has a journalist’s eye for detail and a historian’s depth. She has successfully dissect Pakistan’s strategic miscalculations, particularly its reliance on proxy warfare and its military’s dominant role in shaping national policy. The book effectively argues that while India, despite its flaws, moved toward economic and political consolidation, Pakistan became trapped in a cycle of denial and militarism, leading to repeated failures.
The book is thought-provoking and well-researched and offers a nuanced perspective on South Asia’s geopolitical dynamics. I would say that it is an essential reading for anyone seeking to understand the roots of ongoing regional tensions.
The book is thought-provoking and well-researched and offers a nuanced perspective on South Asia’s geopolitical dynamics. I would say that it is an essential reading for anyone seeking to understand the roots of ongoing regional tensions.
January 21, 2025
I came across the book in my friends book shelf and it graben my attention. Since my years in India as a journalist and student, I try to keep myself updated about the related literature. I've read the Persian translation of the book (a brilliant translation) and enjoyed the finely weaved narrative which smoothly narrates the dramatic Indo-Pak relation in decades.
Although the book clearly narrates the story from an Indo-American perspective, and at some points goes harsh about Pakistan, the main quality of the book which is the skilfulness's of the author is still amazing and educating.
It's a must-read for all who are interested in South Asia, Indo-Pak relations, and Afghanistan. I long to read a parallel narrative from Pakistani POV on the same subject. I'm sure that will be equally dramatic.
Although the book clearly narrates the story from an Indo-American perspective, and at some points goes harsh about Pakistan, the main quality of the book which is the skilfulness's of the author is still amazing and educating.
It's a must-read for all who are interested in South Asia, Indo-Pak relations, and Afghanistan. I long to read a parallel narrative from Pakistani POV on the same subject. I'm sure that will be equally dramatic.
September 24, 2017
Fierce broadside to the "good Taliban bad Taliban" policy used by Pakistani military in search of parity with India. Insightful overview of the past 10 years w.r.t Pakistan India relationship. I think the author correctly attributes reasons for the malaise affecting Pakistan, and she reasons economic progress & diplomatic maturity for India's success in handling Pakistan. One can hardly dispute that. It is also a warning for the current Indian policy makers with its unhealthy obsession with Pakistan and treatment of Indian Muslims as fifth column. Focus on economic growth and make sure to keep moral high ground with "strategic restraint" and India will do good.
July 31, 2018
Does not live upto the hype. But for a newbie it offers the publicly known facts of the Indo Pak relationship and role for US in the Kashmir issue ..The authors hypothesis that it is the acquisition of Nuclear weapons by Pakistan and its proliferation which led to a sense of complacency and arrogance within the Pakistani establishment and ultimately led to Pakistan becoming a pariah and a failed state ...
April 27, 2022
Its curious that, compared to India, being more homogeneous, religiously and ethnically, Pakistan has always struggled to become a democracy. Though, the author doesn't go into the cause of its failure, but provides a detailed recent history of the 21st century Indo-Pak rivalry that spans from the nuclear tests in 1998 till 2016.
She is highly critical of Pakistan. Not only has it suffered democratic, diplomatic and military defeat but it is also endangering democracy in the neighbouring Afghanistan and Kashmir.
She is highly critical of Pakistan. Not only has it suffered democratic, diplomatic and military defeat but it is also endangering democracy in the neighbouring Afghanistan and Kashmir.
September 21, 2019
Best for indo pak history
December 6, 2024
Quite informative.
November 4, 2025
the book focuses on the period b/w 1998-2016. I am curious to know the author's views on the following decade.
March 14, 2017
A detailed account of the South Asian geopolitics
A Must read for anyone interested in geopolitics and turmoil that plague South Asia and Kashmir in particular. A detailed research spanning years of history predating Indias independence give a vivid account of all issues that plague the India Pakistan equation.
A Must read for anyone interested in geopolitics and turmoil that plague South Asia and Kashmir in particular. A detailed research spanning years of history predating Indias independence give a vivid account of all issues that plague the India Pakistan equation.
Displaying 1 - 16 of 16 reviews