Let Uz Chat

[] You guys crack me up sometimes.

infiniti

You bet!

chintu_bhopali

Ravage, what u wrote was wrong even if you didnt meant that way.neways i shld not be so harsh on you.chalo chaddo aisi baataon ko..mitti pao.

isi baat pe ek sher suno

Khush raho, aabad raho
yahan raho ya ghaziabad raho!!

ravage

chintu man, come on, whats with all the peaceful huggy kissiness.

i much prefer nikhil25's approach of treating pakistanies like adversaries, not people u dance around with at bonfires.

Haris

Guys Ravage did raise a reasonable argument worth pondering over, and there was no need to get offended or threatened because he really meant no mischief, and raised a point on facts just to discuss. He's a responsible member and mod, so no need to get paranoid.
OTOH, Nikhil too came up with an even better argument on the western border.

So let's learn to discuss these things with a casual attitude in a friendly environment.
Of course if anyone does mean mischief/insult etc such attitude can never be acceptable and has to be dealt with.

Happy healthy discussing

burqaposhx

Nikhil bro!

Pani pat and Soni pat are not part of the nwfp or Balochistan. So the modern day Pakistan was not the "epicenter" of invasion. It is also incorrect to assert that some how Pakistan "fell" first.

The reason why you and many Indians reach such false conclusions is that you all try to superimpose modern sub-continent on the a region that existed 100s and sometimes 1000's of years ago. When you mix this with utter ignorance about the geography and social set up of Indian subcontinent then you got a made up and false history all in the name of Indian nationalism.

It is the very false nationalist position of Indians that keeps this region unstable, and makes ill-conceived and ignorant postings such as the thread starter's post and your response.

Coming back to the topic. Ravage was right on the money about Indian submissiveness. Just pick up the Indian history for the last 2000 years and you will see that most of the governments formed their capitals in modern day India and not in the modern day Pakistan. The only exception to this rule was the seat of power of Kushana empire.

A conqueror puts his tents down only after he can utterly defeat and demoralize the local soldiers and population. And you only form the capital where you find the most pliant and submissive people in the conquered territory.

p.s. It is a separate discussion about how the conquering armies found a passage from Khyber to Dilli. I do plan to touch upon that in another post.

ravage

very interesting post burqaposhx

mo293

Very well said.. !

vineshvk

So where did they come from through air or through sea.

chintu_bhopali

so was there a 10:1 ratio in sonipat and panipat!

Rocking vibes

No they dug tunnels underground and popped out in present day India so that way present day Pakistan never fell, or maybe they just teleported.

Pundit Vikram

Hello Ravage,

On first read this sounded mildly insulting to India but when you really think about it, it really is an admission on your part. Because whenever India was invaded and occupied from the west, what is today Pakistan was India and for some reason they just couldn't hold the border safe. This trait to lose fights and surrender has continued to happen from that part of the sub-continent.

Regards
Pundit Vikram

ravage

Pundit sahab, I believe burqaposhx has some interesting ideas about the point you raise, I will wait for him to reply to your comment.

However as a general thought, national identities are heavily determined by what part of history you choose to adopt and emphasise as your own. Pakistani identity has always been associated with the Muslim incursions into the subcontinent, whether by sea, or by land. I remember the sentence from our history book saying something to the extent "The foundation for the two nation theory was laid when Muhammad Bin Qasim set his feet on the subcontinent". People who are conquerors from the Indian perspsective, such as Bin Qasim, Ghaznavi, Ghauri etc, are enlightening liberators and heroes from a Pakistani perspective, and, ideologically speaking, virtually Pakistanies. So even if these parts fell first, or the conquerors were granted safe passage based on expedience or religious affiliation, they are a part of us. We have accepted them as our own, primarily I believe on the basis of religion.

To that extent, Ghaznavi's conquests are our own. And therefore historically while India has been frequently conquered and reconquered by foreign invaders of every stripe and background and ability, we have merely had new role models to look upto, and name missiles after.

How that influences ability to fight is ofcourse debatable. After all today I am sure the indian army would handily defeat the afghan army (if they have an army). It isnt hand to hand combat anymore.

However when its said that the Pak soldier is equal to ten indian soldiers, it is with reference to our respective national identities. Given that we inherit Ghauri and Ghaznavi and make it a part of our historical narrative, and you regard them as conquerors... Given the overwhelming success of these heroes (for us) against historic india, that is a justifiable, if exagerrated, comment. Its all about national identity guys, not race. Please dont be so close minded.

Pundit Vikram

Hello Ravage!

It is always a 'winning' formula to merge your identity with that of those who conquered you so that you can claim that you never lost! all you need is a few million times of repeating that to yourself and voila you start believing it and it becomes truth.

When ghazni and gori et al invaded you, there was no Pakistan, so the question of you as a Pakistani having a 'national identity' that includes them does not even arise.

That is why I said you were right about Indians not being hold the borders n the west historically. That happens to be you guys in what is now Pakistan losing again and again and letting the riffraff in.

Regards
Pundit Vikram

You said:

However when its said that the Pak soldier is equal to ten indian soldiers, it is with reference to our respective national identities. Given that we inherit Ghauri and Ghaznavi and make it a part of our historical narrative, and you regard them as conquerors... Given the overwhelming success of these heroes (for us) against historic india, that is a justifiable, if exagerrated, comment. Its all about national identity guys, not race. Please dont be so close minded.

dajj1234

what's the Pak Army ?

Dr Sufi

Respected malhot

The morale of the POWs by and large was high compared to the outcome of the war. The statement that the POWs thought IA officers to be better than Pak Officers is far from truth. They may or may not be better, but to say that the Pak Pows had this idea is simply ridiculous. It was just a part of 'Psychological Warfare' propagated by the Indian Army itself to spread rumours of this kind so that the Pakistani Soldier would become disloyal either to the Officers, Army or the Country.

This tactic has had been used by the Indians at many times. Even during 'Brass-tacks' when an imminent war was thwarted by fine field tactics and cricket diplomacy of Gen. Zia-ul-Haq (Shaheed), a number of Indian Spies were apprehended at Kashmir LOC. They used to spread rumours that Indian Army Officers and Pakistani Soldiers were the best in the world. And if Pakisani Sildiers would join the Indian Officers, it would become the best Army in the world. Luckily, the Indian Spies were arrested, Pakistani Officers became more cautious of Indian propaganda and psychological warfare, and above all, Pakistani Soldier, became all the more loyal to his Country, Army and Officers.

Anyway, thanks for complimenting the Pakistani POWs in your own peculiar style.

Regards.

Dr Sufi

And again how do you explain that their rule did not last even half a century i.e., from 1798 to 1847 compared to almost 7 cnturies of Muslim rule?

And again how do you explain that despite all odds muslims were still able to get their freedom back and form one and later two countries but Sikhs have still not been able to get their independance and Punjab back as a Country?

malhot

Dr Sufi: Pakistani muslims claim the victories of the foreign invaders, just because their anchestors were forced (or otherwise) to convert to their religion.!! Brain washing by the mullas - somehow convinced their children & their children (of these converts) that they were the conquerors!!

Arey Bhai - then do'nt you think you should be Afganies or Persians - not Punjabis' Sindhis etc. The truth is your forefathers lost the battle physically and then mentally (by converting).

There is a further identity crisis with Pakistani muslims - they talk of Muslims being a 'Nation" (2 nation theory) and yet you refer to terms such as "form one and later two countries" !!.

Is Islam a 'nation' or not. Make up your mind.

burqaposhx

Look Malhot, you can go back 1000's of years and beat the crap out of Pakistanis. Happy now?

However fast forward to 1947, and it was the Hindu nation who begged Lord Mountbatten to stay on as Governor General even after the "so called" Indian independence.

This particular attitude of Indians to be so submissive to invaders has many benefits. However it also shows why modern day India was subservient to invaders.

British invaders came from Hindu south and not a Muslim North. And yet you want to keep beating the little tin can of yours, just to spite Pakistanis. Strange!

Dr Sufi

Respected malhot

You do seem to have a point but there is a catch. Before Islam, the so called battles of Indians against the Indians were also of the same type. India was repeatedly attacked and conquered by so many foreigners. The Gujjaras, the Huns, the Aryans and the others etc etc were all Non Indian invaders who incidentally are the ancestors of majority of Indians (except Dravidians). Similarly there were forceful (or otherwise) conversions in different times to Budhism, Jainism, Hinduism etc. Centuries of brainwashing by historians and others, somehow convinced their children and successive generations that they were actually their very own Indian Brothern. As far as Muslims were concerned, they were excluded from this list untill it was a political necessity to get rid of the British.

Regards.

Dr Sufi

Respected malhot

If your logic is accepted then Khans of Bollywood should be termed as Pakistani and not Indians, because most of them are Pathans who at some time belonged to NWFP. Regarding myself, I am a Muslim whose Rajput ancestors from the Punjab embraced Islam like millions of others. You may think that by converting to Islam, they lost the battle, but actually they defeated the caste system. By convertng to Islam, they entered a bigger entity of One Ummah, yet preserving their own identities as The Punjabis, Sindhis, Pathans, Balochis, Mohajirs and (Inshallah) Kashmiris. On the contrary, you might have won a battle, but may not win the war of ethnicity, so rife in your country. And you know it yourself, that the Bollywood dependant Indian Nationalism is only a cover-up to hide the separatist movements in Punjab, Assam, Mizoram, Nagaland etc etc.

Regards.

Moonshiner

Indians usually have a very backwards attitude, Malhot especially has a backwards attitude towards women.

Amour

in the argument, fighting against bigger enemy in numbers, historically muslim warriors did have small armies and win over bigger armies. e.g., prophet era wars and wars by the caliphs afterwards, Tariq bin Ziyad attack on Spain at Gibralter (Gabal - al - Tariq), Salah din Ayubi against crusaders from european countries, Mohammad bin Qasim in case of attack on Sindh. they were all supported by smaller armies may be complemented with modern war tactics and equipment sometime. most of the time they has motivation factor more stronger than the other armies resulting in more dedicated army.

So now this is one of the motivation taught in Pak army schools along with the better training, historically any army religion played very active role to motivate the soldiers, it worked in motivating crusaders to come all they way to middle east, and i guess India is a "secular" country, its training i would believe is based on any specific religion so hence lacking this one great motivational factor.

better motivation does play a role in any army, pak army i think mostly trained as defence force not as attackers, they are less in numbers compared to Indian army. its also complimented by keeping a less but better trained army approach adopted by Pakistan Army.
without this motivation or believe i dont think any smaller army in the world will fight a war against bigger enemy. the major imbalance in conventional warfare is now complimented by nuclear deterrence which i think is another motivational factor.

without the nukes and hi tech equipment it will be like Afghan Taliban fighting against US army!


so motivation, better training and no fear does play a major part in any war.

mo293

This reminds of the movie "The Message" Anthony Quinn plays the role of Amir Hamza I think it was the battle of Ohud and at the battle ground Amir Hamza is informed that the Army of Islam is outnumbered 10 to 1. He replies, they outnumber us 10 to 1 I say its a fair fight.

RoCKiSTaN

If Pakistan can rip land away from India and label it a name...it's own democrazy...it's own people...it sure as hell can protect it.

Thanks,
Ch