Location: Silchar, Assam, India, Asia, Earth, Universe
Posts: 616
Didnt all that '1 Pakistani soldier = 10 Indian soldier' thing started due to the belief in the 'Martial Race' theory? even after independence, Pakistan still used to follow the theory while recruiting soldiers, so the PA never really had East Pakistanis, and didnt that too was one of the reason why East Pakistanis felt dis-criminated? the PA belived that as the army has only soldiers of the 'Martial Races', while IA had a mixed army, it was superior to the Indian one?
For me tea party at Gymkhana the besHt tea party in the world...
Would have been, if truce was not called. Dont you think so? And even after losing about 440 sq miles of land, you call 6th Sep as your "defense day", when you were the offensive party. Abhi bhi waq hai sudhar jao.
Agreed, you guys are good warriors, but kisi ne sach hi kaha hai...saanp paalo, bichchu paalo, but mugaalte kabhi na paalo
Would have been, if truce was not called. Dont you think so? And even after losing about 440 sq miles of land, you call 6th Sep as your "defense day", when you were the offensive party. Abhi bhi waq hai sudhar jao.
Agreed, you guys are good warriors, but kisi ne sach hi kaha hai...saanp paalo, bichchu paalo, but mugaalte kabhi na paalo
lol 1965 and digital camera , there you go how wrong you are, our army jawans are poor they don't afford for digital camera that time
You forget the glorious history - In the year 1213.325 an arab sheep merchant invented a device called Al-Di-Git. To store the pictures he also invented the Hosted Uber Memory Pack.
The Europeans stole the Al do Git and cleverly re-arranged the letters. As to the Husted Uber Memory Pack, even today every camel has one and some two in the acronym.
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.
Unfortunately whether we like it or not, ethnically Northern Indians are the mostly the same as West Pakistanis. The only difference being religion.
Jinah in all his wisdom - destroyed centuries of mutual living together of Hindu's & Muslims - by demanding a seperate 'nation' based on religion only. This unleased hate & rage which is still strong after 60+ years of partition.
With East Pakistan (BD) splitting from West Pakistan - the "2 nation theory" is long dead & gone. The Balochs, tribals etc now insisting their ethnic roots are more stronger than religion and want independence..
2 nation theory was only strenghtened by division of East and West Pakistan.
If someone does not want to live with other and has the motivation and means.....that someone can have his piece of land.
Its unfortunate (if you look from different perspective) for United Indian subcontinent to be divided in to pieces of land but at least people can live with their own liking.
I read the thread and silliness started with this post or so.
A lot has been said and I agree with those who say that war time rhetoric is just rhetoric.
It may have some reference to historical events but largely they are meant to boost morale of people.
This is just one technique by which the wars are faught.
It still can be applied.
Off course thats not the only way to win fight as mentioned very nicely by other poster before.
Overall , Indians when they are/were hindus have submissive attitude. They do try to overshoot however these days to overcome prior defeats.
No need to be emotional. Its just a part of Indian subcontinet history.
Afghanistan could not however be won by british invaders..perhaps even after multiple attempts.
This is the only time when Indians with hindu rulers are ruling a large chunk of this land....for 60 years or so. (And they are doing not so good of job keeping their minority citizens happy) Otherwise for centuries they were actually easily beaten by many foreigners who then became part of this land themselves and mixed up with the natives. Goa is an example also.
Many of us now have blood of outsiders..even turks/persian/europeans etc.. but when it was relatively pure race of native/locals, it was easily conquered by outsiders.
The Sikhs(mostly former hindus and some muslims converts) formed only 12% of the Punjab population but were able to rule the majority muslims. From Delhi Borders to Peshawar to Kashmir and all of Punjab.
The Sikhs(mostly former hindus and some muslims converts) formed only 12% of the Punjab population but were able to rule the majority muslims. From Delhi Borders to Peshawar to Kashmir and all of Punjab.
Using the same logic a small number of muslims ruled India for 1000 years (particularly North) until its expansion all the way to the south.
True, muslims were able to rule north india because the hindus were unorganized and not united until the 17th century.
After the 17th century, marathas in the central and sikhs in the north started regaining control.
By the 18th century, the moghul emperor in delhi was actually paying tribute to the Sikhs so that they don't attack Delhi.
^Your reasoning of Ifs & buts can be applied across the board. And with that said even smaller number of muslims ruled all of India for many centuries..... The great Mughal Empire http://images.encarta.msn.com/xrefme...i/T051794A.gif
