Re: The Pak soldier is equal to 10 Indian soldiers?
dude r u out of ur mind?
pakis mungeri lal ke hasin sapnee... i do'nt mind... every body has the right to satisfy their Ego.. in this case pakistan have the solid reason.. to motivate their so called army... to atleast stand on indian border.
Re: The Pak soldier is equal to 10 Indian soldiers?
^ malhot is indian, einstein.
infiniti .. yes I am currently a mod, of World Affairs.
Ravage: has a point, not only were we physically but also mentally enslaved by so many foreign occupiers.
That is obvious due to the large number of conversions to Islam & later to Christianity.
I appreciate you acknowledging the facts of history. I agree with you on Indians having been physically dominated by Western neighbours repeatedly throughout histrory. But are you suggesting your Muslim and Christian Indian compatriots are mental slaves?
Re: The Pak soldier is equal to 10 Indian soldiers?
During the 1960's the Pak Army had convinced itself that 1 PA soldier = 10 IA soldiers.
Does this feeling of superiority still prevail in the army circles?
:).......No doubt.......when we have Motivators Like Allama Iqbal..........
** "Kunjshk-e-Faromaya ko Shaheen se LaRa Dou!"**
Pakistani Jawans do not hesitate to face 10 to 1 ODDS...........:biggthumb
Re: The Pak soldier is equal to 10 Indian soldiers?
^ malhot is indian, einstein.
infiniti .. yes I am currently a mod, of World Affairs.
I appreciate you acknowledging the facts of history. I agree with you on Indians having been physically dominated by Western neighbours repeatedly throughout histrory. But are you suggesting your Muslim and Christian Indian compatriots are mental slaves?
well you doesnt qualified to be a mod after redaing ur posts.
They were dominated not becuase 1 westerner was equal to 100 or 10 indians but they was no unity and india was divided into kingdoms.use ur brain sometime!!
Re: The Pak soldier is equal to 10 Indian soldiers?
yar chintu, have i ever been impolite to you. please be respectful towards others, I do use my brain sometimes, why would u say that?
now as for the reasons, I did not say that the reason why India was constantly succcesfully invaded and occupied from the western border is definitely that indian soldiers are weak. I said there is some objective basis for saying this, beyond just "im from pakistan so i think XYZ" or "im from India so my view is ABC".
Historically indians have been poor soldiers and typically easily to defeat armies. Also worthy of note is the fact that rarely have those thrashings been from the eastern or northern side.
Re: The Pak soldier is equal to 10 Indian soldiers?
yar chintu, have i ever been impolite to you. please be respectful towards others, I do use my brain sometimes, why would u say that?
now as for the reasons, I did not say that the reason why India was constantly succcesfully invaded and occupied from the western border is definitely that indian soldiers are weak. I said there is some objective basis for saying this, beyond just "im from pakistan so i think XYZ" or "im from India so my view is ABC".
ravage bhai jaan, i don't think anybody is saying this. nobody would be foolish enough to accuse you of such irrational views given that you are a mohajir of pure indian stock.
[quote]
Historically indians have been poor soldiers and typically easily to defeat armies. Also worthy of note is the fact that rarely have those thrashings been from the eastern or northern side.
[/QUOTE]
i think you are forgetting that when india used to succumb to invasion and occupation from the western front, its western border was the nwfp/balochistan. in fact, current-day pakistan was the epicenter of invasion and its regions were the first to fall. modern day india's western border faces no threat whatsoever
Re: The Pak soldier is equal to 10 Indian soldiers?
hahaha. you had to spoil my fun didnt you.
Re: The Pak soldier is equal to 10 Indian soldiers?
infiniti .. yes I am currently a mod, of World Affairs.
Then I would have to say that you are the worst GS mod I have seen. Your name should not be listed with the likes of other GS mods like dhobi_bhai and haris. That was my objective opinion.
Re: The Pak soldier is equal to 10 Indian soldiers?
i just died a little inside
Re: The Pak soldier is equal to 10 Indian soldiers?
How do you explain how Sikhs (who formed just 12% of the population) was able to defeat muslims from Peshawar to Delhi border to Kashmir?
Most of the those Sikhs were recent hindu converts from the Jatt and lower castes such as tarkhans, chamars, churas etc????
Re: The Pak soldier is equal to 10 Indian soldiers?
i just died a little inside
You bet!
Re: The Pak soldier is equal to 10 Indian soldiers?
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!!
Re: The Pak soldier is equal to 10 Indian soldiers?
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.
Re: The Pak soldier is equal to 10 Indian soldiers?
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 :k:
Re: The Pak soldier is equal to 10 Indian soldiers?
ravage bhai jaan, i don't think anybody is saying this. nobody would be foolish enough to accuse you of such irrational views given that you are a mohajir of pure indian stock.
i think you are forgetting that when india used to succumb to invasion and occupation from the western front, its western border was the nwfp/balochistan. in fact, current-day pakistan was the epicenter of invasion and its regions were the first to fall. modern day india's western border faces no threat whatsoever
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.
Re: The Pak soldier is equal to 10 Indian soldiers?
very interesting post 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.
Very well said.. !
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.
So where did they come from through air or through sea.
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.
so was there a 10:1 ratio in sonipat and panipat!
] You guys crack me up sometimes.