So where did they come from through air or through sea.
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.
given that India is one of the most frequently invaded and successfully occupied countries, mostly from the western borders, there probably is some objective truth to the idea.
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
Re: The Pak soldier is equal to 10 Indian soldiers?
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.
Hello Ravage!
It is always a 'winning' :D 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.
Re: The Pak soldier is equal to 10 Indian soldiers?
what's the Pak Army ?
One of my friends dad was an army Doctor who used to visit the 71' Pakistani POWs.
His observation was that the Pak soldier's morale was very high even after surrendering.
Some of them openly condemned their officers and felt the IA officers were better.
They also showed surprise that Indian soldiers & officers have a friendly relationship, whereas in the PA it is very rigid & official.
Das - Punjabi's only constitute about 15% of the IA.
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.
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????
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?
Re: The Pak soldier is equal to 10 Indian soldiers?
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.
Re: The Pak soldier is equal to 10 Indian soldiers?
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: 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!!
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.
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).
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.
Look Malhot, you can go back 1000's of years and beat the crap out of Pakistanis. Happy now?
Indians usually have a very backwards attitude, Malhot especially has a backwards attitude towards women.
Re: The Pak soldier is equal to 10 Indian soldiers?
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.
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. .
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.
Re: The Pak soldier is equal to 10 Indian soldiers?
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,
China
Re: The Pak soldier is equal to 10 Indian soldiers?
^^^ People of Pakistan are not foreigners, they are from the same land and it was their own land, they decided to have separate country from their own land and they did have very right to do so, and china wasnt the player in creation of Pakistan.
in the argument, fighting against bigger enemy in numbers, historically muslim warriors did have small armies and win over bigger armies. ....
Amour bro! you are forgetting that the "science of war" has gone through many "paradigm shifts" in the last 1400 years. If you keep on using the same obsolete practices in today's warfare, the result will be a terrible "chitrol".
Let's not forget that Muslim armies of AD 600's were fighting their opponents with good plan, and preparation. Don't think they would gather few hundred and win war against 1000 times larger armies.
Wars are fought on many levels and some of them are listed below:
- Philosophical - Having clear objectives and a time table
- Geographical - Taking advantage of the available terrain
- Technological - Matching if not exceeding your opponent in the use of technology
- Logistical - Supplying your soldiers food and water, while denying the same to your opponents
- Financial - Keeping your trade routes open while eliminating the trade of your opponent
- Training and professionalism - How well the soldiers are trained in the latest techniques.
An able commander will plan and combine his advantages in the above 6. In case these aspects give him an overwhelming advantage, he can reduce the number of troops accordingly.
The wars of Badar, Ohud, and Khadaq were essentially defensive wars by Muslims. They pretty much stayed close to home while Maccans travelled 200 miles (roughly 350 km). This distance was a logistical nightmare for the Maccans. Back then it would take around 2 weeks to send supplies from Macca to the the fighting force of Kuffar.
Not just supplies, but the lack of field level medical treatment of the injured meant that Maccans' attrition rate was much higher due to disease and injuries.
There were many other factors that allowed Muslims to win (or at least stave off a clear defeat).
So you can't just say "Hamaray 42 shairon nain, unkey 540 siphai maar deeay".
And that is why you should not throw around the empty bravado of "bravery" either. This is an insult to the war planners of 1400 years ago.
p.s. The same wayt, one should do a thorough analysis of the wars fought by Moors (Bin Zyad) and Qasim. Do you even know the number of campaigns by Hujjaj against Dahir? Hint: Qasim's campaign was not the first one.
Re: The Pak soldier is equal to 10 Indian soldiers?
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..
.....Jinah in all his wisdom - destroyed centuries of mutual living together of Hindu's & Muslims -.....
Blaming it on the Muslims yet again! Brother Malhot you will not rest until every crime in the subcontinent is not pinned on Muslim men, women, and innocent children.
Jinnah passed away 60 odd years ago, and the likes you are still carrying hate in their hearts and fire in their brains.
Stick to IT bro! History needs a lot more brain power to fully comprehend things that went on many many years ago.
p.s. And talking about history, you ever wonder how come Hindus kept Lord Mountbatten as their GG even after Bharat Matha was liberated? That must be due to Jinnah as well.
well I said historically, not really applicable now one has to be at par in terms of equipment and training to do a number comparison comes later. i also mentioned a better trained and well equipped force will have an edge over enemy forces.