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.
Re: The Pak soldier is equal to 10 Indian soldiers?
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
Mughals were Mongols origin not your Sindhi and Punjabis etc. The reason Pakistanis surrender without fighting is because they are progeny of same ancestors who surrendered to Arabs and converted to Muslims.
Changing your surname to Mongol-Turkik 'Khan' will not make you Mughals..
Mughals were Mongols origin not your Sindhi and Punjabis etc. The reason Pakistanis surrender without war is because they are progeny of same ancestors who surrendered to Arabs and converted to Muslims.
Changing your surname to Mongol-Turkik 'Khan' will not make you Mughals..
My oh my, such an outburst,.. From muslims to Mongolians... Your kalo christian brothers are what? Progeny of white gora masters of yours who also rules your a$$ for centuries.
Progeny of white gora masters of yours who also rules your a$$ for centuries.
Well i am sure you think sunshine comes out of your a$$ ...... but that sorry a$$ of yours was also ruled by the white goras ....... it took an indian to get rid of them and you get your nation by default.
Well i am sure you think sunshine comes out of your a$$ ...... but that sorry a$$ of yours was also ruled by the white goras ....... it took an indian to get rid of them and you get your nation by default.
Ah more shyt out of indian a$$ I mean mouth... It took an Indian to get rid of goras..... hahahaha what other shyt they teach you in schools sala progeny of habshi ghulam... Do you know slaves also ruled your sorry a$$ for 100 years.
Afghanistan could not however be won by british invaders..perhaps even after multiple attempts.
.
They never tried enough. Its not worth fighting for such a place. They used them anyway to further their objectives in the larger scheme of things and now you can see afghanistan as the most backward place in the whole of Asia.
They never tried enough. Its not worth fighting for such a place. They used them anyway to further their objectives in the larger scheme of things and now you can see afghanistan as the most backward place in the whole of Asia.
Well, you chose my selected sentence. Don't know but assume you agreed with other part of my post.
Amyhow, you can give all the credit to british all you want. They did try to invade afghanistan and failed. I wanted to show thst Hindustani in pure form were subjugated and defeated by ANYONE...less in number or more,............... by the foreigners.
Ah more shyt out of indian a$$ I mean mouth... It took an Indian to get rid of goras..... hahahaha what other shyt they teach you in schools sala progeny of habshi ghulam... Do you know slaves also ruled your sorry a$$ for 100 years.
Oh ! Sorry it was actually Jinnah who got independence for the country, but do you realise that Jinnah was a pork eating non-practising muslim who spoke about making Pakistan a place where people from all faiths could leave peacefully.
We need some madrassahs desperately so that we can be educated properly.
Well, you chose my selected sentence. Don't know but assume you agreed with other part of my post.
Amyhow, you can give all the credit to british all you want. They did try to invade afghanistan and failed. I wanted to show thst Hindustani in pure form were subjugated and defeated by ANYONE...less in number or more,............... by the foreigners.
You said "they used them anyways"....how??
What is there to conquer in Afghanistan !!!!! And everyone who came into Hindustan first would run over Afghanistan and the enter India .... well that was the route. Infact the first people to be "run "over in Indian peninsula were the peopel livng in present day Pakistan.
Also Persia was run over in 50 years of formation of Islam. A great empire turned to dust ...... people were converted to Islam in a matter of a few years ...... it has been almost 1400 years and Islam was not able to get the same foothold in Indian peninsula. Afghans succumbed to Islam in a very short time. So when you analyse the situation please keep that in mind.
As for conqueres and Hindustan ... well as much you like to think otherwise ... present day Paksitan was also sailing in the same boat. I dont know about muslims in Pakistan, but teh muslims in Arabia were not very happy that they were under the Turks .... fellow muslims , but they still considered them foriegn invaders
Well, you chose my selected sentence. Don't know but assume you agreed with other part of my post.
Amyhow, you can give all the credit to british all you want. They did try to invade afghanistan and failed. I wanted to show thst Hindustani in pure form were subjugated and defeated by ANYONE...less in number or more,............... by the foreigners.
You said "they used them anyways"....how??
Afhghanis were overrun by Arabs , after Persia and succumbed to Islam, well offcourse unless you believe angles came down from heaven to convert them.
Try to wipe out those Bamiyan Buddha statues completely before going ahead with propogandabazi. Half baked lies dont sell.
