India cannot defeat Pakistan militarily

[Joe Shearer]

You merely sent a few hundred thousand troops to the border, killing thousands of them in the process to damage our reputation and coerce us into obeying you, just as you tried in 2016 and 2019.

Pakistani sources have made it clear what a whopper you just told us.

Your mercenaries, and their supplementary forces including serving officers, were finally 'coerced' into obedience, so perhaps you should not have tried this foolhardy stunt in the first place.

Our troops were not sent to the border; they were sent to vacate locations on our side of the LOC that had been surreptitiously taken over by Pakistani forces.

Do try not to advance palpable falsehoods in defence of what Pakistan did.

The only time Pakistan was the undisputed aggressor was 1999, and that too was in retaliation for India's uncalled for annexation of Siachen.

You have made your point.

The only time you will admit to aggression was when you were clearly defeated.

In all other cases, where there is even a shred of doubt that can be raised, you were never the aggressors; not with Army officers leading a murderous mob into territory to which you had no legitimate access; not with a clandestine attack by special forces across a ceasefire line, following on the steps of attacking a border manned by policemen; not with (again) a clandestine violation of the same ceasefire line; not with the overt attempt, for lack of opportunity to be clandestine, because of being detected in the act of acquiring specialist mountaineering equipment that betrayed your intentions. In none of these cases, in each of which the attempt was to try to undo by stealth a legal position of your opponents.

Let me make this clear to you, personally.

If you want to discuss these issues by using the cheapest of cheap propaganda, you will make yourself both an object of ridicule, and a nuisance that is to be left alone.

Your choice.

 

[Joe Shearer]

lol that was claimed by the journalist with no authentication.... ended up with "baseless and out of context"

I reported it as it appeared. If there was a subsequent resiling from that position, this is the first I knew about it.

I assume that your version of what happened is authentic.

The statement shows - Pakistan hit India any time and anywhere, and the other statement simply says "can't find LONG TERM WAR" both statements have nothing to do with each other technically and logically.. oh i forgt i am in engaged with those who believe F16s stories

You seem to have drawn your own lessons from the reports. Nothing anyone else can do about that. I take it that all those reports about the situation within Pakistan are wildly exaggerated, and that she has the wherewithal to mount an attack, even though when she was much stronger economically, she failed to do so.

If you wish to put forward wishful thinking that flies in the face of real life, that is your privilege. Do not expect to be taken seriously outside your own coterie, in such case.

There should be a serious consideration as to why a 'super-duper' military can't deter a small nation from aggressive behavior

That has already been established, albeit by a government that I detest.

They don't care. What Pakistan has managed to achieve against India is a series of pinpricks of no consequence to individuals of the way of thinking of the ministers and party leaders of the party that today forms the government of India.

This small nation does not matter any more. It has consumed its quote of goodwill among the extremists, and your natural supporters - I was one - are too embattled with the political issues embroiling our country. Your problems and your actions are not anyone's priority any more.

 

[Edevelop]

Someone said Happiness is a state of mind. Pakistanis tend to find happiness everywhere. This is a great art indeed.

Happy Military of Pakistan Attacked India in 1965 to take Kashmir and ended up defending La'hore and observe Defense day for this great achievement.

So what were India's achievements?

1947-48? India's dream of taking the torch of greater British India failed. Firstly, you could not stop the creation of Pakistan from Iranian and Afghan border to Chinese border and secondly, considering the fact that the only ethnic group we have in common on both sides are Punjabis, Pakistan owns most of Punjab and this is in spite of the fact that Pakistan's military did not exist at the time and India had weapons left behind by the British. Lol you could not even take control of Hindu Nepal

1961? How does it feel to lose vast amounts of territory to China? lol Pakistan certainly had a role here.

1965? Sure we ended up defendin. Did we lose any territory in pursuit of Kashmir valley? In fact the Kashmiri movement is still alive today and Pakistan still controls Azad Kashmir and Gilgit Baltistan which Indian leaders have declared that they want badly.

1971? A territory that didn't border us by land and sea? As Z.Bhutto had already declared before independence "tum wahan hum wahan. To put it simply, East Pakistan was an error. Nothing more than a brief colonial rule. Except religion, we had nothing in common with Bengalis from geography to history to culture and in fact breaking away from us was actually a good thing.

 

[brational]

So what were India's achievements?

1947-48? India's dream of taking the torch of greater British India failed. Firstly, you could not stop the creation of Pakistan from Iranian and Afghan border to Chinese border and secondly, considering the fact that the only ethnic group we have in common on both sides are Punjabis, Pakistan owns most of Punjab and this is in spite of the fact that Pakistan's military did not exist at the time and India had weapons left behind by the British. Lol you could not even take control of Hindu Nepal

1961? How does it feel to lose vast amounts of territory to China? lol Pakistan certainly had a role here.

1965? Sure we ended up defendin. Did we lose any territory in pursuit of Kashmir valley? In fact the Kashmiri movement is still alive today and Pakistan still controls Azad Kashmir and Gilgit Baltistan which Indian leaders have declared that they want badly.

1971? A territory that didn't border us by land and sea? As Z.Bhutto had already declared before independence "tum wahan hum wahan. To put it simply, East Pakistan was an error. Nothing more than a brief colonial rule. Except religion, we had nothing in common with Bengalis from geography to history to culture and in fact breaking away from us was actually a good thing.

For 1947-48 - Pakistan's fate was written. Check the comments of Prominent Indian and British Leaders. Everybody knew the plight of Pakistanis. We did not stop it because the narrative of Pakistan had taken shape already in 1943 and dissident was visible in many parts. Partition was a blessing in disguise and this is the only thing why I thank Nehru & Gandhi. Just imagine the situation today if these Zahils and Radical animals were living in Undivided India! We would have become bheekhmanga and we would have been living like the Pakistanis today. Good riddance i say. Thanks to Nehru & Gandhi again. Don't worry we will take Azad Kashmir and GB back. We are bound by our parliamentary resolution.

We never felt like taking over Nepal, Bhutan, Srilanka as these states are not our enemies. Moreover they are part of Indian Civilization and mostly untouched by foreign invadors. They are more Indian culturally than by nationality.

We lost our land to China and faced defeat in 1962 not 1961 (Don't try to play your favorite game of poking with dates here). We were weak and we were in the initial days planning and building of new structures for our nation. Many political decisions hit us adversely at that time. But that has been rectified later in 1967 and 1987. Yes some areas are still under Chinese control and India is policically and constitutionally bound to recover them.

1965 - Zahil Pakistanis thought that India was weak after ther war with China and took the bite and got bitch slapped. No we could not retrieve GB Azad Kashmir because our leadership thought that we won't be able to retain it due to our economic conditions at that time. We rather forced the Zahils to celebrate defence day and allowed them to increase their happiness index.

Not commenting on 1971 as more than 90k were standing with their pants down.

Are you asking me or answering your own questions?

As for India's achievements - We are a global power. We are the 5 largest economy and before the end of this decade we will be the 3rd Largest.

We have reduced our poverty rate from 44% to 18% in 30 years.

We have established India as a prominent player in space sector.

We have a prominent Private Sector. We have a great Info Tech Industry. We have a great Foreign Policy. We are self sufficient in food production. We are diversifying our energy consumption pattern and moving towards energy security.

We have established world class institutions producing leaders, administrators, economists, scientists, Engineers, Doctors, Agriculturists, Entrepreneurs, Accountants and so on.

We have created our political system, Judiciary, Public Services for Indians not for the highest bidders.

we are adding more GDP than the entire GDP of Pakistan each year.
We have achieved $770 b in export last year. Our Foreign reserve is close to $600b and growing.

More importantly, we have managed to preserve and upkeep our Culture, identity, Sanskriti and Sanskar despite of all odds.

Last but not the least - we proudly say that we are a developing country. We still have many shortcomings that need to be bridged. We are working towards betterment of our people. We aspire to be a developed country by 2047.


There are many more but tum itne mei hi kaam chala lo. Kyun ki Paklandion ko na samajh mei aayega na yeh sab unsey ho payega. (After writing all these things, i have a feeling that Pakistani to aakhir Pakistani hotey hai. Mera time waste ho gaya).

Please List down the Achievements of Pakistan if you have any.

 

[arjunk]

The government of Pakistan sent everybody but the Army, and that sent contingent included military officers 'on leave', who played an active role in leading the tribals.

India sent its military to support an acceded princely state. What did either do wrong?

Not only is the legitimacy of the accession dubious, the legitimacy of Hari Singh's rule was as well.

Kashmiri Muslims did not lead an uprising against him. It was the breakaway faction of the National Conference, headquartered in Muzaffarabad, and supported by the Mirpuris and the Sudans, who revolted.

If you were not brainwashed by your doctored textbooks, you might have known this for yourself.

Joe, I didn't expect you to be the type who buys this BS - I'll let it slide considering your area of expertise isn't history.

Let me be very clear - there is absolutely no doubt that the Kashmir conflict, though taken advantage of by Pakistan, was instigated by Hari Singh's oppressive and rightfully hated rule - something Indians high on their moral superiority complex ignore, and pretend the Pakistan Army invaded the state out of the blue for territorial conquest.

I don't know why India, who claims to have the moral high ground in the Kashmir dispute, is so proud of providing military support to crush dissent against a genocidal tyrant.

If you don't believe it from me, a Kashmiri myself, here's some scholarly and independent sources:

• Snedden, Christopher (2001). What happened to the Muslims in Jammu?: "The tale of a massacre of Muslims caused a chain of events that produced the Kashmir dispute"
• Snedden, Christopher (2013). Kashmir: The unwritten history. "After Partition in 1947, Jammuites engaged in three significant actions. The first was a Muslim uprising in the Poonch area of western Jammu province against the unpopular Hindu ruler, Maharaja Hari Singh. The second was serious inter-religious violence throughout the province that killed or displaced larger numbers of people from all religious communities. The third was the creation of Azad (Free) Jammu and Kashmir in the area of western Jammu Province that the 'rebels' had 'freed' or 'liberated'. These significant actions all took place before the Maharaja acceded to India on 26 October 1947. They divided 'his' Muslim-majority state and confirmed that it was undeliverable in its entirety to either India or Pakistan. They instigated the ongoing dispute between India and Pakistan over which state should possess J&K—the so-called 'Kashmir dispute'"
• Al Jazeera (2018) - The forgotten massacre that ignited the Kashmir dispute
• BBC (2017). Kashmir Profile "In October 1947 tribesmen from Pakistan invaded Kashmir, spurred by reports of attacks on Muslims and frustrated by Hari Singh's delaying tactics"
• Coopland, Ian (2005) p.143, states the Jammu massacres were revenge for the rebellion against Hari Singh. (little did he know, his genocidal attack on Kashmir would backfire and lead to further rebellion and Pathan intervention.)

Please stick to military matters, your area of expertise, and don't lecture me about my own people's history in dealing with your country's tyrannical and fraudulent rule.

'...merely instigated...'

So you admit India started the '65 war, for whatever reason it may have cited, regardless of its veracity?

The Kutch incident pitted armed policemen from the Indian side against armoured formations from Pakistan. If India had wanted to invade, do you think armed policemen would have been deployed?

The Kashmir incident pitted irregular guerilla fighters from the Pakistani side conducting hit and run attacks and propaganda against regular formations from India. If Pakistan actually wanted to attack and occupy Indian territory it would've launched Grand Slam initially, not in retaliation to India.

The dispute over Kutch was handed over for arbitration by consent of both sides after a ceasefire. Would you consider it normal to first agree to a ceasefire, then agree to an arbitrated settlement, and then go and mount a clandestine attack with special forces troops?

The agreement was not reached until years after 1965 ended.

If your forefathers believed that the terms of the legislation allowing princes to decide their accession could be flouted, what will you answer to the Hindutva lunatics who will then argue that with the violation of one part of the legislation, the rest of the legislation became null and void?

So tell me, when will India return Junagarh, Hyderabad,and the other territories it forcefully annexed against not just the British provisions, but also international law which states conquest is unlawful? Does that mean India should be colonised by the British again?

Think before you answer - the Union of India was created by separating Hindu-Majority provinces of the Crown Colony of India by act of Parliament in Britain. Invalidating the provisions of this act involves invalidating the legal basis for the creation of India, that had no legal foundation other than law passed.

 

[Joe Shearer]

Not only is the legitimacy of the accession dubious, the legitimacy of Hari Singh's rule was as well.

LOL.

Rubbish.

As far as Pakistani opinion is concerned, that prince was recognised - in fact, received distinctive recognition - from the suzerain power, that entity that authorised the creation of Pakistan.

Joe, I didn't expect you to be the type who buys this BS - I'll let it slide considering your area of expertise isn't history.

Oh dear!

My area of expertise is precisely history.

My education was at the highest levels with history as the main, the primary subject.

You may be sure that in matters relating to history, whatever I narrate has complete authenticity.

 

[arjunk]

LOL.

Rubbish.

As far as Pakistani opinion is concerned, that prince was recognised - in fact, received distinctive recognition - from the suzerain power, that entity that authorised the creation of Pakistan.

As far as Indian opinion is concerned, the ruler of Junagarh was recognised - in fact, received distinctive recognition - from the suzerain power, that entity that authorised the creation of India.

 

[Joe Shearer]

Let me be very clear - there is absolutely no doubt that the Kashmir conflict, though taken advantage of by Pakistan, was instigated by Hari Singh's oppressive and rightfully hated rule - something Indians high on their moral superiority complex ignore, and pretend the Pakistan Army invaded the state out of the blue for territorial conquest.

His oppression is neither here nor there. It was not open to components of the British Colony to decide who should or should not rule them.

Remember that each and every part of the constituted Dominion of Pakistan was a British conquest. More particularly, the Gilgit area was a joint British-State of Jammu & Kashmir conquest, assigned by mutual agreement to the State. There were revolts and agitations in other parts of the Indian Empire as well; none of it affected the legal ramifications of the terms of independence.

 

[Joe Shearer]

As far as Indian opinion is concerned, the ruler of Junagarh was recognised - in fact, received distinctive recognition - from the suzerain power, that entity that authorised the creation of India.

Indeed it was.

You are apparently unaware that the Viceroy, Mountbatten, had specifically told each and every prince, on the direct instructions of the Sovereign, George VI, that the princes, with regard to accession, would have to follow two guidelines - the first, they would have to choose one of the two Dominions; second, they would have to choose a Dominion to which their realm had access.

It was the lack of access to Pakistan that prevented the accession of Junagadh and Hyderabad to Pakistan, and the requirement to join one or the other of the Dominions that prevented the States of Travancore-Cochin, Hyderabad, Manipur and two or three others who wanted to retain their independence and not join either Dominion.

For your information, since you seem to be unaware of these developments, both Kalat, ruled into the Dominion of Pakistan due to the lack of freedom to remain independent, and the province of the NWFP, that was ruled by a Congress associate, but was inaccessible to India, and therefore clearly informed by the Congress leadership that they would not be able to allow that province to join India, came into Pakistan on these rules. In case you are wondering, it was due to this rejection that the Khudai Khidmatgars boycotted the referendum, that as a result, opted for Pakistan with a paper-thin margin.

Please stick to military matters, your area of expertise, and don't lecture me about my own people's history in dealing with your country's tyrannical and fraudulent rule.

History is my main area of expertise; military history was a hobby developed in later life.

The books that you have cited are all books I have read; from where I sit, I can turn my head by 90 degrees and see my copy of Snedden.

I am well aware of the events in Jammu prior to October 1947, and have condemned it in these pages, on PDF, more than once. That does not give any legitimacy to the desire of the people to seek a different settlement than their ruler decided.

You may safely assume that I am as well read on these matters as any other member of the forum; in addition, rather than relying on your own understanding, you would be well-advised to consult M. Sarmad on this.

So you admit India started the '65 war, for whatever reason it may have cited, regardless of its veracity?

How do you get that from my emoji indicating that I thought an argument advanced by you was a deranged mis-statement?

 

[Joe Shearer]

The Kashmir incident pitted irregular guerilla fighters from the Pakistani side conducting hit and run attacks and propaganda against regular formations from India. If Pakistan actually wanted to attack and occupy Indian territory it would've launched Grand Slam initially, not in retaliation to India.

LOL.

You need to read your own authors and their texts. In particular, the definitive text by a Pakistani general, that the Pakistan Army sought to suppress and whose book they tried to buy up every copy.

The infiltrators were none of them civilians; each and every man was a trained special forces soldier, trained by the then Lt. Col. A. O. Mitha. Every man jack.

Do your homework first.

It was always intended by General Akhtar Malik, acting on the direct instructions of Ayub Khan, to keep Grand Slam as a contingency plan in case of the failure of Operation Gibraltar. This entire episode has been discussed threadbare, and you are coming late to the banquet.

The agreement was not reached until years after 1965 ended.

You are wrong again.

I was referring to the agreement to submit the matter to arbitration by a Tribunal, that was reached in June 1965.

You are referring to the finding, that was agreed upon by both parties in 1968.

 

[Imran Khan]

LOL.

Rubbish.

As far as Pakistani opinion is concerned, that prince was recognised - in fact, received distinctive recognition - from the suzerain power, that entity that authorised the creation of Pakistan.


Oh dear!

My area of expertise is precisely history.

My education was at the highest levels with history as the main, the primary subject.

You may be sure that in matters relating to history, whatever I narrate has complete authenticity.

joe bhai wesy imandari ki baat hai 27 feb ko india ko maar bhut pari thi

 

[Joe Shearer]

So tell me, when will India return Junagarh, Hyderabad,and the other territories it forcefully annexed against not just the British provisions, but also international law which states conquest is unlawful? Does that mean India should be colonised by the British again?

Sadly for the arguments you have put forward, none of these matters was subject to International Law.

They were performed under the laws of the United Kingdom, acting in its capacity of administrator of the Crown Colony of India, and as suzerain power over the 563 princely states bound to the Indian Empire by treaty.

Both Junagadh and Hyderabad sought to evolve their own solution outside the enactment of the India Independence Act, and their actions were illegal.

Read up on these if you don't know about them.

joe bhai wesy imandari ki baat hai 27 feb ko india ko maar bhut pari thi

27 February 1947?

Where was India in the picture? India as a Dominion did not even exist until August 1947. In February 1947, only the Crown Colony of India existed, side by side with 563 princely states in a subordinate relationship to the British Empire, through the Viceroy (the Crown Colony was technically under the Governor General, and as a result, when the Crown Colony was divided into two Dominions, and the existence of the princely states became subject to negotiations and agreements with the Dominions, the Viceroy ceased to exist, and only the Governor General was left as representative of the King of the United Kingdom, in both Dominions.

More once there is any further argument or fact advanced, tomorrow.

Good night, all.

 

[Vikramaditya-I]

It depends on the objectives of each side. Pakistan's at the moment is most likely to defend itself and seize small pockets of Indian territory where possible and perhaps a larger offensive into southern Kashmir (judging by ORBAT and historical trends), by which time the international community will have stopped the war before India can fully utilise its numerical advantage.

According to CSD, India's objective is to quickly seize large chunks of territory to gain favourable terms when the war ends, while also stopping it from going nuclear (only physically possible south of Jhelum, and realistically in the Thar region). But the problem is all of Pakistan's essential territory is near the border, and the nuclear red line is dangerously blurred.

Per Pakistan's doctrine, the mostly likely sequence of escalation is first a nuclear test and mating warheads, and then TNWs and on to SNWs. By the first stage the international community will have lost its collective sh!t and will do go any extent to stop the war - like the Americans rapidly did in Feb 2019.

Most likely, each side's army won't even be able to cross a few kms into the other side of the border before the war ends.

Pakistan has realised this and adopted the same model against India that it used against the far conventionally superior Soviets. The problem is, Uncle Sam disapproves, and Pakistan doesn't have shitloads of money to wage proxy war against India like it did with the Soviets.

Too many external factors in your scenario. And you still failed to figure out what I said and give anyone a reason for India to invade Pakistan. You are going to lengths about the invasion scenario without pointing out why India would invade, rather you are talking about a war scenario, which is too far-fetched.

 

[Imran Khan]

Sadly for the arguments you have put forward, none of these matters was subject to International Law.

They were performed under the laws of the United Kingdom, acting in its capacity of administrator of the Crown Colony of India, and as suzerain power over the 563 princely states bound to the Indian Empire by treaty.

Both Junagadh and Hyderabad sought to evolve their own solution outside the enactment of the India Independence Act, and their actions were illegal.

Read up on these if you don't know about them.


27 February 1947?

Where was India in the picture? India as a Dominion did not even exist until August 1947. In February 1947, only the Crown Colony of India existed, side by side with 563 princely states in a subordinate relationship to the British Empire, through the Viceroy (the Crown Colony was technically under the Governor General, and as a result, when the Crown Colony was divided into two Dominions, and the existence of the princely states became subject to negotiations and agreements with the Dominions, the Viceroy ceased to exist, and only the Governor General was left as representative of the King of the United Kingdom, in both Dominions.

More once there is any further argument or fact advanced, tomorrow.

Good night, all.

lagta hai 27 feb ko itni mar pari apki yaad dasht kho gai

 

[Reichsmarschall]

27 February 1947?

Take your meds and have some mercy on poor bloke who is going to pay for PDF's database servers