India is perfectly capable of Winning a Two-Front WAR

[Chinese-Dragon]

I'm sure that's what Nehru's advisors told him as well.

India could probably win a 100-front war as well. They are the most powerful country in the history of the universe, didn't their ancestors invent space ships, nuclear weapons, airplanes, etc.?

 

[Kailash Rava]

How is India going to respond to Pakistan's tactical missiles?

India's multilayered anti-ballistic defense program.

 

[Dungeness]

I'm sure that's what Nehru's advisors told him as well.

India could probably win a 100-front war as well. They are the most powerful country in the history of the universe, didn't their ancestors invent space ships, nuclear weapons, airplanes, etc.?

Indians have good reason to compensate their inferiors complex and centuries of humiliation, but they tend to overdo it. An article like this being posted in an international forum actually harms India's credibility, as it lets people around the world have an opportunity to peek into the mentality of Indian educated class. On the other hand, their sensational mass media reveals the mindset of their masses.

 

[#hydra#]

utter nonsense.

India can never win a two front war. Take Germany for example.

Even uncle Sam can't win a two front war scenarios.

 

[MultaniGuy]

India can never win a two front war against Pakistan and China.

 

[Dungeness]

lol nothing better humiliation then giving land on lease , BTW , all HK people think Chinese people inferior, tell a lot.

HK was leased, and India was owned.

 

[MultaniGuy]

HK was leased, and India was owned.

Agreed with you.

 

[war&peace]

Not just two front war against Pakistan and China, the vedic superpower india can single handedly win against rest of the world...provided the "war" is produced and directed by Bollywood

The only difference is that the Indian army is battle-hardened now and well-versed in counter-insurgency. So Pakistan will find it hard to detach Kashmir from India.

First joke of the year-2017

 

[Nilgiri]

HK was leased, and India was owned.

Actually Hong Kong island and Kowloon were both ceded to the crown for eternity.

What was leased for 99 years was the New Territories (acquired later by the crown). Hong Kong grew into and integrated into this area (its actually where I grew up as a kid near a new industrial park where my dad worked)....so it would have been foolish to split the city like Berlin after the lease expired (and basically wreck the economy of HK).....so thats why with negotiations and conditions (that many chinese members do not seem to like here), it was returned as a whole back to China when the lease of one constituent area expired in 1997.

As for India being "owned"...occupation (direct and indirect concerning various kingdoms)/political control is a more apt term. The British did not own anywhere close to the majority of the land...less than a fraction of 1% actually....compared to how it was done in say North America and Australia.

 

[SDS1]

HK was leased, and India was owned.

HK was given because you cannot pay , So you have give on lease Or I would have taken by force.....China also ruled by many countries together....

 

[MultaniGuy]

Point is that India can never win a two front war against China and Pakistan.

 

[war&peace]

As for India being "owned"...occupation (direct and indirect concerning various kingdoms)/political control is a more apt term.

Occupied through treachery and conspiracy: India could have never been occupied by east india company if traitors like Mir Jaffer and Mir Saddiq didn't help the British.

 

[MultaniGuy]

Occupied through treachery and conspiracy: India could have never been occupied by east india company if traitors like Mir Jaffer and Mir Saddiq didn't help the British.

Agreed with you.

 

[Dungeness]

Actually Hong Kong island and Kowloon were both ceded to the crown for eternity.

What was leased for 99 years was the New Territories (acquired later by the crown). Hong Kong grew into and integrated into this area (its actually where I grew up as a kid near a new industrial park where my dad worked)....so it would have been foolish to split the city like Berlin after the lease expired (and basically wreck the economy of HK).....so thats why with negotiations and conditions (that many chinese members do not seem to like here), it was returned as a whole back to China when the lease of one constituent area expired in 1997.

As for India being "owned"...occupation (direct and indirect concerning various kingdoms)/political control is a more apt term. The British did not own anywhere close to the majority of the land...less than a fraction of 1% actually....compared to how it was done in say North America and Australia.

I was trying to show some basic sense to the troll.

Yes, I know the 3 treaties regarding HK between British and Qing Dynasty, and we can have different views about the historical facts about India under British Raj.

 

[Nilgiri]

Occupied through treachery and conspiracy: India could have never been occupied by east india company if traitors like Mir Jaffer and Mir Saddiq didn't help the British.

Yah there are many hypothetical "what ifs". Yours is a famous example (esp for original stronghold formation esp in comparison to what say Aurangzeb did to British sailors that tried any funny business outside agreed upon terms).

Others include....like what if Maratha's didnt take English at their word and instead pursued their campaign right to the lion's lair in Bengal and Madras when they were beating them and had the momentum (in the 1st anglo-maratha war). It gave very crucial time for the British to regroup, re-analyse and of course create and consolidate the network of backstabbers like they essentially did in their first strongholds....and that was what doomed indigenous political control of subcontinent. After winning the next two Anglo-Maratha wars, they just had too much control of a critical mass of India...something that would quickly consolidate and get absorbed into one political reality anywhere in the world quite organically and with little effort....so India was no different in that situation.

You got to give it to the British, they were far ahead of anyone else in the world when it came to statecraft through any means necessary. They aimed big, went all in, played for high stakes and for the long term and it worked out for them....all on the backs of a population several times larger. Ultimately the majority of people everywhere want stability, peace and to be left alone. The average peasant does not really care about who's running politics till you start physically making his limited lot in life untenable (hence british raj lasted a good long time as far as empires go in the subcontinent)....or enough of the domestic elite rally at the same time and are presented with an opportunity to take power themselves, and the peasants get swept into all that fervour (which is how and why the British ultimately left).

Its a very long subject as you can imagine....and well worth reading to learn and understand from.