Pak believes that attacking India is their birth right,eent ka jawaab patthar se dena hoga: Parrikar

[itachii]

The so called Ghazwa is a defensive measure against an invading force. India is obviously the invading force here.
I don't seed how a defensive measure can be considered threatening?

invading pakistan ? what does India get by invading pak ? give me one good reason to invade pakistan ??

 

[dadeechi]

Then take it up with the Arab countries.

That is because Pakistan has willing accepted the burden of inheriting the legacy of past Arab & Turkic rulers of the subcontinent. The day Pakistan disowns this legacy, peace would prevail in the subcontinent.

 

[Rank]

https://twitter.com/x/status/741328056199979009

https://twitter.com/x/status/741328504231362560

Parrikar says will repay Pakistan in same coin


Parrikar says will repay Pakistan in same coin

Ghaziabad, Jun 11 (UNI) Observing that Pakistan believes attacking India is its birthright, Defence Minister Manohar Parrikar has said a befitting response is needed to change the mindset of Islamabad.
"Pakistan believes that attacking India is their birthright, they consider India a potential enemy to them. We need to change its mindset. Hume eent ka jawab pathar se dena hoga (we need to pay them back in full)," Mr Parrikar said late last night.
He was interacting with prominent representatives of Ghaziabad along with local MP and

http://www.uniindia.com/parrikar-says-will-repay-pakistan-in-same-coin/states/news/515649.html

Buying weapons on the name of "Countering China" and use/put on forward bases of India's western border (max Indian deployment on Western border of India) and telling Pakistan that Pakistan ko baharat pe hamla karnay ke adat pari hoi hey since birth... waah sahib aap kamaal kartay hain lol

 

[Joe Shearer]

Exactly what purpose do these statements serve? In your opinion?

Nothing. In this particular instance, my statements were not intended to serve any purpose. They were intended to convey that perhaps the person posting had something of insight to say, although that ought not to be stated categorically.

 

[Joe Shearer]

Will try to do so Janab.

Akbar wouldn't have changed a thing. Again, Akbar's priority was less the unity of whatever and more to do with his seat. Even during his time his actions with Din-e-Ilahi were focused on nullifying the Rajput's misgivings about the previous alliances.

That is one (about the possibility of an Akbar having made a difference to the situation). There are some other thoughts.

1. Akbar was an expansionist. He took the bare hold on the central complex - Punjab, Delhi and its surrounds - and expanded from that as base.into Malwa, Rajasthan, Gujarat and Bengal in the first round of conquests. He went on to add, in a second, 'purple' phase, to the north,west and south, Kashmir,Kandahar and bits of the Deccan abutting the Malwa. In the already expanded empire of the eighteenth century Mughals, his prodigious energy would have been frittered away rushing from place to place, putting down outbreaks of rebellion.
2. Akbar came before Jahangir and Shah Jahan. If he had followed them, he would have had a tougher time reversing their pronounced Islamic tilt, each reign inclining a few degrees deeper into Islam. And he would have had substantially greater opposition from the clergy. It does not seem likely that he would get where he did in his own lifetime, vis a vis religious heterodoxy.

 

[Sheikh Rauf]

Its RSS mind set speaking up now.. we have seen aint ka jawab by burning innocent Pakistani visiters in samjotha express.. we have seen their bravery in their own country..
Pakistan maybe small in term of land and population but when it come to jawab. U will find every answer u deserve to know.

 

[SQ8]

That is one (about the possibility of an Akbar having made a difference to the situation). There are some other thoughts.

1. Akbar was an expansionist. He took the bare hold on the central complex - Punjab, Delhi and its surrounds - and expanded from that as base.into Malwa, Rajasthan, Gujarat and Bengal in the first round of conquests. He went on to add, in a second, 'purple' phase, to the north,west and south, Kashmir,Kandahar and bits of the Deccan abutting the Malwa. In the already expanded empire of the eighteenth century Mughals, his prodigious energy would have been frittered away rushing from place to place, putting down outbreaks of rebellion.
2. Akbar came before Jahangir and Shah Jahan. If he had followed them, he would have had a tougher time reversing their pronounced Islamic tilt, each reign inclining a few degrees deeper into Islam. And he would have had substantially greater opposition from the clergy. It does not seem likely that he would get where he did in his own lifetime, vis a vis religious heterodoxy.

1. The empire was ill suited for governance from day one.
2. One has to read through Tuzk-e-Jahangiri to realise that he was never to be religious in his actual life as claimed.

 

[Joe Shearer]

1. The empire was ill suited for governance from day one.
2. One has to read through Tuzk-e-Jahangiri to realise that he was never to be religious in his actual life as claimed.

True; he was a refined aesthete, and was more sensuous than mentally and intellectually focused on matters of observance and doctrine. You are right.

I was referring to the public posture during his reign. It was far more orthodox, far less inclined to take risk than during his father's time.

 

[SQ8]

True; he was a refined aesthete, and was more sensuous than mentally and intellectually focused on matters of observance and doctrine. You are right.

I was referring to the public posture during his reign. It was far more orthodox, far less inclined to take risk than during his father's time.

He was too busy in trying to hold that empire and his hunts. Chapters upon chapters of his autobiography are filled with him praising god for excellent hunts or how many tolas of gold and emeralds were sent to which Raja.

 

[Joe Shearer]

He was too busy in trying to hold that empire and his hunts. Chapters upon chapters of his autobiography are filled with him praising god for excellent hunts or how many tolas of gold and emeralds were sent to which Raja.

In other words, he was too busy coping and wasn't really thinking about policy with much seriousness.

Now you've got me uncertain. I think I'll read it again before commenting further. It doesn't help that I read all this sometime in 1968.

 

[cloud_9]

So Mr. Parikar wants to fight Pakistanis with stones,no wonder the procurements have stopped and Armed forces are running around without basic gear.

Another quality product by the IIT's!

 

[Alpha Fighter]

Barking bitch3s seldom bites.

he bit so hard that your soldiers forget to use Gun on LOC after that.....

The so called Ghazwa is a defensive measure against an invading force. India is obviously the invading force here.
I don't see how a defensive measure can be considered threatening?


Like 2002 and 2008. Ever since Pak got its nukes, India has only acted like a paper tiger.(my own observation)

India suffered 1,874 casualties without fighting a war - Times of India
Why did so many soldiers die in Operation Parakram

Yep we can see action on ground..

Islamabad shocked as Indian Army launches 'massive' retaliation to border firing... and confident PM Modi promises 'everything will be all right soon'

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/indiahome/indianews/article-2785698/Islamabad-shocked-Indian-Army-launches-massive-retaliation-border-firing-confident-PM-Modi-promises-right-soon.html#ixzz4BKm5UDDD
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/indiahom...ng-confident-PM-Modi-promises-right-soon.html

 

[Tripoli]

Absolutely not. A Ghazwa is a campaign in which the Prophet of Islam took part in. There is no need for it to be defensive in nature.


It's okay. Happens. You will get over it.

Forgive me for being so blunt. I specifically meant Ghazwa-e- Hind. In this particular case, the Ghazwa is exculsively (according to the resources on the subject) a defensive measure against
an invading India. @dadeechi Any input.

 

[SarthakGanguly]

Forgive me for being so blunt. I specifically meant Ghazwa-e- Hind. In this particular case, the Ghazwa is exculsively (according to the resources on the subject) a defensive measure against
an invading India. @dadeechi Any input.

Nothing like that is necessary at all. It can also be a campaign to bring the 'Light of Allah's Deen' to a land where jahalat is practiced. There are precedents. Of course, some excuse(or justification in your POV) can be propped up - there are plenty...like Muslims are being persecuted. That is reason enough if a Ghazwa becomes necessary.

Not all original ghazwas were purely defensive in nature either.

 

[Joe Shearer]

Both Jinnah and Gandhi were British agents.

I found your post deeply irritating, but am not reacting to it as it is so clearly meant to provoke and annoy, rather than to lead to any further consideration of the subject.

Nothing like that is necessary at all. It can also be a campaign to bring the 'Light of Allah's Deen' to a land where jahalat is practiced. There are precedents. Of course, some excuse(or justification in your POV) can be propped up - there are plenty...like Muslims are being persecuted. That is reason enough if a Ghazwa becomes necessary.

Not all original ghazwas were purely defensive in nature either.

Reluctantly, in the interest of facts: the original ghazwas were looting expeditions.

As a senior you must known better that one liner statements are not accepted. Please he more elobrative next time

Well, the fact is, I was reluctant to say it, but you do have a point. And I'm not going to add any more lines to it.