What's new

PTV wants to be visible in India again

Nah, we didnt invent another identity, we just kept the one we have had for the past 9000 years.
Indians however couldnt claim it anymore since we stopped sharing the same name. Thats what happens when you claim the identity of people living so far away from you.

Its funny you mention this though. Indians did not have any claim over the Indus identity before the British came and merged us into one nation. So it was you guys who decided to scrap your old identity and start sharing with Pakistanis.
I can imagine how humiliating it must feel.

I enjoy your logic!

I am educated that there was a country called Pakistan before 1947!!

This is the false arrogance that spilt Pakistan and hound the Mohajirs and you blame it on India.
 
Salim.... why did india go to the UN in 1947 if you where winning..?
Thank Pandit Nehru that you did not get wiped out in kashmir in 1947.


Read military history?

You were winning? India wiped out?

Thrown out of Srinagar and bolting into the blue and you say you were winning?


"Op Gibraltar (not discussed in Pak history)"
Are you dreaming again.......

Read some of the posts where the Pakistani military officers have written on it. Google. And it has also been posted on the forum. You can't change history and that too what has been written by Pakistanis, can you?



You hero's.......did you not come into the war in the last 2/3 weeks when victory was assured in bangladesh...?

India was in the war from Day #! and I was there too!!




So you PM wasn't begging the US to get the pak army to back down......do not forget we vacated the mountains, you never expelled us by force.

No, Nawaz Sharif was not my PM!!

Yours maybe?


Well i can see you have to prove yourself to all the other indians being a muslim in india....i bet you cheer the indian cricket team with extra enthusiasm just to prove to the majority that your a loyal subject.

I have no religion.

I cheer Kolkata Knight Riders since it carries the name of my city, even though there are Mos.lems, Christians and Hindus from all over the world in the team. It does not matter.

It is what causes all the rift and bloodshed in the world.

I believe that some Evangelist Party is in the offing in the US as per the CNN or was it BBC? If so, I think the world is going crazy!


When you have "calmed down and faced reality"...get back to me..!

You are humorous!! Misplaced though!


The human rights record in kashmir i agree is "embarrassing"...but please do raise the subject.

Embarrassing to you actually!



where are you speaking from?
 
It was 6th of September 1965 when Pakistan’s armed forces faced off against India’s in the first full-scale war between the two countries. Much to the credit of the brave men (and women) in uniform that day–and for next 2-3 weeks following that–the enemy attack on the City of Lahore was repulsed and the General J. N. Chaudhary’s dream of having his drink at Lahore Gymkhana on the evening of September the 6th was squashed.
http://pakistaniat.com/2007/09/06/1965-war-a-different-legacy/comment-page-5/

This is the type of stuff I find pathetic and humorous.

Pakistan "faced off". As if India started the war!!

Brave men of Pakistan required to start a war to check if they were brave? Funny!

Who started the war? Here it is:

Operation Grand Slam



By Aslam Minhas


MODERN day war complicates rather than solves anything. A country goes to war either to defend its sovereignty in case of attack, or to overwhelm an adversary for political or territorial/material gains.

The War in 1965 was undertaken by General Ayub not for the first reason. Similarly, Hitler started WWII in 1940, Suharto annexed Eastern Timor in 1975, Gen Galteiri occupied Falkland Islands in 1982, and Saddam invaded Kuwait in 1990 -- all for personal glory and political gains. Bush invaded Iraq on March 19, 2003, for the black gold.

In 1965, the plan ‘Operation Gibraltar' involved sneaking a mixed force of 70,000, trained and regulars, into Indian-held Kashmir and invoke a general uprising in the local populace.
The general feeling in the army high command was that Indians had no stomach of warfare and were no match for the superior. The war plan originated in the Foreign Office. The D-day was set for August 5, 1965.

Military high command took it to be as one blow, limited and confined operation, forgetting that war is not an isolated act and once started, it cannot be confined by time or space. Secondly, against defined and proclaimed logic, the military in Pakistan had taken over the political direction of the war.

Our scope is limited to the operation conducted on the Kashmir front under Maj-General Akhtar Malik where, given the opportunity and time, Pakistan could have dictated terms to India on other fronts (‘unexpectedly') opened later by India. But it was not to be. Much has been written about the change in command in the 1965 War, when late Maj-General Akhtar Hussain Malik, Commander 12 Division which had the responsibility for Jammu and Kashmir, was replaced by Maj. Gen. Yahya Khan, Commander 7 Div, and Akhnur was let off the hook, thereby saving the Indian forces a huge embarrassment.

Discussing the initial plans of ‘Operation Gibraltar', Ayub had put his finger at Akhnur across river Tawi, on the sand model asked: “But why don’t you go for the jugular?” General Malik asked for more money and men and Ayub readily agreed. (Altaf Gauhar, Ayub Khan Pakistan’s First Military Ruler’s Sange-meel Publications 1998 p.332)

The attack on Akhnur was given the code name ‘Operation Grand Slam’, to be launched after the ‘Operation Gibraltar'. Gen Akhtar Malik was assigned this task as he knew the area like the back of his hand, and he was a bold and audacious commander.

Gen. Malik had already captured Chamb on September 1, and was well poised to go for Akhnur on September 2, 1965 when he was relieved of command in a most bizarre mysterious manner, defying common sense and logic. Before Musa flew Malik back from the front, General Malik had offered his services to fight under Yahya’s command to take Akhnur.

General Musa, the C-n-C, flew with Gen Yahya on the front on September 2, 1965 to replace General Malik who would not hand over charge otherwise. Yahya was specifically asked by Musa not to advance. A pause of 48 hours was enough for Indian forces to regroup and blunt the Pakistani advance. The Indians also opened another front on Lahore, thus spreading Pakistan Forces thin along the western border. Having lost the initiative, now Pakistan was fighting for its survival. One can lose a battle or even a war, but in Kashmir at that time, it was a victory lost.

The prevailing view in GHQ was that Gen. Ayub had lost his nerve. (Altaf Gauhar p. 334) Shortly before his death, Bhutto had expressed similar views about Ayub, saying he used to panic during crises. (Col. Rafiuddin Bhutto kay akhri 323 din, Jang Publications 1992 p.61) Bhutto observed that Pakistan Army had yet to produce another fighting general of Akhtar Malik’s calibre and had Malik been allowed to advance in Chhamb-Jurian Sector, he would have played havoc with the Indian Forces. (Col Rafiuddin p.66)

After the 1965 War, the talk on change of command in Kashmir became taboo but with death of Gen Musa, the subject was discussed threadbare. The ISPR floated the idea that the change of command in 1965 was pre-planned. Brig. Gul Hassan (late Lt. Gen. and Army Chief), at that time, Director Military Operations, in his memoirs, denied the existence of any such planned change of command during the execution of Operation Grand Slam.

Secondly, Brig. Gul Hassan said he knew Gen. Malik well enough to say that he (Gen. Malik) would never have accepted a command for 24 hours for such a daunting assignment. What happened behind the scenes may never be known. (Lt. Gen Gul Hassan Akhri Commander-in-Chief, Dost Publications Isd. 1999 p.231-234)

Gen. Ayub published his biography Friends Not Master in 1967 but he failed to cover the 1965 War, as it was not a glorious chapter of his life. He tried to gloss over history.

As soon as Yahya took over from Musa as C-n-C in September 1966, he posted out Gen Malik on a CENTO assignment in Turkey. General Akhtar Malik died in 1969 in a car crash in Turkey. It could have been a target-assassination. General Malik had met the Jordanian Ambassador a few days earlier in Ankara. The Ambassador had asked General Malik to help upgrade the Jordanian Army, a job that was accepted by the latter.

It could be Mossad for Israel didn’t want Jordan to acquire the services of a professional general (according to an ex-Army Officer who asked not to be revealed). Israel has been deeply involved in anything that affects its security, especially its neighbours. In 1980, Mossad had eliminated an Egyptian nuclear physicist, Dr Yahia El Meshad, in Paris who had been helping Iraq in setting up its nuclear plant. (Claire Hoy & Victor Ostrovsky By Way of Deception Stoddart Publishing Co.Ltd. Toronto 1990 p.23)

According to officers who fought on Kashmir front, had General Malik been allowed to capture Akhnur, Ayub would not have ignored him for the post of C-n-C. The country as a consequence, would not have undergone the ensuring colossal tragedy of 1971. But that is a wishful afterthought.

Ayub, who had appointed Musa as his first Army Chief and Yahya as the next (the appointment of first almost cost us West Pakistan in 1965 and under the next one we lost East Pakistan in 1971), would not have liked a general of Akhtar Malik’s stature to command the Pakistan Army. Tragic but true!

Operation Grand Slam -DAWN Magazine; November 27, 2005

Quit living in denial and fanciful nightmares!!
 
I enjoy your logic!

I am educated that there was a country called Pakistan before 1947!!

This is the false arrogance that spilt Pakistan and hound the Mohajirs and you blame it on India.

I enjoy your desperation for an identity. Why would you consider Pakistan region your home?
And please, wikipedia?
It even says at the top that the article includes the history of all of South Asia. Indians really need a reality check in what actually belongs to their people.
 
This is the type of stuff I find pathetic and humorous.

Pakistan "faced off". As if India started the war!!

Brave men of Pakistan required to start a war to check if they were brave? Funny!

Who started the war? Here it is:



Quit living in denial and fanciful nightmares!!

Sorry to expose your innocent little mind to something we in this world call Bias. As Pakistanis we are aware that India would never ever show any kind of a bias in an article.
Three wars have happened, lost of people died on both sides. Yet I would only expect this kind of an immaturity from people like you. Like a brave e-warrior, Salim is on a mission spreading immature comments about who started, who won, who is the best and who owns.
Seriously, how old are you?

Are you really that insecure about your country that you need constant reassurance that India can somehow do no wrong? This kind of an attitude is beyond me, and you will find most Pakistanis here are not interested in your bulls, we simply want to improve our country, improve its image and make it a better place.

Grow up.
 
:disagree::rolleyes: I can see now that the, once peaceful and mature Salim, is now having a major meltdown!

after being humbled earlier, he's now on a mission to throw a bit of balochistan and NWFP everywhere he can.

Now he openly trolls on the 1965 and 1971 wars, I hope the mods notice this. It would be interesting to see what they would do with Salim.
 
PTV should be visible in pakistan FIRST, then kashmir! I don't think people watch PTV here anymore, do they?
 
hi stealth,
i am quite knowledgeable about history actually and dont need wiki.
i know tha taj wasnt built by the rajputs etc maybe you guys need to study real history rather than your fabricated text books.
as this is a defence forum did you know that delhi under the muslims rulers never had a muslim majority and rajputs were not allowed to have a weapon more than 4 inches long (knife). the land for the golden temple was donated by akbar, which rubbishes the theories of muslim fanatics following a mass genocide programme against non muslims.
the hindus of bengal in the early 40s were the first to massacre muslims during the partition troubles.
ptv should educate india.
 
hi stealth,
i am quite knowledgeable about history actually and dont need wiki.
i know tha taj wasnt built by the rajputs etc maybe you guys need to study real history rather than your fabricated text books.
as this is a defence forum did you know that delhi under the muslims rulers never had a muslim majority and rajputs were not allowed to have a weapon more than 4 inches long (knife). the land for the golden temple was donated by akbar, which rubbishes the theories of muslim fanatics following a mass genocide programme against non muslims.
the hindus of bengal in the early 40s were the first to massacre muslims during the partition troubles.
ptv should educate india.

hi never

I'll quote you now

"the history of india is absent with regards to true india or hindu achievement except from mythology from bollywood or boguswood."

So go and study the Non-Islamic history of India.

P.S. Don't learn history from propaganda websites. learn it from history books, or better still, university professors.

And remember, whatever applies to India, applies to Pakistan to a much greater degree. If India was under foreign rule, then so was Pakistan, and what's more, you guys got converted to the foreigner's religion.
 
And remember, whatever applies to India, applies to Pakistan to a much greater degree. If India was under foreign rule, then so was Pakistan, and what's more, you guys got converted to the foreigner's religion.

People have always migrated from some place to populate another, and beliefs and cultures have always changed as populations have associated and been influenced by factors outside of their abodes.

Before Hinduism there was some other ideology, and before that something else. Since there was no such thing as an "Indian State" the concept of "invaders" and "foreigners" is flawed. For the Rajputs the Tamils were foreigners, for the Bengalis the Pashtun - and each of them a foreigner to the other.

I wonder what views/ideology the RSS type people propagated in British India, because if it was this distorted narrative of "Muslims are foreigners" and/or "converts to the foreigners religion", then no wonder so many Muslims felt alienated.
 
People have always migrated from some place to populate another, and beliefs and cultures have always changed as populations have associated and been influenced by factors outside of their abodes.

Of course, but my remark was made in the context of Indian indegenous culture.

Before Hinduism there was some other ideology, and before that something else. Since there was no such thing as an "Indian State" the concept of "invaders" and "foreigners" is flawed. For the Rajputs the Tamils were foreigners, for the Bengalis the Pashtun - and each of them a foreigner to the other.

Well, there is something called an "Indian State" now, and therefore the narrative is appropriate in this context.

I wonder what views/ideology the RSS type people propagated in British India, because if it was this distorted narrative of "Muslims are foreigners" and/or "converts to the foreigners religion", then no wonder so many Muslims felt alienated.

[/QUOTE]

Muslim conquerers and rulers were foreigners. Its a foreign ideology. There is nothing to debate about this.

However, the common muslims of India were born in India, and it doesn't matter what their religion is, because they are Indians first.

There are two conflicting POVs here....one is India as a modern State, and another is India as a civilization.

For the Indian civilization, Islam was a foreign ideology. Perhaps not any longer.

For the Indian state, it is secular and does not discriminate on the basis of religion.

English is a foreign language too. I wonder why nobody cries foul when I say this.
 
Of course, but my remark was made in the context of Indian indegenous culture.
Its only indigenous relative to certain Time periods, and relative to ones perceptions.

For many Muslims, Islam is indigenous.

Well, there is something called an "Indian State" now, and therefore the narrative is appropriate in this context.
The Indian State is a political entity founded in 1947, as an amalgamation of various States, in its context, Islam and the Islamic rulers should be just as "indigenous" since this Indian State inherited the history of the region.


Muslim conquerers and rulers were foreigners. Its a foreign ideology. There is nothing to debate about this.
Again, "foreign" is relative. Hinduism was not created instantly when man was, nor did man instantly populate South Asia when he was created. Any ideology or culture is the sum of peoples interactions and influences with one another and external and internal factors. Hinduism and the peoples of South Asia developed the same way, so it is flawed to merely cherry pick a certain historical date and claim that everything after that point is "foreign", because it fits one ideology and biases.

However, the common muslims of India were born in India, and it doesn't matter what their religion is, because they are Indians first.
Whoever was part of the Indian State in 1947 and chose to remain part of it is Indian, whatever history ocurred within the political boundaries of India, is Indian history - Muslim and Hindu and pre-Hindu.
There are two conflicting POVs here....one is India as a modern State, and another is India as a civilization.

For the Indian civilization, Islam was a foreign ideology. Perhaps not any longer.

For the Indian state, it is secular and does not discriminate on the basis of religion.

There is no such thing as an Indian civilization - what you had throughout the history of South Asia were various civilizations. All those civilizations developed through interactions with external and internal factors, and Islam was a part of the process, and the rise of another "civilization".

English is a foreign language too. I wonder why nobody cries foul when I say this.
When a large number of people adopt and accept it as a first language, perhaps you might have some protests.
 
Its only indigenous relative to certain Time periods, and relative to ones perceptions.

For many Muslims, Islam is indigenous.

Well it depends on who perceives what. The origins of Islam were outside the Indian subcontinent, therfort it is not indegenous to India. Its quite simple.

Don't overcomplicate things.

The Indian State is a political entity founded in 1947, as an amalgamation of various States, in its context, Islam and the Islamic rulers should be just as "indigenous" since this Indian State inherited the history of the region.

As I said, there is a difference between the Indian state and Indian civilization.

Again, "foreign" is relative. Hinduism was not created instantly when man was, nor did man instantly populate South Asia when he was created. Any ideology or culture is the sum of peoples interactions and influences with one another and external and internal factors. Hinduism and the peoples of South Asia developed the same way, so it is flawed to merely cherry pick a certain historical date and claim that everything after that point is "foreign", because it fits one ideology and biases.

Well, we have to cherry pick and define things, otherwise we can't define anything.

Is your neighbour foreigner to you? Is the guy from the next city a foreigner to you?
Is the guy from the next province a foreigner to you? i

It depends on where you choose to draw the line.

In Indian history, this line is drawn at the end of the Indian subcontinent.



Whoever was part of the Indian State in 1947 and chose to remain part of it is Indian, whatever history ocurred within the political boundaries of India, is Indian history - Muslim and Hindu and pre-Hindu.

Of course its Indian history. Can the history of India be french?

You are getting confused here.

The people who brought Islam to India were foreigners, and their ideology was foreign.
How can you dispute that?

There is no such thing as an Indian civilization - what you had throughout the history of South Asia were various civilizations. All those civilizations developed through interactions with external and internal factors, and Islam was a part of the process, and the rise of another "civilization".

Historians would beg to differ on that one.

There is something called an Indian civilization, and the various sub-divisions of this civilization are just that...subdivisions.

Did I say that Indian civilization didn't interact or borrow ideas from outside?

When a large number of people adopt and accept it as a first language, perhaps you might have some protests.

Lol...I don't see that happening anytime soon.

English is a foreign language. There is clearly no debate about this.

Indian English can be considered an Indian language....if you get my drift.
 
Well it depends on who perceives what. The origins of Islam were outside the Indian subcontinent, therfort it is not indegenous to India. Its quite simple.

Don't overcomplicate things.

I would beg to say that you shouldn't "oversimplify" things.

Again, you cannot show conclusively that Hinduism was created in a vacuum - there are limitations to what we can know about various civilizations and developments as we go further and further back in time. Therefore to arbitrarily pick one spot in time - when Muslims came to the subcontinent, is flawed.

Nothing exists in a vacuum, therefore nothing is technically foreign.

Well, we have to cherry pick and define things, otherwise we can't define anything.
And cherry picking makes for a biased and flawed definition, one that serves a particular agenda - in this case the Hindutva one.
Is your neighbour foreigner to you? Is the guy from the next city a foreigner to you?

Is the guy from the next province a foreigner to you? i

It depends on where you choose to draw the line.

My point exactly - you are arbitrarily drawing the line to make the Muslim rulers "foreigners" because it suits your agenda, but that has always been how cultures evolve, and civilizations rise and fall. South Asia was no different.
In Indian history, this line is drawn at the end of the Indian subcontinent.
That is a modern narrative, created to give legitimacy to a Hindutva narrative (similar to Ummah), and to give legitimacy to the modern Indian State.
Of course its Indian history. Can the history of India be french?

You are getting confused here.

The people who brought Islam to India were foreigners, and their ideology was foreign.
How can you dispute that?
They were not foreigners since India itself was not a single nation but many nations, all of them foreign to each other - and here again we see the arbitrary drawing of lines, to give credence to the Hindutva narrative of a "Indian Civilization" - by cherry picking a boundary for this "Indian Civilization", and then arguing that everything outside it was "foreign".
Historians would beg to differ on that one.

There is something called an Indian civilization, and the various sub-divisions of this civilization are just that...subdivisions.

There is nothing called an "Indian Civilization" - there are various civilizations that occurred in the region called the Indian Subcontinent.

I have never heard of the Indus Valley civilization referred to as a "sub division" - it was a civilization in its own right.
Did I say that Indian civilization didn't interact or borrow ideas from outside?
I suppose you were taking notes thousands of years ago on what the influences were. There is no conclusive way to validate that claim.

Do you think that the Greeks influenced nothing when they arrived in what is now Pakistan - the original India?

Lol...I don't see that happening anytime soon.

English is a foreign language. There is clearly no debate about this.

Its a foreign language because it hasn't been adopted as a mother tongue by a large number of people yet.

Other influences like Islam and Muslim rule were accepted by people as being part of them and their lives, hence it is not "foreign" anymore.

Indian English can be considered an Indian language....if you get my drift.

No I don't - I would consider it an English dialect, not an Indian language.
 
Back
Top Bottom