# Top Indian Myths about Pakistan!



## AgNoStiC MuSliM

*Myth 1. 
Pakistan lost all 3 wars with India.*

Pakistan and India have fought 3 wars - 1948, 1965 and 1971.

Barring 1971 (which occurred while a civil war, assisted by India, was raging in East Pakistan), no war has resulted in a decisive 'victory' for either side.

*Myth 2. 
Pakistan fights through proxies*

Well, this is true. Pakistan has supported Kashmiri Freedom fighters in Indian Occupied Kashmir, and did support the Mujahideen (with US and Saudi support) and later the Taliban.

However, this allegation by Indians completely overlooks India's own long association with proxy groups. 


Supported proxies that destabilized East Pakistan for many years leading into 1971
Supported the LTTE (Tamil Tigers) - a terrorist organization in Sri Lanka
Supported the Northern Alliance - a group of warlords and criminals in Afghanistan
Supported Baluch insurgents in Pakistan
*
Myth 3. 
India has never committed aggression against Pakistan, or any other country.*
This is clearly not the case as seen below


Support for insurgents in East Pakistan leding into 1971 and the ensuing war
Support for the LTTE (a terrorist organization in Sri Lanka) against the Sri Lankan State
The invasion of Siachen in 1984 in clear violation of the Simla Accord
Support for the Baluch insurgency
*
Myth 4. 
Pakistan spends 70&#37; (or more, depending upon the Indian) of its budget on Defense.*

Pakistan's defence budget for 2009 was about 4.4 billion USD. With a GDP of about 160 billion USD and a budget of 33 billion USD, that works out to be about 2.75% of GDP and 13.3% of the total budget.
PAKISTAN'S TOTAL OUTLAY IN 2007-08 BUDGET TO BE ABOUT US$33 BLN. | Goliath Business News

This compares with an Indian defence budget of about 26 billion that is 14.4% of the total budget and about 2.3% - so what's the big deal with Pakistan's defence budget?
*
Myth 5. 
Pakistani politics is dominated by Kashmir*

This argument goes along the lines of 'the Army/leadership makes sure that the only thing Pakistanis are aware of is Kashmir, and in this way distracts them from socio-economic issues and avoids investing in development'.

No doubt most Pakistanis are aware of Kashmir, but the fact that we have cutthroat national politics, with political parties that have significant ideological differences, it is absurd to suggest that the only issue mentioned during stump speeches is 'Kashmir'. 

Most of the PR and advertisements run by Pakistani political parties in fact focus on providing development and bringing about prosperity, not Kashmir. Most politicians talk about providing, jobs, investment etc. and most Pakistanis vote on that basis - even when voting on biraadri lines since they believe 'their guy' will provide them with economic opportunity/favors.

The political process in Pakistan remains largely driven by issues that are important to most people elsewhere in the world - jobs, inflation, development etc.

----------------------

Feel free to offer suggestions on changes, additions, improvements and I'll incorporate them if I think they are appropriate.

Reactions: Like Like:
78


----------



## notsuperstitious

Myth 2 is not a myth at all as admitted by AM.

Also, don't know anyone who believes 4.

About defence spending, the last published data shows Pakistan spent much more than budgeted on defence, a good 27% higher

http://www.defence.pk/forums/econom...ce-spending-exceeds-budgetary-allocation.html

About 1965 war, it would be interesting to get % of people in India and Pakistan who think their country won that war.

Reactions: Like Like:
16


----------



## AgNoStiC MuSliM

fateh71 said:


> Myth 2 is not a myth at all as admitted by AM.


Right, but its typically argued as if India's hands are clean, and therefore deserves to be up there.

I mean what's the point behind so many Indians raising the issue then?



> Also, don't know anyone who believes 4.


Plenty of Indians at least, and a few Westerners. have countered a few people just on this forum in the last month alone.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## rokhanyousafzai

AgNoStIc MuSliM said:


> *Myth 1.
> Pakistan lost all 3 wars with India.*
> 
> Pakistan and India have fought 3 wars - 1948, 1965 and 1971.
> 
> Barring 1971 (which occurred while a civil war, assisted by India, was raging in East Pakistan), no war has resulted in a decisive 'victory' for either side.



this myth is most seen on youtube videos and some intellectually challenged say 5 wars pakistan have lost on another note have you read 'the betrayal of east pakistan'

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## ajpirzada

another possible myth.

Pakistan is only slightly better than afghanistah and also look kind of similar. thats wat many of my indian friends here told me

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## rokhanyousafzai

ajpirzada said:


> another possible myth.
> 
> Pakistan is only slightly better than afghanistah and also look kind of similar. thats wat many of my indian friends here told me



like the country or the people. Believe me the northern areas of pakistan are the the most beautiful in the subcontinent and our cities are beautiful not in the sense of skyscrapers but its alive and the people and the lovely parks and that atmosphere that u miss away from home

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## wtf

AgNoStIc MuSliM said:


> -
> 
> Pakistan's defence budget for 2009 was about 4.4 billion USD. With a GDP of about 160 billion USD and a budget of 33 billion USD, that works out to be about 2.75&#37; of GDP and 13.3% of the total budget.
> PAKISTAN'S TOTAL OUTLAY IN 2007-08 BUDGET TO BE ABOUT US$33 BLN. | Goliath Business News
> 
> This compares with an Indian defence budget of about 26 billion that is 14.4% of the total budget and about 2.3% - so what's the big deal with Pakistan's defence budget?



Pakistani budget is only $19Billion (Pak Rs 1549 Billion)
http://www.finance.gov.pk/admin/images/budget/budgetbrief.pdf 
And defense spending is approximately one fourth of the amount in the original. This does not include "Public order and safety affairs". 
After borrowing another 250Billion rupees and with a planned shortfall (the revised section), defense still is a good 17% of the budget.

And your estimates of 14% spending in Indian budget is wrong too. It is about 10-11%. http://indiabudget.nic.in/ub2008-09/ubmain.htm

So in summary it is 17-27% for Pakistan versus 10-11% for India. Not claiming that it is "a big deal", but if you are going myth busting you should use primary sources.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## ajpirzada

rokhanyousafzai said:


> like the country or the people. Believe me the northern areas of pakistan are the the most beautiful in the subcontinent and our cities are beautiful not in the sense of skyscrapers but its alive and the people and the lovely parks and that atmosphere that u miss away from home



country. 
ya i miss every sec i spent in pakistan. just waitin for my studies to finish and htem im gonna go back to serve my Pakistan

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## wtf

AgNoStIc MuSliM said:


> Right, but its typically argued as if India's hands are clean, and therefore deserves to be up there.



That would make the so called Myth 2 and your Myth 3 the same. Why double count ?


----------



## Nemesis

Explain to me how asserting the Pakistani position is somehow equivalent to challenging myths? 



> Supported the Northern Alliance - a group of warlords and criminals in Afghanistan



Yeah, against the Taliban!!

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Sprint

rokhanyousafzai said:


> this myth is most seen on youtube videos and some intellectually challenged say 5 wars pakistan have lost on another note have you read 'the betrayal of east pakistan'



So you admit what AAK Niazi told about in "'The betrayal of east pakistan" is correct to the letter and spirit. If so read it one more time it would give you better insight.


----------



## AgNoStiC MuSliM

wtf said:


> Pakistani budget is only $19Billion (Pak Rs 1549 Billion)
> http://www.finance.gov.pk/admin/images/budget/budgetbrief.pdf
> And defense spending is approximately one fourth of the amount in the original. This does not include "Public order and safety affairs".
> After borrowing another 250Billion rupees and with a planned shortfall (the revised section), defense still is a good 17&#37; of the budget.



The 'budget in brief' document states Pakistan's expenditure for 2009 to be approx. 2010 billion Rs. That would make the 275 billion defence budget approximately 13.6% of the total budget.

If you include the entire additional amount of 75 billion for military procurements, the defence budget becomes 17.4%. The budget document however reflects Defence spending as 290 - so I am not sure if that additional 75 billion was pared down and included in the final budget of 290.

Going by the budget document alone, defence spending is 14.4% of the total budget. In any case, far lower than the 'two thirds or 70%' canard often raised by Indians - thats the point. It's not a thread on the Pakistani budget.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## AgNoStiC MuSliM

wtf said:


> That would make the so called Myth 2 and your Myth 3 the same. Why double count ?



They are not the same:

1. Pakistan fights through proxies (India has done the same so why bother raising that point)

2. India has always been peaceful and never committed aggression against Pakistan or any other country (shown to be false as well).

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## AgNoStiC MuSliM

Nemesis said:


> Explain to me how asserting the Pakistani position is somehow equivalent to challenging myths?


Correction -stating the facts is equivalent to challenging myths.


> Yeah, against the Taliban!!


Everyone can claim 'valid national security/interest' reasons for supporting proxies.

The point is that India supported and used proxies to further its interests, as did Pakistan, so blaming Pakistan for it alone is disingenuous.


----------



## wtf

AgNoStIc MuSliM said:


> Myth 5.
> Pakistani politics is dominated by Kashmir[/U][/B]
> 
> This argument goes along the lines of 'the Army/leadership makes sure that the only thing Pakistanis are aware of is Kashmir, and in this way distracts them from socio-economic issues and avoids investing in development'.
> 
> No doubt most Pakistanis are aware of Kashmir, but the fact that we have cutthroat national politics, with political parties that have significant ideological differences, it is absurd to suggest that the only issue mentioned during stump speeches is 'Kashmir'.
> 
> Most of the PR and advertisements run by Pakistani political parties in fact focus on providing development and bringing about prosperity, not Kashmir. Most politicians talk about providing, jobs, investment etc. and most Pakistanis vote on that basis - even when voting on biraadri lines since they believe 'their guy' will provide them with economic opportunity/favors.
> 
> The political process in Pakistan remains largely driven by issues that are important to most people elsewhere in the world - jobs, inflation, development etc.



I agree that this is a belief I personally have held /possibly still do (just not the way you describe it). One of the reasons for this is the repeated statements by Nawaz Sharief/Musharraf that people of Pakistan won't let me settle Kashmir issue. Or that this is the "central issue"

The way I understand it is that if there is a party that offers 15&#37; GDP growth and making LoC the international border and another party that offers 0% growth to economy while maintaining status quo in Kashmir, people will always pick option 2. Since everyone knows this, the only position offered to Pakistani people is option 2.

Now cost of option 2 vs option 1 is debatable. It clearly does not 
cost Pakistan a 15% growth rate decrease, but it is still not zero either. (Neither is it for India).

Another reason for my belief is the way Pakistan was actively losing areas in the West while trying to gain land in the East. The troops should have been in the West for a long time since land was being lost to Taliban, but Pakistan delayed because Kashmir was more important than NWFP.


----------



## AgNoStiC MuSliM

wtf said:


> I agree that this is a belief I personally have held /possibly still do (just not the way you describe it). One of the reasons for this is the repeated statements by Nawaz Sharief/Musharraf that people of Pakistan won't let me settle Kashmir issue. Or that this is the "central issue"


Its a central issue between India and Pakistan - that does not mean that there is no focus on socio-economic development. You are taking an isolated quote and twistign it out of context.


> The way I understand it is that if there is a party that offers 15&#37; GDP growth and making LoC the international border and another party that offers 0% growth to economy while maintaining status quo in Kashmir, people will always pick option 2. Since everyone knows this, the only position offered to Pakistani people is option 2.
> 
> Now cost of option 2 vs option 1 is debatable. It clearly does not
> cost Pakistan a 15% growth rate decrease, but it is still not zero either. (Neither is it for India).


I'm sorry, but this rationale above is absurd. You are pulling these 'percentages' and 'choices' out of your *** really.

Kashmir falls under foreign policy, development and progress under domestic affairs. No leader (save Bhutto' rhetoric with the nuclear program - arguable shaped as an existential choice) has argued that the choice is between Kashmir and development - they are two different issues, and politics in Pakistan always boils down to the bread and butter issues, since the political parties have largely similar positions on Kashmir.

Your 'explanation' above is a classic example of Indian 'myth making' or 'brainwashing' in an attempt to denigrate Pakistan.


> Another reason for my belief is the way Pakistan was actively losing areas in the West while trying to gain land in the East. The troops should have been in the West for a long time since land was being lost to Taliban, but Pakistan delayed because Kashmir was more important than NWFP.


A very flawed analysis, but it has been discussed elsewhere on several thread so lets not turn this thread into another FATA/Swat thread.

There have been a variety of reasons behind not shifting troops into the West, and not all of them have involve India. If you have followed the discourse over the events in the North West with any regularity then you should know that.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Nemesis

AgNoStIc MuSliM said:


> Correction -stating the facts is equivalent to challenging myths.



Yes, stating facts would be challenging myths. However, not everything you have stated can be considered facts. Some of them are more along the lines of the Pakistani point of view or Pakistani allegations, *not facts*



> Supported Baluch insurgents in Pakistan



Allegation, not fact. 



> The invasion of Siachen in 1984 in clear violation of the Simla Accord



India does not agree that it was a violation, so once again, allegation, not fact. 



> Supported the LTTE (Tamil Tigers) - a terrorist organization in Sri Lanka



LTTE was named a terrorist organization was the Sri Lankan government in 1998, any claim that India supported LTTE at this time is disingenuous. 



> no war has resulted in a decisive 'victory' for either side.



Kargil??

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## AgNoStiC MuSliM

Nemesis said:


> Yes, stating facts would be challenging myths. However, not everything you have stated can be considered facts. Some of them are more along the lines of the Pakistani point of view or Pakistani allegations, *not facts*


No - stating the Pakistani view would be to argue that Pakistan won 1948 and 1965 for example.




> Allegation, not fact.


Given the other examples given, India's support for the Baluch insurgency is a moot point.



> India does not agree that it was a violation, so once again, allegation, not fact.


Again, it does not matter whether India agrees it was a violation or not - the fact remains that India acted militarily in Siachen, and that, along with 1971 and the LTTE example, debunks the Indian myth of being 'peaceful' and never committing aggression against another nation. 



> LTTE was named a terrorist organization was the Sri Lankan government in 1998, any claim that India supported LTTE at this time is disingenuous.
Click to expand...

Again, since I am not discussing 'terrorism', rather support for proxy groups, the support for the LTTE debunks Indian myths on 'non-aggression' and 'no support for proxies'.


> Kargil??


Not a war so not included. It was at best an LoC conflict like Siachen that did not have full Pak. Mil. involvement.


----------



## wtf

AgNoStIc MuSliM said:


> Its a central issue between India and Pakistan - that does not mean that there is no focus on socio-economic development. You are taking an isolated quote and twistign it out of context.
> 
> I'm sorry, but this rationale above is absurd. You are pulling these 'percentages' and 'choices' out of your *** really.
> 
> Kashmir falls under foreign policy, development and progress under domestic affairs. No leader (save Bhutto' rhetoric with the nuclear program - arguable shaped as an existential choice) has argued that the choice is between Kashmir and development - they are two different issues, and politics in Pakistan always boils down to the bread and butter issues, since the political parties have largely similar positions on Kashmir.
> 
> Your 'explanation' above is a classic example of Indian 'myth making' or 'brainwashing' in an attempt to denigrate Pakistan.



I can't understand how I denigrated Pakistan. I was just saying that no party in Pakistan can afford to be seen as compromising on Kashmir. And that spending on Kashmir (defense) slows the growth for Pakistan. In spite of this people still vote for Kashmir. 
I agree that I made up the 0&#37; 15% numbers - but they were purely illustrative. The real picture is more complicated, but it is not like they have not been studied.

You assume that you can spend on Kashmir while still growing the economy. It is not true - here are a bunch of studies.
Military Expenditures and Economic Growth in Pakistan

Or from world bank 
http://www.nyu.edu/fas/institute/dri/Easterly/File/Pakistan.pdf


----------



## Nemesis

AgNoStIc MuSliM said:


> No - stating the Pakistani view would be to argue that Pakistan won 1948 and 1965 for example.



Is that the Pakistani view? 




> Given the other examples given, India's support for the Baluch insurgency is a moot point.



It would counter your assertion that India has supported insurgents in *Pakistan*. 




> Again, it does not matter whether India agrees it was a violation or not - the fact remains that India acted militarily in Siachen, and that, along with 1971 and the LTTE example, debunks the Indian myth of being 'peaceful' and never committing aggression against another nation.



Committing aggression against a neighbouring country and acting military to secure a so called disputed region are two different things. 

I agree with you on the LTTE however it is no way related to Pakistan. And considering this thread is called Indian myths *about* Pakistan, it bears no relation to the topic at hand.


----------



## AgNoStiC MuSliM

wtf said:


> I can't understand how I denigrated Pakistan. I was just saying that no party in Pakistan can afford to be seen as compromising on Kashmir. And that spending on Kashmir (defense) slows the growth for Pakistan. In spite of this people still vote for Kashmir.
> I agree that I made up the 0% 15% numbers - but they were purely illustrative. The real picture is more complicated, but it is not like they have not been studied.
> 
> You assume that you can spend on Kashmir while still growing the economy. It is not true - here are a bunch of studies.
> Military Expenditures and Economic Growth in Pakistan
> 
> Or from world bank
> http://www.nyu.edu/fas/institute/dri/Easterly/File/Pakistan.pdf



The real picture is more complicated - you are starting to argue over a tangential issue - of the opportunity cost of military expenditure. That argument can be raised with respect to any nation's military expenditure, including India, where hundreds of millions live in poverty.

My point was that the Pakistani public and polity does not view it in the context Indians view it in, of being obsessed with Kashmir to the extent that discourse over socio-economic development takes a back seat in our media and politics.

For the vast majority of Pakistanis, the demands from the government are of jobs, investment in social infrastructure etc. and not of whether they promise to 'free Kashmir'. 

Kashmir comes under foreign policy and on kashmir, as I pointed out, most major political parties have had a largely similar position, so it is incorrect to argue that Pakistanis 'choose' between development and Kashmir.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## AgNoStiC MuSliM

Nemesis said:


> Is that the Pakistani view?


Depends on how you look at it - what's the Indian view?



> It would counter your assertion that India has supported insurgents in *Pakistan*.


That argument is already established with Indian support for insurgents in East Pakistan.


> Committing aggression against a neighbouring country and acting military to secure a so called disputed region are two different things.


The first is established through Indian actions in 1971, even if you choose to not count the Simla violation and military aggression in 1984. And your latter opinion then implies that 1948 and 1965 were not acts of aggression either, since they could be argued to have been 'military actions to secure disputed territory'. In which case India remains the only side country to have openly initiated aggression against the other (Pakistan) by virtue of what she did in 1971, and it is Pakistan that is the true 'peaceful country'.

One would argue that your position on Siachen then suggests that anything along the LoC that was not clearly demarcated is open game to military adventurism.


> I agree with you on the LTTE however it is no way related to Pakistan. And considering this thread is called Indian myths *about* Pakistan, it bears no relation to the topic at hand.


You are correct that the LTTE does not fall under 'Pakistani Myth's', but since the argument tends to be that 'India is completely peaceful', I thought including the LTTE example further bolstered the credibility of that point.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## A1Kaid

This one is not just an Indian Myth but an International Myth.


*Myth.6*
*The Taliban threaten Pakistan's Nuclear arsenal, and may gain control of the Nuclear stockpile (if the democratic government collapses)*

Pakistan's Nuclear stockpile is under the tight and strict full control of the Nuclear Command & Control Center, they monitor the Nuclear weapons and provide full security at many levels. The Army has the Nukes fully secured. Even in the perfect storm or worse conditions, the government collapsed, Taliban roaming in Islamabad, the Taliban would still fail to acquire any control of Pakistan's nukes.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## PeacefulIndian

AgNoStIc MuSliM said:


> Depends on how you look at it - what's the Indian view?
> 
> 
> That argument is already established with Indian support for insurgents in East Pakistan.
> 
> The first is established through Indian actions in 1971, even if you choose to not count the Simla violation and military aggression in 1984. And your latter opinion then implies that 1948 and 1965 were not acts of aggression either, since they could be argued to have been 'military actions to secure disputed territory'. In which case India remains the only side country to have openly initiated aggression against the other (Pakistan) by virtue of what she did in 1971, and it is Pakistan that is the true 'peaceful country'.
> 
> One would argue that your position on Siachen then suggests that anything along the LoC that was not clearly demarcated is open game to military adventurism.
> 
> You are correct that the LTTE does not fall under 'Pakistani Myth's', but since the argument tends to be that 'India is completely peaceful', I thought including the LTTE example further bolstered the credibility of that point.



Excepting LTTE. 

If at all India is supporting destabilization of Pakistan, how much do you think is the strategy of 'you bleed me, I bleed you'? When you have been exporting terrorism to India all the way, how do you expect to be immune to the repercussions?


----------



## AgNoStiC MuSliM

PeacefulIndian said:


> Excepting LTTE.
> 
> If at all India is supporting destabilization of Pakistan, how much do you think is the strategy of 'you bleed me, I bleed you'? When you have been exporting terrorism to India all the way, how do you expect to be immune to the repercussions?



That's besides the point, and I will not argue over its veracity here - the point is that India has supported insurgents and proxies in other nations, which makes that particular allegation directed at Pakistan by Indians disingenuous.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## AgNoStiC MuSliM

A1Kaid said:


> This one is not just an Indian Myth but an International Myth.
> 
> 
> *Myth.6*
> *The Taliban threaten Pakistan's Nuclear arsenal, and may gain control of the Nuclear stockpile (if the democratic government collapses)*
> 
> Pakistan's Nuclear stockpile is under the tight and strict full control of the Nuclear Command & Control Center, they monitor the Nuclear weapons and provide full security at many levels. The Army has the Nukes fully secured. Even in the perfect storm or worse conditions, the government collapsed, Taliban roaming in Islamabad, the Taliban would still fail to acquire any control of Pakistan's nukes.



Yes - we could start another thread on international myth's about Pakistan.


----------



## A1Kaid

AgNoStIc MuSliM said:


> Yes - we could start another thread on international myth's about Pakistan.



Sure buddy you and I are the new Myth-Busters!

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## AgNoStiC MuSliM

By the way, for our Indian members - I am not trying to bash India here or argue that her actions are somehow indicative of a greater 'moral bankruptcy' than Pakistan's.

The objective is to merely debunk some popular misconceptions about Pakistan that I often hear from Indian posters, and to point out that India too, in some of those cases, has engaged in similar behavior.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## PeacefulIndian

AgNoStIc MuSliM said:


> That's besides the point, and I will not argue over its veracity here - the point is that India has supported insurgents and proxies in other nations, which makes that particular allegation directed at Pakistan by Indians disingenuous.



Very convenient for you then. Don't bother about the background, don't worry about what series of events transpired when India supported your so called proxies or insurgents. At least be aware that Indian actions, if at all any, are/were reactive, more so in her own national interests. Your deeds on the contrary still continue to stem from a mentality based on hatred towards India, something which Zia Ul Haq left you with. No national interests involved whatsoever from your side.


----------



## PeacefulIndian

AgNoStIc MuSliM said:


> Yes - we could start another thread on international myth's about Pakistan.



How about starting a thread on Pakistani myths about West, Israel & India? 

Myth no. 1 - Christianity, Judaism & Hinduism together are trying to wipe out Islam from the earth. 

Why not start with this point? Many posters here believe this to be true.


----------



## AgNoStiC MuSliM

PeacefulIndian said:


> How about starting a thread on Pakistani myths about West, Israel & India?
> 
> Myth no. 1 - Christianity, Judaism & Hinduism together are trying to wipe out Islam from the earth.
> 
> Why not start with this point? Many posters here believe this to be true.



I think that particular myth is a 'Muslim myth' not a solely Pakistani one.

The Pakistani one would be about the CIA/RAW destabilizing Pakistan - but since the jury is still out on that one, we can't really comment.

We'll only find out when the fighting is over.


----------



## AgNoStiC MuSliM

PeacefulIndian said:


> Very convenient for you then. Don't bother about the background, don't worry about what series of events transpired when India supported your so called proxies or insurgents. At least be aware that Indian actions, if at all any, are/were reactive, more so in her own national interests. Your deeds on the contrary still continue to stem from a mentality based on hatred towards India, something which Zia Ul Haq left you with. No national interests involved whatsoever from your side.



Actually I disagree that Indian actions were reactive, I believe Pakistani actions were reactive - which is why I did not make any judgments on that count, and why I am not interested in going down that road on this thread.

The myths I pointed out are pretty clearly worded to avoid a 'blame game'

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## rokhanyousafzai

Sprint said:


> So you admit what AAK Niazi told about in "'The betrayal of east pakistan" is correct to the letter and spirit. If so read it one more time it would give you better insight.



have u read it can u disprove what he said it was obvious that Bhutto and alot of pakistani leadership couldnt make it happen with the bengali nationals if u have read it then i suggest u read it again cause it doesnt seem to have sunk in, the man died trying to clear his name so he knew he did no wrong anyone who has read it knows this its a fantastic book from a general whos success and leadership is something all pakistanis should be proud of. We were failed by our politicians and senoir leadership if u read the book the state of our top command was disgusting.


----------



## wtf

AgNoStIc MuSliM said:


> The real picture is more complicated - you are starting to argue over a tangential issue - of the opportunity cost of military expenditure. That argument can be raised with respect to any nation's military expenditure, including India, where hundreds of millions live in poverty.
> 
> My point was that the Pakistani public and polity does not view it in the context Indians view it in, of being obsessed with Kashmir to the extent that discourse over socio-economic development takes a back seat in our media and politics.
> 
> For the vast majority of Pakistanis, the demands from the government are of jobs, investment in social infrastructure etc. and not of whether they promise to 'free Kashmir'.
> 
> Kashmir comes under foreign policy and on kashmir, as I pointed out, most major political parties have had a largely similar position, so it is incorrect to argue that Pakistanis 'choose' between development and Kashmir.



What you are saying is that since Pakistani politicians do not talk about Kashmir, it is not important. That's not true. 

No politician talks about Pakistan being/not being a Muslim country either - but I would say that is central to Pakistan too. The difference between Kashmir and Islamiyat is that Islamiyat costs nothing. Kashmir actually costs you money. 

When will you realize that foreign policy affects the economy ? And when will you figure out that it is trivial for a politicial party to cover up its ineptness by trotting out Kashmir issue every so often ?

In India an equivalent issue is the caste based reservation or women's reservation. No party can be seen as being weak on reservations, and it is an easy issue to whip up popular emotions. I see Kashmir as something similar, except that Pakistani parties have not been able to show any progress, on the front, so they are all silent.


----------



## A1Kaid

Another prominent Indian & Int. Myth about Pakistan.


*Myth #7*
*Pakistan is a terror state. Pakistan is funding and supporting terrorism in the region and World.*

Pakistan is a prominent partner on the War on Terror, major nations of the world have also acknowledged this like US & EU, China and Russia. Pakistan has spent 8 years fighting this War on Terror or as it is now called Pakistan's War, after the Pakistani Nation martyred 800 of it's sons the World still has the nerve to call Pakistan a terror state. Recent operations in Bajaur, Buner district, and tribal areas have proven that the Pakistani Army is tough on terror and is serious about defeating hostile militants who pose danger to the international fora. There is no official or state support of terrorism by Pakistan. Political battles and Geo-Political battles in the region have been carried out against strategic targets, however innocent civilians have never been the target.

There is no evidence of Pakistan supporting or funding terrorist around the World. Some suggest, Pakistan is providing a "safe haven" to militants. Any man who picks up a weapon in the tribal region can be mistaken for a 'militant', and again Pakistan has strategically been waging war against hostile entities and infrastructure.

*Truth: Pakistan is NOT a Terror State but a legitimate State working towards peace & development.*

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## wtf

AgNoStIc MuSliM said:


> The real picture is more complicated - you are starting to argue over a tangential issue - of the opportunity cost of military expenditure. That argument can be raised with respect to any nation's military expenditure, including India, where hundreds of millions live in poverty.
> 
> My point was that the Pakistani public and polity does not view it in the context Indians view it in, of being obsessed with Kashmir to the extent that discourse over socio-economic development takes a back seat in our media and politics.
> 
> For the vast majority of Pakistanis, the demands from the government are of jobs, investment in social infrastructure etc. and not of whether they promise to 'free Kashmir'.
> 
> Kashmir comes under foreign policy and on kashmir, as I pointed out, most major political parties have had a largely similar position, so it is incorrect to argue that Pakistanis 'choose' between development and Kashmir.




You have so far claimed that Kashmir is not a big issue in Pakistan without giving any backing. 
Here is my perspective, told by a (hopefully) neutral organization
International Crisis Group - The View from Islamabad
http://merln.ndu.edu/archive/icg/pakistankashmir.pdf

_Pakistans policy towards Kashmir is shaped by perceptions of an Indian threat and a history of war but also by the wider question of its relations with India. It is also influenced by domestic imperatives. The conflict is placed on the backburner when relations improve. Some governments have used the Kashmir conflict to reinforce Pakistani nationalism and others to strengthen pan-Islamism. Pakistani governments have also used the dispute to acquire domestic legitimacy or to ensure regime survival._

The same group says this about Indian views 
International Crisis Group - The View from New Delhi

In general, public opinion is not set against an agreement and is supportive of peace initiatives since Kashmir, for most Indians, is not the most pressing of the countrys major problems.


----------



## wtf

Myth 1. Pakistan lost all 3 wars with India.
A myth, agreed.
No idea if the myth is prevalent in India. Almost all talk is about 1971 and Indo-China war (one victory, one defeat).


Myth 2. Pakistan fights through proxies

True as AM himself said. ISI involvement is believed ongoing, atleast if NYtimes is to be believed.


Myth 3.India has never committed aggression against Pakistan, or any other country.

No evidence given atleast by AM.
On the other hand most Indians know that India did interfere in Bangladesh (but think Pakistan fired first). Most Indians also think that India made a mess by sending IPKF to Sri Lanka and being on the hate list of both sides.
If there is any evidence of ongoing aggression by India, please provide a link by a non-Pakistani newspaper or a peer reviewed study.

Myth 4. Pakistan spends 70&#37; (or more, depending upon the Indian) of its budget on Defense.

Clearly false. Evidence clearly shows 17%-27%.(Posted link to budget sites of govts.) I think it is a strawman attack by AM.


Myth 5. Pakistani politics is dominated by Kashmir

Seems from available evidence that no party can afford to be seen as weak- hence I'd say yes, it is dominated by Kashmir. (I posted 2 studies with regional perspectives - written by a US organization)


----------



## wtf

A1Kaid said:


> Another prominent Indian & Int. Myth about Pakistan.
> 
> Recent operations in Bajaur, Buner district, and tribal areas have proven that the Pakistani Army is tough on terror and is serious about defeating hostile militants who pose danger to the international fora



Pakistan finally took up the battle that they should have fought 10 years ago. Now it looks more like a civil war than a war on terror. Pakistani's did not move until Taliban clearly announced that they were against the central government. Otherwise they were willing to compromise (so far 3 treaties signed between Army/Taliban), give up judiciary (Shariah amendment), give up executive power (policemen being killed for last year and army not acting). So since the war is about central power vs. Taliban rule and not about terror and non-terror, I think it should be called a civil war. Pakistan lost the other battle a long time ago by simply not fighting. 

Pakistan again won't act of terror camps in Kashmir until it is too late (to the disadvantage of both India and Pakistan).

Yeah, but I agree that Pakistan is no longer a state sponsor of terror. It is a reluctant fighter which may yet win. There is no benefit to anybody by marking Pakistan out as a terrorist state.


----------



## AgNoStiC MuSliM

wtf said:


> You have so far claimed that Kashmir is not a big issue in Pakistan without giving any backing.
> Here is my perspective, told by a (hopefully) neutral organization
> International Crisis Group - The View from Islamabad
> http://merln.ndu.edu/archive/icg/pakistankashmir.pdf
> 
> _Pakistans policy towards Kashmir is shaped by perceptions of an Indian threat and a history of war but also by the wider question of its relations with India. It is also influenced by domestic imperatives. The conflict is placed on the backburner when relations improve. Some governments have used the Kashmir conflict to reinforce Pakistani nationalism and others to strengthen pan-Islamism. Pakistani governments have also used the dispute to acquire domestic legitimacy or to ensure regime survival._
> 
> The same group says this about Indian views
> International Crisis Group - The View from New Delhi
> 
> In general, public opinion is not set against an agreement and is supportive of peace initiatives since Kashmir, for most Indians, is not the most pressing of the countrys major problems.


Your argument is flawed and tangential.

The argument is that the Pakistani public is brainwashed to only focus on Kashmir, and this allows the politicians to get away with not focusing on socio-economic development. You have presented no argument to support that assertion - the only thing you have illustrated is that Kashmir is an important part of Pakistan's foreign policy.

The fact is that every major political party has largely the same position on Kashmir - so how could Kashmir dominate the national domestic discourse when everyone agrees on it? The issues that the people therefore focus on, in terms of what they expect of their leaders, remain bread and butter issues, and you have not countered that assertion.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## spsk

Myth One:

1947 & 1965 War : Pakistan was aggressor against Kashmir to occupy . If there is no decisive 'victory' on 1947 there would not be 1965 ,So I do not know why this is not decisive victory for any country. In both these two wars Pakistan was the aggressor not India , Aggressor should achieve their objectives.

1971 war: India is the aggressor and achieved the objective.


Myth 3:
Completely wrong, nobody in India think so, May be Pakistan's myth about India.

Myth 4:
Nobody in India is thinking Pakistan is spending 70% of their budget in military, 70% is huge amount !!! I cant even imagine , But there is one myth that Pakistan Military gets paid by USA ( I mean the fund for PA comes from US)

Myth 5.
Its very interesting that Pakistan politics is not dominated by Kashmir issue, I have even read an article once military rule announced due to this Kashmir issue.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## AgNoStiC MuSliM

wtf said:


> Myth 2. Pakistan fights through proxies
> 
> True as AM himself said. ISI involvement is believed ongoing, atleast if NYtimes is to be believed.


Yes, but it is important to point out that India fights through proxies as well, so it is a disingenuous complaint to raise by Indians.


> Myth 3.India has never committed aggression against Pakistan, or any other country.
> 
> No evidence given atleast by AM.
> On the other hand most Indians know that India did interfere in Bangladesh (but think Pakistan fired first). Most Indians also think that India made a mess by sending IPKF to Sri Lanka and being on the hate list of both sides.
> If there is any evidence of ongoing aggression by India, please provide a link by a non-Pakistani newspaper or a peer reviewed study.


Actually there is plenty of evidence given - you, or anyone else, have not refuted any of the examples given, so that myth stands debunked.


> Myth 4. Pakistan spends 70&#37; (or more, depending upon the Indian) of its budget on Defense.
> 
> Clearly false. Evidence clearly shows 17%-27%.(Posted link to budget sites of govts.) I think it is a strawman attack by AM.


Oh please - don't lie - this issue was raised atleast 3 times by Indians in the last month or so - including on the 'Tanks guarding a jhuggi' thread, which you participated in, and I have seen it repeated ad nauseum across the web by Indian posters.


> Myth 5. Pakistani politics is dominated by Kashmir
> 
> Seems from available evidence that no party can afford to be seen as weak- hence I'd say yes, it is dominated by Kashmir. (I posted 2 studies with regional perspectives - written by a US organization)



On the contrary, you have not been able to illustrate how Pakistani politics is dominated by Kashmir to the extent that it obfuscates the peoples focus on development.

You are arguing over the dominance of Kashmir in Pakistan's foreign policy, which is a tangential discussion.

All the myths stand debunked at this point.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## wtf

AgNoStIc MuSliM said:


> Your argument is flawed and tangential.
> 
> The argument is that the Pakistani public is brainwashed to only focus on Kashmir, and this allows the politicians to get away with not focusing on socio-economic development. You have presented no argument to support that assertion - the only thing you have illustrated is that Kashmir is an important part of Pakistan's foreign policy.
> 
> The fact is that every major political party has largely the same position on Kashmir - so how could Kashmir dominate the national domestic discourse when everyone agrees on it? The issues that the people therefore focus on, in terms of what they expect of their leaders, remain bread and butter issues, and you have not countered that assertion.



The study actually does say that Parties use media to promote their views in Pakistan. It also says that parties have used the issue to promote Pak nationalism. I also proved that it hurts Pakistan economically. 
And do you think the fact that all Pak parties have same opinion came about it a vacuum or something ? You know, parties are formed by people and the fact that everyone has same opinion (even when it is bad for the nation) seems to show that it is something that is central to Pakistani identity. Why else would the whole country unite to lose money ?

Where is your evidence for the claim of bread& butter issues? You are the one who is claiming to be myth-busting, not me.


----------



## wtf

AgNoStIc MuSliM said:


> Yes, but it is important to point out that India fights through proxies as well, so it is a disingenuous complaint to raise by Indians.
> 
> Actually there is plenty of evidence given - you, or anyone else, have not refuted any of the examples given, so that myth stands debunked.
> 
> Oh please - don't lie - this issue was raised atleast 3 times by Indians in the last month or so - including on the 'Tanks guarding a jhuggi' thread, which you participated in, and I have seen it repeated ad nauseum across the web by Indian posters.
> 
> 
> On the contrary, you have not been able to illustrate how Pakistani politics is dominated by Kashmir to the extent that it obfuscates the peoples focus on development.
> 
> You are arguing over the dominance of Kashmir in Pakistan's foreign policy, which is a tangential discussion.
> 
> All the myths stand debunked at this point.




Your entire story is that "I said they are all myths" and you now have to prove that they are true. Any evidence that anyone else gives is "tangential" and then you go about delete posts by posters calling them "off topic" as you did to Fatehs posts.

You provided no links, no studies - nothing except your views. Great argument that!!! Your claims are NOT evidence unless you are god. Neither is threads on PDF evidence - they do not represent anything except claims by random posters who claim to be Indian or Pakistani. The least you can consider evidence is a survey result or a study (both of which I have provided).

There is no point to this thread anymore.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Lockheed F-16

wtf said:


> Your entire story is that "I said they are all myths" and you now have to prove that they are true. Any evidence that anyone else gives is "tangential" and then you go about delete posts by posters calling them "off topic" as you did to Fatehs posts.
> 
> You provided no links, no studies - nothing except your views. Great argument that!!! Your claims are NOT evidence unless you are god. Neither is threads on PDF evidence - they do not represent anything except claims by random posters who claim to be Indian or Pakistani. The least you can consider evidence is a survey result or a study (both of which I have provided).
> 
> There is no point to this thread anymore.



Stop making personal attacks and face the truth! It is ur government which also doesn't have any prove but blame everything on PAK. You Indians can dish it out but cannot take it on the chin!


----------



## AgNoStiC MuSliM

wtf said:


> The study actually does say that Parties use media to promote their views in Pakistan.


Yes - but it is the extent to which parties focus on development, jobs and progress in their campaigns vs foreign policy. I'll take the study;s word that at some point the media was used to propagate Kashmir, but at this point ALL the political media campaigns I have seen have focused on domestic agendas and policies.

You have to present a lot more evidence to illustrate that the parties overwhelmingly focus on Kashmir in their outreach and campaigns.


> I also proved that it hurts Pakistan economically.


What you have shown is that military expenditure has an opportunity cost - that is true in all nations, including India with hundreds of millions living in poverty. That does not establish a domestic obsession with Kashmir to the obfuscation of development.



> And do you think the fact that all Pak parties have same opinion came about it a vacuum or something ? You know, parties are formed by people and the fact that everyone has same opinion (even when it is bad for the nation) seems to show that it is something that is central to Pakistani identity. Why else would the whole country unite to lose money ?


You are going in circles on a tangential issue - the US was also focused and largely united during the Cold War on the Communist threat - yet that did not stop the parties from campaigning on domestic issues of economy and prosperity.


> Where is your evidence for the claim of bread& butter issues? You are the one who is claiming to be myth-busting, not me.


The Indian myth is that Pakistanis are obsessed with Kashmir to the point of ignoring domestic issues - I argued it isn't based on the campaigns by political parties and their manifestos - 'roti, kapra makaan' (bread, clothing and shelter) the slogan of the PPP for example.

I cannot prove a negative, that Pakistani politics is NOT focused on kashmir - I can only point out that Pakistani politics focuses on domestic issues, which is why politicians have such a bad reputation.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## AgNoStiC MuSliM

wtf said:


> Your entire story is that "I said they are all myths" and you now have to prove that they are true. Any evidence that anyone else gives is "tangential" and then you go about delete posts by posters calling them "off topic" as you did to Fatehs posts.
> 
> You provided no links, no studies - nothing except your views. Great argument that!!! Your claims are NOT evidence unless you are god. Neither is threads on PDF evidence - they do not represent anything except claims by random posters who claim to be Indian or Pakistani. The least you can consider evidence is a survey result or a study (both of which I have provided).
> 
> There is no point to this thread anymore.



Oh no - these Myth's are assertions by Indians, I am merely pointing out that they are incorrect assertions with examples. It is the job of the individual making those original assertions (Myths) to validate their position, and one way to do that would be to debunk the examples/arguments I presented to debunk them.

For example you could argue that India did not support insurgents in East Pakistan, or did not invade Siachen, or did not support the LTTE, or did not support the Baluch insurgency. I argued with PI on those issues after all. 

You are choosing to focus on the last issue, and I have no qualms about discussing that either.

But if you wish to walk away with your prejudices and Myths intact, that is your choice.


----------



## Lockheed F-16

Those myths have been claimed by Indians who don't have any proof either and just gave their opinion! Your state always pointed finger on us without any proof. And AM is just answering ur claims and ur asking for proof?! That is pathetic and low life. In fact India is conducting undercover missions in PAK and there is proof. You don't even get proof and blame!


----------



## Skeptic

AgNoStIc MuSliM said:


> *Myth 1.
> Pakistan lost all 3 wars with India.*
> 
> Pakistan and India have fought 3 wars - 1948, 1965 and 1971.
> 
> Barring 1971 (which occurred while a civil war, assisted by India, was raging in East Pakistan), no war has resulted in a decisive 'victory' for either side.
> 
> *Myth 2.
> Pakistan fights through proxies*
> 
> Well, this is true. Pakistan has supported Kashmiri Freedom fighters in Indian Occupied Kashmir, and did support the Mujahideen (with US and Saudi support) and later the Taliban.
> 
> However, this allegation by Indians completely overlooks India's own long association with proxy groups.
> 
> 
> Supported proxies that destabilized East Pakistan for many years leading into 1971
> Supported the LTTE (Tamil Tigers) - a terrorist organization in Sri Lanka
> Supported the Northern Alliance - a group of warlords and criminals in Afghanistan
> Supported Baluch insurgents in Pakistan
> *
> Myth 3.
> India has never committed aggression against Pakistan, or any other country.*
> This is clearly not the case as seen below
> 
> 
> Support for insurgents in East Pakistan leding into 1971 and the ensuing war
> Support for the LTTE (a terrorist organization in Sri Lanka) against the Sri Lankan State
> The invasion of Siachen in 1984 in clear violation of the Simla Accord
> Support for the Baluch insurgency
> *
> Myth 4.
> Pakistan spends 70&#37; (or more, depending upon the Indian) of its budget on Defense.*
> 
> Pakistan's defence budget for 2009 was about 4.4 billion USD. With a GDP of about 160 billion USD and a budget of 33 billion USD, that works out to be about 2.75% of GDP and 13.3% of the total budget.
> PAKISTAN'S TOTAL OUTLAY IN 2007-08 BUDGET TO BE ABOUT US$33 BLN. | Goliath Business News
> 
> This compares with an Indian defence budget of about 26 billion that is 14.4% of the total budget and about 2.3% - so what's the big deal with Pakistan's defence budget?
> *
> Myth 5.
> Pakistani politics is dominated by Kashmir*
> 
> This argument goes along the lines of 'the Army/leadership makes sure that the only thing Pakistanis are aware of is Kashmir, and in this way distracts them from socio-economic issues and avoids investing in development'.
> 
> No doubt most Pakistanis are aware of Kashmir, but the fact that we have cutthroat national politics, with political parties that have significant ideological differences, it is absurd to suggest that the only issue mentioned during stump speeches is 'Kashmir'.
> 
> Most of the PR and advertisements run by Pakistani political parties in fact focus on providing development and bringing about prosperity, not Kashmir. Most politicians talk about providing, jobs, investment etc. and most Pakistanis vote on that basis - even when voting on biraadri lines since they believe 'their guy' will provide them with economic opportunity/favors.
> 
> The political process in Pakistan remains largely driven by issues that are important to most people elsewhere in the world - jobs, inflation, development etc.
> 
> ----------------------
> 
> Feel free to offer suggestions on changes, additions, improvements and I'll incorporate them if I think they are appropriate.



First of all I do not think you really have any intentions of changing any of these and as depicted, and while it is your call to call that a myth id "Debunked" or not, I don't think it provides a level playing field. This is my take on AM idividually as a poster and not as a moderator.

My second issue is with the language used to describe the (so called) myths which appears to be rather vague. Like "Decisive Victory" in the first point and "committing aggression" in the third point.

Here is my take on these issues:

1. If Pakistan was the aggressor and India was able to ward off the aggressor I do think it counts as a victory. If Kargil can be considered as victory by India, where again all they did was to ward off the aggressor of their previously owned territory. Wit same logic applied India was the victorious party in 965 when India foiled "Operation Grand Slam" of Pakistan and in 1947, Pakistan had control of a major portion of Kashmir before India started its operation. End result India had a larger portion of the valley under its control than Pakistan so that would be a victory. 
So all in all 1947 - Partial victory (Capturing larger area)
1965 - Victory -Pakistan could not gain any territory in the end.
Supporting link for 1965: PAKISTAN'S ASSERTIVE REGIONAL STRATEGY -- [FROM THE TASK FORCE ON TERRORISM AND UNCONVENTIONAL WARFARE, HOUSE REPUBLICAN RESEARCH COMMITTEE, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, WASHINGTON, DC, AUG. 24, 1994] (Extension of Remarks - September 12, 1994)
Pakistan (03/09)
Pakistan Link - Letter & Opinion
All are Neutral Links.

2. Pakistan does get involved in war through proxy. Kargil will forever remain as one of the the best example of the same. Accepted by AM that it does.

3. Again this is a very vague term used. It does not differentiate between retaliation of aggression and being instigator of aggression. Also does not differentiate between launching an armed military offensive and supporting a group of insurgents. The common view in India is that India is not Instigator of aggression. 

a) 1971 was again a retaliation based upon millions of refugees in India which was a kind of economic and social attack on India and only way to prevent that was by the action of Indian Army in 1971

b) LTTE can not be part of Indian Myth about Pakistan anyways. So out of the scope of Topic.

c) Siachin was not a "Clear Violation" of Simla accord. At the most you can say it was twisting the terms of Simla accord in a favorable manner. At the most you can call it unethical but not capturing enemy territory. 

d) No concrete support for Baluch insurgents have been established and even if they are it can again be termed as retaliatory rather than instigation.

4. Atleast I dont think so. Yes it is perceived that Pakistan has focused more on Army's development rather than economic. Apperantly, there are no world renouned Pakistani company of International stature (Public or Private) whereas Army would probably be in the top ten list of the world.

5. Whether Pakistani politics revolves around Kashmir or not can be hard to determine. Yes the perception is that Kashmir issue is more central to Pakistani Politics compared to Indian Politics.

Sorry for being late to join. I hope you will honour the comments with an answer / Rebuttal.

PS. I have no intention of doubting your credibility but its just Human to give more weightage to your personal argument. These will best be judged by a neutral party whether the claims are debunked or not. In the end I would say that you have not achieved a decisive victory" in this debate.

Reactions: Like Like:
10


----------



## Skeptic

This is How I would list the MYTHS in Indian minds:

1. India has never lost a War with Pakistan

2. Pakistan fights through proxies

3. India has not launched a Milletary offencive unless provoked.

4. Pakistan focuses more on the development of Army than of Civic aminities

5. Kashmir issue is more central to Pakistani Politics than India.

Debunk these Myths if you really want to be a myth buster and they actually are Myths. Myths about Pakistan are anyways better quoted by an Indian than a Pakistani.

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## wtf

AgNoStIc MuSliM said:


> Oh no - these Myth's are assertions by Indians, I am merely pointing out that they are incorrect assertions with examples. It is the job of the individual making those original assertions (Myths) to validate their position, and one way to do that would be to debunk the examples/arguments I presented to debunk them.
> 
> For example you could argue that India did not support insurgents in East Pakistan, or did not invade Siachen, or did not support the LTTE, or did not support the Baluch insurgency. I argued with PI on those issues after all.
> 
> You are choosing to focus on the last issue, and I have no qualms about discussing that either.
> 
> But if you wish to walk away with your prejudices and Myths intact, that is your choice.



At this point we (at least I) should end the main discussion. 

Let's move on to the meta discussion. The claims about Myths in India are not really true. Since I do not agree with all of what you called "Indian" beliefs, there is no point arguing. My views are closer to what Skeptic posted. 

What you are doing is also pretty close to a straw-man argument. You set up some claims and call it the "Indian" myth. We could have avoided this whole thread if you had just said "some things that I have heard some Indians say" or "things I think are Indian myths" and then said why those posters are wrong.

You'll need to track down the original posters and ask them to demolish your claims. Most likely they are genuine haters who are posting only for the fun of riling others up and they are unlikely to spend time researching anything, let alone prove anything by providing links or data. 

Another reason I have to stop arguing is the effort it takes to search up published papers or old news articles. I have access to a pretty good online library, but it takes hours to get at a study on Indo-Pak issues. If all that effort is being responded with more assertions ( not even newspaper links) what is the point? Where do I have the opportunity to learn anything from the discussion? And seems like most others don't care either.

Since you are also a moderator for the forum, one thing you might want to remember is the trade-off between popularity and influence.A borderline troll (like whoever made these assertions ) might very well get people to respond and make the forum more lively. But on the other hand if you respond to such provocation in kind (by making further assertions without data), the whole forum deteriorates into a social discussion forum with posters arguing endlessly. It does not make sense (in my opinion) for a defence forum to do that. Maybe a forum called "Indo-Pak Argument Forum".

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## wtf

Lockheed F-16 said:


> Those myths have been claimed by Indians who don't have any proof either and just gave their opinion! Your state always pointed finger on us without any proof. And AM is just answering ur claims and ur asking for proof?! That is pathetic and low life. In fact India is conducting undercover missions in PAK and there is proof. You don't even get proof and blame!



Maaf karna bhai. Jisne bhi aap ko itna gussa kia, uske lie main aapse maafi mangta hun. Agar mujhse koi gustakhi hui, to maaf ho.


----------



## Khajur

Skeptic said:


> This is How I would list the MYTHS in Indian minds:
> 
> 1. India has never lost a War with Pakistan
> 
> 2. Pakistan fights through proxies
> 
> 3. India has not launched a Milletary offencive unless provoked.
> 
> 4. Pakistan focuses more on the development of Army than of Civic aminities
> 
> 5. Kashmir issue is more central to Pakistani Politics than India.
> 
> Debunk these Myths if you really want to be a myth buster and they actually are Myths. Myths about Pakistan are anyways better quoted by an Indian than a Pakistani.



or *we can say the the facts in indian minds*.


----------



## Khajur

"*Myth 1. 
Pakistan lost all 3 wars with India.

Pakistan and India have fought 3 wars - 1948, 1965 and 1971.

Barring 1971 (which occurred while a civil war, assisted by India, was raging in East Pakistan), no war has resulted in a decisive 'victory' for either side.*"



In all wars of 47,65,99 we had been able *to defend kashmir by thwarting pakistani aggression which were waged with the purpose of annexing kashmir militarily from india*.

If they weren't victories and had india not been able defend itself,Kashmir would have been part of Pakistan by now.so indian victories of 47, *arent any myths*.They are as real as it could get.

Interestingly,*the battle of lahore *in 1965 where pakistan managed to block indian invasion of pakistani punjab is regarded as a military victory and *even celebrating September 6 as Defence Day each year*.

In the same logic,we too celebrate the defence of kashmir as battle victories, whose capture were main of objective of each pakistani aggressions.


Yes,71 war was different case.It was a civil war, assisted by India.*But the fact remains that pakistan army in then east pakistan surrendered to indian army only after a fierce fight*.And they laid down their arms in front of indian army not mukhti bahini rebels.Infact without direct indian military intervention,pakistan army would have been able to crush mukhti bahini rebels soon than later just like Srilankan army has defeated LTTE rebels after yrs of fightings.


----------



## AgNoStiC MuSliM

Skeptic said:


> This is How I would list the MYTHS in Indian minds:
> 
> 1. India has never lost a War with Pakistan
> 
> 2. Pakistan fights through proxies
> 
> 3. India has not launched a Milletary offencive unless provoked.
> 
> 4. Pakistan focuses more on the development of Army than of Civic aminities
> 
> 5. Kashmir issue is more central to Pakistani Politics than India.
> 
> Debunk these Myths if you really want to be a myth buster and they actually are Myths. Myths about Pakistan are anyways better quoted by an Indian than a Pakistani.


I can only narrate myths the way I have heard them, and that is how I have presented them and debunked them.


----------



## AgNoStiC MuSliM

Skeptic said:


> First of all I do not think you really have any intentions of changing any of these and as depicted, and while it is your call to call that a myth id "Debunked" or not, I don't think it provides a level playing field. This is my take on AM idividually as a poster and not as a moderator.
> 
> My second issue is with the language used to describe the (so called) myths which appears to be rather vague. Like "Decisive Victory" in the first point and "committing aggression" in the third point.


Again, I can only describe Myths as I have heard them stated by Indians, that does not mean that all Indians would articulate them te same way, but the way I described them is pretty much exactly how I have come across them - so the 'language' of the myths is accurate. You may be among those who do not subscribe to the myths mentioned, and good for you.



> 1. If Pakistan was the aggressor and India was able to ward off the aggressor I do think it counts as a victory. If Kargil can be considered as victory by India, where again all they did was to ward off the aggressor of their previously owned territory. Wit same logic applied India was the victorious party in 965 when India foiled "Operation Grand Slam" of Pakistan and in 1947, Pakistan had control of a major portion of Kashmir before India started its operation. End result India had a larger portion of the valley under its control than Pakistan so that would be a victory.
> So all in all 1947 - Partial victory (Capturing larger area)
> 1965 - Victory -Pakistan could not gain any territory in the end.
> Supporting link for 1965: PAKISTAN'S ASSERTIVE REGIONAL STRATEGY -- [FROM THE TASK FORCE ON TERRORISM AND UNCONVENTIONAL WARFARE, HOUSE REPUBLICAN RESEARCH COMMITTEE, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, WASHINGTON, DC, AUG. 24, 1994] (Extension of Remarks - September 12, 1994)
> Pakistan (03/09)
> Pakistan Link - Letter & Opinion
> All are Neutral Links.


Good try but no cigar - Sam Manekshaw and I Gandhi's quotes indicate that India was invovled in destabilizing Pakistan long before 1971 and the refugee crises - this issue is also discussed in Ashok Rainia's (name is possibly misspelled) book on RAW.

On 1965 I see that you continue to cling to the myth that India won. The sources you mentioned merely offer passing mention of the 1965 war. There is no argument given as to how that determination was arrived at. Given that neither India nor Pakistan were able to wrest large parts of territory from each other, I fail to see how any of those sites could argue victory in favor of India.

So there remains no evidence that India was able to achieve victory in 1948 or 1965.



> 2. Pakistan does get involved in war through proxy. Kargil will forever remain as one of the the best example of the same. Accepted by AM that it does.



So long as we also accept that India has acted through proxies several times as well - East Pakistan, Northern Alliance, LTTE, BLA 



> 3. Again this is a very vague term used. It does not differentiate between retaliation of aggression and being instigator of aggression. Also does not differentiate between launching an armed military offensive and supporting a group of insurgents. The common view in India is that India is not Instigator of aggression.
> 
> a) 1971 was again a retaliation based upon millions of refugees in India which was a kind of economic and social attack on India and only way to prevent that was by the action of Indian Army in 1971
> 
> b) LTTE can not be part of Indian Myth about Pakistan anyways. So out of the scope of Topic.
> 
> c) Siachin was not a "Clear Violation" of Simla accord. At the most you can say it was twisting the terms of Simla accord in a favorable manner. At the most you can call it unethical but not capturing enemy territory.
> 
> d) No concrete support for Baluch insurgents have been established and even if they are it can again be termed as retaliatory rather than instigation.


The instances I mentioned are clearly unprovoked acts of aggression by India - though in India Pakistan discussions 'provocation' tends to become very subjective and prone to biased claims and distortions, such as yours about East Pakistan.

a) As I mentioned above, Indian support for insurgents in East Pakistan preceded the events of 1971 by quite a few years, so the refugee situation cannot be claimed as justification.

b) It is not technically a part of a 'Pakistani myth', but since the myth about 'peaceful India' goes hand in hand with the myth about 'no aggression against Pakistan', it is relevant in establishing that India has engaged in unprovoked aggression against Pakistan and other neighbors.

c) The Siachen invasion by India was a very clear violation of the Simla accord and an unprovoked act of aggression since it militarily altered the status quo and sought to gain a territorial advantage in disputed territory. You cannot justify the Siachen invasion as 'non-aggression' without also justifying any other conflict over Kashmir as 'non aggression', in which case Operation Gibraltar and Kargil were not acts of aggression either, and that leaves India as the sole 'aggressor' through its actions in 1971.

4) The argument of support for the Baluch insurgency as being 'retaliatory' is subject to debate, and would depend upon how far back in history you want to go and what counts as a 'provocation' for either side - given that Baluchistan is sovereign Pakistani territory, as was East Pakistan and as was Sindh, support for the Baluch insurgency (whether it exists now or not is another matter) is unprovoked aggression.



> 4. Atleast I dont think so. Yes it is perceived that Pakistan has focused more on Army's development rather than economic. Apperantly, there are no world renouned Pakistani company of International stature (Public or Private) whereas Army would probably be in the top ten list of the world.


There is only one myth here - that of Pakistan spending absurd amounts on its defence budget. Its not as frequently repeated as the other myths, but I do come across it quite often, sometimes even by ill informed anti-military Pakistanis!

If you don't think so, kudos to you again, you have broadened your horizons!


> 5. Whether Pakistani politics revolves around Kashmir or not can be hard to determine. Yes the perception is that Kashmir issue is more central to Pakistani Politics compared to Indian Politics.


The Kashmir issue is central to Pakistan's foreign policy and therefore does play an important role nationally in that it would be very hard for a political party to compromise on Kashmir - but how is that any different from India? A large part of the electorate in India won't allow any political party to compromise on the status quo Indian position either.

However, what I was getting at is this idea that Kashmir somehow prevents the Pakistani electorate from focusing on bread and butter issues - that is completely wrong, and as I mentioned, you just have to look at the manifestos and campaigns of the political parties to realize how heavily they focus on (largely empty) promises of development, accountability, jobs etc.

Were Kashmir to play the role that is suggested by some Indians, the only thing these parties would talk about is Kashmir!

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## Skeptic

> Again, I can only describe Myths as I have heard them stated by Indians, that does not mean that all Indians would articulate them te same way, but the way I described them is pretty much exactly how I have come across them - so the 'language' of the myths is accurate. You may be among those who do not subscribe to the myths mentioned, and good for you.



What you have heard and exact terms were used can hardly be a topic of debate as it is your prerogative to describe what exactly have you heard. If its the feeling which guides these comments we are discussing then its a completely different issue. A twist of a few words can really change the orientation of point being mentioned. Maybe the posters were, a) ill informed b) feeling overwhelmingly patriotic talking to a Pakistani on Defence matters c) Both, to properly articulate their sentiments.



> Good try but no cigar



I did not expect any. (already quoted the reason for same). Anyways, I dont smoke and my head is clear.



> Sam Manekshaw and I Gandhi's quotes indicate that India was invovled in destabilizing Pakistan long before 1971 and the refugee crises - this issue is also discussed in Ashok Rainia's (name is possibly misspelled) book on RAW.



Hardly relevant for the first point of alleged myth. 1971 was an Indian Victory as you have already conceded.



> On 1965 I see that you continue to cling to the myth that India won. The sources you mentioned merely offer passing mention of the 1965 war. There is no argument given as to how that determination was arrived at. Given that neither India nor Pakistan were able to wrest large parts of territory from each other, I fail to see how any of those sites could argue victory in favor of India.
> 
> So there remains no evidence that India was able to achieve victory in 1948 or 1965.


 
No Sir, that is exactly not the case. I am not cringing on to any myth, but basing the argument on reasoning clearly mentioned that Pakistan was aggressor in 1965 and India defended its territory. If you want to debate either of the two points, I am willing for a long argument.

Terming Pakistan's country Profile on US Dept. of State as a "passing comment" is hardly a healthy precedence you are setting for the junior members.

For 1947 War, Again Kashmir was not under undisputed control of India and neither of Pakistan. We fought a war and India held onto a larger portion of Kashmir than Pakistan. I will term that as a Partial Indian Victory. If you want to portray Pakistan winning the war, then you'll be authorizing the Instrument of Accession, hardly a price any Kashmir Loving Pakistani would pay to register a paper victory.



> So long as we also accept that India has acted through proxies several times as well - East Pakistan, Northern Alliance, LTTE, BLA


Hardly the sound logic that you have resonated across this forum. *Does Pakistan fight through Proxy?*. Answer can be either Yes or No if you apply impartial and rational logic. Applying conditions is unnecessary.



> in India Pakistan discussions 'provocation' tends to become very subjective and prone to biased claims and distortions


Thus your claim carry equal substance to the claim of any Indian poster on this issue. Hardly a strong "Debunk".



> There is only one myth here - that of Pakistan spending absurd amounts on its defence budget. Its not as frequently repeated as the other myths, but I do come across it quite often, sometimes even by ill informed anti-military Pakistanis!



I don't think a developing nation of 170 Million can survive if such absurd amount (as mentioned in your first post) are being spent on defence. If this is what Indian's believe that such high percentages of budgets are devoted to Defence, then they have given up on their ability to reason. 



> The Kashmir issue is central to Pakistan's foreign policy and therefore does play an important role nationally in that it would be very hard for a political party to compromise on Kashmir - but how is that any different from India? A large part of the electorate in India won't allow any political party to compromise on the status quo Indian position either.


A very simple reply to this. I don't think Pakistani public is stupid. 
They certainly have their priorities of regional and national issues and their is no denying the fact that elections are not won just over Kashmir.

The reason behind this perception can be the frequency of recital of Kashmir issue by Pakistani posters, although my logic says that it is simply because an Indian and a Pakistani are discussing defence related issues. If two Pakistanis were discussing politics among themselves I think Kashmir will certainly not be the first thing they would talk about.
It has also to do with the emphasis Pakistan gives to raising Kashmir on any international platform.

I hope I made the issues I had with the "articulation" or "Language" clear aplenty. If we are sticking to terms you mentioned this is my take on it.


----------



## A1Kaid

Skeptic said:


> For 1947 War, Again Kashmir was not under undisputed control of India and neither of Pakistan. We fought a war and India held onto a larger portion of Kashmir than Pakistan. I will term that as a Partial Indian Victory. If you want to portray Pakistan winning the war, then you'll be authorizing the Instrument of Accession, hardly a price any Kashmir Loving Pakistani would pay to register a paper victory.




If you are open minded then I encourage you to look at the events of the 1947 War through this dimension.

When the Indian subcontinent was partitioned Pakistan was given fewer supplies and fighting men right from the beginning of the War. The Joint Defence Council formed by Lord. Mountbatten had formed an agreement to divide the British Raj or Indian subcontinent Armed forces. The agreement stated that the Indian armed forces and all military supplies and equipment will be divided with 64% of the portion given to India and 36% of the portion given to Pakistan. Also, Pakistan was given 9 "training establishments" and a few ordnance factories while India was given 17 training established and many more ordnance factories.

So when you analyze Pakistan's performance in the 1947 War take this unto consideration, because it is a critical part of the equation.



Please read below.

"On the eve of Partition in 1947, the figure had come down to about 11,800 officers, 450,000 other ranks plus about 50,000 of Indian Princely State Forces. It is noteworthy that at that time (as per policy of the British Raj since 1857) there were only two completely Muslim combat units (1/15 Punjab Regiment and 3/16 Punjab Regiment), although there were several completely Hindu and Sikh units and regiments of the combat arms. *The original agreement called for the armed forces and other assets to be divided to the ration of 64% for India and 36% for Pakistan, but Pakistan was later forced to accept an 1/3 share of assets. Of the total 46 training establishments; only nine were located in Pakistan; all of the 17 Ordnance Depots were located in India*, as were most of the Ordnance Depots and Engineer Store Depots. *In addition to Pakistan receiving far less stores than originally stipulated, most of the stores received were of general nature, perishable, unwanted and obsolete.*"

Source: http://www.pakdef.info/pakmilitary/army/


*If you want to limit your analysis to simple geography/ territory held/ and or captured then you may, but there are other complexities you ought to look at.*

Also let's not forget this aspect. During the 1947 war, Pakistan gained Northern territories (Gilgit, Mirpur, Chitral and surrounding areas), what is now known as Azad Kashmir, and Aksai Chin which was ceded to China in 1963, the year after your humiliating defeat to China.

The total land mass that Pakistan possessed after 1947 by Pakistan according to my calculations & other sources is this.

Northern Areas = 72,496 km²

Azad Kashmir = 13,297 km²

Aksai Chin = 5,181 km²

72,496 km2 (N-Areas) + 13,297 km2 (A-Kashmir)+ 5,181 km2 (Aksai Chin)= 

*90,974 km2 *(total Land mass held by Pakistan after 1947 War)

On the Indian side, the capture Jammu & Kashmir Valley and Eastern Portion of Kashmir, the total land mass of that equals roughly *101,387 km²*.

101,387 km2 - 90,974 km2= 10,413 km2 


10,413 km2 is the territorial difference we are talking about, you had mentioned in your post that you consider this a "partial victory".

But when you had already been given 64% of the Armed force's soldiers', money, supplies, military resources--like ordnance factories, this marginal "victory" you claim is quite a disappointment.

Considering regular Pakistan Army soldiers were not so active in the initial phases of the War, and it was mostly local tribes (inc. Pakistani, Kashmiri, & Afghan Pathans) you were facing, and let's not forget the Gilgit Scouts. So earlier in the War IA was fighting unconventional fighting forces...


The fact that Pakistan managed to capture 90,974 km2 territory through the meager resources it had is an amazing victory.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## spsk

A1Kaid said:


> If you are open minded then I encourage you to look at the events of the 1947 War through this dimension.
> 
> When the Indian subcontinent was partitioned Pakistan was given fewer supplies and fighting men right from the beginning of the War. The Joint Defence Council formed by Lord. Mountbatten had formed an agreement to divide the British Raj or Indian subcontinent Armed forces. The agreement stated that the Indian armed forces and all military supplies and equipment will be divided with 64&#37; of the portion given to India and 36% of the portion given to Pakistan. Also, Pakistan was given 9 "training establishments" and a few ordnance factories while India was given 17 training established and many more ordnance factories.
> 
> So when you analyze Pakistan's performance in the 1947 War take this unto consideration, because it is a critical part of the equation.
> 
> 
> 
> Please read below.
> 
> "On the eve of Partition in 1947, the figure had come down to about 11,800 officers, 450,000 other ranks plus about 50,000 of Indian Princely State Forces. It is noteworthy that at that time (as per policy of the British Raj since 1857) there were only two completely Muslim combat units (1/15 Punjab Regiment and 3/16 Punjab Regiment), although there were several completely Hindu and Sikh units and regiments of the combat arms. *The original agreement called for the armed forces and other assets to be divided to the ration of 64% for India and 36% for Pakistan, but Pakistan was later forced to accept an 1/3 share of assets. Of the total 46 training establishments; only nine were located in Pakistan; all of the 17 Ordnance Depots were located in India*, as were most of the Ordnance Depots and Engineer Store Depots. *In addition to Pakistan receiving far less stores than originally stipulated, most of the stores received were of general nature, perishable, unwanted and obsolete.*"
> 
> Source: Pakistan Military Consortium :: www.PakDef.info
> 
> 
> *If you want to limit your analysis to simple geography/ territory held/ and or captured then you may, but there are other complexities you ought to look at.*
> 
> Also let's not forget this aspect. During the 1947 war, Pakistan gained Northern territories (Gilgit, Mirpur, Chitral and surrounding areas), what is now known as Azad Kashmir, and Aksai Chin which was ceded to China in 1963, the year after your humiliating defeat to China.
> 
> The total land mass that Pakistan possessed after 1947 by Pakistan according to my calculations & other sources is this.
> 
> Northern Areas = 72,496 km&#178;
> 
> Azad Kashmir = 13,297 km&#178;
> 
> Aksai Chin = 5,181 km&#178;
> 
> 72,496 km2 (N-Areas) + 13,297 km2 (A-Kashmir)+ 5,181 km2 (Aksai Chin)=
> 
> *90,974 km2 *(total Land mass held by Pakistan after 1947 War)
> 
> On the Indian side, the capture Jammu & Kashmir Valley and Eastern Portion of Kashmir, the total land mass of that equals roughly *101,387 km&#178;*.
> 
> 101,387 km2 - 90,974 km2= 10,413 km2
> 
> 
> 10,413 km2 is the territorial difference we are talking about, you had mentioned in your post that you consider this a "partial victory".
> 
> But when you had already been given 64% of the Armed force's soldiers', money, supplies, military resources--like ordnance factories, this marginal "victory" you claim is quite a disappointment.
> 
> Considering regular Pakistan Army soldiers were not so active in the initial phases of the War, and it was mostly local tribes (inc. Pakistani, Kashmiri, & Afghan Pathans) you were facing, and let's not forget the Gilgit Scouts. So earlier in the War IA was fighting unconventional fighting forces...
> 
> 
> The fact that Pakistan managed to capture 90,974 km2 territory through the meager resources it had is an amazing victory.



Something missing!!!Let me add something to your post

India could have fought the rebels in the initial stage of war and annexed Kashmir , but India had to wait for Pakistan to threaten king and make him agree to sign the agreement to make Kashmir a "special state" in India, This was an excellent diplomacy played by Indian leaders , This is the first diplomatic victory for India (We cannot interfere otherwise ) and later military also gave a good success in chasing you back to LOC.


----------



## Zob

*No Sir, that is exactly not the case. I am not cringing on to any myth, but basing the argument on reasoning clearly mentioned that Pakistan was aggressor in 1965 and India defended its territory.*


*For 1947 War, Again Kashmir was not under undisputed control of India and neither of Pakistan. We fought a war and India held onto a larger portion of Kashmir than Pakistan. I will term that as a Partial Indian Victory*


Ok so then i guess being an agressor holding onto more territory is seen as a "PARTIAL" victory or not succes in your eyes.....

well given your logic then i guess PAKISTAN won in 2002 and DECEMBER 2008....."PARTIAL" victory because 

A) we held onto "ALL or LARGE PART" of our territory...

B) Surgical strikes that india planned never materlized...

see guys...what AM is saying you are twisting it to make it sound better to your ears!! 


LEts remove the word *"MYTHS" *and put in the word *CLAIMS*

*1. India has never lost a War with Pakistan*

Well based on your argument 2002 and 2008 were Indian defeats...and "PARTIAL" pakistani victories...

*2. Pakistan fights through proxies*

Agreed, however INDIA is not Saint either!!!! 

*3. India has not launched a Military offensive unless provoked.*

Sorry but 1971 & 1984 makes this CLAIM of india incorrect...

*4. Pakistan focuses more on the development of Army than of Civic aminities*

Well i can say PAKISTAN focuses more on CORRUPTION than on civic aminities.....after all we are better than NORTH KOREA...for which this CLAIM can be stated as correct....

*5. Kashmir issue is more central to Pakistani Politics than India.*

NONE of the political parties ever got votes saying we will get KASHMIR FREEDOM....so this argument is also "DEBUNKED"

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Skeptic

A1Kaid said:


> If you are open minded then I encourage you to look at the events of the 1947 War through this dimension.
> 
> When the Indian subcontinent was partitioned Pakistan was given fewer supplies and fighting men right from the beginning of the War. The Joint Defence Council formed by Lord. Mountbatten had formed an agreement to divide the British Raj or Indian subcontinent Armed forces. The agreement stated that the Indian armed forces and all military supplies and equipment will be divided with 64% of the portion given to India and 36% of the portion given to Pakistan. Also, Pakistan was given 9 "training establishments" and a few ordnance factories while India was given 17 training established and many more ordnance factories.
> 
> So when you analyze Pakistan's performance in the 1947 War take this unto consideration, because it is a critical part of the equation.



Ofcourse. Performance of Pakistan forces was anything but exemplary and no one can ever say that they were a walkover. No Sir, I have all the respect for Pakistani Army and I hold their abilities in high regard. If you want me to claim that Pakistan Army performed above its potential and beyond resources, I don't think I need to counter those claims. 

I have always held spirit and motivational quotient of PA in high regards and soldiers who are willing to sacrifice his life for their motherland, have highest of regards from me. 

Remaining points I'll try and address to at the earliest. A little short of time right now.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Skeptic

> Ok so then i guess being an agressor holding onto more territory is seen as a "PARTIAL" victory or not succes in your eyes.....
> 
> well given your logic then i guess PAKISTAN won in 2002 and DECEMBER 2008....."PARTIAL" victory because
> 
> A) we held onto "ALL or LARGE PART" of our territory...
> 
> B) Surgical strikes that india planned never materlized...
> 
> see guys...what AM is saying you are twisting it to make it sound better to your ears!!



Sir I think you have a very ambiguous defenition of the word WAR. AM did not even count Kargil as a War and you want to include standoffs of 2002 and 2008 as Wars. Something is terribly amiss here.



> Well based on your argument 2002 and 2008 were Indian defeats...and "PARTIAL" pakistani victories...



Sir this line of reasoning is beyond my scope of logic. If I were to stoop to a very low level of argument, I'm sure you will score better of me just plainly with your experience.



> Agreed, however INDIA is not Saint either!!!!


Are we comparing India and Pakistan here??? Atleast I am not.



> Sorry but 1971 & 1984 makes this CLAIM of india incorrect...



If you have read closely enough, I have provided reasons for 1971, which were disputed by AM as we cannot ever be sure about the actual truth.

1984 - well lesser said the better.



> Well i can say PAKISTAN focuses more on CORRUPTION than on civic aminities.....after all we are better than NORTH KOREA...for which this CLAIM can be stated as correct....



If Corruption was only thing you focused upon, PA would not have become such a formidable force. Corruption is not unique to Pakistan. If you want to debate whether Pakistan is more Corrupt than India, I think I will have to disagree with you.



> NONE of the political parties ever got votes saying we will get KASHMIR FREEDOM....so this argument is also "DEBUNKED"


I bow to the weirdness of logic and again concede defeat in a battle of distortion, while you are at your debunking best.


----------



## Skeptic

> he total land mass that Pakistan possessed after 1947 by Pakistan according to my calculations & other sources is this.
> 
> Northern Areas = 72,496 km²
> 
> Azad Kashmir = 13,297 km²
> 
> Aksai Chin = 5,181 km²
> 
> 72,496 km2 (N-Areas) + 13,297 km2 (A-Kashmir)+ 5,181 km2 (Aksai Chin)=
> 
> 90,974 km2 (total Land mass held by Pakistan after 1947 War)
> 
> On the Indian side, the capture Jammu & Kashmir Valley and Eastern Portion of Kashmir, the total land mass of that equals roughly 101,387 km².
> 
> 101,387 km2 - 90,974 km2= 10,413 km2
> 
> 
> 10,413 km2 is the territorial difference we are talking about, you had mentioned in your post that you consider this a "partial victory".



I would like to dispute he claim that area of Jammu and Kashmir on the Indian side of LOC is 101,387 kmsq. The data which I have depicts the area as 222,236 kmsq. Also it is a widely accepted fact that India won 2/3rd of the territory and Pakistan 1/3rd. Also if we speak in qualitative terms, most of the densely populated and inhabited area lies on the Indian side of the LOC unlike Akksai Chin or even Northern areas(FANA) which are thinly populated and almost uninhabited.

If you want me to concede that PA performed bravely and efficiently, I find it acceptable but if we are speaking strictly in term of territorial occupancy and qualitative occupation, I would hold onto my views that IA achieved more. Hope we can find some ground of mutual acceptance. 

Peace...

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## AgNoStiC MuSliM

Skeptic said:


> What you have heard and exact terms were used can hardly be a topic of debate as it is your prerogative to describe what exactly have you heard. If its the feeling which guides these comments we are discussing then its a completely different issue. A twist of a few words can really change the orientation of point being mentioned. Maybe the posters were, a) ill informed b) feeling overwhelmingly patriotic talking to a Pakistani on Defence matters c) Both, to properly articulate their sentiments.


Of course it is my prerogative to address inaccurate comments as I have heard them - the manner in which you described these 'myths' earlier is not how I have come across them - had it been the case then I would not have had to address some of them.

Again. just because you do not see the 'myths' the way described does not mean that other Indians do - and of course once someone is called out on ones fallacies, it is but natural to then engage in some face saving and attempt to shift from the original stance. Not that I am suggesting that you are engaging in that, but hopefully those who do read about these 'myths', and subscribe to them, will realize how flawed their positions are.



> Hardly relevant for the first point of alleged myth. 1971 was an Indian Victory as you have already conceded.


That was inserted in the wrong spot - it was meant to debunk the myth that India was in any way provoked through 'socio-economic pressures' from the EP refugee situation. The support for insurgents destabilizing EP started long before that factor came into play.



> No Sir, that is exactly not the case. I am not cringing on to any myth, but basing the argument on reasoning clearly mentioned that Pakistan was aggressor in 1965 and India defended its territory. If you want to debate either of the two points, I am willing for a long argument.
> 
> For 1947 War, Again Kashmir was not under undisputed control of India and neither of Pakistan. We fought a war and India held onto a larger portion of Kashmir than Pakistan. I will term that as a Partial Indian Victory. If you want to portray Pakistan winning the war, then you'll be authorizing the Instrument of Accession, hardly a price any Kashmir Loving Pakistani would pay to register a paper victory.
> 
> Terming Pakistan's country Profile on US Dept. of State as a "passing comment" is hardly a healthy precedence you are setting for the junior members.


I am not arguing that 1965 was an 'aggression' by India - it was not included in my original post of myths.

What I am pointing out is that both 1948 and 1965 are contentious issues in terms of who won (some Pakistani historians would claim that Pakistan had the upper hand in both conflicts). I therefore chose the middle route of arguing that both wars were inconclusive. Whether Pakistan had the upper hand or the conflicts were largely inconclusive, the fact remains that neither was a victory for India.

I disagree with the State Departments categorization of 1965 because my readings indicate the opposite, and the State Department offers a one liner. 

Perhaps it is time to open threads on the 1965 and 48 wars and discuss them on the forum, though I doubt that there will be any consensus between Indians and Pakistanis on either. That is the reason I went for that 'neutral ground' of the two wars being 'inconclusive'.



> Hardly the sound logic that you have resonated across this forum. *Does Pakistan fight through Proxy?*. Answer can be either Yes or No if you apply impartial and rational logic. Applying conditions is unnecessary.


The whole rationale behind including something like support for proxies in a thread on 'myths', when I knew that it was not, was to point out that Indian complaints about it are disingenuous. Why raise the issue and use it in an 'accusatory' manner when India herself has done the same?

Its like accusing Pakistan of having an Army. Errrr .. so what? So does India.



> I don't think a developing nation of 170 Million can survive if such absurd amount (as mentioned in your first post) are being spent on defence. If this is what Indian's believe that such high percentages of budgets are devoted to Defence, then they have given up on their ability to reason.


Again, the thread addresses issues I have heard Indians raise over the years - that does not imply that all Indians subscribe to these myths, just as it would be incorrect to generalize that all Pakistanis, or even a majority, consider themselves descendant from Arabs.



> A very simple reply to this. I don't think Pakistani public is stupid.
> They certainly have their priorities of regional and national issues and their is no denying the fact that elections are not won just over Kashmir.
> 
> The reason behind this perception can be the frequency of recital of Kashmir issue by Pakistani posters, although my logic says that it is simply because an Indian and a Pakistani are discussing defence related issues. If two Pakistanis were discussing politics among themselves I think Kashmir will certainly not be the first thing they would talk about.
> It has also to do with the emphasis Pakistan gives to raising Kashmir on any international platform.



I largely agree with you here - Kashmir has a large role in Pakistan's foreign policy and is an emotional issue, but it has little relevance in domestic politics.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## SonofIndia

Nice thread, but how about starting a new one: 

"Top Ten Pakistani myths about Pakistan".

I can help with the first one:

1. Pakistan is a nation.


----------



## Rafael

SonofIndia said:


> Nice thread, but how about starting a new one:
> 
> "Top Ten Pakistani myths about Pakistan".
> 
> I can help with the first one:
> 
> 1. Pakistan is a nation.





Top ten Indian myth about India:

I can help with the first one:

India is a democracy!

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## pakomar

SonofIndia said:


> Nice thread, but how about starting a new one:
> 
> "Top Ten Pakistani myths about Pakistan".
> 
> I can help with the first one:
> 
> 1. Pakistan is a nation.



How can you say that what reasons.


----------



## Zob

biggest MYTH of INDIA in INDIA


*INDIA IS SECULR!!!*

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## AgNoStiC MuSliM

SonofIndia said:


> Nice thread, but how about starting a new one:
> 
> "Top Ten Pakistani myths about Pakistan".
> 
> I can help with the first one:
> 
> 1. Pakistan is a nation.



Let me demolish a myth for you - 'SonofIndia thinks he can continue posting on this forum despite childish flames and trolling'.

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## AgNoStiC MuSliM

AgNoStIc MuSliM said:


> Let me demolish a myth for you - 'SonofIndia thinks he can continue posting on this forum despite childish flames and trolling'.



And another myth 'sonofIndia thinks he can continue posting on this forum and we won't figure out that he has mutliple ID's, atleast 3 of which are already banned'.

sonofIndia banned, myth demolished.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Zob

AgNoStIc MuSliM said:


> And another myth 'sonofIndia thinks he can continue posting on this forum and we won't figure out that he has mutliple ID's, atleast 3 of which are already banned'.
> 
> sonofIndia banned, myth demolished.



hahahaha  didn't know you had a sense of humour Agnostic....i thought that was just NEO & DARKSTAR area of expertise!!

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## BLACK_COBRA

WAKE UP DUDE AND READ THE BELOW ARTICLE"

The guns of August By Ahmad Faruqui 
Monday, 31 Aug, 2009 | 08:02 AM PST | 

No official history of the 1965 war was ever written even though President Ayub wanted one. &#8212; File Photo Pakistan 
Pros & cons of incumbency Some of the writing about the Indo-Pakistan war of September 1965 borders on mythology. It is no surprise that generations of Pakistanis continue to believe that India was the aggressor and that one Pakistani soldier was equal to 10 Indian soldiers. 

A few have argued that the war began in August when Pakistan injected guerrillas into the vale of Kashmir to instigate a revolt and grab it before India achieved military dominance in the region. That was Operation Gibraltar.

When it failed to trigger a revolt and drew a sharp Indian riposte along the ceasefire line, Pakistan upped the ante and launched Operation Grand Slam on Sept 1. Infantry units of the army backed by armour overran the Indian outpost in Chamb, crossed the Tawi river and were headed towards Akhnur in order to cut off India&#8217;s line of communication with Srinagar.

In the minority view, the Indian response on Sept 6 across the international border at Lahore was a natural counter-response, not an act of aggression.

I asked Sajjad Haider, author of the new book, Flight of the Falcon, to name the aggressor. He retired as an air commodore in the Pakistan Air Force. A fighter pilot to the bone, he does not know how to mince words: &#8216;Ayub perpetrated the war.&#8217;

In April, skirmishes had taken place in the Rann of Kutch region several hundred miles south of Kashmir. In that encounter, the Pakistanis prevailed over the Indians. Haider says that the humiliation suffered by the Indians brought Prime Minister Shastri to the conclusion that the next round would be of India&#8217;s choosing.

The Indian army chief prepared for a war that would be fought in the plains of Punjab. Under &#8216;Operation Ablaze&#8217;, it would mount an attack against Lahore, Sialkot and Kasur. Of course, the trigger would have to be pulled by the Pakistanis.

On May 12, says Haider, an Indian Canberra bomber flew over the Pakistan border on a reconnaissance mission. To quote him: &#8216;The PAF scrambled interceptors which got within shooting range of the intruder. Air Marshal Asghar Khan&#8217;s permission was sought to bring down the intruder. He sought clearance from the president on the newly installed direct line but Ayub denied permission fearing Indian reprisal.&#8217; Laments Haider, &#8216;If this was not an indication of Indian intentions, what else could have been?&#8217;

Oblivious to what had just taken place in the skies above Punjab, and failing to anticipate how India was gunning to equalise the score, Ayub gave the green light to Operation Gibraltar on the advice of his foreign minister, Zulfikar Ali Bhutto (later president and prime minister). Bhutto had sought out the opinion about Indian intentions from Chinese Foreign Minister Chen Yi during a meeting at the Karachi airport and concluded from the latter&#8217;s body language that India would not respond. 

So Ayub gave the green light to send 8,000 infiltrators into Indian-held Kashmir. These, says Haider, were mostly youth from Azad Kashmir who had less than four weeks of training in guerrilla warfare. The entire plan was predicated on a passive Indian response, evoking Gen Von Moltke&#8217;s dictum: &#8216;No war plan survives the first 24 hours of contact with the enemy.&#8217; 

It is also worth recalling what the kaiser said to the German troops that were heading off to fight the French in August 1914: &#8216;You will be home before the leaves have fallen off the trees.&#8217; The three-month war turned into the Great War which lasted for four years.

Operation Grand Slam abruptly ground to a halt. An Indian general cited by Haider says in his memoirs: &#8216;Akhnur was a ripe plum ready to be plucked, but providence came to our rescue.&#8217; The Pakistani GHQ decided to switch divisional commanders in the midst of the operation. The new commander, Maj-Gen Yahya (subsequently army chief and president), claimed later he was not tasked with taking Akhnur.

I asked Haider whether the Pakistani military was prepared for an all-out war with India, a much bigger country with a much bigger military. He said it was the army&#8217;s war, since the other services had been kept in the dark. The army was clearly not prepared for an all-out war since a quarter of the soldiers were on leave. They were only recalled as the Indian army crossed the border en route to Lahore, a horrific sight which Haider recalls seeing from the air as he and five of his falcons arrived on the outskirts of Lahore.

Maj-Gen Sarfraz was the general officer commanding of the No.10 Division which had primary responsibility for the defence of Lahore. Along with other divisional commanders in the region, he had been ordered by GHQ to remove all defensive landmines from the border. None had been taken into confidence about the Kashmir operation. The pleas of these generals to prepare against an Indian invasion were rejected by GHQ with a terse warning: &#8216;Do not provoke the Indians.&#8217; 

Haider notes that the gateway to Lahore was defended by the 3rd Baloch contingent of 100 men under the intrepid Major Shafqat Baluch. He says, &#8216;They fought to the last man till we (No.19 Squadron) arrived to devastate the invading division. There could have been no doubt even in the mind of a hawaldar that an Indian attack would come. But the ostriches at the pulpit had their heads dug in sand up to their necks.&#8217; 

In the 1965 war, the Pakistani Army repeated the mistakes of the 1947-48 Kashmir war, but on a grander scale. No official history of the 1965 war was ever written even though President Ayub wanted one. Gen Yahya, his new army chief, just sat on the request until Ayub was hounded out of office by centrifugal forces triggered by the war. 

Pakistan&#8217;s grand strategy was flawed. None of its strategic objectives were achieved. And were it not for the tactical brilliance of many mid-level commanders, the country would have been torn apart by the Indians. Ironically, in Ayub&#8217;s autobiography, one would be hard pressed to find any references to the war of 1965. One is reminded of De Gaulle&#8217;s history of the French army which makes no reference to the events that took place in Waterloo in 1815.

War, as Clemenceau put it, is too serious a business to be left to the generals. 

The writer has authored Rethinking the National Security of Pakistan.
AhmadFaruqui***********

http://www.dawn.com/wps/wcm/connect...awn/news/pakistan/16-the-guns-of-august-hs-06


----------



## PeaceForAll

*Pakistan has fought through proxies:*

saying India has also fought through proxies does not change the fact/myth. If A is a dud, then saying "B is dud too" does not make A any different. Its still a dud.

What the myth is, I believe, is that Pakistan had started the covert operations against India and since India could not resist that militarily, we "had to" resort to covert operations.

And thats the myth of "Pak fights through proxies and hence we should fight with proxies too" *NOT* "Pak fights through proxies but we do not"


----------



## Engr786

Millitary of only two months put indain plans back & get kashmir.This millitary was poor,unarmed,no food defeated indian well equiped arm.So by the grace of Allah our believes are on our selves & Allah. We fight with respect to Ghzwa-e-Badr. History knows well as at the time of partition Pakistan was given as 10 percent or even less than 10% of anything inspite of dead bodies..


----------



## AgNoStiC MuSliM

PeaceForAll said:


> *Pakistan has fought through proxies:*
> 
> saying India has also fought through proxies does not change the fact/myth. If A is a dud, then saying "B is dud too" does not make A any different. Its still a dud.
> 
> What the myth is, I believe, is that Pakistan had started the covert operations against India and since India could not resist that militarily, we "had to" resort to covert operations.
> 
> And thats the myth of "Pak fights through proxies and hence we should fight with proxies too" *NOT* "Pak fights through proxies but we do not"



Please read my post again - I did not suggest that the fact that India fights through proxies makes Paksitan's use of proxies untrue or irrelevant. 

I merely pointed out that the context in which that accusation is hurled at Pakistan often ignores the fact that India has had its hands in the proxy war jar just as much as Pakistan, and then the whole bit about 'pot calling the kettle black' comes into play.

What purpose is served with Indians accusing Pakistan of using proxies when India has done the same?

Better to let that particular allegation alone then - but it is not left alone specifically because Indians wish to whitewash their own sins and hope no one calls them out on it.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## AZAAD

AgNoStIc MuSliM said:


> Please read my post again - I did not suggest that the fact that India fights through proxies makes Paksitan's use of proxies untrue or irrelevant.
> 
> I merely pointed out that the context in which that accusation is hurled at Pakistan often ignores the fact that India has had its hands in the proxy war jar just as much as Pakistan, and then the whole bit about 'pot calling the kettle black' comes into play.
> 
> What purpose is served with Indians accusing Pakistan of using proxies when India has done the same?
> 
> Better to let that particular allegation alone then - but it is not left alone specifically because Indians wish to whitewash their own sins and hope no one calls them out on it.




Sir kindly first make it clear what is the point of discussion. Is it the myth you want to debunk or you want to prove "Hamam mein dono nange hain"

Whatever India does (I am not implying whatever you believe is what India does) has no bearing to the MYTH you want to debunk (If it is a myth at all) 

Your reasoning on this particular point implies you believe Pakistan do this (So not a myth) because India also do this. 
Please explain


----------



## sensenreason

AgNoStIc MuSliM said:


> *Myth 1.
> Pakistan lost all 3 wars with India.*
> 
> Pakistan and India have fought 3 wars - 1948, 1965 and 1971.
> 
> Barring 1971 (which occurred while a civil war, assisted by India, was raging in East Pakistan), no war has resulted in a decisive 'victory' for either side.
> 
> *Myth 2.
> Pakistan fights through proxies*
> 
> Well, this is true. Pakistan has supported Kashmiri Freedom fighters in Indian Occupied Kashmir, and did support the Mujahideen (with US and Saudi support) and later the Taliban.
> 
> However, this allegation by Indians completely overlooks India's own long association with proxy groups.
> 
> 
> Supported proxies that destabilized East Pakistan for many years leading into 1971
> Supported the LTTE (Tamil Tigers) - a terrorist organization in Sri Lanka
> Supported the Northern Alliance - a group of warlords and criminals in Afghanistan
> Supported Baluch insurgents in Pakistan
> *
> Myth 3.
> India has never committed aggression against Pakistan, or any other country.*
> This is clearly not the case as seen below
> 
> 
> Support for insurgents in East Pakistan leding into 1971 and the ensuing war
> Support for the LTTE (a terrorist organization in Sri Lanka) against the Sri Lankan State
> The invasion of Siachen in 1984 in clear violation of the Simla Accord
> Support for the Baluch insurgency
> *
> Myth 4.
> Pakistan spends 70% (or more, depending upon the Indian) of its budget on Defense.*
> 
> Pakistan's defence budget for 2009 was about 4.4 billion USD. With a GDP of about 160 billion USD and a budget of 33 billion USD, that works out to be about 2.75% of GDP and 13.3% of the total budget.
> PAKISTAN'S TOTAL OUTLAY IN 2007-08 BUDGET TO BE ABOUT US$33 BLN. | Goliath Business News
> 
> This compares with an Indian defence budget of about 26 billion that is 14.4% of the total budget and about 2.3% - so what's the big deal with Pakistan's defence budget?
> *
> Myth 5.
> Pakistani politics is dominated by Kashmir*
> 
> This argument goes along the lines of 'the Army/leadership makes sure that the only thing Pakistanis are aware of is Kashmir, and in this way distracts them from socio-economic issues and avoids investing in development'.
> 
> No doubt most Pakistanis are aware of Kashmir, but the fact that we have cutthroat national politics, with political parties that have significant ideological differences, it is absurd to suggest that the only issue mentioned during stump speeches is 'Kashmir'.
> 
> Most of the PR and advertisements run by Pakistani political parties in fact focus on providing development and bringing about prosperity, not Kashmir. Most politicians talk about providing, jobs, investment etc. and most Pakistanis vote on that basis - even when voting on biraadri lines since they believe 'their guy' will provide them with economic opportunity/favors.
> 
> The political process in Pakistan remains largely driven by issues that are important to most people elsewhere in the world - jobs, inflation, development etc.
> 
> ----------------------
> 
> Feel free to offer suggestions on changes, additions, improvements and I'll incorporate them if I think they are appropriate.



Im sure both sides have mytical beliefs about each other...

Myth 1 - I agree only in 71 Pakistan lost territory and therefore accepts 'defeat'. So the fact that Pakistan survived 'intact' in 48 and 65,is to its credit and India's discredit and therefore has the legroom to 'fashion/spin' the lack of decisive loss as a 'victory of sorts'

However, the Indian myth as you allege is not that we won territory in 65 and therefore won...just that if the war had continued Pakistan would have lost territory....48 is not really discussed /debated ecept to the extent of what you call Azad Kashmir and India '***....this is part of the dispute by Pakistan of Kashmir anyways...so no 'attention' is paid to the fact that there was a conflict in 48.

However, there is no MYTH about India having WON any territory of Pakistan or its surrender...

The Pakistani arguement on 65/48 is nuanced by it being the smaller country and in a way clutches to the straws about a advantage here and a battle won there...

The problem is not the belief but the context. Pakistan is proud of holding its own (the Pakistani belief) against the 'stronger', better 'equipped' defence forces but with WORSE (pakistani belief) manpower (this itself is a myth..debated at length elsewhere); while Indians view these wars a little more distantly as an obstacle that we have in our neighbourhood being peaceful and the whole ..partition business...

Whats indicative of who has the the more potent myths is the Pakistani belief that everything was hunky dory in the East Pakistan and India just played a 'dirty' game and the defeat is then spun as having mutiple dimensions of logistics, geopolitics, support to insurgency etc...whats ignored is that the 'possibility' for a Pakistani to 'BELIEVE' that they could have lost the 71 war...even if those pitfalls didnt exist

Will comment on other Myths later...


----------



## Blowdata4u

Unofficially boasting the second highest UFO sightings behind Roswell. Home to Canada's largest nuclear bunker! On again, off again, Carp is once again host to the annual Ottawa Air Show! Annual destination for the Experimental Aircraft Association (EAA) Fly-In/Drive-In Breakfast. A location for a Tom Clancy movie shoot staring Ben Affleck and Morgan Freeman.

Intrigued? Well you should be! The Historic Village of Carp has nothing to do with the fish by the same name. The seemingly sleepy rural community sits on the northwestern fringe of the city of Ottawa - just a bit 'up the valley' as they say in the (Ottawa) Valley. This small village, although predominantly a farming community, has some of Canada's defined history running through its veins.

The [debatable] secret building of the four-storey nuclear fallout Diefenbunker, was a massive Federal Government construction project completed in 1961. Now part of Canadian Cold War history, a tour through this concert and steel underground fortress will stimulate your senses with the intrigue of espionage, spies and covert operations. Come prepared to walk up and down stairs.


----------



## Hari

Friends,

I recently asked my friends[Only Indians] whether Riots after Partition was the reason why India and Pakistan are not good neighbours. Most of them replied that If we didnt support Mukti - Bahini then our relationship could not have gone worse, What do you feel


----------



## Spring Onion

Hari said:


> Friends,
> 
> I recently asked my friends[Only Indians] whether Riots after Partition was the reason why India and Pakistan are not good neighbours. Most of them replied that If we didnt support Mukti - Bahini then our relationship could not have gone worse, What do you feel



A simple question why Your relations with Bangladesh are not good then? (the hatred towards Bangladeshis by Indians, terimg them un-wanted in India)


----------



## arihant

Jana said:


> A simple question why Your relations with Bangladesh are not good then? (the hatred towards Bangladeshis by Indians, terimg them un-wanted in India)



Hatred ? It's propogando. You never know when munshi or idune arrive here. They will even post bad about India when discussion is going about US-Canada Friendship. So, nothing new in that. I personally met with some bangladeshi (graphics designer). They don't hate India but they do get news about BD Civilians being killed by BSF. I just told that why they are being killed.  

So that made my mind set that Real BD don't hate us.


----------



## RiazHaq

Indians get a highly distorted picture of Pakistan through their mass media, according to two observers who have had a chance to compare India and Pakistan:


_"Islamabad is surely the most well-organized,picturesque and endearing city in all of South Asia. Few Indians would, however, know this, or, if they did, would admit it. After all, the Indian media never highlights anything positive about Pakistan, because for it only 'bad' news about the country appears to be considered 'newsworthy'. That realization hit me as a rude shock the moment I stepped out of the plane and entered Islamabad's plush International Airport, easily far more efficient, modern and better maintained than any of its counterparts in India.

Yoginder Sikand
10 June, 2008
Countercurrents.org

"On the ground, of course, the reality is different and first-time visitors to Pakistan are almost always surprised by the country's visible prosperity. There is far less poverty on show in Pakistan than in India, fewer beggars, and much less desperation. In many ways the infrastructure of Pakistan is much more advanced: there are better roads and airports, and more reliable electricity. Middle-class Pakistani houses are often bigger and better appointed than their equivalents in India.

William Dalrymple
14 August, 2007
The Guardian
_
Haq's Musings: Foreign Visitors to Pakistan Pleasantly Surprized

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## MilesTogo

This is great. We need to catch up.



RiazHaq said:


> Indians get a highly distorted picture of Pakistan through their mass media, according to two observers who have had a chance to compare India and Pakistan:
> 
> 
> _"Islamabad is surely the most well-organized,picturesque and endearing city in all of South Asia. Few Indians would, however, know this, or, if they did, would admit it. After all, the Indian media never highlights anything positive about Pakistan, because for it only 'bad' news about the country appears to be considered 'newsworthy'. That realization hit me as a rude shock the moment I stepped out of the plane and entered Islamabad's plush International Airport, easily far more efficient, modern and better maintained than any of its counterparts in India.
> 
> Yoginder Sikand
> 10 June, 2008
> Countercurrents.org
> 
> "On the ground, of course, the reality is different and first-time visitors to Pakistan are almost always surprised by the country's visible prosperity. There is far less poverty on show in Pakistan than in India, fewer beggars, and much less desperation. In many ways the infrastructure of Pakistan is much more advanced: there are better roads and airports, and more reliable electricity. Middle-class Pakistani houses are often bigger and better appointed than their equivalents in India.
> 
> William Dalrymple
> 14 August, 2007
> The Guardian
> _
> Haq's Musings: Foreign Visitors to Pakistan Pleasantly Surprized


----------



## SMC

It's no secret that Pakistan's city are cleaner and have less beggers and have better infrastructure. Islamabad takes the cake but Lahore and Karachi are certainly ahead as well. Indians believe otherwise due to the massive media conditioning but I couldn't care less about that because ground realities are different.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## arihant

Ahsan_R said:


> It's no secret that Pakistan's city are cleaner and have less beggers and have better infrastructure. Islamabad takes the cake but Lahore and Karachi are certainly ahead as well. Indians believe otherwise due to the massive media conditioning but I couldn't care less about that because ground realities are different.



I am aware that Pakistan city's are cleaner and more importantly I saw it on Media. Could not remember which one.


----------



## SMC

Now that's a surprise. Oh well, I can't complain.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Novice09

Jana said:


> A simple question why Your relations with Bangladesh are not good then?



Win-win Indo-Bangladesh bilateral relationship

*Points from this article:*

- myopic external policies of both the countries.

- In our country, two mainstream political parties are politicizing the relationship with India, since long. In this situation, a party, just for raising a controversy, must dislike what the other party likes. In doing so, they are getting callous about the interest of the nation. The foreign policy should be pursued, taking the interest of the nation into a dispassionate consideration. Politics should be for only the sake of the country. As a common man, I would like to see a pro-active relationship with India.

- We gratefully acknowledge the support that we received from India during our War of Liberation. But both the countries should understand that relationship with each other should not be based only on the scenario of the War of Liberation.

- In relationship with Bangladesh, India has not been able to prove its sincerely as a friendly neighbour, largely because of its suspicious and paradoxical attitude. Except for the historical contribution to our War of Liberation, nothing friendly has really developed in the relationship between the two countries.
*
-The people of Bangladesh want to see peaceful cooperation and friendly relations with India develop in a win-win situation for both sides.*




Jana said:


> (the hatred towards Bangladeshis by Indians, terimg them un-wanted in India)



We don't hate Bangladeshis but we don't like those Bangladeshis who are illegally living in India. Most of them are involved in crimes and terrorist activities. They are a burden on Indian economy.

You might not agree with my points but that is why they are unwanted in India.

Most Bangladeshi infiltrators involved in flesh trade, petty crime - Express India

Fake currency racket busted, 4 with Bangla link arrested - Delhi - City - The Times of India


----------



## Novice09

Ahsan_R said:


> Now that's a surprise. Oh well, I can't complain.



Your major cities are cleaner than Indian metro cities. It's a fact and we can't deny it without proofs.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Hulk

While I believe we have myths. I got to know lot from this forum. I also want to point out that Pakistani's also have lot of myths about India. It is important that we make effort to clear our myths, like I am doing. I can see how our myths impact our discussion in lot of threads. I think media and history is not projecting facts on both sides.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## desiman

Indian reply posted 

http://www.defence.pk/forums/strate...p-pakistani-myths-about-india.html#post561360

Please have a look to see the other side of the coin.


----------



## jaunty

RiazHaq said:


> Indians get a highly distorted picture of Pakistan through their mass media, according to two observers who have had a chance to compare India and Pakistan:
> 
> 
> _"Islamabad is surely the most well-organized,picturesque and endearing city in all of South Asia. Few Indians would, however, know this, or, if they did, would admit it. After all, the Indian media never highlights anything positive about Pakistan, because for it only 'bad' news about the country appears to be considered 'newsworthy'. That realization hit me as a rude shock the moment I stepped out of the plane and entered Islamabad's plush International Airport, easily far more efficient, modern and better maintained than any of its counterparts in India.
> 
> Yoginder Sikand
> 10 June, 2008
> Countercurrents.org
> 
> "On the ground, of course, the reality is different and first-time visitors to Pakistan are almost always surprised by the country's visible prosperity. There is far less poverty on show in Pakistan than in India, fewer beggars, and much less desperation. In many ways the infrastructure of Pakistan is much more advanced: there are better roads and airports, and more reliable electricity. Middle-class Pakistani houses are often bigger and better appointed than their equivalents in India.
> 
> William Dalrymple
> 14 August, 2007
> The Guardian
> _
> Haq's Musings: Foreign Visitors to Pakistan Pleasantly Surprized




Sir, I think you have already advertised that particular section of your blog at some other place.  (Sorry I couldn't resist).

Yes, I personally have learned about many new sides of Pakistani society by opening up my mind in the last few months which we generally don't get here through popular media.


----------



## VrSoLdIeRs

AgNoStIc MuSliM said:


> *
> Myth 3.
> India has never committed aggression against Pakistan, or any other country.*
> This is clearly not the case as seen below
> 
> 
> Support for insurgents in East Pakistan leding into 1971 and the ensuing war
> Support for the LTTE (a terrorist organization in Sri Lanka) against the Sri Lankan State
> The invasion of Siachen in 1984 in clear violation of the Simla Accord
> Support for the Baluch insurgency



Please note its indians who sowed the seeds of 1965 war by moving their troops forward at Runn of Kach. They just wanted to make a better image for their army after loosing to china.


----------



## Kinetic

AgNoStIc MuSliM said:


> *Myth 1.
> Pakistan lost all 3 wars with India.*
> 
> Pakistan and India have fought 3 wars - 1948, 1965 and 1971.
> 
> Barring 1971 (which occurred while a civil war, assisted by India, was raging in East Pakistan), no war has resulted in a decisive 'victory' for either side.


Agreed. But I don't think Indians say that 1965 was a victory for India.


> *Myth 2.
> Pakistan fights through proxies*
> 
> Well, this is true. Pakistan has supported Kashmiri Freedom fighters in Indian Occupied Kashmir, and did support the Mujahideen (with US and Saudi support) and later the Taliban.
> 
> However, this allegation by Indians completely overlooks India's own long association with proxy groups.
> 
> 
> Supported proxies that destabilized East Pakistan for many years leading into 1971
> Supported the LTTE (Tamil Tigers) - a terrorist organization in Sri Lanka
> Supported the Northern Alliance - a group of warlords and criminals in Afghanistan
> Supported Baluch insurgents in Pakistan



East Pakistan: Agreed. Two Indians were the mastermind of what happened after 25th March 1971 but you have to agree that Pakistan Army helped the Indians a lot. 

LTTE: A complete wrong myth by Pakistanis. India sent peacekeeping force to fight LTTE. LTTE killed an Rajiv Gandhi. India helped SL with weapons and training. SL govt officially thanked India for our support. 

Northern Alliance: Why did Pakistan supported Taliban? Are they better than NA?

Baluchistan: No evidence except Pakistani claims.


> Myth 3.
> India has never committed aggression against Pakistan, or any other country.
> This is clearly not the case as seen below
> 
> 
> Support for insurgents in East Pakistan leding into 1971 and the ensuing war
> Support for the LTTE (a terrorist organization in Sri Lanka) against the Sri Lankan State
> The invasion of Siachen in 1984 in clear violation of the Simla Accord
> Support for the Baluch insurgency



Can't agree. already told about EP and LTTE. Siachen was in map of India from 1947. We didn't attacked other's land. 


> Myth 4.
> Pakistan spends 70% (or more, depending upon the Indian) of its budget on Defense.
> 
> Pakistan's defence budget for 2009 was about 4.4 billion USD. With a GDP of about 160 billion USD and a budget of 33 billion USD, that works out to be about 2.75% of GDP and 13.3% of the total budget.
> PAKISTAN'S TOTAL OUTLAY IN 2007-08 BUDGET TO BE ABOUT US$33 BLN. | Goliath Business News
> 
> This compares with an Indian defence budget of about 26 billion that is 14.4% of the total budget and about 2.3% - so what's the big deal with Pakistan's defence budget?



Add to that huge amount of military aid from other countries, how much that makes of total budget? 



> Myth 5.
> Pakistani politics is dominated by Kashmir
> 
> This argument goes along the lines of 'the Army/leadership makes sure that the only thing Pakistanis are aware of is Kashmir, and in this way distracts them from socio-economic issues and avoids investing in development'.
> 
> No doubt most Pakistanis are aware of Kashmir, but the fact that we have cutthroat national politics, with political parties that have significant ideological differences, it is absurd to suggest that the only issue mentioned during stump speeches is 'Kashmir'.
> 
> Most of the PR and advertisements run by Pakistani political parties in fact focus on providing development and bringing about prosperity, not Kashmir. Most politicians talk about providing, jobs, investment etc. and most Pakistanis vote on that basis - even when voting on biraadri lines since they believe 'their guy' will provide them with economic opportunity/favors.
> 
> The political process in Pakistan remains largely driven by issues that are important to most people elsewhere in the world - jobs, inflation, development etc.
> 
> ----------------------
> 
> Feel free to offer suggestions on changes, additions, improvements and I'll incorporate them if I think they are appropriate.



Its Pakistan that think Kashmir is the main issue but if we only think about Kashmir problem than other parts of India or Pakistan will suffer for that.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## AgNoStiC MuSliM

*Stay on topic please - though I appreciate sensenreason providing yet even more Indian myths about Pakistan and Pakistanis. I'll go through them later and include the ones that are relevant.*


----------



## Bull

AgNoStIc MuSliM said:


> *Myth 1.
> Pakistan lost all 3 wars with India.*



Yes many think, but the educated one knows only 1971 was decisive.



AgNoStIc MuSliM said:


> [*Myth 2.
> Pakistan fights through proxies*....However, this allegation by Indians completely overlooks India's own long association with proxy groups.



India's association with LTTE is well known, and now Baluch has become famous after Sharm el sheikh.



AgNoStIc MuSliM said:


> [Myth 3.
> India has never committed aggression against Pakistan, or any other country.[/U][/B]



Again same as Myth 2.



AgNoStIc MuSliM said:


> [Myth 4.
> Pakistan spends 70&#37; (or more, depending upon the Indian) of its budget on Defense.[/U][/B]



India's defence budget includes capital allocation for new hardware purchases, while Pakistan's defence budget only takes care of overheads and seperate allocations are provided after decisions are made.



AgNoStIc MuSliM said:


> Myth 5.
> Pakistani politics is dominated by Kashmir[/U][/B]



Ahmed Quereshi says so.


----------



## A.R.

well pakistan actually lost all the wars against india...
its another thing that you believe in the myth that pakistan won war...

if you think that you won any war its your myth not ours.....

is that clear to all pakistanies... we want no more discussions to alter the actual history


----------



## Areesh

A.R. said:


> well pakistan actually lost all the wars against india...
> its another thing that you believe in the myth that pakistan won war...
> 
> if you think that you won any war its your myth not ours.....
> 
> is that clear to all pakistanies... we want no more discussions to alter the actual history



Lolzzz. You are repeating the same myth about which this thread is created.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## DESERT FIGHTER

Pakistanis speak like hyderabis of india..........count this one in.
Instead of sir...........jee hazor or janab is used.
Pakistan looks like afghanistan as shown on indian sahara tv.as i witnessed it.
Pakistanis are very poor then india LOL


----------



## Windjammer

@ Pakistan is a Police State,

Pakistan is a failed State,

Pakistan's nuclear weapons are unsafe, as Taliban will steal and smuggle them out on a Mule train. 

In any future conflict, Pakistan will be brought to it's knees in six hours 
The 90,000+ Graves in IOK, mostly belong to infiltrators. 
And above all, cough... cough, India can fight China and Pakistan simultaneously.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Hulk

Well actually Indians think this, I do not know if that is true.
1) Pakistan imports everything does not manufacture much even soaps are imported.
2) Pakistan does not have religious freedom.
3) Pakistan hates India.
4) Pakistan supports terrorist against India, because it does not have courage to wage a direct war.
5) Pakistan is ruled by army directly or indirectly.
6) Pakistan is safe heaven for terrorist.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## DESERT FIGHTER

indianrabbit said:


> Well actually Indians think this, I do not know if that is true.
> 1) Pakistan imports everything does not manufacture much even soaps are imported.
> 2) Pakistan does not have religious freedom.
> 3) Pakistan hates India.
> 4) Pakistan supports terrorist against India, because it does not have courage to wage a direct war.
> 5) Pakistan is ruled by army directly or indirectly.
> 6) Pakistan is safe heaven for terrorist.



thts sad and shows their mental ability of being illusional and hypnotised or over taken thnks to BS indian media.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## k_n

AgNoStIc MuSliM said:


> *Stay on topic please - though I appreciate sensenreason providing yet even more Indian myths about Pakistan and Pakistanis. I'll go through them later and include the ones that are relevant.*



Dude , you can't justify deleting the comment by 'Kinetic' dated 10th May , 9:10 PM !


----------



## k_n

VrSoLdIeRs said:


> Please note its indians who sowed the seeds of 1965 war by moving their troops forward at Runn of Kach. They just wanted to make a better image for their army after loosing to china.



The Kuchh Salvo was sorted out with the help of UN mate . Having an upper hand in Kuchh doesnt justify carrying out Operation Gibraltar with a sense of impunity 

A Pakistani Myth about INDIA

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## pappuyadav

indianrabbit said:


> Well actually Indians think this, I do not know if that is true.
> 1) Pakistan imports everything does not manufacture much even soaps are imported.
> 2) Pakistan does not have religious freedom.
> 3) Pakistan hates India.
> 4) Pakistan supports terrorist against India, because it does not have courage to wage a direct war.
> 5) Pakistan is ruled by army directly or indirectly.
> 6) Pakistan is safe heaven for terrorist.



these may not be true...BUT PAK SELF DEFEATING MENTALITY TOWARD INDIA IS COSTING HER TOO MUCH...WHAT DID PAK ACHIEVE BY BS STRATIGIES like 1000 cuts and conquering Kashmeer ? Whr r u wrt INDIA ..in which field ur ahead...terrorist manufacturing ?
read else whr that US (even Israel) will side India in case of INDPAK conflict..fate that has even reached this point that the US even after violating soverinity of Pak by drone attacks are now even more convinced of pak terrorbreeding grounds and are demanding more actions...what a pathetic state..i feel very sorry for my brother's thr.....may God bless u all with peace...i feel pity of the immaturity of Ind & Pakistanis here..fighting arguing for milit superiority....Two staes...one has worlds largest numbers of beggers & the other international begging state...

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Pakistani Man

Indians like to say Pakistanis are the same as Indians. 

Yet they will never dare to come to western or southwestern Pakistan and say this.


----------



## k_n

Pakistani Man said:


> Indians like to say Pakistanis are the same as Indians.
> 
> Yet they will never dare to come to western or southwestern Pakistan and say this.



I guess we've had enough comments with racial overtones .
Its as simple as this , 3 of your major ethnicities Punjabi , Sindhi and the community you have termed as Muhajirs have their Indian counterparts as well ! SIMPLE isnt it , only if Pakistanis keep their prejudices to themselves . 
I dont think even a Punjabi or Sindhi from your side can go to NWFP and Baluchistan and propagate that Punjabis or Sindhis and Pashtuns are 'SAME'

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Pakistani Man

^^^oh man I need a tissue I am dying of laughter.


----------



## Musalman

Indians Myths about Pakistan...... my view on this is Khasma nu khaaan. Let them think what ever they want to think


----------



## Kavin

Pakistani Man said:


> Indians like to say Pakistanis are the same as Indians.



Oh this is really 

I should do something to burst this myth and give hope to Indians.


----------



## sensenreason

AgNoStIc MuSliM said:


> *Stay on topic please - though I appreciate sensenreason providing yet even more Indian myths about Pakistan and Pakistanis. I'll go through them later and include the ones that are relevant.*



My post wasnt offtopic  Your deleting it show your intolerance to other's views. By the way, please do provide credible proof of the myths that you listed.

That Pakistani's are more tolerant and Indians not is another Myth Pakistani's have about India. Now thats offtopic too!


----------



## AgNoStiC MuSliM

sensenreason said:


> My post wasnt offtopic  Your deleting it show your intolerance to other's views. By the way, please do provide credible proof of the myths that you listed.



Your post was just a series of flames based on yet more Indian myths about Pakistan, albeit reflecting an extremely prejudiced and hateful Indian mindset that would only serve as flames and was therefore deleted. 

And my arguments in support of my points in this thread are made in both the first post and the subsequent ones in the thread - you may actually want to read a thread before posting on it.


> That Pakistani's are more tolerant and Indians not is another Myth Pakistani's have about India. Now thats offtopic too!



I don't know about that - but going by attitudes and comments of most Indians on the ToI, HT, Indian fora, blogs and even Western News sites, Indian close-mindedness, hatred and prejudice is pretty apparent.


----------



## TATA

AgNoStIc MuSliM said:


> Your post was just a series of flames based on yet more Indian myths about Pakistan, albeit reflecting an extremely prejudiced and hateful Indian mindset that would only serve as flames and was therefore deleted.
> 
> And my arguments in support of my points in this thread are made in both the first post and the subsequent ones in the thread - you may actually want to read a thread before posting on it.
> 
> 
> I don't know about that - but going by attitudes and comments of most Indians on *the ToI, HT, Indian fora, blogs and even Western News sites, Indian close-mindedness, hatred and prejudice is pretty apparent.*




Your attention is drawn to the highlighted part.

In above text you have included the whole world.

*The list of all the continents in the world is:*

Asia, Africa, North America, South America, Antarctica, Europe, and Australia.

1. Africa, South America & Antarctica don't have any respected and renowned news media. If there is something its western.

2. North America, Europe, and Australia has been clubbed by you as western media.

3. We are left with Asia here u have strike out Indian media.

*Then what one should believe in your advise rupee news from Pakistan or the CPC propaganda from China.

And u still blame India of some so called myths.*

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## mjnaushad

AgNoStIc MuSliM said:


> *Myth 1.
> Pakistan lost all 3 wars with India.*
> 
> Pakistan and India have fought 3 wars - 1948, 1965 and 1971.
> 
> Barring 1971 (which occurred while a civil war, assisted by India, was raging in East Pakistan), no war has resulted in a decisive 'victory' for either side.
> 
> *Myth 2.
> Pakistan fights through proxies*
> 
> Well, this is true. Pakistan has supported Kashmiri Freedom fighters in Indian Occupied Kashmir, and did support the Mujahideen (with US and Saudi support) and later the Taliban.
> 
> However, this allegation by Indians completely overlooks India's own long association with proxy groups.
> 
> 
> Supported proxies that destabilized East Pakistan for many years leading into 1971
> Supported the LTTE (Tamil Tigers) - a terrorist organization in Sri Lanka
> Supported the Northern Alliance - a group of warlords and criminals in Afghanistan
> Supported Baluch insurgents in Pakistan
> *
> Myth 3.
> India has never committed aggression against Pakistan, or any other country.*
> This is clearly not the case as seen below
> 
> 
> Support for insurgents in East Pakistan leding into 1971 and the ensuing war
> Support for the LTTE (a terrorist organization in Sri Lanka) against the Sri Lankan State
> The invasion of Siachen in 1984 in clear violation of the Simla Accord
> Support for the Baluch insurgency
> *
> Myth 4.
> Pakistan spends 70&#37; (or more, depending upon the Indian) of its budget on Defense.*
> 
> Pakistan's defence budget for 2009 was about 4.4 billion USD. With a GDP of about 160 billion USD and a budget of 33 billion USD, that works out to be about 2.75% of GDP and 13.3% of the total budget.
> PAKISTAN'S TOTAL OUTLAY IN 2007-08 BUDGET TO BE ABOUT US$33 BLN. | Goliath Business News
> 
> This compares with an Indian defence budget of about 26 billion that is 14.4% of the total budget and about 2.3% - so what's the big deal with Pakistan's defence budget?
> *
> Myth 5.
> Pakistani politics is dominated by Kashmir*
> 
> This argument goes along the lines of 'the Army/leadership makes sure that the only thing Pakistanis are aware of is Kashmir, and in this way distracts them from socio-economic issues and avoids investing in development'.
> 
> No doubt most Pakistanis are aware of Kashmir, but the fact that we have cutthroat national politics, with political parties that have significant ideological differences, it is absurd to suggest that the only issue mentioned during stump speeches is 'Kashmir'.
> 
> Most of the PR and advertisements run by Pakistani political parties in fact focus on providing development and bringing about prosperity, not Kashmir. Most politicians talk about providing, jobs, investment etc. and most Pakistanis vote on that basis - even when voting on biraadri lines since they believe 'their guy' will provide them with economic opportunity/favors.
> 
> The political process in Pakistan remains largely driven by issues that are important to most people elsewhere in the world - jobs, inflation, development etc.
> 
> ----------------------
> 
> Feel free to offer suggestions on changes, additions, improvements and I'll incorporate them if I think they are appropriate.


Just to add in your list......

Pakistan never made anything.....JF 17, AK, are china made and Pakistan is the biggest buyer not partner.............and all nukes and missiles are illegally bought from china and korea.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## AgNoStiC MuSliM

TATA said:


> Your attention is drawn to the highlighted part.
> 
> In above text you have included the whole world.


I have pointed to the attitudes, prejudice and hatred displayed by Indians across the 'whole world', and not pointed to the 'whole world'.


> *Then what one should believe in your advise rupee news from Pakistan or the CPC propaganda from China.
> 
> And u still blame India of some so called myths.*



Actually the comparison of mainstream Indian news sites, such as HT, ToI etc, would be to mainstream Pakistani news sites, such as Dawn, The News, Daily Times etc. Read through the comments by Pakistanis on Pakistani sites and on Western papers such as the NYT, WaPO etc. and there is simply no comparison between the prejudice, hatred and obsession with Pakistan displayed by Indians, and the comments of Pakistanis.

And since the myths are propagated by Indians and India, who else would I blame for those myths? Mickey Mouse?

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## TATA

mjnaushad said:


> Just to add in your list......
> 
> Pakistan never made anything.....JF 17, AK, are china made and Pakistan is the biggest buyer not partner.............and all nukes and missiles are illegally bought from china and korea.



Ur confessing or adding to the myth?


----------



## AgNoStiC MuSliM

mjnaushad said:


> Just to add in your list......
> 
> Pakistan never made anything.....JF 17, AK, are china made and Pakistan is the biggest buyer not partner.............and all nukes and missiles are illegally bought from china and korea.



That is a good one - it would read more like:

'Pakistan has no industrial or scientific capacity - the only thing it can do is paint equipment imported from China and elsewhere.'

I'll add it, but I need a link to some posts detailing Pakistan's defence related industries that manufacture and perform R&D on a whole host of items. I think it is in one of the WMD stickys and I'll look for it later if you can't find it.


----------



## TATA

AgNoStIc MuSliM said:


> I have pointed to the attitudes, *prejudice and hatred displayed by Indians across the 'whole world'*, and not pointed to the 'whole world'.
> 
> 
> Actually the comparison of mainstream Indian news sites, such as HT, ToI etc, would be to mainstream Pakistani news sites, such as Dawn, The News, Daily Times etc. Read through the comments by Pakistanis on Pakistani sites and on Western papers such as the NYT, WaPO etc. and there is simply no comparison between the prejudice, hatred and obsession with Pakistan displayed by Indians, and the comments of Pakistanis.
> 
> And since the myths are propagated by Indians and India, who else would I blame for those myths? Mickey Mouse?




1. You have pointed out the whole world read ur post again.

2. Indians hate pakistan is the biggest myth i tell u for sure.

why would be hate pakistan?? because of being muslism ???
its not ture at all then we should also hate us all or Saudi Arab or Iran or Iraq or Bangladesh or Turkey but we don't hate any.

Why because its a myth.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## AgNoStiC MuSliM

TATA said:


> 1. You have pointed out the whole world read ur post again.
> 
> 2. Indians hate pakistan is the biggest myth i tell u for sure.
> 
> why would be hate pakistan?? because of being muslism ???
> its not ture at all then we should also hate us all or Saudi Arab or Iran or Iraq or Bangladesh or Turkey but we don't hate any.
> 
> Why because its a myth.



Not at all, the 'whole world' was raised by sensen, not me. My comments clearly referred to the opinions and attitudes displayed by Indians, not attitudes and opinions of the 'whole world'.

And I have qualified my comments by pointing out that I am basing them on the opinions expressed online on various Indian and Western news sites, fora and blogs.

Now you explain to me why an overwhelming majority of those comments on widely different sites reflect such prejudice and hatred towards Pakistan?


----------



## TATA

AgNoStIc MuSliM said:


> Not at all, the 'whole world' was raised by sensen, not me. My comments clearly referred to the opinions and attitudes displayed by Indians, not attitudes and opinions of the 'whole world'.
> 
> And I have qualified my comments by pointing out that I am basing them on the opinions expressed online on various Indian and Western news sites, fora and blogs.
> 
> Now you explain to me why an overwhelming majority of those comments on widely different sites reflect such prejudice and hatred towards Pakistan?



what hatred ur talking about?? none of the Indian can say nuke pakistan but i can give many example where pakistani says nuke India.

Hate make a person blind and finally it will destroy oneself.

Why hate when we can make love.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## TATA

India and Pakistan are sovereign counties one should respect each other's independence. The terrorism should be stopped, if we cn't be good friends or neighbors at least one should not interfere in other's stuffs. 

But it all started with Pakistan poking its nose in our stuff attacked Kashmir and illegally occupying our area.

Pakistani says India can't see a independent and united Pakistan but the reality is majority of Pakistanis live in illusions that they have ruled India or can rule in near future.

All this should be stopped, respective Kashmir should be as it is. I don't like it but for sake of peace let's make it LOC.

Grow and develop do something better for our people.

Phir ladai kar lena sari umar padi hai, na hindustan kahi ja raha hai na pakistan.


----------



## third eye

AgNoStIc MuSliM said:


> *Myth 1.
> Pakistan lost all 3 wars with India.*
> 
> Pakistan and India have fought 3 wars - 1948, 1965 and 1971.
> 
> Barring 1971 (which occurred while a civil war, assisted by India, was raging in East Pakistan), no war has resulted in a decisive 'victory' for either side.
> 
> *We have been over this subject time& again here. What does wining or losing a war imply ? To a military mind it would imply compelling the attacker to withdraw, failure to achieve stated national objectives and his failure in achieving the end state he was looking for. India did this in all the wars fought with Pak. BTW add Kargil to the list. 47-48, the PA did not capture the valley and Pak has ever since been unable t reconcile itself to what it has. The nation keeps squirming on this ever since .
> 
> 65 -Op Gibraltar was a misjudged failure, the Indian counter stroke was not considered in the planning & when Lahore was threatened, a ceasefire ensued.*
> 
> *71, wouldnt you consider 93000POWs and the surrender of the Eastern Command a comprehensive defeat ?
> 
> Kargil was another example of complete lack of planning, foresight and poor execution.Wars as it is said are too serious a business to be left to the Generals. Pak has had Generals each time it tried to cross the IB/LOC. In kargil, it was a reasonably good move but characterized by what now is typical of Pak generalship. This has been discussed threadbare so I will not dwell further.
> *
> 
> *Myth 2.
> Pakistan fights through proxies*
> 
> Well, this is true. Pakistan has supported Kashmiri Freedom fighters in Indian Occupied Kashmir, and did support the Mujahideen (with US and Saudi support) and later the Taliban.
> 
> However, this allegation by Indians completely overlooks India's own long association with proxy groups.
> 
> 
> Supported proxies that destabilized East Pakistan for many years leading into 1971
> Supported the LTTE (Tamil Tigers) - a terrorist organization in Sri Lanka
> Supported the Northern Alliance - a group of warlords and criminals in Afghanistan
> Supported Baluch insurgents in Pakistan
> *
> 
> You are digressing from the topic started by you here. The Indian myth that Pak fights thru its ' strategic assets ' is correct.
> 
> We could discuss the Indian issues raised elsewhere.
> 
> Myth 3.
> India has never committed aggression against Pakistan, or any other country.*
> This is clearly not the case as seen below
> 
> 
> Support for insurgents in East Pakistan leding into 1971 and the ensuing war
> Support for the LTTE (a terrorist organization in Sri Lanka) against the Sri Lankan State
> The invasion of Siachen in 1984 in clear violation of the Simla Accord
> Support for the Baluch insurgency
> *
> 
> Again same problem here. Where is the aggression ? Siachen is part of J&K hence India simply pre empted Pak on it giving it another reason to squirm.Isn't the logic of J&K being ' disputed' used as an excuse to justify Pak interference so whats wrong when applied in the reverse ?
> 
> Myth 4.
> Pakistan spends 70&#37; (or more, depending upon the Indian) of its budget on Defense.*
> 
> Pakistan's defence budget for 2009 was about 4.4 billion USD. With a GDP of about 160 billion USD and a budget of 33 billion USD, that works out to be about 2.75% of GDP and 13.3% of the total budget.
> PAKISTAN'S TOTAL OUTLAY IN 2007-08 BUDGET TO BE ABOUT US$33 BLN. | Goliath Business News
> 
> This compares with an Indian defence budget of about 26 billion that is 14.4% of the total budget and about 2.3% - so what's the big deal with Pakistan's defence budget?
> *
> 
> No comments, couldnt care less.
> Myth 5.
> Pakistani politics is dominated by Kashmir*
> 
> This argument goes along the lines of 'the Army/leadership makes sure that the only thing Pakistanis are aware of is Kashmir, and in this way distracts them from socio-economic issues and avoids investing in development'.
> 
> No doubt most Pakistanis are aware of Kashmir, but the fact that we have cutthroat national politics, with political parties that have significant ideological differences, it is absurd to suggest that the only issue mentioned during stump speeches is 'Kashmir'.
> 
> Most of the PR and advertisements run by Pakistani political parties in fact focus on providing development and bringing about prosperity, not Kashmir. Most politicians talk about providing, jobs, investment etc. and most Pakistanis vote on that basis - even when voting on biraadri lines since they believe 'their guy' will provide them with economic opportunity/favors.
> 
> The political process in Pakistan remains largely driven by issues that are important to most people elsewhere in the world - jobs, inflation, development etc.
> 
> *Events in Pak do not echo the sentiments here. Pak politics appears to be driven by staying afloat ( Generals / Presidents /PMs et all), staying relevant and J&K is used as a convenient whipping tool when all else fails.*
> ----------------------
> 
> Feel free to offer suggestions on changes, additions, improvements and I'll incorporate them if I think they are appropriate.



*There is another impression Pak ( read PA) carries. That of lack of strategic ability to think comprehensively. Some examples are what I have mentioned above add to this laungewalla and replacing a commanding General in the middle of a battle when he had the edge. Self promoted field Marshals gives credence to this impression.

Would be glad if this ' myth' is disproved.*

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## manojb

Myth#4 is your delusion!Where did u get the numbers?
Seriiously where did the money go?


----------



## Jade

Pakistani Man said:


> Indians like to say Pakistanis are the same as Indians.
> 
> Yet they will never dare to come to western or southwestern Pakistan and say this.



are you high?


----------



## democracyspeaks

Regarding Myth1 only people out here belive pakistan won 1965 war and India has always been the aggressor. 

But the Generals and AMs who fought the war thinks different. 
So either the pakistani generals/AMs dont have any knowledge or may be ppl out here knows more than them. 

Follow my post regarding Myth1 along with links.

http://www.defence.pk/forums/naval-forces/9883-india-offers-pakistan-joint-naval-exercises-5.html#post769598


----------



## AgNoStiC MuSliM

manojb said:


> Myth#4 is your delusion!Where did u get the numbers?
> Seriiously where did the money go?



Myth 4 may not be as much of a myth now, but at the time almost every other Indian on this forum and elsewhere was making comments about related to the size of Pakistan's defence budget. There were even articles in the Indian press that made these absurd claims.


----------



## AgNoStiC MuSliM

democracyspeaks said:


> Regarding Myth1 only people out here belive pakistan won 1965 war and India has always been the aggressor.
> 
> But the Generals and AMs who fought the war thinks different.
> So either the pakistani generals/AMs dont have any knowledge or may be ppl out here knows more than them.
> 
> Follow my post regarding Myth1 along with links.
> 
> http://www.defence.pk/forums/naval-forces/9883-india-offers-pakistan-joint-naval-exercises-5.html#post769598


 The point being that India has really only won one war, and that is 1971. 1965 is at best a stalemate. 

And read through the rest of the thread please, all of you, instead of regurgitating the same arguments again and again. Almost all the recent replies have covered old ground and I am not responding to the same point again and again.


----------



## manojb

AgNoStIc MuSliM said:


> Myth 4 may not be as much of a myth now, but at the time almost every other Indian on this forum and elsewhere was making comments about related to the size of Pakistan's defence budget. There were even articles in the Indian press that made these absurd claims.



If u have source link pl post. Otherwise it must be indian version of haqs moosing! Defence budget for each coutntry is well documented if notaccurate.


----------



## PakSher

According to the wikipedia the Indian Defence Budget is $32.35 billion dollars $6.35 billion more than $26 billion in Myth#4.

Indian Armed Forces - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Now I can state this before hand that from Indian members responses that wikipedia is wrong. But same wikipedia has been used for several Indian members as references before. Indians please do not contradict yourselves now.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## faisaljaffery

Total budget outlay of Pakistan for FY 2010-2011 is projected to be around 3200 billion with a defense budget of 442 billion (14% of total budget outlay) so myth of 70% spending on defense is totally misconceived


----------



## Sparten80

Dont worry abt other peoples myths abt you....


----------



## ramu

AgNoStIc MuSliM said:


> The point being that India has really only won one war, and that is 1971. 1965 is at best a stalemate.
> 
> And read through the rest of the thread please, all of you, instead of regurgitating the same arguments again and again. Almost all the recent replies have covered old ground and I am not responding to the same point again and again.





And the best part is in each war, the element of surprise was with Pakistan.Pakistan decided the place and timing for the first assault but as you admitted correctly not a single chapter ends with Pakistan on the victory deck.


----------



## PakSher

ramu said:


> And the best part is in each war, the element of surprise was with Pakistan.Pakistan decided the place and timing for the first assault but as you admitted correctly not a single chapter ends with Pakistan on the victory deck.



100&#37; Kashmir was in India when the 1948 War started and then Pakistan captured 21% of Kashmir before the war ended. So. Ramu says"Pakistan decided the place and timing for the first assault but as you admitted correctly not a single chapter ends with Pakistan on the victory deck."

When the 1965 War started 79% Kashsmir was in India and at the end of the war India has 74% left, another loss of 5%. Ramu says"Pakistan decided the place and timing for the first assault but as you admitted correctly not a single chapter ends with Pakistan on the victory deck."

1971 War was not even a war because India knew the only way to fight Pakistan is through insurgency with other people, so 20 years of Muqti Bani terrorist training camps.

Ramu: check the map of Kashmir on August 14th 1947 and check the map now and you will know, who won 1948 and 1965. If you still do not see it see a optomotrist or a psychitrist.

India looses territory is both wars and Indian history book are telling kids India won the wars, what are you smoking dude?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Hulk

Dude 1948 you attacked Kashmir which was not India. India came in later after Maharaja signed treaty of accesion. So what you won was not against India but against Kashmir.


----------



## PakSher

indianrabbit said:


> Dude 1948 you attacked Kashmir which was not India. India came in later after Maharaja signed treaty of accesion. So what you won was not against India but against Kashmir.



LOL, so why the Indian Army did not take the captured area back from the small weak poor Pakistan Army?


----------



## brahmastra

#1,#2 are not myth anymore.

#3 is completely goes off topic with the thread title myth about pakistan.
so, the topic should be pakistan not India.

#4 its your money and I never heard any one saying in India that pak spends 70&#37; on defence. btw, it iss your money and you can do what ever you want.

#5. no one cares what is the center point of pak politics as far as other country don't become victim of pak sponsored terrorism.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## BJlaowai

PakSher said:


> 100% Kashmir was in India when the 1948 War started and then Pakistan captured 21% of Kashmir before the war ended. So. Ramu says"Pakistan decided the place and timing for the first assault but as you admitted correctly not a single chapter ends with Pakistan on the victory deck."


Pakistan (or atleast Pakistani pastun proxies) attacked the independant princely state of Jammu and Kashmir in october 1947 and almost captured the whole state, before the maharaja of Kashmir decided to acceed J&K to India. Only then India entered the war and pushed back the invading Paksitani forces. India gained terroritory in J&K from nothing in 1947 to almost 2/3rd area in 1948.



PakSher said:


> *When the 1965 War started 79% Kashsmir was in India and at the end of the war India has 74% left, another loss of 5%.* Ramu says"Pakistan decided the place and timing for the first assault but as you admitted correctly not a single chapter ends with Pakistan on the victory deck."


Source please.
As far as I recall, Indian forces were threatening Muzaffarabad before Pakistan decided to attack Akhnur in operation Grand Slam to relive the pressure on Muzaffarabad.



PakSher said:


> 1971 War was not even a war because India knew the only way to fight Pakistan is through insurgency with other people, so 20 years of Muqti Bani terrorist training camps.


Whatever you may call it, for most of the people it was great war which India won decisively. If by not calling it a war, may be it will mitigate some of your shame of defeat, so be it.
Just wonder why over 90,000 Pakistanis decided to surrender to Indian army in East Pakistan and call themselves POW's.



PakSher said:


> Ramu: check the map of Kashmir on August 14th 1947 and check the map now and you will know, who won 1948 and 1965. If you still do not see it see a optomotrist or a psychitrist.


Dude, You too need a reality check.



PakSher said:


> India looses territory is both wars and Indian history book are telling kids India won the wars, what are you smoking dude?


loose territtory? like in 1971 loose half the country and in 1984 loose the Siachen glacier?
What did Pakistan gain in 1965, inspite of starting the war with operations Gibraltar and Grand slam?


----------



## brahmastra

PakSher said:


> LOL, so why the Indian Army did not take the captured area back from the small weak poor Pakistan Army?



because our Great Great leader Pandit Nehru went to US.


----------



## SQ8

Myth #180: We all roam around in sherwani's or are averse to the dating game generally.


----------



## Tajdar adil

This myth are folish.


----------



## pyazdani945@gmail.com

i think it just like a comparison


----------



## Indian Infantry

I would merely wish to raise the point as to if posting a stickied thread with arguments in the very first post displaying some element of bias with only one side's story being told might not necessarily be the best thing possible. Relegating it to a common thread would be better suited unless of course the unlikely eventuality of both sides putting forth their views could come to fruition.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## amigo

myths exist in both countries abt each other


----------



## StingRoy

Indian Infantry said:


> I would merely wish to raise the point as to if posting a stickied thread with arguments in the very first post displaying some element of bias with only one side's story being told might not necessarily be the best thing possible. Relegating it to a common thread would be better suited unless of course the unlikely eventuality of both sides putting forth their views could come to fruition.



Are you a lawyer .. by any chance?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Indian Infantry

dezi said:


> Are you a lawyer .. by any chance?



I have gotten that before, yes. But, no, I am not one and as of now I have no intentions of being one either. The uniform holds much greater allure and I have no intentions to burden it by joining as a lawyer. Anyway we're getting off topic, the point stands that making such a thread with such highly, debatable contentious views is not necessarily perhaps the wisest thing to do.


----------



## NWO

Indian Infantry said:


> I have gotten that before, yes. But, no, I am not one and as of now I have no intentions of being one either. The uniform holds much greater allure and I have no intentions to burden it by joining as a lawyer. Anyway we're getting off topic, the point stands that making such a thread with such highly, debatable contentious views is not necessarily perhaps the wisest thing to do.


I couldn't get why you were speaking in such a professional manner, until I looked at the number of posts you made.


----------



## Indian Infantry

NWO said:


> I couldn't get why you were speaking in such a professional manner, until I looked at the number of posts you made.



You may just find that habit has ensured I scarcely ever let down speaking in such a manner, my number of posts regardless.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Ganguly

*Myth No XXX*
Moghlai non-veg food, especially biriyani and kebabs are better in Pakistan. Please try Awadhi, Hyderabadi, Kashmiri (Gostaba, Rogan Josh). It is better here. Only you need to know the correct place. Trust me, it is heavenly. It can&#8217;t get better. After all Moghals & Nawabs are from Northern India (Delhi, Lucknow)


----------



## ice_man

Ganguly said:


> *Myth No XXX*
> Moghlai non-veg food, especially biriyani and kebabs are better in Pakistan. Please try Awadhi, Hyderabadi, Kashmiri (Gostaba, Rogan Josh). It is better here. Only you need to know the correct place. Trust me, it is heavenly. It cant get better. After all Moghals & Nawabs are from Northern India (Delhi, Lucknow)



what you saying is a myth in itself!! how can you know pakistani kebab's or biryani are not better??? have you tried our food? have you tried our pashtoon chapali kebab? our sindhi biryani or our PUNJABI PAYAY? Or our baloch namkeen ghosht? so on & so forth!  you and your assumptions!

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Gentle Typhoon

All 5 mentioned myth are related to War, Pakistan politics and ISI. Aam aadmi in India = Me, My Maruti Car and Wife.

Atleast we dont have anti musalman, anti Pakistan rallies, Hindu kaale hain, Pakistani gore hai, Hindu narak mein jayenge, Hindu'on ka koi imaan nahi hai, Hindu jaat hi aisi hai, Hindu gareeb hain, Hindu kamjor hain, Gujjar/Pathan taqatwar hain, blah blah blah.

Jo Pakistan ko yaad karte the woh marr gaye, new generation doesnt care abt Pakistan, its not important.


----------



## Ganguly

This is not a myth, but a fact..I tried it, but not is Pakistan. But in several other countries (*neutral venue due to safety concerns *).Have you tried our kakori kebab, chello kebab, mutton Galouti, mutton bara kebab, boti kebab. The list will never end. Please come and visit India to find out yourself. Even famous chefs (again neutral) share the same opinion. Also not sure whether you get complimentary wine & chilled beer with kebabs in Pakistan. It is easily available in India. No offence please. This combination (kebab + chilled beer) is my personal favorite any day.


----------



## dabong1

Maybe this another myth.......but aren't indians-hindus supposed to be vegetarian?


----------



## SpArK

dabong1 said:


> Maybe this another myth.......but aren't indians-hindus supposed to be vegetarian?



*Non-Vegetarian Hindus*

In fact, contrary to popular belief, India is not a predominantly vegetarian country, according to recent census data as of 2004.

But, based on census data, a quarter of India's population is reckoned to be vegetarian: 69% of Gujarat is vegetarian, 60% of Rajasthan, 54% of Punjab-Haryana, 50% of Uttar Pradesh, 45% of Madhya Pradesh, 34% of Karnataka, 30% of Maharashtra, 21% of Tamil Nadu, 16% of Andhra Pradesh, and 15% of Assam, *while only 6% in Kerala, Orissa and West Bengal are vegetarian*.


Brahmins, Shaivite non-Brahmins of South India, and several Vaishnavite sects across the country avoid meat. Few Brahmins eat meat, although the Brahmins of East India and Kashmir and the Saraswat Brahmins of the Southwest are allowed fish and some meat.[8] During Durga Puja and Kali Puja among some Shaivite Hindus in Punjab, Bengal, and Kashmir, jha&#7789;k&#257; meat is the required meat for those Shaivite Hindus who eat meat[citation needed.

Source :Wikipedia

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Gentle Typhoon

dabong1 said:


> Maybe this another myth.......but aren't indians-hindus supposed to be vegetarian?



Not all Hindus are vegetarians.

Only Brahmins, Shaivite and Vaishnavas, follow a strict vegetarian diet, abstaining from meat, fish, and eggs. They also abstain from garlic and onions.

Hindus and Sikhs prescribe jha&#7789;ka meat.

*According to recent census data as of 2004, only 25&#37; of India's population is Vegetarian.*


----------



## somebozo

santro said:


> Myth #180: We all roam around in sherwani's or *are averse to the dating game generally*.



Well thats one of the capability the Indian especially those overseas recocgnise kneeling before us. What else can they do when we are flaunting all the top femine specimens of their community..


----------



## mjnaushad

Gentle Typhoon said:


> All 5 mentioned myth are related to War, Pakistan politics and ISI. Aam aadmi in India = Me, My Maruti Car and Wife.



I wonder what are so many Aam admis are doing here then....Either they dont have wife or they dont have maruti.






> Atleast we dont have anti musalman, anti Pakistan rallies, Hindu kaale hain, Pakistani gore hai, Hindu narak mein jayenge, Hindu'on ka koi imaan nahi hai, Hindu jaat hi aisi hai, Hindu gareeb hain, Hindu kamjor hain, Gujjar/Pathan taqatwar hain, blah blah blah.



Babri, Gujrat, 10 Kadam, Pakistan key 40 Tukrey, Kashmir tu hoga par pakistan na hoga, does these words ring a bell????




> Jo Pakistan ko yaad karte the woh marr gaye, new generation doesnt care abt Pakistan, its not important.



Latest Myth Added.....>AM Please update your list....

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## roach

somebozo said:


> Well thats one of the capability the Indian especially those overseas recocgnise kneeling before us. What else can they do when we are flaunting all the top femine specimens of their community..



Really confusing post, care to explain? _*"Flaunting all the top feminine specimens of their community"*_?


----------



## fast and furious

somebozo said:


> Well thats one of the capability the Indian especially those overseas recocgnise kneeling before us. What else can they do when we are flaunting all the top femine specimens of their community..



If I got the meaning right then the converse logic is that the femine specimen in your community are not worth it.

Talk of being shallow.Hell u dragged me down to your level

Now u will not reply to this but request the mod to add this to the myth list.


----------



## Spring Onion

fast and furious said:


> If I got the meaning right then the converse logic is that the* femine specimen in your community are not worth it.
> *
> Talk of being shallow.Hell u dragged me down to your level
> 
> Now u will not reply to this but request the mod to add this to the myth listl:



Nop they too precious to be flaunted


----------



## Spring Onion

Ganguly said:


> This is not a myth, but a fact..I tried it, but not is Pakistan. But in several other countries (*neutral venue due to safety concerns *).Have you tried our kakori kebab, chello kebab, mutton Galouti, mutton bara kebab, boti kebab. The list will never end. Please come and visit India to find out yourself. Even famous chefs (again neutral) share the same opinion. *Also not sure whether you get complimentary wine & chilled beer with kebabs in Pakistan. It is easily available in India. No offence please. This combination (kebab + chilled beer) is my personal favorite any day*.



 as if you can find chilled beer as complimentary item in those khokhas in India .

 i am sure that must be thrraaaaaaaaaaa not beer 

bwahahahah anyway your post just sounds like those crapy Star Plus soaps


----------



## ek_indian

somebozo said:


> Well thats one of the capability the Indian especially those overseas recocgnise kneeling before us. What else can they do when we are flaunting all the top femine specimens of their community..



You post is offtoic and nonsense. But not surprising.
BTW, thanks for letting us know another myth.


----------



## Trisonics

somebozo said:


> Well thats one of the capability the Indian especially those overseas recocgnise kneeling before us. What else can they do when we are flaunting all the top femine specimens of their community..



Hmm last I heard none of our Indian women were traveling to Pakistan 
to find your specimens but its the Pakistani guys who for some reason go after Indian Women who are alleged by Paksitanis themselves as being ugly! .


----------



## ice_man

Gentle Typhoon said:


> All 5 mentioned myth are related to War, Pakistan politics and ISI. Aam aadmi in India = Me, My Maruti Car and Wife.
> 
> Atleast we dont have anti musalman, anti Pakistan rallies, Hindu kaale hain, Pakistani gore hai, Hindu narak mein jayenge, Hindu'on ka koi imaan nahi hai, Hindu jaat hi aisi hai, Hindu gareeb hain, Hindu kamjor hain, Gujjar/Pathan taqatwar hain, blah blah blah.
> 
> Jo Pakistan ko yaad karte the woh marr gaye, new generation doesnt care abt Pakistan, its not important.



 the part in red!!! another indian myth about pakistanis thinking like this!! 

i went to school with 3 hindu boys! most pakistanis are not concerned about religion! hindu,sunni,shia & christian get along fine! and this "kamjoor" "jaat" hahahaha firstly spelling is hilarious!


----------



## fast and furious

Jana said:


> Nop they too precious to be flaunted



Jana ji

Coming from a lady journalist it is disappointing to read a post that shows women as objects which men can Flaunt.

And you call our media orange.


----------



## ice_man

& now we will derail this thread by going *"my milk shake brings all the boys to the yard cuz its better than yours damn right its better than your's"* loool sorry lame but heard that song on radio today after long! & its true we have our own complexes both nations & this is NOT A MYTH BUT A FACT


----------



## Spring Onion

fast and furious said:


> Jana ji
> 
> Coming from a lady journalist(I am assuming educated) it is disappointing to read a post that shows women as objects which men can Flaunt.
> 
> And you call our media orange.



Commenting without understanding is a bad habit so go and read again what i said.


If you understood then hope you will edit your post.

BTW: welcome again i assume you are an old member


----------



## fast and furious

Jana said:


> Commenting without understanding is a bad habit so go and read again what i said.
> 
> 
> If you understood then hope you will edit your post.
> 
> BTW: welcome again i assume you are an old member



I got what you said maam thats why the reply.I know it was in a light vein.But the word Flaunt in the reply is used in the same exact context the way you used it.

The post has been edited cos I have been taught to respect ladies and the part in the bracket did not come out the way I intended.The whole meaning was that 'coming from an educated and intellectual Lady since u are a journalist.'
My apologies but was not intentional.

No I am not an old member but have been reading your posts for the last year and a half.


----------



## SivHp

fast and furious said:


> Jana ji
> 
> Coming from a lady journalist it is disappointing to read a post that shows women as objects which men can Flaunt.
> 
> And you call our media orange.



she a journalist ? hahaha ? she has nothing to write positive..her career is after all ruined..she has nothing to write +ve abt her country..other than bad mouthing & ridiculing INDIA

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## TATA

dabong1 said:


> Maybe this another myth.......but aren't indians-hindus supposed to be vegetarian?



No, not at all who says that???????? Majority of Hindus are meat eaters.


----------



## SivHp

TATA said:


> No, not at all who says that???????? Majority of Hindus are meat eaters.



& animal soup drinkers


----------



## Spring Onion

Peacelover1 said:


> she a journalist ? hahaha ? she has nothing to write positive..her career is after all ruined..she has nothing to write +ve abt her country..other than bad mouthing & ridiculing INDIA:


----------



## Spring Onion

fast and furious said:


> I got what you said maam thats why the reply.I know it was in a light vein.But the word Flaunt in the reply is used in the same exact context the way you used it.
> 
> The post has been edited cos I have been taught to respect ladies and the part in the bracket did not come out the way I intended.The whole meaning was that 'coming from an educated and intellectual Lady since u are a journalist.'
> My apologies but was not intentional.
> 
> No I am not an old member but have been reading your posts for the last year and a half.




You still did not get what i said.

I said *"Those are too precious to be flaunted"* * in simple English it means women are NOT commodities to be flaunted.
*


 nice to hear you been reading my posts for a long time


----------



## fast and furious

Peacelover1 said:


> she a journalist ? hahaha ? she has nothing to write positive..her career is after all ruined..she has nothing to write +ve abt her country..other than bad mouthing & ridiculing INDIA




Bro being anti-India is her political stand and she is entitled to one.
The same as you and me are entitled to ours.

No personal attacks for taking a political stand.
Rest You and me and all Indians are watching.

Cheers


----------



## fast and furious

Jana said:


> You still did not get what i said.
> 
> I said *"Those are too precious to be flaunted"* * in simple English it means women are NOT commodities to be flaunted.
> *
> 
> 
> nice to hear you been reading my posts for a long time



Maam let me simplify the english even more for you.'Precious' is a word used to potray supposed value of a thing(tangible or non tangible).

So if they were less precious they would have been flaunted.But still are objects.

Although I appreciate it but Please do not bother simplifying English for me.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## SivHp

fast and furious said:


> Bro being anti-India is her political stand and she is entitled to one.
> The same as you and me are entitled to ours.
> 
> No personal attacks for taking a political stand.
> Rest You and me and all Indians are watching.
> 
> Cheers



am leaving here afterall... i came here to make peace & is often irked by this half lady .i always thought journalist r intelluctuals.am proved wrong..shez same as our arundhati variety..afterall she comes from a country famous for vegetarians (grass eaters..-nuke )


----------



## fast and furious

Peacelover1 said:


> am leaving here afterall... i came here to make peace & is often irked by this half lady ..Jana the aggressive..



But Dude I am sure you will love a fair debate with her.you did your part
of offering her peace at the onset.

Dont worry India is too mighty.We can afford Jana to be anti India.Not by choice though.

Cheers


----------



## somebozo

Peacelover1 said:


> am leaving here afterall... i came here to make peace & is often irked by this half lady .i always thought journalist r intelluctuals.am proved wrong..shez same as our arundhati variety..afterall she comes from a country famous for vegetarians (grass eaters..-nuke )



But grass eating never lowered our IQ..it gave us nukes instead  

Its part of PDF culture to pull indians leg


----------



## SivHp

fast and furious said:


> Dont worry India is too mighty.We can afford Jana to be anti India.Not by choice though.
> Cheers


why should a lil jana waste her career like this..?


----------



## hecj

somebozo said:


> But grass eating never lowered our IQ..it gave us nukes instead
> 
> Its part of PDF culture to pull indians leg





> ts part of PDF culture to pull indians leg



leg


----------



## SivHp

somebozo said:


> But grass eating never lowered our IQ..it gave us nukes instead
> 
> Its part of PDF culture to pull indians leg



so u people are veggies basically..


----------



## SpArK

somebozo said:


> *But grass eating never lowered our IQ..it gave us nukes instead*
> 
> Its part of PDF culture to pull indians leg




Good one Somebozo.. 

By that logic cows are nuclear bombs too.


----------



## fast and furious

somebozo said:


> But grass eating never lowered our IQ..it gave us nukes instead
> 
> Its part of PDF culture to pull indians leg  [
> 
> 
> 
> Bhai dont brand ,what you come here for as the PDF culture.There are some excellent and informative discussions form lot of Pakistani Members.


----------



## SivHp

somebozo said:


> Its part of PDF culture to pull indians leg



please don't even touch our feet..its too much against ur ego


----------



## fast and furious

BENNY said:


> Good one Somebozo..
> 
> By that logic cows are nuclear bombs too.


----------



## Spring Onion

BENNY said:


> Good one Somebozo..
> 
> By that logic cows are nuclear bombs too.



*damn all these years we have been slaughtering bombs on Eidul Azha *

you damn Indians thats how you been milking that enriched uranium all these decades from the god

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## SivHp

hope my few posts here..have lowered the temp here..


----------



## fast and furious

Jana said:


> *damn all these years we have been slaughtering bombs on Eidul Azha *
> 
> you damn Indians thats how you been milking that enriched uranium all these decades from the god



It was typo error what he probably meant was 'cow also have nukes and same IQ as they also eat grass'.


----------



## Spring Onion

Peacelover1 said:


> am leaving here afterall... i came here to make peace & is often irked by this half lady .i always thought journalist r intelluctuals.am proved wrong.*.shez same as our arundhati variety.*.afterall she comes from a country famous for vegetarians (grass eaters..-nuke )



I must give you a thank for this comparison its an honour to be compared to Arundhati. She is a great, brave writer


----------



## SivHp

Jana said:


> *damn all these years we have been slaughtering bombs on Eidul Azha *
> 
> you damn Indians thats how you been milking that enriched uranium all these decades from the god



and that same Nuke Cows are becoming a big liability now to ur country..white elephants !!!


----------



## fast and furious

Jana said:


> I must give you a thank for this comparison its an honour to be compared to Arundhati. She is a great, brave writer




I am sure you kno that he meant the 'eccentric' part of her personality is comparable.


----------



## Spring Onion

fast and furious said:


> It was typo error what he probably meant was 'cow also have nukes and same IQ as they also eat grass'.



Are you Benny ? NO na 

BTW what is IQ level of Cows ? are you by any chance insulting your gao mata ?  not a wise decision


----------



## Spring Onion

Peacelover1 said:


> and that same Nuke Cows are becoming a big liability now to ur country..white elephants !!!



 ganesh is not suppose to be white yara

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## SivHp

Jana said:


> I must give you a thank for this comparison its an honour to be compared to Arundhati. She is a great, brave writer



OFF TOPIC..whoever is anti Indian Pro maoist COMMY is a brave thing ???


----------



## Spring Onion

fast and furious said:


> I am sure you kno that he meant the 'eccentric' part of her personality is comparable.



what the entire world knows except Indians that She give run for your life with her courageous reports


----------



## pankaj agrawal

Jana said:


> ganesh is not suppose to be white yara


hey, dont fuse poison by insulting hindu gods... we can also do the same, but we won't. do u have some serious problem??


----------



## Spring Onion

Peacelover1 said:


> OFF TOPIC..whoever is anti Indian Pro maoist COMMY is a brave thing ??? ::



None other than her from YOUR Orange Media got the guts to visit Maoist areas and present their point of view or even own.


----------



## SpArK

Jana said:


> *damn all these years we have been slaughtering bombs on Eidul Azha *
> 
> you damn Indians thats how you been milking that enriched uranium all these decades from the god





Did i just hear a Mooooooooo.... Just kidding.


On topic

I also go nuclear on most days ..

Muslims , Christians and majority of hindus are non vegetarian. Its a fact you dont know and you will never acknowledge , coz it will cripple the posts of urs.. LOL




> Non-Vegetarian Hindus
> 
> In fact, contrary to popular belief, India is not a predominantly vegetarian country, according to recent census data as of 2004. But, based on census data, *a quarter of India's population is reckoned to be vegetarian*: 69&#37; of Gujarat is vegetarian, 60% of Rajasthan, 54% of Punjab-Haryana, 50% of Uttar Pradesh, 45% of Madhya Pradesh, 34% of Karnataka, 30% of Maharashtra, 21% of Tamil Nadu, 16% of Andhra Pradesh, and 15% of Assam, while only 6% in Kerala, Orissa and West Bengal are vegetarian.[6] Brahmins, Shaivite non-Brahmins of South India, and several Vaishnavite sects across the country avoid meat. Few Brahmins eat meat, although the Brahmins of East India and Kashmir and the Saraswat Brahmins of the Southwest are allowed fish and some meat.[8] During Durga Puja and Kali Puja among some Shaivite Hindus in Punjab, Bengal, and Kashmir, jha&#7789;k&#257; meat is the required meat for those Shaivite Hindus who eat meat




Source: wiki.


----------



## SivHp

Jana said:


> what the entire world knows except Indians that She give run for your life with her courageous reports



BS reports..she keeps mum whenever innocents r slaughtered..just a convent educated big mouth..she must've been born in ur country


----------



## somebozo

Peacelover1 said:


> so u people are veggies basically..



Well I am actually..cant stop loving those vegges..but also add fish and chiken..hate mutton and beef!


----------



## SivHp

somebozo said:


> Well I am actually..cant stop loving those vegges..but also add fish and chiken..hate mutton and beef!




New thread here...
http://www.defence.pk/forums/world-...n-meat-eaters-raise-ur-hands.html#post1153922
All INDIAN meat eaters raise ur hands.

want to burst Pak point of view..that INDIANS are veggies..


----------



## Spring Onion

BENNY said:


> Did i just hear a Mooooooooo.... Just kidding.
> 
> 
> On topic
> 
> I also go nuclear on most days ..
> 
> *Muslims , Christians and majority of hindus are non vegetarian. Its a fact you dont know and you will never acknowledge , coz it will cripple the posts of urs.*. LOL
> 
> Source: wiki.



 Benny if my study of Hindu texts is not wrong then even these holy text Do NOT forbid eating meat.

So your assumption about our assumption about all Hindus is wrong.


----------



## SpArK

Jana said:


> Benny if my study of Hindu texts is not wrong then even these holy text Do NOT forbid eating meat.
> 
> So your assumption about our assumption about all Hindus is wrong.



You been studying some very old/ wrong books , i must say. 

There are not written rules for lifestyle in Hinduism as far as i know.

They are not compelled to go to temples, pray everyday or anything like that ..

But i have hard time skipping church on sundays though.


----------



## Spring Onion

BENNY said:


> You been studying some very old/ wrong books , i must say.
> 
> There are not written rules for lifestyle in Hinduism as far as i know.
> 
> They are not compelled to go to temples, pray everyday or anything like that ..
> 
> But i have hard time skipping church on sundays though.



By your logic Gita, mahabharata and so on are old enough to be discarded .

Anyway will debate it some other time. There are many texts in these which clearly shows eating meat/beef is not forbidden for hindus

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## SpArK

Jana said:


> By your logic Gita, mahabharata and so on are old enough to be discarded .
> 
> Anyway will debate it some other time. There are many texts in these which clearly shows eating meat/beef is not forbidden for hindus



So u have read those.. good to know.

I know well enough history about Hinduism too.

As far as i know there are no wordings like that.

Most of the gods including Ram belong to Kshatriyas and they are good hunters. 

"It is mentioned in Ayodhya Khandam chapter 20, 26 and 94 that when Rama was sent for Banavas he told his mother that he would have to sacrifice his tasty meat dishes. If Rama had to sacrifice his tasty meat dishes, it means that Rama had meat.

This information i got from googling. There may be contradictions and a person from that religion would be in a better position to answer you.


----------



## justanobserver

> By your logic Gita, mahabharata and so on are old enough to be discarded .



Hehe, Gita is a pretty interesting book, its not religion-heavy but carries a basic philosophy "Do your duty, but don't expect a reward after it's done"

So meat eating is fine, *** is not taboo heck lot's of stuff is allowed


----------



## UNNAME_FIGHTER

About 1965 war said:


> what the hell
> 
> that peoples want the war
> 
> nightmares .....


----------



## Ganguly

Jana said:


> as if you can find chilled beer as complimentary item in those khokhas in India .
> 
> i am sure that must be thrraaaaaaaaaaa not beer
> 
> bwahahahah anyway your post just sounds like those crapy Star Plus soaps



I understand your frustration Jana Maam. I know under current situation most of people are not in position to afford quality foods. They had to pacify the gastronomical urge by viewing the Star Plus soaps only. Dont worry. I will pray to god that your country comes out of this crisis situation quickly. Then we can again start discussion regarding quality foods from India & Pakistan. Till then back to topic.


----------



## fast and furious

Jana said:


> Are you Benny ? NO na
> 
> BTW what is IQ level of Cows ? are you by any chance insulting your gao mata ?  not a wise decision





No I am not Benny.I think thats what he meant.
@Benny sorry bro for speaking on your behalf.

Maam are you suggesting that its an insult to Gaomata( an animal) if I compare her IQ with other grass eaters[part of Homo sapiens(wont name them )] ?


----------



## realking

> Myth 1.
> Pakistan lost all 3 wars with India.
> 
> Pakistan and India have fought 3 wars - 1948, 1965 and 1971.
> 
> Barring 1971 (which occurred while a civil war, assisted by India, was raging in East Pakistan), no war has resulted in a decisive 'victory' for either side.



Sir,
You think that Pakistan didnt lost all 3 wars. If this is your personal opinion then I`m sorry that what you said is the real myth. 1948 war,Indian Armed Forces expelled the Pakistani invaders successfully but due to UN interference IA had to stop their ops. 
Show me the proof where it is mentioned that Pakistan didnt lost the 1948,65,71,99 wars then only i`ll believe you.


----------



## Dalai Lama

Another 'India bashing' thread.


----------



## Dalai Lama

AgNoStIc MuSliM said:


> *Myth 1.
> Pakistan lost all 3 wars with India.*
> 
> Pakistan and India have fought 3 wars - 1948, 1965 and 1971.
> 
> Barring 1971 (which occurred while a civil war, assisted by India, was raging in East Pakistan), no war has resulted in a decisive 'victory' for either side.



*Indo-Pakistani War of 1947*
Date	October 21, 1947 - December 31, 1948
Location: Kashmir
Result: Ceasefire arranged by UN pending plebiscite. Princely state of Kashmir and Jammu dissolved. Pakistan takes control of roughly a third of Kashmir- the north-western scrublands, whereas India takes control of the Kashmir valley and most of Jammu.
Territorial changes: Line of Control divides erstwhile princely state of Kashmir and Jammu between the India state of Jammu and Kashmir (roughly 101,387 km²) and the Pakistan regions which subsequently became Azad Kashmir (13,297 km²) and the Northern Areas (72,496 km²).


*Indo-Pakistani War of 1965*
Date	August  September 23, 1965
Location: Indian subcontinent
Result: United Nations mandated ceasefire.[1] No permanent territorial changes (See Tashkent Declaration).


*Indo-Pakistani War of 1971*
Date	316 December 1971
Location: Eastern front: East Pakistan (now Bangladesh)
Western front: India-West Pakistan border
Result: Decisive Indian victory.
Eastern front: Pakistani forces surrender.
Western front: Ceasefire negotiated.
Territorial changes: Secession of East Pakistan as the independent state of Bangladesh.


*Kargil War*
Date	MayJuly 1999
Location: Kargil district, Kashmir, India
Result: India regains control over Pakistani occupied ridges. Pakistan withdrew from Kashmir to pre-war Line of Control.
Territorial changes: Status quo ante bellum


_Source: Wikipedia_




AgNoStIc MuSliM said:


> *Myth 4.
> Pakistan spends 70% (or more, depending upon the Indian) of its budget on Defense.*
> 
> Pakistan's defence budget for 2009 was about 4.4 billion USD. With a GDP of about 160 billion USD and a budget of 33 billion USD, that works out to be about 2.75% of GDP and 13.3% of the total budget.
> PAKISTAN'S TOTAL OUTLAY IN 2007-08 BUDGET TO BE ABOUT US$33 BLN. | Goliath Business News
> 
> This compares with an Indian defence budget of about 26 billion that is 14.4% of the total budget and about 2.3% - so what's the big deal with Pakistan's defence budget?




I know that Pakistan doesn't spend 70% of it's budget on military expenditure. However Pakistan's defense budget has always been higher than India's. In 1998, when military expenditure of both countries was at it's peak due to nuclear projects; Pakistan's spending was just over 7% of it's GDP whereas India's was approx 3.8%. In recent years both country's military budget has gotten much lower.

*India: 2.9% (2009)
Pakistan: 3.1% (2009) *

An important point to note is that Pakistan does receive military aid from US (in terms of money) *"as an incentive for it to forcefully rid its country of terrorists that threaten Afghanistan and the United States" *. However it is up to GoP to decide how it utilises this money.


----------



## Dash

I thaught it will be a small thread and let em have a look.

But looks like its a never ending thread. and people know that still start a never ending topic.

hats off to your petience guys....Keep it up....


----------



## Dalai Lama

Jana said:


> what the entire world knows except Indians that She give run for your life with her courageous reports




*Courageous* or *controversial*? Controversy gets her noticed. 

_Getting noticed = more books sold = more money in her pocket._

I admit that she's a smart woman, smart because she knows how to make money.


----------



## jatayu

AgNoStIc MuSliM said:


> They are not the same:
> 
> 1. Pakistan fights through proxies (India has done the same so why bother raising that point)
> 
> 2. India has always been peaceful and never committed aggression against Pakistan or any other country (shown to be false as well).



I think u dont know the full history of srilankan conflict? learn fully.

So u r justifing proxy war imagine if india thinks the same way how many billions we can pump


----------



## Surrender2me

*In India,people have a myth that pakistan will conquer whole India by 2012..
But that's a Myth...*

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## aakash_2410

AgNoStIc MuSliM said:


> *Myth 1.
> Pakistan lost all 3 wars with India.*
> 
> Pakistan and India have fought 3 wars - 1948, 1965 and 1971.
> 
> Barring 1971 (which occurred while a civil war, assisted by India, was raging in East Pakistan), no war has resulted in a decisive 'victory' for either side.
> 
> *Myth 2.
> Pakistan fights through proxies*
> 
> Well, this is true. Pakistan has supported Kashmiri Freedom fighters in Indian Occupied Kashmir, and did support the Mujahideen (with US and Saudi support) and later the Taliban.
> 
> However, this allegation by Indians completely overlooks India's own long association with proxy groups.
> 
> 
> Supported proxies that destabilized East Pakistan for many years leading into 1971
> Supported the LTTE (Tamil Tigers) - a terrorist organization in Sri Lanka
> Supported the Northern Alliance - a group of warlords and criminals in Afghanistan
> Supported Baluch insurgents in Pakistan
> *
> Myth 3.
> India has never committed aggression against Pakistan, or any other country.*
> This is clearly not the case as seen below
> 
> 
> Support for insurgents in East Pakistan leding into 1971 and the ensuing war
> Support for the LTTE (a terrorist organization in Sri Lanka) against the Sri Lankan State
> The invasion of Siachen in 1984 in clear violation of the Simla Accord
> Support for the Baluch insurgency
> *
> Myth 4.
> Pakistan spends 70% (or more, depending upon the Indian) of its budget on Defense.*
> 
> Pakistan's defence budget for 2009 was about 4.4 billion USD. With a GDP of about 160 billion USD and a budget of 33 billion USD, that works out to be about 2.75% of GDP and 13.3% of the total budget.
> PAKISTAN'S TOTAL OUTLAY IN 2007-08 BUDGET TO BE ABOUT US$33 BLN. | Goliath Business News
> 
> This compares with an Indian defence budget of about 26 billion that is 14.4% of the total budget and about 2.3% - so what's the big deal with Pakistan's defence budget?
> *
> Myth 5.
> Pakistani politics is dominated by Kashmir*
> 
> This argument goes along the lines of 'the Army/leadership makes sure that the only thing Pakistanis are aware of is Kashmir, and in this way distracts them from socio-economic issues and avoids investing in development'.
> 
> No doubt most Pakistanis are aware of Kashmir, but the fact that we have cutthroat national politics, with political parties that have significant ideological differences, it is absurd to suggest that the only issue mentioned during stump speeches is 'Kashmir'.
> 
> Most of the PR and advertisements run by Pakistani political parties in fact focus on providing development and bringing about prosperity, not Kashmir. Most politicians talk about providing, jobs, investment etc. and most Pakistanis vote on that basis - even when voting on biraadri lines since they believe 'their guy' will provide them with economic opportunity/favors.
> 
> The political process in Pakistan remains largely driven by issues that are important to most people elsewhere in the world - jobs, inflation, development etc.
> 
> ----------------------
> 
> Feel free to offer suggestions on changes, additions, improvements and I'll incorporate them if I think they are appropriate.




Myth 1:
Even though india did not win all 3 wars but it definately had an upper hand in them. [Thats the truth according to many historians and yes we do believe we had upper hand but dont think we won them all.]

Myth 2:
You've admitted myth 2 is true so no comment.

Myth 3:
That is true. India has NEVER shown aggresion i repeat NEVER shown aggresion except of 1965 'forward policy'.

*we DID support mukti bahini not because of pakistan we did that for ourselves cuz india's young economy at that time couldn't withstand 2 million refugees from east pak. and we did it for people in bangladesh. We were asked to help, we didn't intervene.
*LTTE was formed by sri lankans definately RAW did help them but india had to pay fine by loosing rajiv gandhi and there are no proofs of indain involvement since. [Like u.s. helped al-queda fighting russians.]
*india doesn't support them. Well there are no proofs anyway. [even though some people argue there are.]

and frankly no indian believes in myth 4 and 5 anyway.


----------



## 53fd

Some very common myths perpetuated by Indians:

1) Pakistan is under threat of losing its government, its regions and its nukes to the Taliban lol...

2) Pakistan (more specifically the ISI) is responsible for EACH AND EVERYTHING wrong in India, and India & Indians cannot possibly be at fault for anything, because we know the reality that the Indians are so perfect *cough cough Dawood Ibrahim. 

3) The Indian government is innocent, wants peace with Pakistan; but they are deceived by the mischief making Pakistani government.

4) Pakistanis are more obsessed about India and it's 'development' than vice versa.

5) Pakistan is a failed state while India is a superpower

6) India's history is thousands of years old, but Pakistan's history is only 63 years old (remember, there was no one country called India before 1947, but an amalgamation of individual states ruled by their individual rulers that had nothing to do with each other).

7) Indian Muslims are in a larger number than Pakistani Muslims (95&#37; Muslim population of a total of 170 million makes the number of Muslims in Pakistan 161 million. 13.2% Muslim population of a total of 1.1 billion makes the number of Muslims in India 145 million).

8) Indian Muslims are better off than Pakistani Muslims. 

9) India has always been more developed than Pakistan, especially when the truth is that over 50 out of 63 years since 1947, Pakistan has grown and developed more rapidly than India.

10) Pakistan's maps about Kashmir are wrong, and theirs are right (Pakistan show Gilgit-Baltistan and Azad Kashmir as Pakistan-administered area, and all the other regions across the LOC Indian-occupied Kashmir. India shows regions as part of its territory that are not under its control, such as Gilgit-Baltistan and Azad Kashmir).

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## SMC

It's actually surprising how many bharatis believe that Pakistan needs aid to survive.

For f*cks sake, we are getting aid to fight WoT. We do not ask for the aid. And it's been a meagre 500m per year. You telling me a 180 billion dollar economy survives on 500m per year? Morons. But then, I can't expect any other kind of delusion from bharatis.

Actually they've made themselves believe all kinds of myths about Pakistan courtesy their media and western media.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Xeric

Same 'ol tale of myths - some more insight:

*Defence forces are White Elephant and spend maximum percentage of the National Budget*

Debt servicing and PSDP constitute 60&#37; of the National Budget, another 19% is spent on General Public Services. Only 16 % of the National Budget is spent on Defence Forces which comes to 2.7% of our GDP (2010-11)

*
Armed Forces contribute nothing towards National economy.*

Armed Forces contribute an average 60-70% of the allocated budget annually, towards National economy by way of taxes and foreign remittances. Army contributed Rs 146.8 Bn against budget allocation of Rs 146 Bn for year 2009/10.



*Army is involved in commercial/ business activities.*

All commercial/ business activities undertaken by Armed Forces are approved by the Government, essentially aimed at welfare of serving/ retired personnel of the Armed Forces. These projects hardly compensate for allocated deficiency and furthermore, substantially contribute towards National exchequer in shape of taxes. (AWT alone pays billions of Rs in taxes each years).

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## rockstarIN

SMC said:


> It's actually surprising how many bharatis believe that Pakistan needs aid to survive.
> 
> For f*cks sake, we are getting aid to fight WoT. We do not ask for the aid. And it's been a meagre 500m per year. You telling me a 180 billion dollar economy survives on 500m per year? Morons. But then, I can't expect any other kind of delusion from bharatis.
> 
> Actually they've made themselves believe all kinds of myths about Pakistan courtesy their media and western media.



A bit of old report, but just to brust your bubble..

*Pakistan asks IMF for emergency help as economy faces collapse*

*Pakistan is asking for emergency aid from the International Monetary Fund (IMF) as the country scrambles to raise $4 billion (£2.4billion) in 30 days to save its economy from collapse.*

*Shamshad Akhtar, Pakistan's central bank governor, travelled to Dubai last night to hold talks with an IMF mission group. The focus of negotiations will be a multibillion-dollar bailout package designed to avert a balance of payments crisis as Pakistan's foreign reserves plummet.*

Officials of the IMF said that financing could be provided through its emergency financing mechanism, a fast-track process that has been revived in the wake of the sub-prime crisis.

Pakistan's economy has all but fallen apart in recent months, rocked by terror attacks, high oil and food prices and the seizure of the global credit markets. The country's foreign reserves have fallen by three quarters in a year, to about $4.3billion, according to Bloomberg data - a sum barely sufficient to cover a month's imports. Mohsin Khan, the IMF's regional director, said this week that Pakistan may need up to $15billion over the next two years to help it to stay afloat as it tackles yawning current account and fiscal deficits and inflation that is running at 25 per cent, a 30-year high.

According to Pakistani officials, up to $4billion is needed within a month to avert a balance of payments crisis. It is a sum that the IMF, with resources to make an estimated $200billion in loans, could cover easily.

Shaukat Tarin, an economic adviser to the Pakistani Government, said this week: The immediate requirement is to get $3billion to $4billion in the next 30 days.

The decision to turn to the IMF, which traditionally has insisted on conditions such as high taxes and lower spending when it makes loans, is likely to be unpopular with voters and will be embarrassing for President Zardari. He has said that he considered the Washington-based institution a lender of last resort and that that his Government, Pakistan's first democratically elected administration in a decade, would survive by tightening its belt.

The Government has made reforms that should please IMF officials, including cutting subsidies on fuel and other measures designed to cut this year's fiscal deficit.

However, overtures by Mr Zardari to China, the United States and other countries have failed to secure the urgent financial support that his seven-month-old regime badly needs.

A sign of the frustration building in Pakistan, regarded as a key ally in the West's campaign to stamp out Islamist terror groups, appeared recently when officials reacted angrily to a statement by Richard Boucher, the US Assistant Secretary of State. Mr Boucher said that his country was willing to provide only technical support to Pakistan. What the country needed, his Pakistani peers answered, was quick cash.

The Pakistan talks, expected to last several days, are among several developments that promise to thrust the IMF, an institution whose traditional firefighting role was being questioned only months ago, back into the international limelight. Ukraine has also said in recent days that it is close to agreeing to measures to allow it to receive IMF aid. Iceland also appears to be close to a deal with the organisation.

Pakistan is likely to pose the IMF with its most challenging operation. The country's Government is fighting militants on its border with Afghanistan and is living under a security threat of which IMF officials are all too aware. They are holding their meetings with Pakistani officials in Dubai because Islamabad is deemed to be too dangerous. 

Pakistan asks IMF for emergency help as economy faces collapse - Times Online

PS:- This is not to malign Pakistani image, it is sad but true.

Rgds,

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Xeric

A report from 2008 was spot-on 

Bravo!


----------



## PlanetWarrior

xeric said:


> A report from 2008 was spot-on
> 
> Bravo!



And what exactly has *improved* since then ? Pray tell


----------



## Xeric

PlanetWarrior said:


> And what exactly has *improved* since then ? Pray tell



And exactly what aid we have asked for except from the CSF recently?

Dont fool yourself!

P.S And please dont show your stupidity by posting links where we had received the installments of previous loans/assistance.


----------



## rockstarIN

Even, the world economy is at recession, so its not only a Pakistani situation.

But the war on terror + recent floods have more devastating effect on the economy. Its a long way to get into good growth path..

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## PlanetWarrior

xeric said:


> And exactly what aid we have asked for except from the CSF recently?
> 
> Dont fool yourself!



It's your country which you are attempting to salvage a good image for. I'm not fooling myself but purely enquiring. Hey I've been in Botswana for the past 20 years so really speaking I'm out of touch with affairs in the sub-continent. I purely asked. You should respond with facts and not innuendos like "dont fool yourself".


----------



## Xeric

rockstar said:


> Even, the world economy is at recession, so its not only a Pakistani situation.
> 
> But the war on terror + recent floods have more devastating effect on the economy. Its a long way to get into good growth path..



And nobody has/is doubting that.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## rockstarIN

xeric said:


> And nobody has/is doubting that.



*Its a long way to get into good growth path..*

You can't just say that it will recover or bounce back, need biz friendly policies, forward looking administrators and more importantly a good political & security situation. Can't sit back and say it will bounce back..


----------



## Xeric

rockstar said:


> *Its a long way to get into good growth path..*
> 
> You can't just say that it will recover or bounce back, need biz friendly policies, forward looking administrators and more importantly a good political & security situation. Can't sit back and say it will bounce back..



Nobody's doubting that either.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## rockstarIN

xeric said:


> Nobody's doubting that either.



Lets hope the 'nobody' consists the entire biz world, best of luck


----------



## SMC

rockstar said:


> A bit of old report, but just to brust your bubble..
> 
> *Pakistan asks IMF for emergency help as economy faces collapse*
> 
> *Pakistan is asking for emergency aid from the International Monetary Fund (IMF) as the country scrambles to raise $4 billion (£2.4billion) in 30 days to save its economy from collapse.*
> 
> *Shamshad Akhtar, Pakistan's central bank governor, travelled to Dubai last night to hold talks with an IMF mission group. The focus of negotiations will be a multibillion-dollar bailout package designed to avert a balance of payments crisis as Pakistan's foreign reserves plummet.*
> 
> Officials of the IMF said that financing could be provided through its emergency financing mechanism, a fast-track process that has been revived in the wake of the sub-prime crisis.
> 
> Pakistan's economy has all but fallen apart in recent months, rocked by terror attacks, high oil and food prices and the seizure of the global credit markets. The country's foreign reserves have fallen by three quarters in a year, to about $4.3billion, according to Bloomberg data - a sum barely sufficient to cover a month's imports. Mohsin Khan, the IMF's regional director, said this week that Pakistan may need up to $15billion over the next two years to help it to stay afloat as it tackles yawning current account and fiscal deficits and inflation that is running at 25 per cent, a 30-year high.
> 
> According to Pakistani officials, up to $4billion is needed within a month to avert a balance of payments crisis. It is a sum that the IMF, with resources to make an estimated $200billion in loans, could cover easily.
> 
> Shaukat Tarin, an economic adviser to the Pakistani Government, said this week: The immediate requirement is to get $3billion to $4billion in the next 30 days.
> 
> The decision to turn to the IMF, which traditionally has insisted on conditions such as high taxes and lower spending when it makes loans, is likely to be unpopular with voters and will be embarrassing for President Zardari. He has said that he considered the Washington-based institution a lender of last resort and that that his Government, Pakistan's first democratically elected administration in a decade, would survive by tightening its belt.
> 
> The Government has made reforms that should please IMF officials, including cutting subsidies on fuel and other measures designed to cut this year's fiscal deficit.
> 
> However, overtures by Mr Zardari to China, the United States and other countries have failed to secure the urgent financial support that his seven-month-old regime badly needs.
> 
> A sign of the frustration building in Pakistan, regarded as a key ally in the West's campaign to stamp out Islamist terror groups, appeared recently when officials reacted angrily to a statement by Richard Boucher, the US Assistant Secretary of State. Mr Boucher said that his country was willing to provide only technical support to Pakistan. What the country needed, his Pakistani peers answered, was quick cash.
> 
> The Pakistan talks, expected to last several days, are among several developments that promise to thrust the IMF, an institution whose traditional firefighting role was being questioned only months ago, back into the international limelight. Ukraine has also said in recent days that it is close to agreeing to measures to allow it to receive IMF aid. Iceland also appears to be close to a deal with the organisation.
> 
> Pakistan is likely to pose the IMF with its most challenging operation. The country's Government is fighting militants on its border with Afghanistan and is living under a security threat of which IMF officials are all too aware. They are holding their meetings with Pakistani officials in Dubai because Islamabad is deemed to be too dangerous.
> 
> Pakistan asks IMF for emergency help as economy faces collapse - Times Online
> 
> PS:- This is not to malign Pakistani image, it is sad but true.
> 
> Rgds,



1. I was talking about US aid.
2. Read the first paragraph. It's talking about certain 30 days, which are long gone now.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## sanasahil

These are all strategies that anyone can try whenever they think right, as all is fair when its love and war...


----------



## ketti

hi good info for all people


----------



## sanasahil

Well indian army is too a hero but just for its own people

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## k!ng_0f_(~)3@rt$

"Hero of one nation is the enemy of another nation" Said by one African leader (Sorry I forgot his name)


----------



## MrIndianSikh




----------



## cyphercide

I would have to apologize for any perceived amount of candor or plain speak that my Pakistani friends might consider my post to be.With the disclaimer out of the way,Let's examine your thesis :

Myth 1.
Pakistan lost all 3 wars with India.

Pakistan and India have fought 3 wars - 1948, 1965 and 1971.

Barring 1971 (which occurred while a civil war, assisted by India, was raging in East Pakistan), no war has resulted in a decisive 'victory' for either side.

My Conclusion# 

Factually weak. You are trying to draw quintessentially flawed arguments from the fact that an instrument of surrender was never signed by Pakistan.But neutral observers have always in fact credited India as the victor.I am not going to post these assessments since this is a Pakistani website and it should be respected.You could look up the same.

Myth 2.
Pakistan fights through proxies

Well, this is true. Pakistan has supported Kashmiri Freedom fighters in Indian Occupied Kashmir, and did support the Mujahideen (with US and Saudi support) and later the Taliban.

However, this allegation by Indians completely overlooks India's own long association with proxy groups.

Supported proxies that destabilized East Pakistan for many years leading into 1971
Supported the LTTE (Tamil Tigers) - a terrorist organization in Sri Lanka
Supported the Northern Alliance - a group of warlords and criminals in Afghanistan
Supported Baluch insurgents in Pakistan

My Conclusion# 

The L.T.T.E accusation is true.However,they were broken off at a very preliminary stage as India decided the best way to fight for Tamil rights was through talks.The Indian Peace Keeping Force was deployed and actively took on the L.T.T.E.As a result,Rajiv Gandhi was assassinated by the LTTE cadres fearing his return to power might mean the redeployment of IPKF in Sri Lanka

The other groups have never expressed any affiliation with India as far I know.The notion that India is funding them doesn't hold water as India has no leverage with such groups.

PS#Wasn't the Northern Alliance founded by Pakistan?

Myth 3.
India has never committed aggression against Pakistan, or any other country.
This is clearly not the case as seen below

Support for insurgents in East Pakistan leding into 1971 and the ensuing war
Support for the LTTE (a terrorist organization in Sri Lanka) against the Sri Lankan State
The invasion of Siachen in 1984 in clear violation of the Simla Accord
Support for the Baluch insurgency

My Conclusion# 

See Riposte above.Till date, India hasn't resorted to millitary action without provocation;

1948-Invasion of Indian held territory by Pakistan

1965-Invasion of Indian held territory by Pakistan

1971-Preemptive air strike on eleven Indian airbases.

India responded after practically begging the International community to call for an end to the genocide.I wouldn't term any as aggression.We enjoy international support for being peaceful and we would like to keep it that way

Myth 4.
Pakistan spends 70&#37; (or more, depending upon the Indian) of its budget on Defense.

Pakistan's defence budget for 2009 was about 4.4 billion USD. With a GDP of about 160 billion USD and a budget of 33 billion USD, that works out to be about 2.75% of GDP and 13.3% of the total budget.
PAKISTAN'S TOTAL OUTLAY IN 2007-08 BUDGET TO BE ABOUT US$33 BLN. | Goliath Business News

This compares with an Indian defence budget of about 26 billion that is 14.4% of the total budget and about 2.3% - so what's the big deal with Pakistan's defence budget?

My Conclusion# 

As an Indian,It would be irrelevant for me as to what Pakistan's defense Balance Sheet looks like.More of a "smoke em if you got em" guy 

Myth 5.
Pakistani politics is dominated by Kashmir

This argument goes along the lines of 'the Army/leadership makes sure that the only thing Pakistanis are aware of is Kashmir, and in this way distracts them from socio-economic issues and avoids investing in development'.

No doubt most Pakistanis are aware of Kashmir, but the fact that we have cutthroat national politics, with political parties that have significant ideological differences, it is absurd to suggest that the only issue mentioned during stump speeches is 'Kashmir'.

Most of the PR and advertisements run by Pakistani political parties in fact focus on providing development and bringing about prosperity, not Kashmir. Most politicians talk about providing, jobs, investment etc. and most Pakistanis vote on that basis - even when voting on biraadri lines since they believe 'their guy' will provide them with economic opportunity/favors.

The political process in Pakistan remains largely driven by issues that are important to most people elsewhere in the world - jobs, inflation, development etc.

My Conclusion# 

I wouldn't know as I am unaware of the same.But the posture of naming warships and missiles after invaders of India makes me uncomfortable.We need not be the best of friends but We must learn how to coexist peacefully for the sake of the Asian bloc.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## shaheerahmed

sorry to add up the things too late, but few facts about both the armies are:-
1. both Armies are trying to keep the issue alive so as to ve a notion of indispensable within thier countries, specially true for India as already report published byu wikki leaks ( u can choose to see it on net - available)
2. bieng the hub of all rivers flowing in to Pakistan, Pakistan has too fallow the same policy ( except will of peoples of Kashmir)
3. same is evident from wikki leaks report published , that indian Army is not allowing its politicians to solve the core issue of Siachen.
4. one of very major threat is very ra[id expension in indian military ( what is cold start & deployment/orientation of 3 ops comds against Pakistan)
5. worried about indian pursuance to the policies of chankia kotalia ???? any say for this by any indian fellow 
6. Muslims ( may be Majority) believe on Ghazwa-e-Hind ( i personally believe on it) 
if any of my fellow can add to this ,


----------



## Lone Shooter

I wounder whats the myth behind Venna malik involvment with ISI? 

that was just the lighter part of it... the real myth missed over here is that ISI is the root cause of all negative things happening in India starting from Mumbai attacks to a cylce accident in a remort village area...


----------



## Indian nationalist

These myths aren't real, and you know it


----------



## genmirajborgza786

not an Indian myths but rather a general misconception about Pakistan is it being a small country when in reality Pakistan has quite a good size for a country crossing the 3 lakhs sq mi mark but unfortunately i have seen even many Pakistanis also say with regards to the India-Pakistan land size is that India is ten times or 6 times the sizes of Pakistan which is not true

the size of India is 1.2 million sq miles + Indian-administered Kashmir 38,830 sq miles 
= 1.2 38,830 sq miles or 
32 lakhs 569 sq km 

Pakistan 307,374 sq miles + Pakistani-administered Kashmir 32,323 sq miles = 3,39697 sq miles or 8,79811 sq km which is 8 lakhs 79,811 sq km 

so 
1.2 38,830/ 3,39697 = 3.6 something

so India is 3.6 times larger then Pakistan & not 10 times or 6 times 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/country_profiles/default.stm

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## MastanKhan

cyphercide said:


> I would have to apologize for any perceived amount of candor or plain speak that my Pakistani friends might consider my post to be.With the disclaimer out of the way,Let's examine your thesis :
> 
> Myth 1.
> Pakistan lost all 3 wars with India.
> 
> Pakistan and India have fought 3 wars - 1948, 1965 and 1971.
> 
> Barring 1971 (which occurred while a civil war, assisted by India, was raging in East Pakistan), no war has resulted in a decisive 'victory' for either side.
> 
> My Conclusion#
> 
> Factually weak. You are trying to draw quintessentially flawed arguments from the fact that an instrument of surrender was never signed by Pakistan.But neutral observers have always in fact credited India as the victor.I am not going to post these assessments since this is a Pakistani website and it should be respected.You could look up the same.
> 
> Myth 2.
> Pakistan fights through proxies
> 
> Well, this is true. Pakistan has supported Kashmiri Freedom fighters in Indian Occupied Kashmir, and did support the Mujahideen (with US and Saudi support) and later the Taliban.
> 
> However, this allegation by Indians completely overlooks India's own long association with proxy groups.
> 
> Supported proxies that destabilized East Pakistan for many years leading into 1971
> Supported the LTTE (Tamil Tigers) - a terrorist organization in Sri Lanka
> Supported the Northern Alliance - a group of warlords and criminals in Afghanistan
> Supported Baluch insurgents in Pakistan
> 
> My Conclusion#
> 
> The L.T.T.E accusation is true.However,they were broken off at a very preliminary stage as India decided the best way to fight for Tamil rights was through talks.The Indian Peace Keeping Force was deployed and actively took on the L.T.T.E.As a result,Rajiv Gandhi was assassinated by the LTTE cadres fearing his return to power might mean the redeployment of IPKF in Sri Lanka
> 
> The other groups have never expressed any affiliation with India as far I know.The notion that India is funding them doesn't hold water as India has no leverage with such groups.
> 
> PS#Wasn't the Northern Alliance founded by Pakistan?
> 
> Myth 3.
> India has never committed aggression against Pakistan, or any other country.
> This is clearly not the case as seen below
> 
> Support for insurgents in East Pakistan leding into 1971 and the ensuing war
> Support for the LTTE (a terrorist organization in Sri Lanka) against the Sri Lankan State
> The invasion of Siachen in 1984 in clear violation of the Simla Accord
> Support for the Baluch insurgency
> 
> My Conclusion#
> 
> See Riposte above.Till date, India hasn't resorted to millitary action without provocation;
> 
> 1948-Invasion of Indian held territory by Pakistan
> 
> 1965-Invasion of Indian held territory by Pakistan
> 
> 1971-Preemptive air strike on eleven Indian airbases.
> 
> India responded after practically begging the International community to call for an end to the genocide.I wouldn't term any as aggression.We enjoy international support for being peaceful and we would like to keep it that way
> 
> Myth 4.
> Pakistan spends 70% (or more, depending upon the Indian) of its budget on Defense.
> 
> Pakistan's defence budget for 2009 was about 4.4 billion USD. With a GDP of about 160 billion USD and a budget of 33 billion USD, that works out to be about 2.75% of GDP and 13.3% of the total budget.
> PAKISTAN'S TOTAL OUTLAY IN 2007-08 BUDGET TO BE ABOUT US$33 BLN. | Goliath Business News
> 
> This compares with an Indian defence budget of about 26 billion that is 14.4% of the total budget and about 2.3% - so what's the big deal with Pakistan's defence budget?
> 
> My Conclusion#
> 
> As an Indian,It would be irrelevant for me as to what Pakistan's defense Balance Sheet looks like.More of a "smoke em if you got em" guy
> 
> Myth 5.
> Pakistani politics is dominated by Kashmir
> 
> This argument goes along the lines of 'the Army/leadership makes sure that the only thing Pakistanis are aware of is Kashmir, and in this way distracts them from socio-economic issues and avoids investing in development'.
> 
> No doubt most Pakistanis are aware of Kashmir, but the fact that we have cutthroat national politics, with political parties that have significant ideological differences, it is absurd to suggest that the only issue mentioned during stump speeches is 'Kashmir'.
> 
> Most of the PR and advertisements run by Pakistani political parties in fact focus on providing development and bringing about prosperity, not Kashmir. Most politicians talk about providing, jobs, investment etc. and most Pakistanis vote on that basis - even when voting on biraadri lines since they believe 'their guy' will provide them with economic opportunity/favors.
> 
> The political process in Pakistan remains largely driven by issues that are important to most people elsewhere in the world - jobs, inflation, development etc.
> 
> My Conclusion#
> 
> I wouldn't know as I am unaware of the same.But the posture of naming warships and missiles after invaders of India makes me uncomfortable.We need not be the best of friends but We must learn how to coexist peacefully for the sake of the Asian bloc.




Yeah and your supposed conclusions---you are always right in the end---ain't you----. If raw and other indian intel agy's have not used northern alliance and BLA to their advantage to create unrest in pakistan---then you need to shoot their operatives for incompetence and treason against the state----for there was never a better moment to stab pakistan.

If your agencies are so incompetent of not taking advantage of this situation---then you really need to worry when the u s leave this region and you won't have your 'daddy' to protect you from pakistan---what are you gonna do then.


----------



## Baby Leone

very very true actualy indians are feeded by their govt controlled media & text books which most of the time is busy in creating fantasy stories against Pakistan like no one in Pakistan is educated there are even no roads in Pakistan etc etc, & the time when Pakistan govt allows indians to visit Pakistan in 2004 (easy visa policiy) indians get shocked to c Pakistan

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Baby Leone

genmirajborgza786 said:


> not an Indian myths but rather a general misconception about Pakistan is it being a small country when in reality Pakistan has quite a good size for a country crossing the 3 lakhs sq mi mark but unfortunately i have seen even many Pakistanis also say with regards to the India-Pakistan land size is that India is ten times or 6 times the sizes of Pakistan which is not true
> 
> the size of India is 1.2 million sq miles + Indian-administered Kashmir 38,830 sq miles = 1.2 38,830 sq miles or
> 32 million,569sq km which is 32 lakhs 830 sq mi
> 
> Pakistan 307,374 sq miles + Pakistani-administered Kashmir 32,323 sq miles = 3,39697 sq miles or 8,79811 sq km which is 8 lakhs 79,811 sq km
> 
> so
> 1.2 38,830/ 3,39697 = 3.6 something
> 
> so India is 3.6 times larger then Pakistan & not 10 times or 6 times
> 
> BBC NEWS | Country Profiles




another truth agreed Pakistanis are also unaware abt inida but the difference is Pakistani govt/media dont portrait india as backward enemy country so the pakistanis c india more practicaly

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## karan.1970

genmirajborgza786 said:


> not an Indian myths but rather a general misconception about Pakistan is it being a small country when in reality Pakistan has quite a good size for a country crossing the 3 lakhs sq mi mark but unfortunately i have seen even many Pakistanis also say with regards to the India-Pakistan land size is that India is ten times or 6 times the sizes of Pakistan which is not true
> 
> the size of India is 1.2 million sq miles + Indian-administered Kashmir 38,830 sq miles = 1.2 38,830 sq miles or
> 32 million,569sq km which is 32 lakhs 830 sq mi
> 
> Pakistan 307,374 sq miles + Pakistani-administered Kashmir 32,323 sq miles = 3,39697 sq miles or 8,79811 sq km which is 8 lakhs 79,811 sq km
> 
> so
> 1.2 38,830/ 3,39697 = 3.6 something
> 
> so India is 3.6 times larger then Pakistan & not 10 times or 6 times
> 
> BBC NEWS | Country Profiles



Its Indian population and economy which is about 6-10 times larger than Pakistan.. Not land mass

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Major Berette

If china and pakistan become good friends then why not india and pakistan but the basic reason is that problem of kashmir,siachin sarkrik and alot more other which not only stops the both countries from friend and on the other hand increase the riverly between both countries.pakistan and india can become a good friend but first they have solve their problem but it is seeing very difficult due to ego from both sides


----------



## prashantweb

For a bright future of India and Pakistan both needs to have friendly relations. We need to stop talking about our past and differences which has been almost impossible to solve in all these years. 
Qaid-e-Azam said on record that after partition we will have relation like America and Canada but we are not even close to it. I just hope one day we will be that friendly neighbors.


----------



## bobbybabu007

2. India has always been peaceful and never committed aggression against Pakistan or any other country (shown to be false as well).


Really, if India had not shown restraint in 2003 and 2008, Pakistan today may have been even a lot different than what it would have been now.

I would say it would have been more peaceful and phosphorous if India had indeed done the surgical strikes deep into pakistan territory instilling fear on the terrorist havens......

No reason crying over spilled milk, pray the situation gets better and the insurgencies subside..........

A vibrant India and a Phosphorous Pakistan is in my dreams, Hope it comes true...........


----------



## angeldude13

i think myth 5 is reality.even imran khan from pti party was claiming india cannot administer kashmir with it's army and we will take kashmir and bla bla bla.
video is on youtube anybody can watch.see even the new politicians are playing kashmir card

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## ice_man

angeldude13 said:


> i think myth 5 is reality.even imran khan from pti party was claiming india cannot administer kashmir with it's army and we will take kashmir and bla bla bla.
> video is on youtube anybody can watch.see even the new politicians are playing kashmir card



nope this myth is totally BS! pakistani politicans currently or in the past never play kashmir card no one votes on kashmir card! the politicans just state it because of a foreign policy statement! like they say we will stop the US supplies from going through pakistan. 

Foreign policy stand doesn't win anyone elections in pakistan.promise of ROTI,KAPRA & MAKAN does!


----------



## The Green1

Proxy wars ? yes. Myths no myths doesnt matter. Indians wont give up an inch of held kashmir while Pakistan isnt going to back off either. This political solution topi is going on and on for ages. The fact of the matter is " KASHMIR " if this gets solved every thing else will vanish. 
This issue is going no where i personally feel that another war will happen , sooner or later but it will. Since india is now making damns tightening the water tap. I sound a bit harsh or stereo typical but this will happen as it seems.


----------



## INDIC

Mr Javed said:


> another truth agreed Pakistanis are also unaware abt inida but the difference is Pakistani govt/media dont portrait india as *backward enemy country* so the pakistanis c india more practicaly



Totally funny.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## angeldust

Do you have co-ed schools in Pakistan?

Are girls allowed to work in Pakistan?

Is it in woman-only offices?

Or are veils compulsory in public places, as well as being accompanied by family menfolk?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Icarus

angeldust said:


> Do you have co-ed schools in Pakistan?



Yes



> Are girls allowed to work in Pakistan?



Yes



> Is it in woman-only offices?



No



> Or are veils compulsory in public places, as well as being accompanied by family menfolk?



No




In this age when access to information is as simple as a click and 11 year olds are passing exams for AI degrees, you still have no clue about your neighbour. Do you actually have to strive to be this ignorant or does it come to you naturally?

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## neokautilya2

The Green1 said:


> Proxy wars ? yes. Myths no myths doesnt matter. Indians wont give up an inch of held kashmir while Pakistan isnt going to back off either. This political solution topi is going on and on for ages. The fact of the matter is " KASHMIR " if this gets solved every thing else will vanish.
> This issue is going no where i personally feel that another war will happen , sooner or later but it will. Since india is now making damns tightening the water tap. I sound a bit harsh or stereo typical but this will happen as it seems.



war will never happen if pakistan does not attack first..... chill bro


----------



## Umair Nawaz

angeldust said:


> Do you have co-ed schools in Pakistan?
> 
> Are girls allowed to work in Pakistan?
> 
> Is it in woman-only offices?
> 
> Or are veils compulsory in public places, as well as being accompanied by family menfolk?



for all yr questions the answer is yes, abt last sentence the answer is no.
This thread is abt indian general myths not abt social issues or indian misunderstandings abt Pakistan.


----------



## 474474

angeldust said:


> Do you have co-ed schools in Pakistan?
> 
> Are girls allowed to work in Pakistan?
> 
> Is it in woman-only offices?
> 
> Or are veils compulsory in public places, as well as being accompanied by family menfolk?



No
No
Yes
Yes, Yes

No to mention, women arent even allowed to breath the air a man had breahted, they cant drink from the same river
Also, women arent allowed to leave their caves without the men's permission. Also when women go out they should by tied by a chain

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## free thinker

474474 said:


> No
> No
> Yes
> Yes, Yes
> 
> No to mention, women arent even allowed to breath the air a man had breahted, they cant drink from the same river
> Also, women arent allowed to leave their caves without the men's permission. Also when women go out they should by tied by a chain



So what we hear is true...

you guys should do what we do...kill women at birth!

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Baby Leone

474474 said:


> No
> No
> Yes
> Yes, Yes
> 
> No to mention, women arent even allowed to breath the air a man had breahted, they cant drink from the same river
> Also, women arent allowed to leave their caves without the men's permission. Also when women go out they should by tied by a chain

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## angeldust

Icarus said:


> Yes
> 
> 
> 
> Yes
> 
> 
> 
> No
> 
> 
> 
> No
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In this age when access to information is as simple as a click and 11 year olds are passing exams for AI degrees, you still have no clue about your neighbour. Do you actually have to strive to be this ignorant or does it come to you naturally?



Sir aap to gussa ho gaye. Most of us click here to know about our neighbor. 

Any other click and our neighbor in close proximity, and we dive for cover.


----------



## The Green1

neokautilya2 said:


> war will never happen if pakistan does not attack first..... chill bro



Can you chill when some one is blocking your due share of water ? and btw dams are being built in Kashmir thats why i wrote KASHMIR. So if you are chilling then keep chilling till the chill ends and temps rise .


----------



## The Green1

angeldust said:


> Sir aap to gussa ho gaye. Most of us click here to know about our neighbor.
> 
> Any other click and our neighbor in close proximity, and we dive for cover.



Looks like Indian govt still hasnt allowed most of our channels to be seen there which show the real Pakistani culture. Dont count GEO as ours it is Yours :


----------



## silent poison

The Green1 said:


> Looks like Indian govt still hasnt allowed most of our channels to be seen there which show the real Pakistani culture. Dont count GEO as ours it is Yours :


 Really ????


----------



## silent poison

On June 1, 2010 India and Pakistan resolved the issue relating to the initial filling of Baglihar dam in Jammu and Kashmir with the neighbouring country deciding not to raise the matter further. The decision was arrived at the talks of Permanent Indus Commissioners of the two countries who are meeting. "The two sides discussed the issue at length without any prejudice to each other's stand...Indian and Pakistani teams resolved the issue relating to initial filling of Baglihar dam after discussions," sources said. Pakistan also agreed not to raise the issue further.


----------



## vsdoc

The Green1 said:


> Looks like Indian govt still hasnt allowed most of our channels to be seen there which show the real Pakistani culture. Dont count GEO as ours it is Yours :



I know you said it in jest, but the average Indian knows next to nothing about Pakistan and Pakistanis.

We for the most part think of Pakistan as 5-6 half decent cities, with good roads connecting them, with the remaining slightly better off than Afghanistan.

We think of massive power cuts and a crows nest of tapped overhead wires blacking out thee sky in most cities and towns.

We think of bearded guys in 3/4 pyjamas and women in black burqas.

We think of small kids playing with AK47s.

We think of the very very rich with their fancy cars and bikes, and the rest in grinding poverty.

We think of floods with millions displaced.

We think of the army against those it trained and armed and funded.

We think of most of the region west of the Indus as Pakistan only on the map and in atlases.

We think of bomb blasts and ethnic targeted killings and skyrocketing food prices.

Then we come here and find sadly that the worst case scenario is what you guys actually call a day in the life of Pakistan.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## The Green1

silent poison said:


> Really ????



yesh yesh yesh ..


----------



## The Green1

vsdoc said:


> I know you said it in jest, but the average Indian knows next to nothing about Pakistan and Pakistanis.
> 
> We for the most part think of Pakistan as 5-6 half decent cities, with good roads connecting them, with the remaining slightly better off than Afghanistan.
> 
> We think of massive power cuts and a crows nest of tapped overhead wires blacking out thee sky in most cities and towns.
> 
> We think of bearded guys in 3/4 pyjamas and women in black burqas.
> 
> We think of small kids playing with AK47s.
> 
> We think of the very very rich with their fancy cars and bikes, and the rest in grinding poverty.
> 
> We think of floods with millions displaced.
> 
> We think of the army against those it trained and armed and funded.
> 
> We think of most of the region west of the Indus as Pakistan only on the map and in atlases.
> 
> We think of bomb blasts and ethnic targeted killings and skyrocketing food prices.
> 
> Then we come here and find sadly that the worst case scenario is what you guys actually call a day in the life of Pakistan.



And thats why i posted " Indian govt still hasnt allowed most of our channels to be seen there which show the real Pakistani culture. Dont count GEO as ours it is Yours  " 

You stated the joint problems that india pakistan both face . You have to watch more of tv channels our life style, if possible come to Pakistan and see for yourself.


----------



## vsdoc

The Green1 said:


> And thats why i posted " Indian govt still hasnt allowed most of our channels to be seen there which show the real Pakistani culture. Dont count GEO as ours it is Yours  "
> 
> You stated the joint problems that india pakistan both face . You have to watch more of tv channels our life style, if possible come to Pakistan and see for yourself.



What is TV channels bro? Have you seen our disgusting ones? 

With the glycerine tears and the joint families of 5 generations and twenty members, the bahus with heads covered, and the evil saas?

Who lives like that man?

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## The Green1

silent poison said:


> On June 1, 2010 India and Pakistan resolved the issue relating to the initial filling of Baglihar dam in Jammu and Kashmir with the neighbouring country deciding not to raise the matter further. The decision was arrived at the talks of Permanent Indus Commissioners of the two countries who are meeting. "The two sides discussed the issue at length without any prejudice to each other's stand...Indian and Pakistani teams resolved the issue relating to initial filling of Baglihar dam after discussions," sources said. Pakistan also agreed not to raise the issue further.



Any link to the upper statement or in your view[ Proof  ] ?? Did you go through the latest hearing of international court in which this case is being going on


----------



## The Green1

vsdoc said:


> What is TV channels bro? Have you seen our disgusting ones?
> 
> With the glycerine tears and the joint families of 5 generations and twenty members, the bahus with heads covered, and the evil saas?
> 
> Who lives like that man?



Are you asking me this ? common man.. So you accept that what media shows isnt totally true right ?


----------



## vsdoc

The Green1 said:


> Are you asking me this ? common man.. So you accept that what media shows isnt totally true right ?



Yes, the media does sensationalize things. 

But its equally true that you know way more about us (thanks to Bollywood and our TV) than we about you.

I mean, I don't even know what the inside of a Pakistani house looks like.

I know 2-3 years ago, on this very forum, I was genuinely surprised to find out that you guys have coffee shops.


----------



## The Green1

vsdoc said:


> Yes, the media does sensationalize things.
> 
> But its equally true that you know way more about us (thanks to Bollywood and our TV) than we about you.
> 
> I mean, I don't even know what the inside of a Pakistani house looks like.



lol Thanks to OUR CHANNELS [ not GEOOOOOOOO  thats yours ] that give news about india. BTW i dont watch your channels aah but yes i liked the research and development documentary about indian army. Good ****.


----------



## ajtr

biggest indian myth is all pakistanis ie that include men,women,kids and future kids and women are terrorists manufacturing factories.....

one these above myths/cliche' i've always seen from pdf indians


----------



## mjnaushad

vsdoc said:


> Yes, the media does sensationalize things.
> 
> But its equally true that you know way more about us (thanks to Bollywood and our TV) than we about you.
> 
> I mean, I don't even know what the inside of a Pakistani house looks like.
> 
> I know 2-3 years ago, on this very forum, I was genuinely surprised to find out that you guys have coffee shops.



Beds in bedroom + a TV, NO TV in TV lounge instead a dining table is usually found in TV lounge, Kitchen is kitchen (No compromises there), Sofa set in drawing room. Thats how Pakistani homes look like almost.....

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## INDIC

The Green1 said:


> Looks like Indian govt still hasnt allowed most of our channels to be seen there which show the real Pakistani culture. Dont count GEO as ours it is Yours :



We Indians have no interest in Pakistani movies or TV shows.


----------



## vsdoc

mjnaushad said:


> Beds in bedroom + a TV, NO TV in TV lounge instead a dining table is usually found in TV lounge, Kitchen is kitchen (No compromises there), Sofa set in drawing room. Thats how Pakistani homes look like almost.....



An average middle class family has how many cars and two wheelers?


----------



## mjnaushad

vsdoc said:


> An average middle class family has how many cars and two wheelers?



Lower middle a bike, people who are in middle of upper middle and lower middle Small car and probably a bike, 2 cars usually for upper middle class. However some might consider the 2 cars family into rich category.


----------



## Xeric

vsdoc said:


> I know you said it in jest, but the average Indian knows next to nothing about Pakistan and Pakistanis.
> 
> We for the most part think of Pakistan as 5-6 half decent cities, with good roads connecting them, with the remaining slightly better off than Afghanistan.
> 
> We think of massive power cuts and a crows nest of tapped overhead wires blacking out thee sky in most cities and towns.
> 
> We think of bearded guys in 3/4 pyjamas and women in black burqas.
> 
> We think of small kids playing with AK47s.
> 
> We think of the very very rich with their fancy cars and bikes, and the rest in grinding poverty.
> 
> We think of floods with millions displaced.
> 
> We think of the army against those it trained and armed and funded.
> 
> We think of most of the region west of the Indus as Pakistan only on the map and in atlases.
> 
> We think of bomb blasts and ethnic targeted killings and skyrocketing food prices.
> 
> Then we come here and find sadly that the worst case scenario is what you guys actually call a day in the life of Pakistan.


^^Evidently this thread has failed to achieve its aim.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## vsdoc

mjnaushad said:


> Lower middle a bike, people who are in middle of upper middle and lower middle Small car and probably a bike, 2 cars usually for upper middle class. However some might consider the 2 cars family into rich category.



So its pretty same here as well. I think we have more bikes per family though. Mundane realities like living in apartment complexes and societies means parking is at a premium. Much more so than buying and keeping a car.

Is it then that you have a much smaller middle class than us? 

That what is middle class for you, is actually the top 10 percentile of Pakistan only?


----------



## INDIC

mjnaushad said:


> Beds in bedroom + a TV, NO TV in TV lounge instead a dining table is usually found in TV lounge, Kitchen is kitchen (No compromises there), Sofa set in drawing room. Thats how Pakistani homes look like almost.....



Does using dining table for eating food a common culture in Pakistan??


----------



## vsdoc

Gigawatt said:


> Does using dining table for eating food a common culture in Pakistan??



Its a good habit. Unfortunately in my home its sprawled all over the living room watching TV.


----------



## Jango

vsdoc said:


> So its pretty same here as well. I think we have more bikes per family though. Mundane realities like living in apartment complexes and societies means parking is at a premium. Much more so than buying and keeping a car.



Pakistan does not really have a very common culture of living in apartments. Some in Islamabad are present near the Islamabad Highway (while going to Pindi), and not much other than that.

Mostly buildings of 3-4 levels, not much higher than that.


----------



## INDIC

vsdoc said:


> Its a good habit. Unfortunately in my home its sprawled all over the living room watching TV.



For bachelors such things are more like a burden.


----------



## vsdoc

Gigawatt said:


> For bachelors such things are more like a burden.



I tried to get everyone to sit down together at the table and eat. Most times it does not work. Everyone has their special spot in front of the TV and that is how this family eats.


----------



## INDIC

vsdoc said:


> I tried to get everyone to sit down together at the table and eat. Most times it does not work. Everyone has their special spot in front of the TV and that is how this family eats.



Is your family too crazy about TV serials.


----------



## vsdoc

Gigawatt said:


> Is your family too crazy about TV serials.



Not serials. TV in general.

The wife and I watch only English ones and the News or Sports (me).

The kids watch the Hindi stuff - CID (and another similar real life crime serial), Fear Files, Parvarish, etc.


----------



## INDIC

vsdoc said:


> Not serials. TV in general.
> 
> The wife and I watch only English ones and the News or Sports (me).
> 
> The kids watch the Hindi stuff - CID (and another similar real life crime serial), Fear Files, Parvarish, etc.



I only watch movies or news on TV. But I have news apps on my phone and switch to youtube to watch movies.


----------



## vsdoc

Gigawatt said:


> I only watch movies or news on TV. But I have news apps on my phone and switch to youtube to watch movies.



I never watched TV as a bachelor man. What a waste of time when there are so many better more fruitful pursuits.

Problem is I was never a bachelor. I moved directly from being a student in a hostel to being a married man and a father.

So time was even more at a premium while it was still there .....

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## silent poison

The Green1 said:


> Any link to the upper statement or in your view[ Proof  ] ?? Did you go through the latest hearing of international court in which this case is being going on


An error has occurred silent poison! You must have 15 posts in order to post links. Your current post count is 6.
but search wiki you will find your ansr


----------



## WAR-rior

ajpirzada said:


> another possible myth.
> 
> Pakistan is only slightly better than afghanistah and also look kind of similar. thats wat many of my indian friends here told me



Na re. I have seen many videos of pakistani cities. I compare your cities with India's Tier 2 cities.

Eg : Pindi = Kanpur ; Islamabad = Chandigarh ; Karachi = Pune (Infact within the city, Clifton = Magarpatta).

Metro cities in India has gone 1-2 notch up in past 15 years.


----------



## Don Jaguar

vsdoc said:


> I know you said it in jest, but the average Indian knows next to nothing about Pakistan and Pakistanis.
> 
> We for the most part think of Pakistan as 5-6 half decent cities, with good roads connecting them, with the remaining slightly better off than Afghanistan.
> 
> We think of massive power cuts and a crows nest of tapped overhead wires blacking out thee sky in most cities and towns.
> 
> We think of bearded guys in 3/4 pyjamas and women in black burqas.
> 
> We think of small kids playing with AK47s.
> 
> We think of the very very rich with their fancy cars and bikes, and the rest in grinding poverty.
> 
> We think of floods with millions displaced.
> 
> We think of the army against those it trained and armed and funded.
> 
> We think of most of the region west of the Indus as Pakistan only on the map and in atlases.
> 
> We think of bomb blasts and ethnic targeted killings and skyrocketing food prices.
> 
> Then we come here and find sadly that the worst case scenario is what you guys actually call a day in the life of Pakistan.



Please tell us what do you think now about all you have mentioned.


----------



## vsdoc

Don Jaguar said:


> Please tell us what do you think now about all you have mentioned.



How has anything changed? You guys hardly talk about your own country.

The photos are nice, but again only the major cities.



WAR-rior said:


> Na re. I have seen many videos of pakistani cities. I compare your cities with India's Tier 2 cities.
> 
> Eg : Pindi = Kanpur ; Islamabad = Chandigarh ; Karachi = Pune (Infact within the city, Clifton = Magarpatta).
> 
> Metro cities in India has gone 1-2 notch up in past 15 years.



Bro, at over 6.5 million, and an urban sprawl extending all the way to Lonavala on one side and Shirur on the other and Wai on the third, Pune is very much a metro.

Except for the 4 megapolises, only Bangalore and Hyderabad (marginally) are bigger.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Don Jaguar

WAR-rior said:


> Na re. I have seen many videos of pakistani cities. I compare your cities with India's Tier 2 cities.
> 
> Eg : Pindi = Kanpur ; Islamabad = Chandigarh ; *Karachi = Pune* (Infact within the city, Clifton = Magarpatta).
> 
> Metro cities in India has gone 1-2 notch up in past 15 years.



You are sure about karachi?

There is a karachi picture thread here but it do not represent all.

http://www.defence.pk/forums/general-images-multimedia/3713-pictures-cities-karachi.html

And what about Lahore?


----------



## vsdoc

Karachi has a population nearly twice that of Pune man. 

They are definitely not on the same scale.

Lahore I heard is like Amritsar.


----------



## Don Jaguar

vsdoc said:


> How has anything changed? You guys hardly talk about your own country



Ok let me clarify it.

All things you have mentioned are totally or partially incorrect.



vsdoc said:


> Karachi has a population nearly twice that of Pune man.
> 
> They are definitely not on the same scale.
> 
> Lahore I heard is like Amritsar.



Lahore has a population of 12 million approx.

No comparison at all.


----------



## Don Jaguar

vsdoc said:


> Karachi has a population nearly twice that of Pune man.



Karachi has a population of 2 crore.


----------



## vsdoc

Don Jaguar said:


> Karachi has a population of 2 crore.



Is it? Google shows around 13 million.

But yup, that was 2008.


----------



## Don Jaguar

vsdoc said:


> Is it? Google shows around 13 million.
> 
> But yup, that was 2008.



Share some amritsar pics.


----------



## vsdoc

I tried Google. All I am getting is Golden Temple mainly.


----------



## Don Jaguar

You can see Lahore pics here.

http://www.defence.pk/forums/general-images-multimedia/3743-pictures-cities-lahore.html


----------



## vsdoc

Don Jaguar said:


> You can see Lahore pics here.
> 
> http://www.defence.pk/forums/general-images-multimedia/3743-pictures-cities-lahore.html



Hopefully we can visit one day. When its safer and things are better.

Maybe ride my bike to Iran too.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## INDIC

Don Jaguar said:


> You can see Lahore pics here.
> 
> http://www.defence.pk/forums/general-images-multimedia/3743-pictures-cities-lahore.html


This is an interesting raking of Global cities by GaWAC.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Don Jaguar

Gigawatt said:


> This is an interesting raking of Global cities by GaWAC.



I guess some one answered it before.

This list is not correct.


----------



## INDIC

Don Jaguar said:


> I guess some one answered it before.
> 
> This list is not correct.



Why the list is not correct.


----------



## Don Jaguar

Gigawatt said:


> Why the list is not correct.



I don't know what criteria he mentioned but he mentiond a good point.

Just think Lahore right after DOHA.


----------



## INDIC

Don Jaguar said:


> I don't know what criteria he mentioned but he mentiond a good point.
> 
> Just think Lahore right after DOHA.



Population of Doha is just 1.5 million.


----------



## Don Jaguar

Gigawatt said:


> Population of Doha is just 1.5 million.



Population of Lahore is 12 million. What you are trying to say?


----------



## INDIC

Don Jaguar said:


> Population of Lahore is 12 million. What you are trying to say?



A city with a population of mere 1.5 million is too small to called a Metropolis.


----------



## Don Jaguar

Gigawatt said:


> A city with a population of mere 1.5 million is too small to called a Metropolis.



Look at the life standard.


----------



## Luka

WAR-rior said:


> Na re. I have seen many videos of pakistani cities. I compare your cities with India's Tier 2 cities.
> 
> Eg : Pindi = Kanpur ; Islamabad = Chandigarh ; Karachi = Pune (Infact within the city, Clifton = Magarpatta).
> 
> Metro cities in India has gone 1-2 notch up in past 15 years.



What Karachi= *PUNE *  

Pune is Backbone of Indian Software Industry , All major Indian software companies Born in Pune including Infosys .

*Sometime back Pimpari-chinchwad in Pune was the Richest Municipal Corporationof Asia.*

*I doubt any Major Software company don't have Development center in Pune , From Microsoft, Dell,oracle you name it every company.*

*People call it "Oxford of East" the best city for Education, you are comparing with Karachi a Mafia city.*

It's Hub of Automobile Industry too which made Pimpari-chinchwad Richest Municipal Corporationof Asia some time back .

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## vsdoc

Luka said:


> What Karachi= *PUNE *
> 
> Pune is Backbone of Indian Software Industry , All major Indian software companies Born in Pune including Infosys .
> 
> *Sometime back Pimpari-chinchwad in Pune was the Richest Municipal Corporationof Asia.*
> 
> I doubt any Major Software company don't have Development center in Pune , From Microsoft, Dell,oracle you name it every company.
> 
> People call it "Oxford of East" the best city for Education, you are comparing with Karachi a Mafia city.
> 
> It's Hub of Automobile Industry too which made Pimpari-chinchwad Richest Municipal Corporationof Asia some time back .



Am a Puneite myself, and there is no doubt that Pune is no longer the sweet quaint pensioners paradise and student city it used to be.

It is growing, exploding, spreading, and really chaotic.

But at heart its still chilled out.

The weather too has changed, but its still a breath of fresh cool air for Mumbaikars who drive down.

But no way is it Karachi man.

Karachi is big. Two Punes would fit into it.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## gslv mk3

Don Jaguar said:


> You can see Lahore pics here.
> 
> http://www.defence.pk/forums/general-images-multimedia/3743-pictures-cities-lahore.html



Dude your cities are not as developed as Indian ones.... You can go see the Delhi NCR pics you asked for in http://www.defence.pk/forums/members-club/204532-kya-dilli-kya-lahore-33.html

else prove it

1.Every Indian city have or is building a modern glass and steel airport 

example from a tier 3 city

a pic of Trivandrum Airport

http://i56.tinypic.com/23wuul4.jpg

2.India have 3 metro rails in operation 
6 under construction
11 more proposed 

Also 1 Monorail under construction and 13 more proposed 


Pakistans only metro project -Lahore Metro is under limbo

3.We have 4 BRTS systems,We are Building 7 BRTS systems(mainly for tier 3 cities) and planning 9 of them (mainly for tier 3 cities)

Pakistans only BRTS project-Lahore BRT is now under construction

4.We are building whole new cities mate...

http://img.docstoccdn.com/thumb/orig/102950322.png

5.Last attempt made by Pakistanis is to say our roads are better..
You can compare

Lahore ring road 85 Km and 6 lane







Hyerabad Outer ring road 160 km 8-12 lanes +4 service lanes

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Luka

vsdoc said:


> Am a Puneite myself, and there is no doubt that Pune is no longer the sweet quaint pensioners paradise and student city it used to be.
> 
> It is growing, exploding, spreading, and really chaotic.
> 
> But at heart its still chilled out.
> 
> The weather too has changed, but its still a breath of fresh cool air for Mumbaikars who drive down.
> 
> But no way is it Karachi man.
> 
> Karachi is big. Two Punes would fit into it.



yaaaa But comparison with Karachi not possible. Pune is Hi tech city In view of MNC, corporations. 

You sure twice of pune ? i mean pune is quite big city , you know Karachi ? visited pak ?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## RazPaK

Our cities have more character and are on a whole cleaner than Indian cities, metro or no metro.


----------



## gslv mk3

Don Jaguar said:


> Share some amritsar pics.



Projects in Amritsar

Airport







Pod taxi

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## HeinzG

^^^ What is BRT?


----------



## gslv mk3

RazPaK said:


> Our cities have more character and are on a whole cleaner than Indian cities, metro or no metro.



Usual Character and Cleaner BS

No metro
No good Airport
No major projects,No skyscrapers (except for a 47 floor in Islamabad and a 60 floor one in Karachi)





HeinzG said:


> ^^^ What is BRT?



Bus Rapid Transit system

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bus_rapid_transit

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## silent poison

Source Wikipedia : International rankings of India
Cities

Globalization and World Cities Study Group and Network (GaWC), Loughborough University:

Mumbai, New Delhi & Bangalore emerging world city

Demographics

Population 2011 ranked 2.
List by the United Nations (2005-2010): Life expectancy ranked 139 out of 194 countries and territories

Economics

2010 List by KOF Index of Globalization: Globalization Index ranked 111 out of 181 countries
IMD International: World Competitiveness Scoreboard 2011, ranked 32 out of 59 economies (countries and regions)
The Wall Street Journal: 2011 Index of Economic Freedom, ranked 124 out of 179 countries
The Economist: Worldwide Quality-of-life index, 2005, ranked 73 out of 111 countries
GDP growth rate ranked 5 out of 215 10.365% growth rate (2010)
Nominal GDP ranked 4 out of 181 (2011)
List of countries by GDP (PPP) ranked 3 out of 181 (2011)
Per capita GDP ranked 138 out of 183 (2010)
Unemployment rate ranked x of 197 with 9.4% unemployment (2010)
World Economic Forum: Global Competitiveness Index 2007-2008, ranked x out of 131 countries[2]
IT industry competitiveness index ranked 34[3]
United Nations: Human Development Index 2010, ranked 119 out of 177 countries

Environment

Yale University Center for Environmental Law and Policy and Columbia University Center for International Earth Science Information Network: Environmental Sustainability Index, 2005: ranked x out of 146 countries.
Carbon dioxide emissions by country - Ranked 4 out of 214 countries in 2007
Carbon dioxide emissions per capita: Ranked 141 out of 214 countries in 2007

Globalization

A.T. Kearney/Foreign Policy Magazine: Globalization Index 2007, ranked 71 [4]
2010 KOF Index of Globalization ranked 111 out of 181 countries[5]

Politics

Transparency International: Corruption Perceptions Index 2010, ranked 87 out of 178 countries[6]
Reporters Without Borders: 2010 Press Freedom Index, ranked 122 out of 178 countries[7]

Society

Save the Children: 2010 State of the World's Mothers report, ranked 73 [8][9]
World Health Organization: suicide rate, ranked 41 out of 106 countries
World Economic Forum: 2010 Global Gender Gap Report, ranked x out of 128 countries [10]

Technology

Economist Intelligence Unit: E-readiness 2008, ranked 2 out of 70 countries
WEF Networked Readiness Index 2007&#8211;2008, ranked 2 out of 127 countries[11]
Nokia Siemens Connectivity Scorecard: x/10 [12]

Religion

Largest Hindu population.
3rd largest Muslim population.
Largest Sikh population.
Largest Zoroastrian population.
Largest Bahá'í Faith in the world.
Largest Jain population.

Wealth

Richest countries of Asia: ranked 3 (2011)
Richest countries of the world, ranked 4. GDP:- $4,060,000,000,000

Language

Largest English-speaking populations, ranked 2 out of 126 countries.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## INDIC

HeinzG said:


> ^^^ What is BRT?



Dedicated lanes on which only bus runs uninterrupted and other types of vehicles are not allowed.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## The Green1

ajtr said:


> biggest indian myth is all pakistanis ie that include men,women,kids and future kids and women are terrorists manufacturing factories.....
> 
> one these above myths/cliche' i've always seen from pdf indians



that isnt a myth.. thats a typical bharti movie story and india has sent its best SUNNY DEOL to bust this myth ahahahaha

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## The Green1

WHILE PEOPLE ARE BUSY DOING THIS >>> [ Pindi = Kanpur ; Islamabad = Chandigarh ; Karachi = Pune (Infact within the city, Clifton = Magarpatta).
Metro cities in India has gone 1-2 notch up in past 15 years.]

LETS HAVE A LOOK AT THIS >>> India's poverty line now lowered to Rs 28 per day - India News - IBNLive

Is this a myth ?

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## gslv mk3

The Green1 said:


> WHILE PEOPLE ARE BUSY DOING THIS >>> [ Pindi = Kanpur ; Islamabad = Chandigarh ; Karachi = Pune (Infact within the city, Clifton = Magarpatta).
> Metro cities in India has gone 1-2 notch up in past 15 years.]
> 
> LETS HAVE A LOOK AT THIS >>> India's poverty line now lowered to Rs 28 per day - India News - IBNLive
> 
> Is this a myth ?




The fact goes that Indias percapita income is $3600 while yours is $ 2800
The fact goes that India is a medium HDI country while you are a Low HDI country behind Kenya
The fact goes that India is going to spend $ 1 trillion in infrastructure for next 5 years and you cant even imagine a figure like dat


Pindi = Kanpur ; Islamabad = Chandigarh ; Karachi = Pune (Infact within the city, Clifton = Magarpatta??

I'd say Clifton<<Magarpatta

Magarpatta











Difference is seen here...
In this forum Pakistanis are discussing even 12floor buildings.That maybe the best they've got

Projects and Updates - SkyscraperCity


In this Forum Indians are discussing 80 floor Supertalls in Mumbai

Mumbai - SkyscraperCity

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Umair Nawaz

gslv mk3 said:


> The fact goes that Indias percapita income is $3600 while yours is $ 2800
> The fact goes that India is a medium HDI country while you are a Low HDI country behind Kenya
> The fact goes that India is going to spend $ 1 trillion in infrastructure for next 5 years and you cant even imagine a figure like dat
> 
> 
> Pindi = Kanpur ; Islamabad = Chandigarh ; Karachi = Pune (Infact within the city, Clifton = Magarpatta??
> 
> I'd say Clifton<<Magarpatta
> 
> Magarpatta
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Difference is seen here...
> In this forum Pakistanis are discussing even 12floor buildings.That maybe the best they've got
> 
> Projects and Updates - SkyscraperCity
> 
> 
> In this Forum Indians are discussing 80 floor Supertalls in Mumbai
> 
> Mumbai - SkyscraperCity



thats some thing abtr the need too
You need 80 stories malls/skyscrapers. 
Look at yr population!!!
Even for them these 80 stories will not b enough.
The formula is simple!
Demand & supply!
Yr demand locally is even bigger still today then the supply available in yr country.
In the other hand we r just 180 million.
We dont have that much demand locally, that we should also try to build 80 stories buildings!!!


----------



## The Green1

TALL Sky scrapers and 80 floor super malls CANNOT fill up hungry stomachs .. THIS IS ANOTHER FACT. Another myth busted


----------



## INDIC

The Green1 said:


> TALL Sky scrapers and 80 floor super malls CANNOT fill up hungry stomachs .. THIS IS ANOTHER FACT. Another myth busted



Compare your HDI with India. Further Pakistan is facing problem of rising poverty.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## EzioAltaïr

The Green1 said:


> TALL Sky scrapers and 80 floor super malls CANNOT fill up hungry stomachs .. THIS IS ANOTHER FACT. Another myth busted



But if a person can afford living in one, I have no doubt he can fill his own stomach.


----------



## INDIC

Umair Nawaz said:


> thats some thing abtr the need too
> You need 80 stories malls/skyscrapers.
> Look at yr population!!!
> Even for them these 80 stories will not b enough.
> The formula is simple!
> Demand & supply!
> Yr demand locally is even bigger still today then the supply available in yr country.
> In the other hand we r just 180 million.
> We dont have that much demand locally, that we should also try to build 80 stories buildings!!!



But Karachi has population of 18 million and rising very fast.


----------



## mjnaushad

Gigawatt said:


> Does using dining table for eating food a common culture in Pakistan??



Always ate with the family, Most fun in ramadan. Doesn't matter if its dinning table or somewhere else...but yeah mostly atleast i ate on dinning table and from last few years when i am alone computer table


----------



## INDIC

The Green1 said:


> WHILE PEOPLE ARE BUSY DOING THIS >>> [ Pindi = Kanpur ; Islamabad = Chandigarh ; Karachi = Pune (Infact within the city, Clifton = Magarpatta).
> Metro cities in India has gone 1-2 notch up in past 15 years.]
> 
> LETS HAVE A LOOK AT THIS >>> India's poverty line now lowered to Rs 28 per day - India News - IBNLive
> 
> *Is this a myth ?*



A research on purchasing power parity would be good for you.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## mjnaushad

gslv mk3 said:


> The fact goes that Indias percapita income is $3600 while yours is $ 2800
> The fact goes that India is a medium HDI country while you are a Low HDI country behind Kenya
> The fact goes that India is going to spend $ 1 trillion in infrastructure for next 5 years and you cant even imagine a figure like dat
> 
> 
> Pindi = Kanpur ; Islamabad = Chandigarh ; Karachi = Pune (Infact within the city, Clifton = Magarpatta??
> 
> I'd say Clifton<<Magarpatta
> 
> Magarpatta
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Difference is seen here...
> In this forum Pakistanis are discussing even 12floor buildings.That maybe the best they've got
> 
> Projects and Updates - SkyscraperCity
> 
> 
> In this Forum Indians are discussing 80 floor Supertalls in Mumbai
> 
> Mumbai - SkyscraperCity



And the fact is per capita is all income / all population .... few in your country are very rich (surely by ripping of the poor) and other very poor...that per capita is just average. Not necessary means that everyone is happy.

2ndly With floods, WOT, economic problems HDI is suppose to be low. BTW you are way below namibia ...so its doesn't matter who is behind who in HDI what matter is how to see it in future, with floods and WOT and other problems we are hopeful we'll do better...and thats what count.

3rdly You spend 1 trillion on infrastructure will not make as big of change if we spend on 20% of it in our country. how much you spend in your country compared vis a vis to pakistan is like comparing apples and oranges. I thought you are the smart one.




and sky scrappers are not sign of something huge.... for e.g. quetta city no matter if it becomes the richest city of the world and UN wants to transfer her HO here still there wont be any sky scrappers. 
There is some logic behind it .. think about it.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Azazel

The Green1 said:


> TALL Sky scrapers and 80 floor super malls CANNOT fill up hungry stomachs .. THIS IS ANOTHER FACT. Another myth busted



Oh yes they can.They can provide employment for a lot of people and hence lifting them out of poverty.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Omya

The Green1 said:


> TALL Sky scrapers and 80 floor super malls CANNOT fill up hungry stomachs .. THIS IS ANOTHER FACT. Another myth busted



Sethi US Pakistanis Pretend as Indians SHOWS HINDU Heritage and ISLAM is a failure
youtube. com/watch?v=i5X8dJHmGVk


----------



## Koovie

The Green1 said:


> TALL Sky scrapers and 80 floor super malls CANNOT fill up hungry stomachs .. THIS IS ANOTHER FACT. Another myth busted



Construction=more work=less unemployment=money=higher income=better living standards.



Umair Nawaz said:


> thats some thing abtr the need too
> You need 80 stories malls/skyscrapers.
> Look at yr population!!!
> Even for them these 80 stories will not b enough.
> The formula is simple!
> Demand & supply!
> Yr demand locally is even bigger still today then the supply available in yr country.
> In the other hand we r just 180 million.
> We dont have that much demand locally, that we should also try to build 80 stories buildings!!!



Does not make sense


----------



## Koovie

mjnaushad said:


> And the fact is per capita is all income / all population .... few in your country are very rich (surely by ripping of the poor) and other very poor...that per capita is just average. Not necessary means that everyone is happy.
> 
> 2ndly With floods, WOT, economic problems HDI is suppose to be low. BTW you are way below namibia ...so its doesn't matter who is behind who in HDI what matter is how to see it in future, with floods and WOT and other problems we are hopeful we'll do better...and thats what count.
> 
> 3rdly You spend 1 trillion on infrastructure will not make as big of change if we spend on 20% of it in our country. how much you spend in your country compared vis a vis to pakistan is like comparing apples and oranges. I thought you are the smart one.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and sky scrappers are not sign of something huge.... for e.g. quetta city no matter if it becomes the richest city of the world and UN wants to transfer her HO here still there wont be any sky scrappers.
> There is some logic behind it .. think about it.



1.) If you want to check happiness and dont believe in per capita income, fine, check out the HPI; GNHI or whatever.

2.) And you think we dont have problems? Take a look at the BIMARU states which contain almost all of Indias poorest. But even with all those millions and millions of poor people we still got medium level HDI if you take the average of all Indian states together while single states like Kerala have the highest HDI in the entire region  .

3.) I dont really get what you want to say, but his point was that India will always have more economic power.

4.) Skyscrapers have become a symbol of economic success almost everywhere in the world. Surely, they can be seen as a "show off" object as well but they are practical and undeniably a symbol of success of their respective companies, investors etc...

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Umair Nawaz

Koovie said:


> Construction=more work=less unemployment=money=higher income=better living standards.
> 
> 
> 
> Does not make sense



Demand & supply is the key.


----------



## minhnh10

....................................


----------



## tuananhpl1

In India,people have a myth that pakistan will conquer whole India by 2012..
But that's a Myth...


----------



## T90TankGuy

tuananhpl1 said:


> *In India,people have a myth* that pakistan will conquer whole India by 2012..
> But that's a Myth...



Think thats only you mate

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Slayer786

Astra-2013 said:


> There is also a myth that pakistan is a sovereign country , and it need not to beg for AID to run the country , pakistanis are most peace loving peoples in the world , brotherly love of shias ,sunni,pashto and baloch is word famous. National bird fo pakisthan is predator drone. national bird of pakisthan is recognized world over for its explosive sh*t , that sometimes kills some peoples.
> but...................its a myth.




Well there is a myth in India that it will become a superpower soon. It does not have more than 500 million poor indians living below the poverty line. It treats its minorities swo well that they are equally represented in all fields, especially its muslim population. it does not believe in caste system anymore and now all indians marry each other regardless of their castes as now they show brotherly love to each other.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Ghulam Jilani Khan

Koovie said:


> 1.) If you want to check happiness and dont believe in per capita income, fine, check out the HPI; GNHI or whatever.
> 
> 2.) And you think we dont have problems? Take a look at the BIMARU states which contain almost all of Indias poorest. But even with all those millions and millions of poor people we still got medium level HDI if you take the average of all Indian states together while single states like Kerala have the highest HDI in the entire region  .
> 
> 3.) I dont really get what you want to say, but his point was that India will always have more economic power.
> 
> 4.) Skyscrapers have become a symbol of economic success almost everywhere in the world. Surely, they can be seen as a "show off" object as well but they are practical and undeniably a symbol of success of their respective companies, investors etc...


----------



## xyxmt

notsuperstitious said:


> Myth 2 is not a myth at all as admitted by AM.
> 
> Also, don't know anyone who believes 4.
> 
> About defence spending, the last published data shows Pakistan spent much more than budgeted on defence, a good 27% higher
> 
> Defence spending exceeds budgetary allocation
> 
> About 1965 war, it would be interesting to get % of people in India and Pakistan who think their country won that war.



Actually Myth 2 is openly admitted by non other than your PM modi while visiting BD.


----------



## Muhammad Jabran

Yeah i agree with Thread owner


----------



## IMMORTAL584

Some myths are not myths at all.


----------

