Literature and culture is wasted on these people. There isn't much left of either. The common Hindustani Urdu lingua franca has been stamped out in a fascist imposition of Sanskritized synthetic Hindi.you just didnt get it .. ghalib tells here to india that when will you get up from dream world you will know the reality.
becareful what you for.
If you are muslim then you sud know what is and how to be muslim but we talking about culprits like mir jafar mir sadiqs typed hypocracy here if you are not muslim then you sud read..Do you guys provide certificates of being muslims? If yes then based on what qualifications?
See there are only two big wars between us. 65 and 71. In 65, we failed to capture Kashmir just because of Lahore front and even senior indian members agree to this. 71? No reinforcement. All other 3 wars specially siachen and kargil was limited wars. I believe that India can't even fight against pakistan without opening another front.The comparison is not quite accurate. In an all out war re-enforcements and reserves are all taken into consideration by the war gamers. Casualties are cynically counted as a % loss to the attackers. The Germans were fully
aware of the Soviet strength and fighting capabilities, and their weaknesses. The Soviet Union had lost a war with much smaller Finland just a few months before and two years earlier barely managed a stalemate with Japan ( The Khalkin Gol War). Based on these precedents the Germans made the same argument against the fighting abilities of the Soviet Union that today is being made about China. So since China didn't perform well against Vietnam and has had no fighting experience it cannot take on an experienced army. The Soviet Union could not fight the Finns or the Japanese so they can't fight the Germans who had conquered all of Western and Central Europe and bottled up the mighty British with their Empire onto their tiny island. The earlier impression about the Germans was similar by Britain and France. Oh.., the Germans can't fight. They lost World War 1 and half their country. Certainly they have learned their lesson. The same is being said of Pakistan by Indians. Oh...we defeated Pakistan "five" times and they lost half their territory and surrendered 90,000 troops. We will do that again should they try any nonsense.,
Nobody except wise Generals like Sam Maneckshaw know that for a defeat to be permanent the enemy's defence apparatus has to be dismantled completely and the enemy's industrial and economic potential completely ruined or completely controlled through occupation. Anything short of that a determined adversary will rise again. The USA did this to Japan as the Allied powers did this to Germany after World War 2 . Israel has done this to its enemies somewhat. India's case is intriguing.
Having fought a 7 times smaller Pakistan and "defeated" it 5 times the threat from this 7 times smaller adversary keeps increasing after each conflict. In 1947 Pakistan had no armor, navy, or air force and India lost a third of Kashmir. However the fighting was confined to the front, and 1947 war was hailed as a victory. The defeated adversary then somehow acquired an air force, a navy and armor and a war was fought 18 years later with full use of air force, armor and navy. Kashmir was not recovered. Six years later a civil war in the Eastern half of Pakistan presented an opportunity which any adversary would have taken. The war was fought. The eastern half seceded . A third of Kashmir still remained firmly with a "defeated" Pakistan.
As Pakistan expanded and modernized its armed forces, India acquired nuclear capabilities hoping this would make Pakistan see "sense" and admit defeat. Unfortunately Pakistan was not impressed and acquired nuclear weapons of its own.
Question to the Wise in India:
Where do we go from here.
Seventy three years, five wars, and 150+ nuclear weapons on either side pointing at each other.
As a last word. An interesting incident.
December 1971. East Pakistan had seceded and military operations were only continuing on the Western front. The UN ceasefire resolution had been passed and India was asked to accept.
When Prime Minister Indira Gandhi asked Indian COAS Field Marshal Sam Maneckshaw if an offensive similar to East Pakistan one could be launched to capture the rest of Pakistan and Kashmir.
General Maneckshaw replied:
Madam, yes it is possible.But just remember that the Pakistani soldier in West Pakistan is different from his counterpart who just surrendered in the East. There they were an occupation force. In the West the Pakistani soldier will be fighting for his home and land. He will never surrender. Even if the armed forces are defeated a resistance would most certainly continue. If you are willing to accept a minimum of 250,000 dead in the opening phases of the campaign we can plan an offensive "
India agreed to a ceasefire. The stark difference is no other nation would have taken that step. 250,000 dead would be acceptable to Germany, Japan, the Soviet Union if it meant a permanent elimination of an adversary.,