100 Miles 10 Div (Official Documentary)

[Reichsmarschall]

 

[Reichsmarschall]

@Signalian @Ulla @Zarvan @django @Ocean

 

[Mutakalim]

Yeah, the Glorious, the mighty, army of slaves. These idiots should thank God for independence and yet they are glorifying rented soldiers. We as a nation should be shameful of our past and shouldn't compare Martyrs who are fighting against Khawarij and died in the way of Allah with people who rented out their lives fighting for their British masters.

 

[Ace of Spades]

Confused nation and it's decision makers. It's good to mention history as part of the documentary, but i don't find a reason to boast about victoria cross or so called valor for british empire. They were occupiers and you fought for them instead of fighting for your own freedom.

 

[litman]

a muslim should only fight in the way of Allah.

 

[Signalian]

How conveniently the members posting here have ignored the wars of 65, 71 and current WOT as well as martyrdom of Major Raja Aziz Bhatti, L/N Mehfooz and Naik Muhammad Imran and jumped on the bandwagon of British wars to perform sermons on Martyrdom, VC and Allah, not realizing and neither learning that Military History of a formation is written from the day the formation became active.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Confused nation and it's decision makers. It's good to mention history as part of the documentary, but i don't find a reason to boast about victoria cross or so called valor for british empire. They were occupiers and you fought for them instead of fighting for your own freedom.

The British were no more occupiers than Ghaznavi etc.

 

[Ace of Spades]

The British were no more occupiers than Ghaznavi etc.

I don't have regards for both.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

I don't have regards for both.

Let me put it another way - the Indian subcontinent never really had much of an identity (historically) as a 'nation State'. South Asia, until the independence of India and Pakistan in 1947, always existed as a hodgepodge of Kingdoms, Princely States, Sultanates etc. At various points ambitious conquerors established empires and ruled large swathes of the subcontinent, but there was never any kind of unified identity - until 1947.

So given that, why begrudge men from various regions signing up to become soldiers and warriors in service of whoever the ruling monarch or entity at that time was? There was no 'Pakistan' they could have fought for - the despot/monarch ruling them simply got replaced by another.

 

[Ace of Spades]

Let me put it another way - the Indian subcontinent never really had much of an identity (historically) as a 'nation State'. South Asia, until the independence of India and Pakistan in 1947, always existed as a hodgepodge of Kingdoms, Princely States, Sultanates etc. At various points ambitious conquerors established empires and ruled large swathes of the subcontinent, but there was never any kind of unified identity - until 1947.

So given that, why begrudge men from various regions signing up to become soldiers and warriors in service of whoever the ruling monarch or entity at that time was? There was no 'Pakistan' they could have fought for - the despot/monarch ruling them simply got replaced by another.

I agree, indeed there were princely states and were always in one way or the other stayed under occupation by different kingdoms are sulunates. If we see the history of europe, as an example, nation states were there but geographical boundaries of countries kept changing under different rulers of europe. But you know the rulers they most despise? the outsiders, Turks, Arabs. I don't find it to be a good side of history of subcontinent that we never produced a strong south asian leadership in history. Having said that; we had very renounced people, no denying that but they never had influence outside of their limited boundaries. And i don't have any regard, whatsoever for outsiders. Their only reason to come was to loot and that's pretty much it.