1962 war tried to wake up Nehru with heavy punch: China daily

[Fazlu]

Mr.Shiv

I dont read propaganda texts if that's what you meant. In fact, i asked too many questions and never stopped sifting through historical accounts and analysis until i drew an un biased conclusion.

 

[Fazlu]

More on topic,

The Indians had a better argument overall. But there remained a basic incompatibility in positions. Any evidence emanating from western sources-even from unaffiliated jesuit priests- was dismissed as tainted by 'imperialism'. The Chinese would up to a point present counter evidence , but then they would back off saying that the border had not been delimited between the two countries as sovereign nations.

 

[harpoon]

Mr.Shiv

I dont read propaganda texts if that's what you meant. In fact, i asked too many questions and never stopped sifting through historical accounts and analysis until i drew an un biased conclusion.

So bro, what was the reason behind Nehru asking for ceasefire when IA has the upperhand in Kashmir??

 

[Fazlu]

So bro, what was the reason behind Nehru asking for ceasefire when IA has the upperhand in Kashmir??

Which year ?

 

[Yeti]

Is this the war fought without missiles or Airforce?

 

[Luffy 500]

China did the right thing in 62. They should have advanced further and freed whole NE. May be take back the legitimately claimed S.tibet and annex upto Mizoram. At least the subcontinent would have been in peace now without being screwed by these chankya deceptionists very now and then.

 

[harpoon]

Which year ?

During the Indo-Pakistani War of 1947.

Is this the war fought without missiles or Airforce?

Yes.......

China did the right thing in 62. They should have advanced further and freed whole NE. May be take back the legitimately claimed S.tibet and annex upto Mizoram. At least the subcontinent would have been in peace now without being screwed by these chankya deceptionists very now and then.

Brain Farts....

 

[Fazlu]

So bro, what was the reason behind Nehru asking for ceasefire when IA has the upperhand in Kashmir??

In 1947,
It would have been a political and social nightmare. After conquering Dras and Kargil, some Indian commanders wanted to move on and requested redeployement of three brigades from the plains. But this was denied for a very good reasons. For one thing, the winter was about to set in. For another, the offensive, would have required not merely troop reinforcements, but also massive air support.

It had to be settled by partition or India would have walked into a west Punjab. A military decision could never be reached beyond what we already captured.

 

[rcrmj]

Believe me the nos are as much fake as the Chinese economic data

failed IQ trying to detail the discussion, Again``

 

[harpoon]

If your'e talking about 1947, back then the people of gilgit baltistan really didn't want to be a part of India. It would have been a political and social nightmare. After conquering Dras and Kargil, some Indian commanders wanted to move on and requested redeployement of three brigades from the plains. But this was denied for a very good reasons. For one thing, the winter was about to set in. For another, the offensive, would have required not merely troop reinforcements, but also massive air support.

It had to be settled by partition or India would have walked into a west Punjab. A military decision could never be reached beyond what we already captured.

So if that was the reason why did we entered Kashmir in the first place. Even now there is a lot of anti-India sentiments among the Muslim Kashmiris. We should just captured captured Jammu and stopped our advance. Again why is India claiming the whole of J & K including the so called Azad Kashmir & GB and showing it on our map if according to you these people never liked to be part of India. Then again if he wanted ceasefire, India could have declared it unilaterally. Why invite UN in and resolution was passed favoring plebiscite .

 

[shiv]

Mr.Shiv

I dont read propaganda texts if that's what you meant. In fact, i asked too many questions and never stopped sifting through historical accounts and analysis until i drew an un biased conclusion.

which part of my assertions are propaganda ?

Indian Constitution was completed under the aegis of B.R.Ambedkar and it was Sardar Patel who was the force behind India's unification..

Nehru unilaterally ordered ceasefire in 1950 Kashmir war when our forces had upperhand. Plz check up any "unpropagandized
site for your satisfaction. When asked why he did that ? He replied, "mere ghar ka mamla hai, kabhi bhi suljha lenge" moron !!

And Sardar Patel was gonna be made the first PM but Nehru insisted on him becoming PM.

Don't just reject those things as propaganda. Everything is clear like water. Either he worked on India's constitution or he did not ? where the hell propaganda came from ?

Check up history books how the powerful Nizam of Hyd was tamed into unification. Start with wiki and explore the references as well.

Everything I said is not fictitious. They all are facts. Now what I can expect from a Nehru proponent like you is a rational explanation behind all these things.

thanks !!

 

[Fazlu]

So if that was the reason why did we entered Kashmir in the first place. Even now there is a lot of anti-India sentiments among the Muslim Kashmiris. We should just captured captured Jammu and stopped our advance. Again why is India claiming the whole of J & K including the so called Azad Kashmir & GB and showing it on our map if according to you these people never liked to be part of India.

I knew you would latch on to that. Please take the time to read the remainder of my post.

To keep the discussion in track i removed that portion from my reply.

 

[harpoon]

I knew you would latch on to that. Please take the time to read the remainder of my post.

To keep the discussion in track i removed that portion from my reply.

I also edited my post:

Then again if he wanted ceasefire, India could have declared it unilaterally. Why invite UN in and resolution was passed favoring plebiscite .

 

[Fazlu]

which part of my .................... are facts. Now what I can expect from a Nehru proponent like you is a rational explanation behind all these things.

thanks !!

Back then, Nehru was the only person capable of uniting the nation. Everyone rallied behind this person. Hindu, Muslim, Christian, everyone. He was held in high regard both at home and abroad. Being a statesman, strongly opposed to communalism and a true leader there was no one more suited than Nehru to take this nation through its many trials. Had it been Patel or Prasad at the helm, Dr.Ambedkar would never have been able to frame some of the most important clauses in our present constitution.

Which is why we were able to consolidate our national integrity and to uphold an actual constitution.

 

[Fazlu]

I also edited my post:

Inviting the UN was something Nehru deeply regretted. It was suggested and promoted by Lord Mountbatten, the governor general. Pakistan, represented by Sir Zafrullah Khan was able to present a far better case than India.

A striking feature of the UN discussions was the partisanship of the british. The Bristish were deeply biased against the Indians. For them Pakistan would be a far more reliable ally due to its lack of assertive leadership ( barring Jinnah ) and its strategic location --against the soviet aggression.

I am a bit pressed for time now, i will contribute more on this later.

bye