An interesting incident from Indo-Pak war 1965

[PAKISTANFOREVER]

Evidence of what? That there was 1965 war, or India attacked Punjab or Bhutto trying to play victim at UN?

You could start by proving indian claims of having killed 300 terrorists in Balakot and shooting down an F-16..........

 

[Hamza913]

Since 1947 India has gained a lot of territories, through all means. And never losing any land to secession.

You lost over 1/3 of Kashmir in the first war with Pakistan, another portion of it during the Sino-Indo War in 1962, you lost parts of Gujarat during the Ran of Kutch dispute, you lost Chamb sector in 1971, and multiple peaks in Kargil in 1999.

In comparison, you've only managed to take back some parts of Kashmir and Goa that Pakistan and Portugal initially took. If that's not an L, I don't know what is.

 

[Chhatrapati]

You've literally been looted and pillaged since the beginning of time.

That's probably you. Being subjected to constant invasion, subjugated by any and every ruler who came from East or West or from North. A weak link in the subcontinent.

Also, like I have always said. My people in South was never invaded successfully by land outside from subcontinent until the British who came through Sea.

You could start by proving indian claims of having killed 300 terrorists in Balakot and shooting down an F-16..........

LOL! I guess shifting from topic is the best bet right now.

 

[PAKISTANFOREVER]

That's probably you. Being subjected to constant invasion, subjugated by any and every ruler who came from East or West or from North. A weak link in the subcontinent.

Also, like I have always said. My people in South was never invaded successfully by land outside from subcontinent until the British who came through Sea.


LOL! I guess shifting from topic is the best bet right now.

It would help if you back up all your outlandish claims with evidence. So when did Pakistan lose 1000 km to india as per your claims? Please provide GENUINE, RELIABLE & IRREFUTABLE evidence.

 

[Chhatrapati]

You lost over 1/3 of Kashmir in the first war with Pakistan, another portion of it during the Sino-Indo War in 1962, you lost parts of Gujarat during the Ran of Kutch dispute, you lost Chamb sector in 1971, and multiple peaks in Kargil in 1999.

In comparison, you've only managed to take back some parts of Kashmir and Goa that Pakistan and Portugal initially took. If that's not an L, I don't know what is.

No, we didn't take part in the war in 1947 until Harisingh signed accession with India. After IA came, you didn't gain any territory. In Kargil you conquered no mans land (which used to be your own post) which sits next to two higher peaks manned by IA. You're sitting duck in case of war. You reached Leh in 1947 that's not some parts look where Leh is in the map and draw straight line from two border points. That used to be where Pakistan tribals was when the state was given to India.

We take over Hyderabad, Puduchery of French Goa from the Portuguese. And all princely state that didn't join during partition. And finally Sikkim in 1975.

 

[Hamza913]

That's probably you.

No, we are quite literally related to those very people who looted and pillaged you. The early Vedic people who spread Hinduism via warfare/migration started in the Indus, the Scythians, Kushans, and Huns were all Eastern Iranics (just like the Pashtuns), Menander was from Sialkot, Timur, Babur and Humayun were Persianised Turco-Mongols (just like the Hazaras), Akbar was from Umerkot, the Ghurids, Suris, Lodis and Durranis were all Pashtuns, Mir Chakar Rind was Balochi, Jasrath Khokhar and Shahbaz Kamboh were Punjabi, Tipu Sultan's family was originally from the Punjab, Ali Sher Rai Anchan was from Gilgit Baltistan, we have a large population of Ashrafs descended from the Islamic invaders and many people from what is now Pakistan also fought in their armies as ghazis.

All of these groups/peoples went to what is now the Republic of India, burnt its cities and washed its streets in blood. Learn to live with it.

 

[Chhatrapati]

It would help if you back up all your outlandish claims with evidence. So when did Pakistan lose 1000 km to india as per your claims? Please provide GENUINE, RELIABLE & IRREFUTABLE evidence.

Which one according to you is irrefutable evidence?

Pakistan officially claims it lost zero territory.

 

[Hamza913]

No, we didn't take part in the war in 1947 until Harisingh signed accession with India. After IA came, you didn't gain any territory.

The PA came after the IA did, prior to that it was just tribesmen who came to help the local people rebel. And it's very clear that the ruler of the state wanted to go to India, hence why he tried to cleanse his state of Muslims in the first place (so he could cause a demographic shift).

In Kargil you conquered no mans land (which used to be your own post) which sits next to two higher peaks manned by IA.

Oh please, we took multiple peaks and they were not "ours", that's just propaganda fed to you by your army to help make you feel better. And their strategic value cannot be understated.

https://m.rediff.com/news/2000/aug/30josy.htm

We take over Hyderabad, Puduchery of French Goa from the Portuguese. And all princely state that didn't join during partition. And finally Sikkim in 1975.

Lmao as if they weren't yours to begin with.

It used to be to our east and our west. Now it is to our West.

I didn't know Bangladesh joined India.

Pakistan came to take over Kashmir.

No, India started the war by breaching the International Border, and the invasion was halted in little over 2 weeks. Pakistan's activities prior to this were covert operations in disputed territory, they do not count as an official declaration of war, no matter how much you may wish otherwise.

Another attempt to take over Kashmir, squashed.

No, it was an attempt to take over Kargil, and it went very well. We took multiple peaks with massive strategic value. Again, we won.

https://m.rediff.com/news/2000/aug/30josy.htm

 

[Chhatrapati]

No, we are quite literally related to those very people who looted and pillaged you. The early Vedic people who spread Hinduism via warfare/migration started in the Indus, the Scythians, Kushans, and Huns were all Eastern Iranics (just like the Pashtuns), Menander was from Sialkot, Timur, Babur and Humayun were Persianised Turco-Mongols (just like the Hazaras), Akbar was from Umerkot, the Ghurids, Suris, Lodis and Durranis were all Pashtuns, Mir Chakar Rind was Balochi, Jasrath Khokhar and Shahbaz Kamboh were Punjabi, Tipu Sultan's family was originally from the Punjab, Ali Sher Rai Anchan was from Gilgit Baltistan, we have a large population of Ashrafs descended from the Islamic invaders and many people from what is now Pakistan also fought in their armies as ghazis.

All of these groups/peoples went to what is now the Republic of India, burnt its cities and washed its streets in blood. Learn to live with it.

It doesn't work that way dear. If I was subjugated by some invaders I don't claim I am the invader at a later date. Say, if I was invaded by Mughal, I will not claim I'm a Mughal because my ancestor converted or enslaved by them.

Also, like I have always said Pakistan was the weak link in the subcontinent. It fell at the moment of an outside invasion and given it was mostly desert land and poor, not many Kingdoms from the east tried to conquer them. All those invaders from the west and Central Asia were aiming for todays India. You just happen to be in the middle of it.

Like the @PAKISTANFOREVER guy banks on Irrefutable evidence, I'm gonna need that over Vedic Hinduism starting and spreading through warfare. If not it didn't happen. Besides this is outside scope of our discussion of topic, quote me else where for the topic.

 

[Rusty]

It doesn't work that way dear. If I was subjugated by some invaders I don't claim I am the invader at a later date. Say, if I was invaded by Mughal, I will not claim I'm a Mughal because my ancestor converted or enslaved by them.

Also, like I have always said Pakistan was the weak link in the subcontinent. It fell at the moment of an outside invasion and given it was mostly desert land and poor, not many Kingdoms from the east tried to conquer them. All those invaders from the west and Central Asia were aiming for todays India. You just happen to be in the middle of it.

Like the @PAKISTANFOREVER guy banks on Irrefutable evidence, I'm gonna need that over Vedic Hinduism starting and spreading through warfare. If not it didn't happen. Besides this is outside scope of our discussion of topic, quote me else where for the topic.

HAHAHA

You went full retard.

Pakistan and Indian Punjab to this day are some it the richest province in both countries.

You people are dumb, but please don't make me spit out my tea in laughter of your stupidity.

 

[Cobra Arbok]

Genuine, irrefutable and honest evidence for your claims please.





Take that up with the Americans who claim as such:

https://www.mcsweeneys.net/articles/9-11






Where is the genuine, irrefutable and reliable evidence for your claims?

Quoted from UCLA Indologist and historian Stanley Wopert:
"In three weeks the second Indo-Pak War ended in what appeared to be a draw when the embargo placed by Washington on U.S. ammunition and replacements for both armies forced cessation of conflict before either side won a clear victory. India, however, was in a position to inflict grave damage to, if not capture, Pakistan's capital of the Punjab when the cease-fire was called, and controlled Kashmir's strategic Uri-Poonch bulge, much to Ayub's chagrin. "
Excerpt from his work India
http://publishedstories.info/a-new-history-of-india-find-book-groups-stanley-a-wolpert.pdf

Assessment by the US Library of Congress Country Studies:
"The war was militarily inconclusive; each side held prisoners and some territory belonging to the other. Losses were relatively heavy—on the Pakistani side, twenty aircraft, 200 tanks, and 3,800 troops. Pakistan's army had been able to withstand Indian pressure, but a continuation of the fighting would only have led to further losses and ultimate defeat for Pakistan. Most Pakistanis, schooled in the belief of their own martial prowess, refused to accept the possibility of their country's military defeat by "Hindu India" and were, instead, quick to blame their failure to attain their military aims on what they considered to be the ineptitude of Ayub Khan and his government"

From A Region in Turmoil: South Asian Conflicts Since 1947 by Robert Johnson:
India's strategic aims were modest – it aimed to deny Pakistani Army victory, although it ended up in possession of 720 square miles (1,900 km2) of Pakistani territory for the loss of just 220 square miles (570 km2) of its own.

These are just a few. There are plenty more neutral assessments of the war, none of which support Pakistan. The question is can you provide even a single source to support your claims? But then again I am probably wasting your time since you do not want to see anything that goes against your preconceived notions @Nilgiri @Joe Shearer

 

[Hamza913]

It doesn't work that way dear. If I was subjugated by some invaders I don't claim I am the invader at a later date.

You're actually retarded, we are related to all the people/groups I listed, and many of them came from what is now Pakistan too. The fact that you're still barking this autism shows you're either really dumb or just ignored everything I said because it's too much for you to bear.

it was mostly desert land and poor

LOL! Indus Valley Civilisation, the first civilisation in the region (and one of the first in the world) came from what is now Pakistan, the Vedic civilisation that gave you Hinduism started in what is now Pakistan, and the Sikh Empire came from what is now Pakistan. the Rai dynasty, Paratarajas, Ror dynasty and Samma dynasty also all came from what is now Pakistan and felt no need to touch the filth of the Ganges. Heck, even your laad la Chandragupta Maurya came to study in what is now Pakistan (as did his teacher Kautilya) since your watan apparently wasn't good enough for him. Lahore, Peshawar, Taxila and Sialkot have also all acted as major cities for numerous empires in the region, and at the end of the day, your country is named after our river, not the other way around.

 

[Cobra Arbok]

The fact is, India captured 2/3ds of Kashmir, occupied Lahore during 65, cut Pakistan in two parts, captured strategic parts of Baltistan(Turtuk), Captured Siachen, and captured Pakistani peaks in 99. Pakistanis don't want to admit this, but they have crushed and defeated by India more times than can be counted. Even historically Indian empires like the Marathas, Vijayanagar, the Ahoms, various Rajput states, etc. have defeated and crushed Muslim invadors who subjugated what is now Pakistan. Pakistanis have literally been enslaved and humiliated for a thousand years and they want to project their insecurities and humiliations on us, the historical victors.

HAHAHA

You went full retard.

Pakistan and Indian Punjab to this day are some it the richest province in both countries.

You people are dumb, but please don't make me spit out my tea in laughter of your stupidity.

Punjab is not the wealthiest state in India. By GDP Maharahshtra and Gujarat are wealthier, by development Kerala and Goa rank higher

Also the fact some Pakistanis are trying to claim figures like Tipu Sultan and Chandragupta Maurya a=who were all born in and had their roots in India shows just how insecure they are.

 

[Chhatrapati]

The PA came after the IA did, prior to that it was just tribesmen who came to help the local people rebel. And it's very clear that the ruler of the state wanted to go to India, hence why he tried to cleanse his state of Muslims in the first place (so he could cause a demographic shift).

haha you always have this double game. Nobody is gonna buy that. PA regulars came in dressed as Tribals in 1947, these officers were on leave as per records. You think, you got GB and AJK after IA came? The ruler wanted to stay independent and make maximum out of the negotiations between India and Pakistan and stay there as a King by being on good books of Muslim dominated Pakistan and Hindu dominated India. He never had the intention to join India until you attacked.

Oh please, we took multiple peaks and they were not "ours", that's just propaganda fed to you by your army to help make you feel better. And their strategic value cannot be understated.

https://m.rediff.com/news/2000/aug/30josy.htm

Not denying the strategic value of it, rather pointing out that, the point 5353 comes directly under artillery range of point 5240 and 5070. And we hold the Tiger hill.

No, India started the war by breaching the International Border, and the invasion was halted in little over 2 weeks. Pakistan's activities prior to this were covert operations in disputed territory, they do not count as an official declaration of war, no matter how much you may wish otherwise.

The war started with Pakistan trying to infiltrate into Kashmir forcibly trying to change the status quo and it is not disputed according to us. So any action by Pakistan in that region will result in full blown war. I guess that's made clear since then. Official declaration of war starts with your forces attacking our troops and moves into forward position.

If we have a dispute with say US, over the Islands down south, we don't start by invading them which results in a war. Simple logic.

 

[Cobra Arbok]

Which one according to you is irrefutable evidence?

Pakistan officially claims it lost zero territory.

Since independence, Pakistan has lost 2/3ds of Kashmir, the Rann of Kutch(Sir Creek) East Pakistan, turtuk, Siachen, and several Kargil Peaks. If that is a victory, who needs defeat.