Army Celebrates Indipendence day - 7 terrorists killed

[proud_indian]

How could India have only 30,000 troops there? That's a smaller number than Pakistan has in Kashmir.

same way as you claim 20 Indian consulates in afghanistan

 

[Hamza913]

same way as you claim 20 Indian consulates in afghanistan

I never said that.

 

[proud_indian]

I never said that.

not you particularly but a similar pakistani claim I have heard hundreds of time

 

[Hamza913]

not you particularly but a similar pakistani claim I have heard hundreds of time

India does have several consulates in Afghanistan.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afg...#Indian_embassy_and_consulates_in_Afghanistan

 

[proud_indian]

India does have several consulates in Afghanistan.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afg...#Indian_embassy_and_consulates_in_Afghanistan

yes there are

Indian embassy and consulates in Afghanistan[edit]
Both India and Pakistan operate embassy at Kabul and consulates at Herat, Kandahar, Jalalabad and Mazar-e-Sharif.

but not 20+ that pakistanis claim

Afghan ambassador debunked the claim on their faces and they had no replies

 

[Hamza913]

yes there are

Indian embassy and consulates in Afghanistan[edit]
Both India and Pakistan operate embassy at Kabul and consulates at Herat, Kandahar, Jalalabad and Mazar-e-Sharif.

but not 20+ that pakistanis claim

It's just the media being silly, both India and Pakistan do it. For example, when India claimed the Pathankot militants came from Pakistan.

 

[proud_indian]

It's just the media being silly, both India and Pakistan do it. For example, when India claimed the Pathankot militants came from Pakistan.

it's not just media but a lot of politicians and fellow forumers as well

 

[Joe Shearer]

The same Wikipedia article you quoted, note 3.

How could India have only 30,000 troops there? That's a smaller number than Pakistan has in Kashmir.

Because they are the only ones in the Vale, and are strictly on the border.
Because there are another 30,000 in Ladakh.
Because there are another 45,000 in Jammu.
Because there are 50,000 in the RR, specifically doing counter-insurgency duty, in four command headquarters throughout J&K.

There are 105,000 soldiers doing military work, of whom 15,000 are not even within the borders of Kashmir, and there are another 50,000 soldiers doing counter-insurgency work specifically.

We have to put additional troops in Punjab, and in Rajasthan; and we have our mountain divisions, apart from the ones in Ladakh, dedicated to the China frontier, and from the 'central' section, which on our side is Himachal and Uttarakhand, from the 'eastern' section, from Sikkim to Arunachal. There are additional troops on training and in their cantonments throughout India. There is a very large cantonment walking distance from where I am keying this in, in Secunderabad; by very large, I mean several hundred square kilometres.

 

[proud_indian]

Jehad is the main figure of Islam as the dance and raping with the sister mother or daughter is the main figure of Hinduism.

Then why do not you take the initiative of jihad as well and cross the LOC?

 

[Joe Shearer]

same way as you claim 20 Indian consulates in afghanistan

Please, give the facts.

Your answer makes it sound as if we are bluffing, a counter to their tall tales about 'consulates' in Afghanistan.

 

[Hamza913]

it's not just media but a lot of politicians and fellow forumers as well

People on the forums say silly things too, and as for politicians it's their job to make the enemy look bad in any way possible, jut like when India jumps the gun on Pakistan whenever a terrorist/militant attack happens.

 

[RISING SUN]

I'm not saying you have a special knife to stick with me, I am aware you are quite rude to other members as well, and your reason for being so is quite silly. You disagree with them so you just insult them? That just shows immaturity on your part, even if the people you are talking to act foolish. Honestly your not going to make anyone believe you or listen to with that mentality, your just going to have everyone ignore you.

As for my mistakes, I haven't made any. You cannot shift my stance and the fact is there is a few hundred thousand Indian soldiers in Kashmir bare minimum, every single source you can find will tell you the same. If you can find me a better one saying India has a much smaller number like you claim, go ahead and be my guest.



India would have if they could, but Baluchistan isn't on the border so that task would have proved to be difficult if not impossible.

If you don't think India would have any issues logically if the government and local population were supportive, I'm sorry but your wrong. If Baluchistan was on the border, and there was an opportunity to take it, it would be done. For example, you can clearly see Indian aggression in 1971, just 6 years after the previous war.[/QUOTE]
East Pakistan was far away from your other borders but we didn't interfere till it started affecting us negatively. Same way even if Kalat & Baluchistan were separate from Pakistani mainland we would had taken action only once Pakistan would had pricked Indian state. And yes Bangladesh is perfect example that we don't interfere till someone interferes in our internal affairs negatively. So obviously we didn't go to Baluchistan or Kalat though we had received the request for the same.

 

[Hamza913]

Because they are the only ones in the Vale, and are strictly on the border.
Because there are another 30,000 in Ladakh.
Because there are another 45,000 in Jammu.
Because there are 50,000 in the RR, specifically doing counter-insurgency duty, in four command headquarters throughout J&K.

There are 105,000 soldiers doing military work, of whom 15,000 are not even within the borders of Kashmir, and there are another 50,000 soldiers doing counter-insurgency work specifically.

We have to put additional troops in Punjab, and in Rajasthan; and we have our mountain divisions, apart from the ones in Ladakh, dedicated to the China frontier, and from the 'central' section, which on our side is Himachal and Uttarakhand, from the 'eastern' section, from Sikkim to Arunachal. There are additional troops on training and in their cantonments throughout India. There is a very large cantonment walking distance from where I am keying this in, in Secunderabad; by very large, I mean several hundred square kilometres.

Alright, I'm willing to believe that.

 

[proud_indian]

Please, give the facts.

Your answer makes it sound as if we are bluffing, a counter to their tall tales about 'consulates' in Afghanistan.

I already have in the video I posted above

In that video Afghanistan's ambassador to pakistan debunked their tall claims and left them red faced

 

[Hamza913]

]
East Pakistan was far away from your other borders but we didn't interfere till it started affecting us negatively. Same way even if Kalat & Baluchistan were separate from Pakistani mainland we would had taken action only once Pakistan would had pricked Indian state. And yes Bangladesh is perfect example that we don't interfere till someone interferes in our internal affairs negatively. So obviously we didn't go to Baluchistan or Kalat though we had received the request for the same.

India didn't interfere in East Pakistan until the Pakistani army started to struggle. Pakistan did not do anything to India, and don't bring up that pre-emptive strike because it was, as it says, pre-emptive.

As for Baluchistan, India funds trouble there so what was that about not interfering?