First ever visit by a serving Saudi Arabian Land Forces chief to India

[GamoAccu]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1493517452050722817

https://twitter.com/x/status/1493503885042130947

https://twitter.com/x/status/1493529797259059206

Did the Saudi Arabian Land Forces Chief get a GRAND military parade from the Indian army?

 

[Paitoo]

For me the picture exposes two truths -

• That Hindu India has such a inferiorty complex borne out of 1,000 years of invasions from the northwest by Pakhtuns, Turks, Persians and now carry that burning burden of rape, conquest and destructon. The one military victory achieved by riding the Banglas in 1971 against a small force in siege and two thousand miles from home base is used to exorcise the beast of defeat in their hearts. You use this event 50 years like the greatest fight since the Spartans fought to glorious deaths. When the reality was what happened was a foregone conclusion. That image just shows the childishness and complex riden India.
• 
  
• I mean do Russians tout at every turn the defeat of the mighty Werhmacht when they took 5 million prisoners and destroyed Berlin? Or do Americans tout the destruction of the 10 million Imperial Japanese Army in WW2 with suurender signedd the living god - Emperor Hirohito?
• 
  
• The second point it exposes is the how punch drunk or addict the Pakistan population is with deadly coctail of religion and myth. How would Arabs take if the Pakistani COAS made a visit to Jerusalem and stood clasping hands of Israeli Chief of Staff with huge picture of defeated Arabs signing away West Bank or the An-Naqab [Negev]?

Well this is exactly the same analogy but Pakistani's because of the aforementioned addiction will ply all sort apologetic excuses.

*sigh*

I agree that the '71 victory is over-encashed by us and we should lay it to rest. There are plenty more photographs that can adorn the army chief's wall, which are more neutral for visiting dignitaries. I hope you will also agree that such symbolism is not unique to Indians, even if we are sampling only the sub-continent. Pakistan's naming of missiles on foreign invaders is seen by Indians as a similar exercise and these conquerors were not even sons of Indus.

Maybe we can cut some slack to the Saudi too. It is quite likely that he does not know what the photo depicts. Not everyone is that curious and in such visits you are basically being chaperoned from one ceremony to another, which can get tiresome and you just want to get over with all the photo clicking. The photo stands out for Indians and Pakistanis, it may not for a Saudi, no matter how well read.

BTW, I must say I love reading your posts. They are very sharp and well articulated.

 

[SaadH]

Only a small minded mental midgets with 1000 years worth of chip on their shoulders would glorify defeating a force 15 times smaller than they and cut off from it's home base by 1500 km with no supplies.

 

[lastofthepatriots]

BOCHRI KE MATTARCHOT! GANG RAPE KAR DALO IS SALAY KA!!!!

 

[SIPRA]

Did the Saudi Arabian Land Forces Chief get a GRAND military parade from the Indian army?

View attachment 815828

Yes, but without "R".

 

[SIPRA]

I hope you will also agree that such symbolism is not unique to Indians, even if we are sampling only the sub-continent. Pakistan's naming of missiles on foreign invaders is seen by Indians as a similar exercise and these conquerors were not even sons of Indus.

Sir Jee: How do you define so-called "invader"?

 

[Paitoo]

Sir Jee: How do you define so-called "invader"?

Sipra sahab, for me the definition of invader is very simple - A person or group of persons who forcibly take your land / wealth and to whom the laws of your land fail to apply. Perhaps you meant to ask who I consider a 'foreigner'?

 

[SIPRA]

Siprah sahab, for me the definition of invader is very simple - A person or group of persons who forcibly take your land / wealth and to whom the laws of your land fail to apply. Perhaps you meant to ask who I consider a 'foreigner'?

Then, according to your definition, almost all of the medieval rulers, belonging to any religion, region, area, or ethnicity, in this Subcontinent, were "invaders"; but you, in your original post, according to my understanding, only particularly referred to Muslim rulers.

As for "son of soil", again this attribute is very relative and vague; and no successful medieval ruler, who ruled over large tracts of land, qualifies this attribute.

 

[Novus ordu seclorum]

Siprah sahab, for me the definition of invader is very simple - A person or group of persons who forcibly take your land / wealth and to whom the laws of your land fail to apply. Perhaps you meant to ask who I consider a 'foreigner'?

Invasion is when you feel you have been invaded. When there are local soldiers involved and enough grassroots support it feels like politics. The only time that my ancestry felt invaded was when the British took over. Some of my ancestors declared it is slavery and refused to learn English.

 

[Paitoo]

Then, according to your definition, almost all of the medieval rulers, belonging to any religion, region, area, or ethnicity, in this Subcontinent, were "invaders"; but you, in your original post, according to my understanding, only particularly referred to Muslim rulers.

As for "son of soil", again this attribute is very relative and vague; and no successful medieval ruler, who ruled over large tracts of land, qualifies this attribute.

Yes, invaders could be of any religion. In my original post, the scope gets restricted to Muslim invaders because I was specifically talking about naming of missiles. Son of the soil claim is as contentious as it can get, but there has been an unmistakable pattern in naming missiles in Pakistan (at least in the past) and its origins lie in symbolism - What they mean for Pakistan and also what they mean for Indians. I am sure Pakistan has heroes more proximal in history and culture after whom weapons could be named, but it chooses to go back to a particular set of people.

 

[Riz]

Place this pic on the walls of foreign office and GHQ

 

[SIPRA]

Yes, invaders could be of any religion. In my original post, the scope gets restricted to Muslim invaders because I was specifically talking about naming of missiles. Son of the soil claim is as contentious as it can get, but there has been an unmistakable pattern in naming missiles in Pakistan (at least in the past) and its origins lie in symbolism - What they mean for Pakistan and also what they mean for Indians. I am sure Pakistan has heroes more proximal in history and culture after whom weapons could be named, but it chooses to go back to a particular set of people.

1) As I expressed, that all the ancient and medieval rulers, who conquered/ruled over large areas, were fundamentally invaders, for a large part of the populace, under their rule. But, unfortunately, this term of "invaders" is only used for Muslim rulers, by elite Hindus; which, in my opinion, is highly prejudiced view. This essentially induces an inescapable religious connotation to this term.

2) A person has obviously multiple associations: nation, ancestry, land, ethnicity/language, religion etc. etc.; but the precedence of these different associations is somewhat subjective, and varies from person to person, sometimes consciously, and sometimes, even, subconsciously. For example, for a person, or a group thereof, if religion is first in precedence, then his/their psychological associations would also be guided and shaped by that. This is natural.

3) According to Pakistan's perception, India is not a secular country, but is under Hindu Raj, since 1947, as it was conceived to be and should be, under the socio-political conditions of this region. That is the foundational basis of Pakistan, as well. Consequently, use of names of Muslim conquerors and rulers, particularly, of this region, for defense equipment, is reactive, in nature.

Having said, all what I have said, I must express, that I fundamentally have no objection on India's use of the image of General Niazi's surrender, wherever they like. That is what enmity entails.

 

[Novus ordu seclorum]

But, unfortunately, this term of "invaders" is only used for Muslim rulers, by elite Hindus

Maratha invasions are called invasions. They massacred lots of Hindus which I think is ideologically suppressed in the popular Hindu psyche.

 

[Goritoes]

Ok so lets examine the situation, I notice few Irani ops I mean Pakistani's are very aggressively attacking KSA and mocking others for this one Picture in which KSA General is standing/Shaking hands with Indian General, First of All the its the office of Indian COAS, and I doubt this Picture was put in there just for KSA General visit, it must've been there for sometime, second the spot for hand shake must've been picked by Indians not the KSA as he the guest there. Last, what I wrong with the Picture? Pakistan lost and surrendered in 1971, you know you can remove this one particular picture from existence but what will you do about the whole country known to world today as Bangladesh ? So every time a KSA or Middle Eastern Leader or Military General visits BD we should be all crazy that they are visiting the same country which was once East Pakistan?

Victory and defeat was/is/always will be from Allah, in 1971 our enemy was strong and was supported by a Super power, and India brags about this Victory as it was theirs but In reality BD Mukhti Bahini Terrorists were the ones who were making the numbers and weakened the Army and its fighting capability, It was an impossible War to win because the native people aka BDian were against us that time, if they decided to stay with Pakistan, then despite Indian intervention East Pakistan would not have been lost. Last but not the least, Pakistan has enough humiliating Pictures of Indian Army surrendered soldiers, and so does Chinese from their recent clashes, but thing is that neither Pakistan nor China are petty and pathetic nations to used certain cheap shots in the presence of Foreign dignitaries, only a stinky pathetic Indian can pull it through and think he did something very great. As IK said, Indians are Choty log means small people, he was on point there.

 

[SIPRA]

Maratha invasions are called invasions. They massacred lots of Hindus which I think is ideologically suppressed in the popular Hindu psyche.

May be, you are right. I have read hundreds of articles, by Hindus and viewed hundreds of programs on different Indian channels; it is always the Muslim rulers, who are called "invaders". Never heard Chandragupta Maurya, Ashoka, Raja Jayapala, Prithviraj Chauhan, or Maharaja Ranjit Singh, being called an "invader".