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

[shayyman]

I am sure he is familiar with that world famous image. it was probably explained in some detail by the Indians

View attachment 815611

No one beats this handsome.

 

[Indus Pakistan]

Its pure surprise for me that the same military which resisted Indian army attempts take Kashmir for nearly 1 year in 1948 gave up on half its nation in less than 2 weeks

Kashmir was about 100 miles athwart GHQ Rawalpindi and epicente of the Pak state. Bangla was alien place 2,500 miles from the 'home base'. Isolated, besieged by a hostile population the small force had no where to go. When India attacked it was game over.

Please refer to a map and that should make everything explicable.

 

[TheSolution]

I am not

Its pure surprise for me that the same military which resisted Indian army attempts take Kashmir for nearly 1 year in 1948 gave up on half its nation in less than 2 weeks

I always believed a military dictatorship would grant victory in war over a civilian leadership
1971 proved the belief wrong

It was impossible and unsustainable especially since the Bengalis themselves wanted Bangladesh and it was locked off from the mainland

Maybe your belief would have been correct if those two things weren't present

 

[Turingsage]

Did you include $64 billion worth of remittances you get each year from these Arabs into your calculations?

They work for that money providing VITAL needs of the Gulf.
We buy in just oil and gas £120 billion.
We are a necessary and vital customer of the Gulf energy producers and both parties understand the importance of this relationship.
Relations with the Gulf are moving into other areas of interest including STEM and Defence.
Joint exercises with Oman and UAE are already taking place, joint defence exercises with the Saudi's is just around the corner.

 

[Indus Pakistan]

Bangla was alien place 2,500 miles from the 'home base'.

I stand corrected. The distance was about 3,500 miles plus/minus.

Please see annotated map below. Karachi to Chitagong ports.

For referance this is same distance between Istanbul, Turkey and Portsmouth, UK.

 

[Flash_Ninja]

When you lose the majority of your country ( in population terms ) and offer unconditional surrender on a territory of 148,460 square kilometres, nearly half of what was Pakistan.
The largest loss of territory since WW2 with accusations of genocide and mass rapes. The birth of another nation.

The facts speak for themselves , you do not need India to rub it in.

Yes, from an Indian perspective - this was a big win. It is disingenuous to say that Indians in general are 'over playing' this military victory.

But I can empathize with Pakistanis not having an appreciation for threads of this nature in a message board that is primarily made for their people. In deference to their sentiment, perhaps Indian posters should think twice before making such threads.

Really?

- Long before India invaded East Pakistan with three times the number of troops, there was a full blown insurgency already bogging down the Pak Army.

- Ignoring that, there was no way to organise a defence or resupply as the entire territory was 2000+ km away from its homeland and completely surrounded. They still fought all the way to Dhaka and inflicted heavy losses on Indian troops.

- Then there's the fact that Pakistan was also under sanctions by the US, its alleged ally.

Does that sound like a big win to you?

If India succeeded in invading West Pakistan and forced a surrender in Islamabad, Karachi, or even Lahore. Then even I would agree, but the fact that India views the fall of East Pakistan as their greatest military victory says a lot about how little they've actually ever achieved against Pakistan.

 

[PakFactor]

They did not seem that far off when you ran East Pakistan from Islamabad.
They did not seem that far when you insisted on Urdu as the national language of East Pakistan at the expense of Bengali.
They did not seem that far when you ran East Pakistan as a captive colony with its resources diverted to West Pakistan.
They did not seem that far when you consider that the genesis of Pakistan itself owed so much to the intellectuals of East Pakistan.

Are you feining stupidity or actually stupid? With 2,500 miles in between ruling a country and actually supplying the warring forces with a manure reaking country in the middle are two different things.

 

[Indus Pakistan]

They did not seem that far off when you ran East Pakistan from Islamabad.
They did not seem that far when you insisted on Urdu as the national language of East Pakistan at the expense of Bengali.
They did not seem that far when you ran East Pakistan as a captive colony with its resources diverted to West Pakistan.
They did not seem that far when you consider that the genesis of Pakistan itself owed so much to the intellectuals of East Pakistan.

I guess Anglo influence got to them. They thought if London could rule billion plus continent and galaxy of nations from 7,000 miles they could easily do it from 3,500. Alas!

On a serious note power and punch drunk on Islam got them. The idea that Islam can bind various peoples who are geographically on other side of the pole was as preposterous as thinking that brown hair can be used to bind all brown eyed peoples. Ridicalous to the core and 1971 busted the Two Nation Theory. It also busted the One Nation Theory as well since Bangla has remained a sovereign state and not joined the remanant of the British Raj. I guess we need Angrez Sahib back to have united sub-continent or failing that some wild Turks from Altaic mountains.

 

[Gangetic]

I stand corrected. The distance was about 3,500 miles plus/minus.

Please see annotated map below. Karachi to Chitagong ports.

View attachment 816087

For referance this is same distance between Istanbul, Turkey and Portsmouth, UK.

View attachment 816097

Bangladesh was just impossible to defend. The simple answer is geography. India surrounds Bangladesh on 3 sides and it's all flat plains, basically a nightmare to defend, and to add to that, they had a 10:1 manpower advantage in the East and complete air, naval and logistics dominance.

 

[Adonis]

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.

1. Invaders used for Muslim rulers......besides Alexander, how many non-Muslim rulers invaded India?.... From Md. bin Qasim, Ghori, Gazni, Turks, Iranians (Nadir Shah), Abdali...who was not Muslim?...to me invaders are one who come for loot and goes back...
I treat Mughals, Portuguese, Dutch, Brits as colonisers than invaders.

 

[Adonis]

Are you feining stupidity or actually stupid? With 2,500 miles in between ruling a country and actually supplying the warring forces with a manure reaking country in the middle are two different things.

Did you not know this when East Pakistan was formed?...the distance between East and West was right there from the independence.....it was your Generals who had to ensure the security of their land.....lame excuse.

 

[PakFactor]

Did you not know this when East Pakistan was formed?...the distance between East and West was right there from the independence.....it was your Generals who had to ensure the security of their land.....lame excuse.

Facing a naval, air and land blockade how would you expect this to happen once resources are depleted? Let's do not forget had it not been a Civil War you wouldn't have done anything as '48 & '65 as history has shown.

 

[TigerOfMysore]

These photos were taken in the past of the office of Indian army chief.
As you can see this WAS NOT DONE FOR THIS OCCASION but it is the way his office has ALWAYS BEEN.

View attachment 815935

https://defence.pk/pdf/attachments/1645022125559-png.815935/

When I see this picture above I see one brave Man in the middle of jackals, hyenas and mangy dogs.
Long live Pakistan. And the return on this act of treachery by India will be given multi-fold. Thank you for keeping this flame burning in our hearts.

 

[Rank]

This gesture actually proved the statement of Parveen Sohney and many others "Indian Army became a political-military wing of BJP and behaving like a proxy instead of a state institute or state armed force"

 

[Dalit]

Notice how some Arab GCC clowns are trying to put a brave face. The fact that a Saudi military chief is even visiting Modi's India is questionable. Let alone the questionable photo op.