What's new

Ghaggar-Hakra believed to be mythical Rig Veda Sarasvati river proven false

Belongs and occupied are two different things.

Kashmir never belonged to India

So you are admitting that you and your forces are incapable to take it back?? :lol:

You should change you history book that filled with lie about 65 war. As you are journalist you should raise voice against this false claim :lol:
 
.
So you are admitting that you and your forces are incapable to take it back?? :lol:

You should change you history book that filled with lie about 65 war. As you are journalist you should raise voice against this false claim :lol:

Technically the phrase "take back" means Kashmir was ours which is occupied by India :)))))))))))))))))) So if you are accepting it ours occupied by you then well wait we may take it back one day.

As far as the 65 war well we did pretty well despite the fact that we dint have much resources neither weapons as compared to India.

Wars are never won by anyone these only damage all sides .
 
.
J&K still belongs to India .... what else you need for prove??

Your lawmakers make you fool.... Truth is that you got humiliation in that war like always.

If you won then how J&K still belongs us?? You should ask this question to those idiots who claim victory in 65 :rofl::rofl::rofl:

Yes it is with india and so is Pakistan Lahore, Punjab and other areas came under attack by indians is a prove from our side too.

But the point of argument is that we nvr carried out an attack like op. giberaltor.
 
.
Technically the phrase "take back" means Kashmir was ours which is occupied by India :)))))))))))))))))) So if you are accepting it ours occupied by you then well wait we may take it back one day.

As far as the 65 war well we did pretty well despite the fact that we dint have much resources neither weapons as compared to India.

Wars are never won by anyone these only damage all sides .

:lol::lol: So you need technical words to hide you shame and humiliation.

When you start any war you got only humiliation but we got Siachen and BD (independent from your occupation)

There was motive of PA to capture J&K but they failed like always :lol::lol:
 
.
You wont do squat,you start any damn movement you want,nobody ll endorse it.

You ll always be a pawn to be sacrificed,something to be used by the powers as and when they want it.

Fact,deal with it.



No,people dont trust you,your intelligentsia ahs no credibility.

Youc an answer questions about Pakistan from 1947,thats it.



Sher Shah Suri is seen as a great king,Mughals are only hyped in history books.

And Suri is also a Hindu surname.



I am not claiming Taj Mahal/Char Minar,Lal Qila,Jama Masjid,Qutb Minar and whatever.

I ll be veyr happy if they demolish them all.

We can make more sophisticated temples,1000 times better.

people who know us trust us more then enough. By putting one sided information in internet doesnt mean u won the day.
 
.
:lol::lol: So you need technical words to hide you shame and humiliation.

When you start any war you got only humiliation but we got Siachen and BD (independent from your occupation)

There was motive of PA to capture J&K but they failed like always :lol::lol:

What humiliation ? Siachin was occupied by you ssisies when we were away. BD was you Indian state terrorism.

While Azad Kashmir still mocks you.

rest as far as wars and defeats are concerned 62 rings a bell for you Indians
 
.
What humiliation ? Siachin was occupied by you ssisies when we were away. BD was you Indian state terrorism.

What a shame for your forces if they cant take siachin back from ssisies :lol: :lol:

You tried same in Kargil but again another humiliation as not able to hold that place and your forces ran back.

While Azad Kashmir still mocks you.

Tell me when we start war for Azad kashmir??

rest as far as wars and defeats are concerned 62 rings a bell for you Indians

:lol: Still they didn't help you in any war.

So you are basically happy that China won war with us even with that fact that you got humiliation every time?
 
. .
They were the consented legal marriage, to tera kya jaata hai.

I forgot, Pakistanis are the descendants of hummus eating Arabs who defeated the curry eating Indians. :lol:

Haha

When Indians were giving daughters to negotiate, Dulla Bhatti was fighting Akbar armies. Old technique right from when they gave Aryans their daughters and now claim their heritage. Now he is known as Akbat the great, shamefull lol:cheesy:
 
.
Haha
When Indians were giving daughters to negotiate, Dulla Bhatti was fighting Akbar armies. Old technique right from when they gave Aryans their daughters and now claim their heritage. Now he is known as Akbat the great, shamefull lol:cheesy:

I was under the impression that Pakistanis think themselves as successor of Mughal Empire. :lol::lol::lol: If Dulla Bhatti had been Hindu, he was too been demonized like Raja Dahir as evil yindoo. :cheesy:
 
.
Haha

When Indians were giving daughters to negotiate, Dulla Bhatti was fighting Akbar armies. Old technique right from when they gave Aryans their daughters and now claim their heritage. Now he is known as Akbat the great, shamefull lol:cheesy:

Seriously? One Dulla Bhatti(epic name btw:rofl:)? What was the rest of the Pakistan doing may I ask? We have dozens of examples from India, local kings and chieftains who fought against the Mughals. Heard of Maharana Pratap?
 
. . .
Seriously? One Dulla Bhatti(epic name btw:rofl:)? What was the rest of the Pakistan doing may I ask? We have dozens of examples from India, local kings and chieftains who fought against the Mughals. Heard of Maharana Pratap?

Dullah Bhatti was not alone. Anyway what was "One India" doing? Some were fighting and some were giving daughters to invaders. Dullah Bhatti and his men fought despite being muslims against muslim armies.
 
.
Dullah Bhatti was not alone. Anyway what was "One India" doing? Some were fighting and some were giving daughters to invaders. Dullah Bhatti and his men fought despite being muslims against muslim armies.

Whats has being Muslim got to do with anything, Mughals were foreign invaders. They way Pakistani Muslims have been welcoming invaders is shameful to say the least.

Are Punjabi Muslims martial? Do they have a history of war and conquest or at least of resistance to conquest? I ask because there’s no evidence of their martial character in our history. No general, no subedar, no thanedar, no wazir, no bakhshi of the Mughal empire was a Punjabi Muslim so far as I know.

I might be wrong about this but there are only two Punjabi Muslims named in Mughal texts. The first is Kamaal Khan Gakkhar, who submitted (without fighting) to Akbar in 1576, according to Akbarnama. The second is Jalal Khan Gakkhar, an old man named among the victims by Jahangir in a skirmish with Afghans in 1620. A third reference is indirect, the name of the author of Shah Jahan’s Padishahnama is Shaikh Abdul Hamid “Lahori”. The Ain-e-Akbari has one joint reference to Janjuas and Awans, calling them tribes conquered by Afghans.:lol: There are of course Punjabi Hindus (mainly Khatris) who fought for the Mughals with distinction. Like Todar Mal, who led the sapping at the siege of Chittorgarh against the Sisodiya Rajputs, and also settled the revenue system for Akbar. Maathir ul Umara says Todar Mal was born in Lahore, though British scholars thought this was Laharpur in Awadh.

Where are the Punjabi Muslims? The fact is that the Punjabi Muslim is a convert mainly from the peasantry (Jat) which is not martial. General Ashfaq Parvez Kayani is Gakkhar, a caste that claims Rajput ancestry. The second Rohtas fort was built by Sher Khan Suri to pacify the Gakkhars. In his Tuzuk, Jahangir makes the remark in passing that the Gakkhars are warlike, but adds that they only fight among themselves. Meanwhile Rajput, Afghan, Maratha, Sikh, Jat (Hindu) and tribal Hindu generals all fought for and against Mughal armies. Rajputs had to be continually submitted by force, except for the loyal Kachwahas of Ambar (Jaipur). Right down to Aurangzeb, according to Maasir-e-Alamgiri, Mewar’s Sisodiyas and Marwar’s Rathors resisted the emperor. I clarify here that Muslims other than Punjabis fought the Mughals, and some very well.

Uttar Pradesh’s Rohilla Afghans were enemies of the Mughals and one of them (Najibud Daulah) ruled from Mughal Delhi for 10 years. Turkish-speaking Turani Sunnis and Farsi-speaking Irani Shias were the most important parties in the Mughal court. The former ranked as better fighters than the latter, who were better administrators. The fiercest Indian-origin Muslims were Shias, the Syeds of Barha (in Uttar Pradesh). The Maratha light cavalry was devastating and ended Muslim rule over India. The Sikhs captured Punjab and raided west up to Kabul and east up to the Doab. The Jats south of Delhi made life miserable for the later Mughals. Even the Baniya general Hemu showed martial character, almost ending Mughal rule before falling at the second battle of Panipat.

What exactly did the Punjabi Muslim do? Invaders who got past Peshawar could then only be stopped at Karnal or Panipat because they went through Punjab undisturbed. It is true that the armies of both Nadir Shah and Ahmed Shah Abdali were harassed in Punjab on their return with Mughal booty, but their attackers were Sikhs, not Muslims. Punjab was a quiet state. Punjabi Muslims neither rebelled against Mughal Delhi nor fought any invader whether Afghan or Persian. Was this because the Punjabi did not want to fight other Muslims? Not really, because he did not even resist being conquered easily by Sikhs.

Is the Pakistan army martial? – The Express Tribune

So please don't get me started :lol:
 
.
Back
Top Bottom