How 20 million Pakistanis defeated 500 million indians in 2 wars (1948, 1965) captured from them a territory larger then Austria or Czech Republic

[Battlion25]

For some this may feel like a david vs goliath win but it is not really that if you look little bit deeper. Pakistan has always been superior to India and this is not only about modern era but going back 3000 years..

their defeats were in 1948 and 1965 conventionally in 1948 they lost a territory larger then Austria and Czech Republic to Pakistan which is called today Gilgit Baltistan and Azad Kashmir held by Pakistan to this day. In to 1965 Pakistan beat back their offensive to retake these territories but advanced into mainland India in counter-attack..

Iron Age vedic era Pakistanis had nothing to do with India. Modern day Pakistanis are simply superior to their indian counter-parts and ruling elite of the subcontinent.

There is alot of talk about Aryan expansion in Indian history and that expansion was by today's so-called aryans who were the current day Pakistan..

The Proto-Aryans are often mistakenly confused with Indics but the only thing they did is some of them expanded southwards towards Indian subcontinent and the journey down south was due to economical reasons. They have done close to 10-15 incursions into the Indian main land in the last 3000 years including the Islamic expansions as majority of the Punjabis and current day Pakistan were muslims for atleast 1100+ years they tagged along. but as for their previous expansions pre-Islam it is known as the Aryan expansions today.

[

 

[Titanium100]

This is what I wanted to explain to some other members but it came across as being arrogant or what not which was not my initial intention.

With Pakistan being 300m+ India is not our prime rival anymore as I do geninuely believe we should be able to overcome them with little effort just out-manvouring them but once we look towards the west that is where we will find worthy foes.

If Pakistan and India were to ever collide I have no doubt in my mind that it would be an easier conflict then anticipated for Pakistan to come out victorious

 

[ThunderCat]

There were far more than 20 million Pakistanis at the time. The other thing is many non-military Pakistani civilians partook in the war.

It was 'victory' in the sense, Pakistan prevented an Indian invasion but not victory as in we managed to topple their military.

They still have certain military advantages.

 

[Titanium100]

There were fat more than 20 million Pakistanis at the time. The other thing is many non-military Pakistani civilians partook in the war.

It was 'victory' in the sense, Pakistan prevented an Indian invasion but not victory as in we managed to topple their military.

They still have certain military advantages.

The population was actully 20million around creation 1948... Territories was seized which is military victory

 

[Battlion25]

In 1965 the official claim is stalemate but in reality they lost as we were inside their country upon ceasefire declaration we were winning..

Indo-Pakistani war of 1965 - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

while in 1948 they lost Gilgit B and Azad Kashmir but in the official neural standby it puts it nicely without enraging the indians but the fact is that they lost the territories coventionally but on the other hand indians successfully managed to defend Jammu and Kashmir? What does this tell you? that they lost a sizeable land larger then Austria to a newly formed country with only 20m population in 1948.. The official neutral standpoint is stalemate but it never was a stalemate..

Indo-Pakistani war of 1947–1948 - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Titanium100]

In 1965 the official claim is stalemate but in reality they lost as we were inside their country upon ceasefire declaration we were winning..

Indo-Pakistani war of 1965 - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

while in 1948 they lost Gilgit B and Azad Kashmir but in the official neural standby it puts it nicely without enraging the indians but the fact is that they lost the territories coventionally but on the other hand indians successfully managed to defend Jammu and Kashmir? What does this tell you? that they lost a sizeable land larger then Austria to a newly formed country with only 20m population in 1948.. The official neutral standpoint is stalemate but it never was a stalemate..

Indo-Pakistani war of 1947–1948 - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

If Pakistan was to go for it they will bottle it completely this I have no doubt about ANA style.. The truth that lays within will always surface and you can't mean mug your way to grit

 

[ThunderCat]

The population was actully 20million around creation 1948... Territories was seized which is military victory

It was just under 34 million

 

[Titanium100]

It was just under 34 million

It was 20m in 1947 in the start of the war and could have absorb post war but it began with 20m

 

[ThunderCat]

It was 20m in 1947 in the start of the war and could have absorb post war but it began with 20m

No. Just under 34 million.

 

[my2cents]

For some this may feel like a david vs goliath win but it is not really that if you look little bit deeper. Pakistan has always been superior to India and this is not only about modern era but going back 3000 years..

their defeats were in 1948 and 1965 conventionally in 1948 they lost a territory larger then Austria and Czech Republic to Pakistan which is called today Gilgit Baltistan and Azad Kashmir held by Pakistan to this day. In to 1965 Pakistan beat back their offensive to retake these territories but advanced into mainland India in counter-attack..

Iron Age vedic era Pakistanis had nothing to do with India. Modern day Pakistanis are simply superior to their indian counter-parts and ruling elite of the subcontinent.

There is alot of talk about Aryan expansion in Indian history and that expansion was by today's so-called aryans who were the current day Pakistan..

View attachment 903864


The Proto-Aryans are often mistakenly confused with Indics but the only thing they did is some of them expanded southwards towards Indian subcontinent and the journey down south was due to economical reasons. They have done close to 10-15 incursions into the Indian main land in the last 3000 years including the Islamic expansions as majority of the Punjabis and current day Pakistan were muslims for atleast 1100+ years they tagged along. but as for their previous expansions pre-Islam it is known as the Aryan expansions today.

[View attachment 903865
View attachment 903866
View attachment 903867

India did not lose 1965 war. In fact our troops even reached Lahore and took selfies.

 

[OptiFictious]

Is this post supposed to be taken seriously? Not everyone in Pakistan is fair in complexion, neither tall or broad. Pakistan is lagging behind India in every aspect.

India and Pakistan are essentially two third world countries. However, the fact is that India has been doing way better than Pakistan since partition on every front. Their economic performance; research, innovation and development; and soft power is way above Pakistan.

Pakistan lost a wing essentially due to infighting, whereas Gilgit Baltistan was never under Indian control. In 1948, Pakistan moved swifty and took control of as much Kashmir as it could before India could counter back (effectively). It was strategically the most obvious and correct move. Every war afterwards except for 1971 turned out to be a stalemate.

The only real war (unlike a skirmish) India and Pakistan will ever have again will be a war towards total obliteration of Pakistan and major destruction of Indian North. Pakistan has sought nuclear weapons not to conquer India but to deter India from conquest of Pakistan.

 

[waz]

A couple of the Indian posters said they had an advantage as they were sitting in Pakistani territory. What they miss out is that Pakistani troops were also sitting in Indian territory. That was one of the main reasons both sides agreed to return to their original lines.

 

[Tornado23]

India did not lose 1965 war. In fact our troops even reached Lahore and took selfies.

Yea no Lahore District is not the city of Lahore. Harbaksh Singh literally said the assault on Lahore faulted from day 1 and made very little gains when it came to capturing Lahore. On top of that the Sialkot assault and Sindh assaults were slaughtered and India ended up losing land to Pakistan during the war.

India did not win the war. No way in hell did it win.

A couple of the Indian posters said they had an advantage as they were sitting in Pakistani territory. What they miss out is that Pakistani troops were also sitting in Indian territory. That was one of the main reasons both sides agreed to return to their original lines.

The land they held was strategically unimportant. Such as Phillora. Offered no advantage to India, but still they assaulted it and lost a whole bunch of men and machinery.

 

[waz]

Yea no Lahore District is not the city of Lahore. Harbaksh Singh literally said the assault on Lahore faulted from day 1 and made very little gains when it came to capturing Lahore. On top of that the Sialkot assault and Sindh assaults were slaughtered and India ended up losing land to Pakistan during the war.

India did not win the war. No way in hell did it win.


The land they held was strategically unimportant. Such as Phillora. Offered no advantage to India, but still they assaulted it and lost a whole bunch of men and machinery.

I do love the “we were in Lahore quotes” what they forget to tell you is that they were in pieces…. Their forward units had lost their entire armour with just infantry. Although they had more tanks many were old and not combat effective and wouldn’t serve any purpose in another thrust. They also still had to face significant Pakistani forces before Lahore and risked being bogged down and destroyed.
That being said plenty of Pakistani blunders which would have been catastrophic had conditions been right.

 

[Varunastra]

Vedic and Pakistan together sounds like an oxymoron tbh