Again, one officer's comment. A. H. Amin has a bone to grind as such I no longer take his comments as objective. Secondly, the so-called myth was propagated by the British and applied to Punjabi Musalman and Sikh, Pathan and a few more races (predominantly Hindu). There has never been any institutional basis for such theory (or myth as stated above). We recruit from certain areas, just the same as you, but others are welcome.
Do you now want me to quote historians, Pakistani as well as foreign ones? (It would take some time of course).
Yes we all know how the myth originated.
Lastly, can you please specify from which of the 'certain areas' we recruit ? While at it do tell us, what percentage of the military consists of
these recruits.
There was never a Pakistani threat from the East. Thus the Indian pre-emption was even more unfounded.
So now you will also define how India should have modulated its threat perception?
You do realise, don't you, that the current boundary between Indo-BD is manned primarily by para-military forces, enabling release of valuable military resources which are now deployed in other and real areas of threat. Had there been an East Pakistan, a significant portion of these resources would have been tied down along that border, given Pakistan's proven unpredictability.
Had Kashmir not been an issue, India would not have intervened militarily in East Pakistan.
Had Pakistanis not fcuked up in East Pakistan and engaged in an orgy of slaughter and rapes, had the refugees not poured into India in millions, had US been proactive, had UN been not a US sidekick, there wouldn't have been any military intervention in East Pakistan, Kashmir or no Kashmir. Is that so hard to understand?
The whole idea in the minds of the Indian planners was to cut Pakistan down to size to reduce the military threat...
That may have been the plan, but again, with Pakistan's proven unpredictability (1965) who wouldn't have planned that way.
Curiously, though, once you claim that
'there was never a Pakistani threat from the East' but then in the next line you say Indian planners were trying
'to reduce the military threat'. Can you at least keep your logic straight.
....and end the Kashmir problem for once and for all on their terms.
That is what you think what the Indian planners were thinking. Your thoughts are just your thoughts. No more.
There is a school of thought in India which, with all the wisdom of hindsight, blames Ms Gandhi for not solving Kashmir issue once and for all, in exchange of 90,000 prisoners. She didn't, for whatever reasons. That alone disproves your point.
This has certainly has not gone their way and most here would agree (on the other hand it has not gone our way either).
None of the issues that were on the table on the morning of 15th August 1947 have been resolved between the two. So talking about resolution of anything is a joke.
You have raised a strawman and is now desperately trying to beat it down. Go ahead. Knock yourself out.
