Pak believes that attacking India is their birth right,eent ka jawaab patthar se dena hoga: Parrikar

[salarsikander]

Hmm.

Maybe yes, maybe no....interesting observation.

As a senior you must known better that one liner statements are not accepted. Please he more elobrative next time

 

[I M Sikander]

Both Jinnah and Gandhi were British agents.

Baita aap pogo daikho.

Jinnah and Gandhi doesn't need character certificates from kids like you.

 

[Maj.Osmani]

Mistimed statement by our defence minister again is it?
Neither Pakistan nor India is going to attack each other in the foreseeable future. Although Pakistan needs to stop its territory for anti-India activity and thats a must to even start working together towards a constructive future.

Sir can you give same advise to RAW / IA, Your monkey is with us caught red handedly and Mr. Ajit Dowal himself admits he spent many years in Pakistan. For sure he was not on peace mission.

 

[Rajaraja Chola]

I am not agreed with Mr. Parikar and i have solid reasons for that

First of all Pakistan since smiling Buddha test have strong staunch if India sign / agrees on CNBT we will sign but despite we hav't test our nuke weapons India refuses to oblige

Pakistan before nuke tests and after express strong desire for nuke free subcontinent but again India refuses

And Above all After creating / developing nuke weapons Pakistan didn’t demonstrate our capability but again Indian pushes us to a corner after Shakti tests to test and demonstrate our capability.

I mentioned very few points...which clearly show who the agressor.

And any sane person who has some knowledge of history didn’t agrees with Mr. Parikar

@Joe Shearer
Sir your thoughts on this.

But again its even before the advent of N weapons came into play, it was Pakistan who had triggered wars. Being in PA sir, you knew it better than anyone. India never declared war "first". Its a fact and real.

Remember after 1974, we did not declare or start a war with u. And what Pakistani General did after it acquired N weapons? Resulted in Kargil war.

 

[Grevion]

Sir can you give same advise to RAW / IA, Your monkey is with us caught red handedly and Mr. Ajit Dowal himself admits he spent many years in Pakistan. For sure he was not on peace mission.

You say he is a spy we will deny it and both the country knows better. We have Pakistani spy here who are working for your country's benifit, while some of them are caught some gets the job done. As a rivals it is comman to have spys and agents collecting sensitive info about each other. This has been going on for so many years and will continue in the future so get used to it.

 

[Maj.Osmani]

But again its even before the advent of N weapons came into play, it was Pakistan who had triggered wars. Being in PA sir, you knew it better than anyone. India never declared war "first". Its a fact and real.

Remember after 1974, we did not declare or start a war with u. And what Pakistani General did after it acquired N weapons? Resulted in Kargil war.

Sir reality is bit different first of all i would like to tell you one thing

In past we don't have capability to defense against massive attack and then counter it...we have to attack before India attacks.

!948 Indian annex Kashmir and we have to retaliate.

1965 after losing war against China Indian wants to restore their lost prestige by attacking smaller country.

1971 India attacked us...long history in short we have to retaliate...

and Kargill irregular / militants / freedom fighters moves forward without our knowledge and to prevent Indian response we have to move our troops.

You say he is a spy we will deny it and both the country knows better. We have Pakistani spy here who are working for your country's benifit, while some of them are caught some gets the job done. As a rivals it is comman to have spys and agents collecting sensitive info about each other. This has been going on for so many years and will continue in the future so get used to it.

Then expect the same from us why shouting it load foul play.

 

[Grevion]

Sir reality is bit different first of all i would like to tell you one thing

In past we don't have capability to defense against massive attack and then counter it...we have to attack before India attacks.

!948 Indian annex Kashmir and we have to retaliate.

1965 after losing war against China Indian wants to restore their lost prestige by attacking smaller country.

1971 India attacked us...long history in short we have to retaliate...

and Kargill irregular / militants / freedom fighters moves forward without our knowledge and to prevent Indian response we have to move our troops.


Then expect the same from us why shouting it load foul play.

Oh we expect nothing less from your side as it is a two way game.
What we do not want is the 'others' who are said to be working on their own but rather we knows and you knows too that it is not possible for them to have the power to work on their own start mediating in the affairs which makes things nasty.

 

[RAMPAGE]

Hmm.

Maybe yes, maybe no....interesting observation.

Exactly what purpose do these statements serve? In your opinion?

 

[Maj.Osmani]

Oh we expect nothing less from your side as it is a two way game.
What we do not want is the 'others' who are said to be working on their own but rather we knows and you knows too that it is not possible for them to have the power to work on their own start mediating in the affairs which makes the things nasty.

Whatever you like...which suits you.

 

[Rajaraja Chola]

Sir reality is bit different first of all i would like to tell you one thing

In past we don't have capability to defense against massive attack and then counter it...we have to attack before India attacks.

!948 Indian annex Kashmir and we have to retaliate.

1965 after losing war against China Indian wants to restore their lost prestige by attacking smaller country.

1971 India attacked us...long history in short we have to retaliate...

and Kargill irregular / militants / freedom fighters moves forward without our knowledge and to prevent Indian response we have to move our troops.


Then expect the same from us why shouting it load foul play.

I do not even call 1948 a war. It was a war in which Pathan Tribals and rebels attacked Mahaaraja forces. PA was hardly involved. Only after Maharaja signed the Instrument of Accession did IA landed in Kashmir to ward of invaders. If Nehru hadnt gone to UN to showcase his image as a peace loving pigeon the subcontinent might have been different today.

1965. Hmmm. Remember Operation Gibraltor? and Operation Grand Slam? The plan of sending PA soldiers to incite an uprising failed instantly as locals themselves caught the Pakistanis and handed them over.

1971. The first air raids were launched from Pakistan and India declared war soon after that.

1999. So you mean PA was so poor that irregulars or terrorists can move and occupy Indian positions without one soldier of PA noticing? It was well known what happened with lots of PA soldiers abondoned for the greed of one person called Musharaff. And Sharif had to face dressing down on the behalf of Pakistani nation before Bill Clinton.

I thought you were more knowledgable than I am You are in some. But the above posts is completely false, not accepted even by Pakistanis here.

 

[SQ8]

Lately, @Oscar , I've been more and more impressed by Meghnad Desai's analysis. If you haven't already read his book, do take a look. Nothing radical, but every bit is folded in.

Will try to do so Janab.

I always wondered what would have happened had India had an Akbar instead of Aurangzeb in the fading years of Mughal rule.

Akbar wouldn't have changed a thing. Again, Akbar's priority was less the unity of whatever and more to do with his seat. Even during his time his actions with Din-e-Ilahi were focused on nullifying the Rajput's misgivings about the previous alliances.

 

[TMA]

India did not invade the Arab lands. It was the other way around.

Then take it up with the Arab countries.

 

[Maj.Osmani]

1999. So you mean PA was so poor that irregulars or terrorists can move and occupy Indian positions without one soldier of PA noticing?

Same for Indian army... rest fill in blanks

 

[TMA]

I note that some are using the language of partition as if some great whole was destroyed: it was not. A colonial enterprise came to an end. Why do people think that the Subcontinent was a political unity before the British? Even under the Mughals it was very diverse. I suppose we should speak of the partition of the Austro-Hungarian Empire as well or the German Reich?

The defense minister is talking about the motto of Pakistani army.

Can any one tell me what is the meaning of "jihad fi sabilillah "

And how it differs from the ideology of other militant groups who hate every one.

Struggle in the Way of God: against falsehood and oppression.

 

[dadeechi]

Akbar wouldn't have changed a thing. Again, Akbar's priority was less the unity of whatever and more to do with his seat. Even during his time his actions with Din-e-Ilahi were focused on nullifying the Rajput's misgivings about the previous alliances.

Of course all kings , be it Hindu or Muslim, were fighting for their seats else you would not have Mughals fighting the Qutb Shahis or Timur fighting the Delhi sultanate. But my point was the policies and perception of the subjects at large. Akbar had more accommodating policies than Aurangzeb. Aurangzeb in his zeal to expand the empire has retorted to right wing politics.