The Myth of 1965 Victory - Indian View

[Joe Shearer]

You can't insult Pakistanis here and expect to stay. i am sure you have your share of insults somewhere in bhashak forum.

Many of us don't go to Bharat Rakshak because it is full of people like you.

I asked you why don't you apply your democratic principles in Kashmir. When the Raja ordered the then PM of India to send in force to occupy the valley, why didn't your leader said that we will go by the will of the people?

We did. Since you are obviously not well-up on anything outside accountancy, his name was Sheikh Abdullah.

You say Pakistan is a country ruled by dictators.....but Indians do a little dictatorship when it suits them.

NO! Really? And imagine, we didn't get it all these years.

Nicely evaded. I am kinda used to and tired of it already. I want to hear fromy ou that yeah we are double faced and democracy does not suit us in Kashmir so we have 700,000 soldiers there to oppress the locals. Can you ever be that clear?

Whatever you say.

Yeah, you are double-faced and democracy does not suit you in Kashmir, so you have 700,000 soldiers there and elsewhere to oppress the locals.

There you are! (I added 2 words in the interests of clarity and accuracy).

Instead every Indian says that Kashmir is integral part of India.....but Kashmiris aren't. I am looking for one open minded Indian with whom i can discuss things very clearly. Just like i said that in 65 Pak attacked Kashmir clearly and openly. I can't find one Indian who accepts that yeah India did this. Instead all of you act like saints who never did anything wrong to Pak. Cmon man grow up.

If we do, our halos would fall off.

Accept the things your country did. What are you scared of? Or you just want to live the dream of Pak being the baddest country and India is the land of saints.

Oh, we accept the things our country did.

We are scared of bad breath, morons who take on subjects that they don't understand, and people who jump up and down shouting at the tops of their voices.

While you were in the UK and the USA, did you take lots and lots of English lessons? When we think about Pakistan, we certainly don't think its the baddest country, there are worse, Haiti, for instance, Somalia, another, and if you give a couple of days, I'll think of a third, maybe. And it's called a nightmare, not a dream.

If we weren't saints, would you have got a single reply from an Indian? Just look at it this way; have you got a single reply from Pakistanis?

There you are then. Now you know why we're so saintly.

But it has to be admitted, you have a terrific sense of humour and a deadpan delivery, making people think you're being serious. Something like that ventriloquists' dummy Abdul the Dead Terrorist. You naughty devil. You must be quite a hit in the local s****s.

 

[Capt.Popeye]

Originally Posted by Patriot
"Guys General Ayub Khan was not behind 1965 war.It was FM Bhutto who mislead the GHQ as well and they got overconfident.I admit it was not a victory but not a defeat either.It was a stalemate but nevertheless this stalemate led to the defeat of 1971.We never learned from our mistakes unlike India."

@Patriot
Thank you for your response. Your statements (especially the first four)seem to be born out of some thought as well as facts. The last statement has come out of an introspective thought, which i appreciate and that will not give me a right to attempt scoring any points against you.

Indeed Mr. Z.A. Bhutto was driven by personal ambitions to persuade the Pakistani establishment and the people to undertake some activities and 'adventures' that eventually proved detrimental to Pakistan itself and therein lay the tragedy for Pakistan. Other 'dramatis personae' of that time were also complicit to the extent that they were willing to go along with him.

Now a larger point:
You and i have a right (even a duty) to be patriotic to the countries of our births, but we would be making a grave error if we allow that to change in to plainly 'jingoistic' behavior. You may or may not agree with me on that point; but i'm OK with whatever choice you make.
Further, with the kind of 'slanging matches' that we are so prone to start at the slightest pretext; i am firmly of the of the opinion that we are doing a grave disservice to the "Men in Uniform" that served then; even more so the ones we lost. Because; while we are attempting to show them off as 'shining icons' we are in fact reducing them to 'caricature wooden soldiers in a toddler's play-pen' to satisfy our frail egos and false vanity.
Lastly if we are unable to face History 'as it is' then at least let us refrain from treating History as 'some object of malleable clay'.
Regards and i do wish you well.

 

[Mirza Jatt]

Many of us don't go to Bharat Rakshak because it is full of people like you.



We did. Since you are obviously not well-up on anything outside accountancy, his name was Sheikh Abdullah.







NO! Really? And imagine, we didn't get it all these years.



Whatever you say.

Yeah, you are double-faced and democracy does not suit you in Kashmir, so you have 700,000 soldiers there and elsewhere to oppress the locals.

There you are! (I added 2 words in the interests of clarity and accuracy).




If we do, our halos would fall off.



Oh, we accept the things our country did.

We are scared of bad breath, morons who take on subjects that they don't understand, and people who jump up and down shouting at the tops of their voices.

While you were in the UK and the USA, did you take lots and lots of English lessons? When we think about Pakistan, we certainly don't think its the baddest country, there are worse, Haiti, for instance, Somalia, another, and if you give a couple of days, I'll think of a third, maybe. And it's called a nightmare, not a dream.

If we weren't saints, would you have got a single reply from an Indian? Just look at it this way; have you got a single reply from Pakistanis?

There you are then. Now you know why we're so saintly.

But it has to be admitted, you have a terrific sense of humour and a deadpan delivery, making people think you're being serious. Something like that ventriloquists' dummy Abdul the Dead Terrorist. You naughty devil. You must be quite a hit in the local s****s.

gosh !! after a long long time I am seeing Indian member posting like this..the old days am impressed man.

 

[Joe Shearer]

@T-Faz

Dear Sir,

It has now become a challenge for me to explore the limit to which you will go before acknowledging that you do not have a clue on how to present references.

There were frequent demands for autonomy and/or independence from Bangladeshi leaders after the creation of Bangladesh. A number of my family members and others who had prominent roles in the civilian structure had discussed what I stated. Truth be told, west Pakistani's saw east Pakistan as a burden because of monumental differences and they were aware that India will take full advantage of the situation. It did what was expected and the problem reached peak after Bhutto refused to accept a loss to Rahman.

Don't confuse the two as a the same, I stated that

(1)
giving freedom to Bangladesh was discussed by many in West Pakistan.
(2)
there were talks of giving Bangladesh independence long before 1971.

The reference I gave you was to inform you of the demands of an independent Bangladesh from prominent characters such as Fazlul Huq.

which, of course, was never under discussion; all that was sought was a reference to show that somebody had actually thought of giving East Pakistan independence, as you so categorically stated.

Now the matter is as clear as a Limca. The fact is that I am not used to such clarity, so it took me some little time to get used to it.

As I understand it, the matter is as follows:

1. You made statement 2 above;
2. I asked what you were referring to;
3. You were referring to the confidential information passed on to you by members of your family;
4. In order to keep it confidential, you cited a reference with Fazlul Haque in it;
5. I (silly Indian that I am) got further confused;
6. You took pity on me and explained patiently that you had meant something else and I was getting confused, and the Fazlul Haque reference was not for that (Here you go! and a flourish was just a way of speaking) but to inform me that demands for an independent Bangladesh had come from prominent characters such as Fazlul Haque.

It is now very clear indeed, and I shall never, ever again ask you to explain your references. The prospects terrify me, since I see a marching line of TIME Magazines stretching out into the infinite distance.

Thank you for your help.

Sincerely,

 

[T-Faz]

^^^^^^

Veiled insults come naturally to many of you, does it not. The threads involving Indians follow a pattern that I have noticed. When one is countered, they would reflect on some past atrocity to satisfy their ego. It all kind of gets to me when I have to reply to different people who are all after one goal. That is to score some points by demeaning the other in a cunning way.

Another thread derailed beyond belief. Silly and confused indeed, I shall be ever grateful to you too if you never ask me explain what was a mere comment made for another member.