The start of all wars with India - A pakistani perspective

[riCoh]

PAK strategy : Attack India first by sending few army men to create anarchy and then when India retaliate ,revert back to defensive position and after cease-fire tell people of country that we won the war because we successfully defended our land from aggressors.
:ROFL:funny people

 

[SQ8]

If Yahya Khan was not too busy drowning in the elixir of power and romping with multiple women at the same time( as was Niazi and more of Yahya's cohorts).. things might have turned out for the better and war could have been avoided.
Just by letting Mujib form a government.. a lot of things could have been avoided.

 

[Iggy]

If Yahya Khan was not too busy drowning in the elixir of power and romping with multiple women at the same time( as was Niazi and more of Yahya's cohorts).. things might have turned out for the better and war could have been avoided.
Just by letting Mujib form a government.. a lot of things could have been avoided.

Lucky us

 

[Decemberrocks]

OOne thing for sure I know, whenever IA fought war with Pak on our ground it was defensive and whenever we were agressive we changed geo-political scenario e.g. are 1984 Siachin and 1971 BD.[/B][/SIZE].

I don't think PA can get more clear message than this!!!!!

 

[Renegade]

This is known fact that 47,65 & 99 were started by PA, later they cooked up the story for domestic audience to show it as fault from India's side. One such twisted story always comes up that we attacked to help Kashmiris, a UN known conflicted zone while India attacked on our soveriegn nation's territory like Lahore...

One thing for sure I know, whenever IA fought war with Pak on our ground it was defensive and whenever we were agressive we changed geo-political scenario e.g. are 1984 Siachin and 1971 BD..

well even in 71 our stance which you term as aggressive was in response to events that were happening in East pakistan, i.e the susiquent crackdown by the Pakistan Army and the pouring of millions of reugees into India. Even then technically the war began when the PAF mounted air raides on Indian air bases. It was only then that the war began.

as for Siachen i would be again careful in terming us as aggresors. as we all know Operation Meghdoot was launched in response to Pakistani attempts to claim Siachen. The Pak Army had started giving civilians permission to travel to Siachen while India had denied them the same earlier and the subsiquent showing of Siachen as Pak territory by the Pakistanis.

even if this was not the case i am stil more inclined to believe the Government of India for i have not known them to lie, while the Pakistanis have been caught lying repeatedly in 47, 65, 99 and even in 71.

 

[Hawk Eyes]

next war with india, pakistan will surely end it.

 

[Jackdaws]

It is absurd to call Mujib a traitor. If you look at what he was asking for, it was not too different from what Jinnah was asking for in 1946 - limited autonomy under a national umbrella. Either way, my question still is - does Pakistan and do Pakistanis believe in general that it was Pakistan who started the wars in 48 and 65? I know '71 is a lot more complex.

 

[Renegade]

next war with india, pakistan will surely end it.

Thats a rather optimistic prediction mate. Given your past record and Indias growing military strenght. I would think twice befor making generic statements like that.

Optmism is one thing but sheer delusionment quiet another.

 

[Avatar]

next war with india, pakistan will surely end it.

You said it.

 

[Pride]

well even in 71 our stance which you term as aggressive was in response to events that were happening in East pakistan, i.e the susiquent crackdown by the Pakistan Army and the pouring of millions of reugees into India. Even then technically the war began when the PAF mounted air raides on Indian air bases. It was only then that the war began.

as for Siachen i would be again careful in terming us as aggresors. as we all know Operation Meghdoot was launched in response to Pakistani attempts to claim Siachen. The Pak Army had started giving civilians permission to travel to Siachen while India had denied them the same earlier and the subsiquent showing of Siachen as Pak territory by the Pakistanis.

even if this was not the case i am stil more inclined to believe the Government of India for i have not known them to lie, while the Pakistanis have been caught lying repeatedly in 47, 65, 99 and even in 71.

Renegade, May be aggressive word is too strong here but the major point is, 1984 Siachin war was not fought on any marked boundries and initiated by us in response of some events. Similar case is in 1971 PA thought that we were supporting Mukti Bahini and attacked but war again fought was on their territory. History and geagraphy change both in events when we were prepared and symbolically notify to enemy not to provoke or create situations to be agressor .

 

[Renegade]

Renegade, May be aggressive word is too strong here but the major point is, 1984 Siachin war was not fought on any marked boundries and initiated by us in response of some events. Similar case is in 1971 PA thought that we were supporting Mukti Bahini and attacked but war again fought was on their territory. History and geagraphy change both in events when we were prepared and symbolically notify to enemy not to provoke or create situations to be agressor .

Very true. Good point.

 

[ARSENAL6]

.

Optmism is one thing but sheer delusionment quiet another.

Yeah why don't you save that rant to some of your local people.

 

[InDIaN BeAst]

next war with india, pakistan will surely end in it.

funny how one word changes it all..




P.S. take it as a joke man just kidding

 

[sparklingway]

Sheikh mujeeb was nationalist to the point of bigotry which he used to gain votes in numerically superior east pakistan.

It was his right and the rights of the people of East Pakistan who had been denied economic, political and social rights.

Do you want me to put the annual development expenditures in both wings here for you to realize the disparity and the cruelty of the people of West Pakistan?

Had he been president of unitied Pakistan things would have turned into a disaster.

Historical Fiction is always idiotic.

Also geo graphically east pakistan has no point in union with west Pakistan. East PK was surrounded all by India and good ties with India were necessity for economic surviabliy.

And they demanded better defence in '65 as well and we left them insecure (that is what they interpreted)

It is amazing how the rest of Pakistan has come to peace with exisitence of BD in just two years and people have simply forgotten it and opened new chapter in PK-BD releations. Old people just have fond memories of east pakistan without any ill opnions.

No. People have come to peaxce because they are ashamed of their acts. Absolving the entire western wing of its crimes was necessary for the people to live with the guilt and the shame of treating the people who had done far more in the Pakistan Movement than their crown worhsipping fellows in the West.

Unlike Indians who have mentally not come to accecpt parition of "imaginary akhand bharat".

Here we go again. They represent a minority in India, as far as I see it. However, there remains a significant populace who are unwilling to settle peacefully.

The heart of Pakistan was always west-PK..the british just unnaturally joined east pakistan not wanting to open doors for further balkanization of India..

OMG this is awesome. Yes, the heart of Pakistan was West Pakistan where one province was ruled by Unionists and another by red-shirts, one of whom opposed Pakistan till the very end and the others joined Mulsim League as soon as Jinnah died (since he would not have allowed opportunist traitors to join the party).

The people of East Pakistan sacrificed far, far, far more for an independent country (at that time envisaged as two separate countries) than the ones in West Pakistan, which was home to recruiting grounds of the British Indian Army (since Bengalis were sidelined following the 1857 war) and it was the home of crown worshipping feudals and bureaucrats who'd be given titles like Khan Bahahdur and land grants for their services to the crown.

This was the best statement I've ever heard since it was easy for you to steal and falsify an entire historical account.

Absolving your elders of their follies, crimes and apathy is one thing and shamelessly targeting others is another thing.

This thread is about who started the wars. I'll not derail it anymore. I can provide you with reading material (and posts on PDF) so that you can get your head in order.

 

[Renegade]

Yeah why don't you save that rant to some of your local people.

How is this one liner contributing to the thread? I have given good reasons and then came to that conclusion. In choosing to take a statement out of context, you have clearly displayed your inability in logically making a point or even unederstanding one. Congratulations on your monosyllabic thought process, i am sure it is still an improvement from your past achievements.