The start of all wars with India - A pakistani perspective

[Jackdaws]

I have a feeling this guy is not exactly popular in Pakistan. But are there a few who believe him?

 

[SQ8]

Nope.. he is very popular and well known..
And he speaks the truth.

 

[Jackdaws]

Nope.. he is very popular and well known..
And he speaks the truth.

But the general norm that I have seen amongst Pakistanis is that they believe India started all the wars particularly the one in 1965 when the crossed the International Border. So how is this man popular?

 

[blain2]

71 is an exception here and I think his comment takes a broad stroke at everything. He says we started the 1971 by calling out the fact that we stopped East Pakistanis from governance. However militarily speaking, Indians were already probing and sending in folks inside of Pakistan months before the December 3 outbreak.

 

[jha]

 

[somebozo]

71 is an exception here and I think his comment takes a broad stroke at everything. He says we started the 1971 by calling out the fact that we stopped East Pakistanis from governance. However militarily speaking, Indians were already probing and sending in folks inside of Pakistan months before the December 3 outbreak.

Twenty years analysis gives me a feeling that not giving rule to Sheikh Mujeed had been a wise decision. He came out to be a traitor and Indian agent not exactly popular inside BD as well..dont know just my thought. He could have been very bad for unitied Pakistan perhaps resulting in its balkanization.

 

[ramu]

Twenty years analysis gives me a feeling that not giving rule to Sheikh Mujeed had been a wise decision. He came out to be a traitor and Indian agent not exactly popular inside BD as well..dont know just my thought. He could have been very bad for unitied Pakistan perhaps resulting in its balkanization.

What a great analysis ... What about the possibility of peaceful coexistence if Sheikh Mujeed was given the democratic right to be the leader of the country which was rightfully his for winning the elections ?

It is so apt that a population who think that military rule is the best thing that happened to them have the military poking its nose even in strategic dialogue of civilian government. The leaders who are currently the civilian government have low credibility and the only option you have is to think that the current state of affairs is the best thing happened to Pakistan. Enjoy ...

 

[somebozo]

What a great analysis ... What about the possibility of peaceful coexistence if Sheikh Mujeed was given the democratic right to be the leader of the country which was rightfully his for winning the elections ?

It is so apt that a population who think that military rule is the best thing that happened to them have the military poking its nose even in strategic dialogue of civilian government. The leaders who are currently the civilian government have low credibility and the only option you have is to think that the current state of affairs is the best thing happened to Pakistan. Enjoy ...

Sheikh mujeeb was nationalist to the point of bigotry which he used to gain votes in numerically superior east pakistan. Had he been president of unitied Pakistan things would have turned into a disaster. 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.

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

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..

 

[Hawk Eyes]

What a great analysis ... What about the possibility of peaceful coexistence if Sheikh Mujeed was given the democratic right to be the leader of the country which was rightfully his for winning the elections ?

It is so apt that a population who think that military rule is the best thing that happened to them have the military poking its nose even in strategic dialogue of civilian government. The leaders who are currently the civilian government have low credibility and the only option you have is to think that the current state of affairs is the best thing happened to Pakistan. Enjoy ...

lol, this shows how clouded your mind is with propaganda. please do research history before you post something foolish again.

 

[desiman]

YouTube - President Yahya Khan On East Pakistan

is it me or does this guy have two horns on his eyebrows lol

 

[into the wild]

71 is an exception here and I think his comment takes a broad stroke at everything. He says we started the 1971 by calling out the fact that we stopped East Pakistanis from governance. However militarily speaking, Indians were already probing and sending in folks inside of Pakistan months before the December 3 outbreak.

but 71 was not an indian affair in the first place

 

[INS Shivalik]

but 71 was not an indian affair in the first place

Tensions Mounting up on our eastern and western borders were/is obviously a cause of concern

 

[deckingraj]

what i am not able to comprehend is that why did Pakistan start any war with India??? We all know that we were/are numerically superior to them..some even go to the length of saying that we were technically superior to them....So i fail to understand why would you start a war with a numerical and somewhat technical superior country??? I can understand India being the aggressor and Pakistan the defender.....but how come the opposite???

I mean we can see how ill-planned was Kargil but was the case true even in 65???? I mean if i go by the video they sent tanks to Kashmir and did not even bother to cancel vacations of Army men??? and how come PAF chief had no clue about a war to be fought just 3-4 weeks after his retirement....Shocking isn't it??

India also has it share off ill-planning...i.e. 1962 or ill-informed decision about cease fire in 65(when we had about 80% ammunition intact but thought it to be just 20%) but we learned....results were right there in 71.....but seems our counterparts still need to sort it out...

 

[Renegade]

71 is an exception here and I think his comment takes a broad stroke at everything. He says we started the 1971 by calling out the fact that we stopped East Pakistanis from governance. However militarily speaking, Indians were already probing and sending in folks inside of Pakistan months before the December 3 outbreak.

Even this happened only after "Operation Searchlight" was initiated by Tikka Khan. Half a million Bengalis were slaughtered and nearly 10 million fled to India. The Mukti Bahini was itself gun-ho about extracting revenge on the West Pakistan Army and so they kept crossing the border to mount operations.

But you do accept that 47, 65 & 99 were iniatiated by the Pakistan Army? and even 71 as a matter of fact.

 

[Pride]

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..