What's new

Top Indian Myths about Pakistan!

Ok so then i guess being an agressor holding onto more territory is seen as a "PARTIAL" victory or not succes in your eyes.....

well given your logic then i guess PAKISTAN won in 2002 and DECEMBER 2008....."PARTIAL" victory because

A) we held onto "ALL or LARGE PART" of our territory...

B) Surgical strikes that india planned never materlized...

see guys...what AM is saying you are twisting it to make it sound better to your ears!!

Sir I think you have a very ambiguous defenition of the word WAR. AM did not even count Kargil as a War and you want to include standoffs of 2002 and 2008 as Wars. Something is terribly amiss here.

Well based on your argument 2002 and 2008 were Indian defeats...and "PARTIAL" pakistani victories...

Sir this line of reasoning is beyond my scope of logic. If I were to stoop to a very low level of argument, I'm sure you will score better of me just plainly with your experience.

Agreed, however INDIA is not Saint either!!!!
Are we comparing India and Pakistan here??? Atleast I am not.

Sorry but 1971 & 1984 makes this CLAIM of india incorrect...

If you have read closely enough, I have provided reasons for 1971, which were disputed by AM as we cannot ever be sure about the actual truth.

1984 - well lesser said the better.

Well i can say PAKISTAN focuses more on CORRUPTION than on civic aminities.....after all we are better than NORTH KOREA...for which this CLAIM can be stated as correct....

If Corruption was only thing you focused upon, PA would not have become such a formidable force. Corruption is not unique to Pakistan. If you want to debate whether Pakistan is more Corrupt than India, I think I will have to disagree with you.

NONE of the political parties ever got votes saying we will get KASHMIR FREEDOM....so this argument is also "DEBUNKED"
I bow to the weirdness of logic and again concede defeat in a battle of distortion, while you are at your debunking best.
 
he total land mass that Pakistan possessed after 1947 by Pakistan according to my calculations & other sources is this.

Northern Areas = 72,496 km²

Azad Kashmir = 13,297 km²

Aksai Chin = 5,181 km²

72,496 km2 (N-Areas) + 13,297 km2 (A-Kashmir)+ 5,181 km2 (Aksai Chin)=

90,974 km2 (total Land mass held by Pakistan after 1947 War)

On the Indian side, the capture Jammu & Kashmir Valley and Eastern Portion of Kashmir, the total land mass of that equals roughly 101,387 km².

101,387 km2 - 90,974 km2= 10,413 km2


10,413 km2 is the territorial difference we are talking about, you had mentioned in your post that you consider this a "partial victory".

I would like to dispute he claim that area of Jammu and Kashmir on the Indian side of LOC is 101,387 kmsq. The data which I have depicts the area as 222,236 kmsq. Also it is a widely accepted fact that India won 2/3rd of the territory and Pakistan 1/3rd. Also if we speak in qualitative terms, most of the densely populated and inhabited area lies on the Indian side of the LOC unlike Akksai Chin or even Northern areas(FANA) which are thinly populated and almost uninhabited.

If you want me to concede that PA performed bravely and efficiently, I find it acceptable but if we are speaking strictly in term of territorial occupancy and qualitative occupation, I would hold onto my views that IA achieved more. Hope we can find some ground of mutual acceptance.

Peace...
 
What you have heard and exact terms were used can hardly be a topic of debate as it is your prerogative to describe what exactly have you heard. If its the feeling which guides these comments we are discussing then its a completely different issue. A twist of a few words can really change the orientation of point being mentioned. Maybe the posters were, a) ill informed b) feeling overwhelmingly patriotic talking to a Pakistani on Defence matters c) Both, to properly articulate their sentiments.
Of course it is my prerogative to address inaccurate comments as I have heard them - the manner in which you described these 'myths' earlier is not how I have come across them - had it been the case then I would not have had to address some of them.

Again. just because you do not see the 'myths' the way described does not mean that other Indians do - and of course once someone is called out on ones fallacies, it is but natural to then engage in some face saving and attempt to shift from the original stance. Not that I am suggesting that you are engaging in that, but hopefully those who do read about these 'myths', and subscribe to them, will realize how flawed their positions are.

Hardly relevant for the first point of alleged myth. 1971 was an Indian Victory as you have already conceded.
That was inserted in the wrong spot - it was meant to debunk the myth that India was in any way provoked through 'socio-economic pressures' from the EP refugee situation. The support for insurgents destabilizing EP started long before that factor came into play.

No Sir, that is exactly not the case. I am not cringing on to any myth, but basing the argument on reasoning clearly mentioned that Pakistan was aggressor in 1965 and India defended its territory. If you want to debate either of the two points, I am willing for a long argument.

For 1947 War, Again Kashmir was not under undisputed control of India and neither of Pakistan. We fought a war and India held onto a larger portion of Kashmir than Pakistan. I will term that as a Partial Indian Victory. If you want to portray Pakistan winning the war, then you'll be authorizing the Instrument of Accession, hardly a price any Kashmir Loving Pakistani would pay to register a paper victory.

Terming Pakistan's country Profile on US Dept. of State as a "passing comment" is hardly a healthy precedence you are setting for the junior members.
I am not arguing that 1965 was an 'aggression' by India - it was not included in my original post of myths.

What I am pointing out is that both 1948 and 1965 are contentious issues in terms of who won (some Pakistani historians would claim that Pakistan had the upper hand in both conflicts). I therefore chose the middle route of arguing that both wars were inconclusive. Whether Pakistan had the upper hand or the conflicts were largely inconclusive, the fact remains that neither was a victory for India.

I disagree with the State Departments categorization of 1965 because my readings indicate the opposite, and the State Department offers a one liner.

Perhaps it is time to open threads on the 1965 and 48 wars and discuss them on the forum, though I doubt that there will be any consensus between Indians and Pakistanis on either. That is the reason I went for that 'neutral ground' of the two wars being 'inconclusive'.

Hardly the sound logic that you have resonated across this forum. Does Pakistan fight through Proxy?. Answer can be either Yes or No if you apply impartial and rational logic. Applying conditions is unnecessary.
The whole rationale behind including something like support for proxies in a thread on 'myths', when I knew that it was not, was to point out that Indian complaints about it are disingenuous. Why raise the issue and use it in an 'accusatory' manner when India herself has done the same?

Its like accusing Pakistan of having an Army. Errrr .. so what? So does India.

I don't think a developing nation of 170 Million can survive if such absurd amount (as mentioned in your first post) are being spent on defence. If this is what Indian's believe that such high percentages of budgets are devoted to Defence, then they have given up on their ability to reason.
Again, the thread addresses issues I have heard Indians raise over the years - that does not imply that all Indians subscribe to these myths, just as it would be incorrect to generalize that all Pakistanis, or even a majority, consider themselves descendant from Arabs.

A very simple reply to this. I don't think Pakistani public is stupid.
They certainly have their priorities of regional and national issues and their is no denying the fact that elections are not won just over Kashmir.

The reason behind this perception can be the frequency of recital of Kashmir issue by Pakistani posters, although my logic says that it is simply because an Indian and a Pakistani are discussing defence related issues. If two Pakistanis were discussing politics among themselves I think Kashmir will certainly not be the first thing they would talk about.
It has also to do with the emphasis Pakistan gives to raising Kashmir on any international platform.

I largely agree with you here - Kashmir has a large role in Pakistan's foreign policy and is an emotional issue, but it has little relevance in domestic politics.
 
Nice thread, but how about starting a new one:

"Top Ten Pakistani myths about Pakistan".

I can help with the first one:

1. Pakistan is a nation.
 
Nice thread, but how about starting a new one:

"Top Ten Pakistani myths about Pakistan".

I can help with the first one:

1. Pakistan is a nation.



Top ten Indian myth about India:

I can help with the first one:

India is a democracy!:azn:
 
biggest MYTH of INDIA in INDIA


INDIA IS SECULR!!!
 
Let me demolish a myth for you - 'SonofIndia thinks he can continue posting on this forum despite childish flames and trolling'.

And another myth 'sonofIndia thinks he can continue posting on this forum and we won't figure out that he has mutliple ID's, atleast 3 of which are already banned'.

sonofIndia banned, myth demolished.;)
 
And another myth 'sonofIndia thinks he can continue posting on this forum and we won't figure out that he has mutliple ID's, atleast 3 of which are already banned'.

sonofIndia banned, myth demolished.;)

hahahaha :rofl::rofl: didn't know you had a sense of humour Agnostic....i thought that was just NEO & DARKSTAR area of expertise!! :enjoy:
 
WAKE UP DUDE AND READ THE BELOW ARTICLE"

The guns of August By Ahmad Faruqui
Monday, 31 Aug, 2009 | 08:02 AM PST |

No official history of the 1965 war was ever written even though President Ayub wanted one. — File Photo Pakistan
Pros & cons of incumbency Some of the writing about the Indo-Pakistan war of September 1965 borders on mythology. It is no surprise that generations of Pakistanis continue to believe that India was the aggressor and that one Pakistani soldier was equal to 10 Indian soldiers.

A few have argued that the war began in August when Pakistan injected guerrillas into the vale of Kashmir to instigate a revolt and grab it before India achieved military dominance in the region. That was Operation Gibraltar.

When it failed to trigger a revolt and drew a sharp Indian riposte along the ceasefire line, Pakistan upped the ante and launched Operation Grand Slam on Sept 1. Infantry units of the army backed by armour overran the Indian outpost in Chamb, crossed the Tawi river and were headed towards Akhnur in order to cut off India’s line of communication with Srinagar.

In the minority view, the Indian response on Sept 6 across the international border at Lahore was a natural counter-response, not an act of aggression.

I asked Sajjad Haider, author of the new book, Flight of the Falcon, to name the aggressor. He retired as an air commodore in the Pakistan Air Force. A fighter pilot to the bone, he does not know how to mince words: ‘Ayub perpetrated the war.’

In April, skirmishes had taken place in the Rann of Kutch region several hundred miles south of Kashmir. In that encounter, the Pakistanis prevailed over the Indians. Haider says that the humiliation suffered by the Indians brought Prime Minister Shastri to the conclusion that the next round would be of India’s choosing.

The Indian army chief prepared for a war that would be fought in the plains of Punjab. Under ‘Operation Ablaze’, it would mount an attack against Lahore, Sialkot and Kasur. Of course, the trigger would have to be pulled by the Pakistanis.

On May 12, says Haider, an Indian Canberra bomber flew over the Pakistan border on a reconnaissance mission. To quote him: ‘The PAF scrambled interceptors which got within shooting range of the intruder. Air Marshal Asghar Khan’s permission was sought to bring down the intruder. He sought clearance from the president on the newly installed direct line but Ayub denied permission fearing Indian reprisal.’ Laments Haider, ‘If this was not an indication of Indian intentions, what else could have been?’

Oblivious to what had just taken place in the skies above Punjab, and failing to anticipate how India was gunning to equalise the score, Ayub gave the green light to Operation Gibraltar on the advice of his foreign minister, Zulfikar Ali Bhutto (later president and prime minister). Bhutto had sought out the opinion about Indian intentions from Chinese Foreign Minister Chen Yi during a meeting at the Karachi airport and concluded from the latter’s body language that India would not respond.

So Ayub gave the green light to send 8,000 infiltrators into Indian-held Kashmir. These, says Haider, were mostly youth from Azad Kashmir who had less than four weeks of training in guerrilla warfare. The entire plan was predicated on a passive Indian response, evoking Gen Von Moltke’s dictum: ‘No war plan survives the first 24 hours of contact with the enemy.’

It is also worth recalling what the kaiser said to the German troops that were heading off to fight the French in August 1914: ‘You will be home before the leaves have fallen off the trees.’ The three-month war turned into the Great War which lasted for four years.

Operation Grand Slam abruptly ground to a halt. An Indian general cited by Haider says in his memoirs: ‘Akhnur was a ripe plum ready to be plucked, but providence came to our rescue.’ The Pakistani GHQ decided to switch divisional commanders in the midst of the operation. The new commander, Maj-Gen Yahya (subsequently army chief and president), claimed later he was not tasked with taking Akhnur.

I asked Haider whether the Pakistani military was prepared for an all-out war with India, a much bigger country with a much bigger military. He said it was the army’s war, since the other services had been kept in the dark. The army was clearly not prepared for an all-out war since a quarter of the soldiers were on leave. They were only recalled as the Indian army crossed the border en route to Lahore, a horrific sight which Haider recalls seeing from the air as he and five of his falcons arrived on the outskirts of Lahore.

Maj-Gen Sarfraz was the general officer commanding of the No.10 Division which had primary responsibility for the defence of Lahore. Along with other divisional commanders in the region, he had been ordered by GHQ to remove all defensive landmines from the border. None had been taken into confidence about the Kashmir operation. The pleas of these generals to prepare against an Indian invasion were rejected by GHQ with a terse warning: ‘Do not provoke the Indians.’

Haider notes that the gateway to Lahore was defended by the 3rd Baloch contingent of 100 men under the intrepid Major Shafqat Baluch. He says, ‘They fought to the last man till we (No.19 Squadron) arrived to devastate the invading division. There could have been no doubt even in the mind of a hawaldar that an Indian attack would come. But the ostriches at the pulpit had their heads dug in sand up to their necks.’

In the 1965 war, the Pakistani Army repeated the mistakes of the 1947-48 Kashmir war, but on a grander scale. No official history of the 1965 war was ever written even though President Ayub wanted one. Gen Yahya, his new army chief, just sat on the request until Ayub was hounded out of office by centrifugal forces triggered by the war.

Pakistan’s grand strategy was flawed. None of its strategic objectives were achieved. And were it not for the tactical brilliance of many mid-level commanders, the country would have been torn apart by the Indians. Ironically, in Ayub’s autobiography, one would be hard pressed to find any references to the war of 1965. One is reminded of De Gaulle’s history of the French army which makes no reference to the events that took place in Waterloo in 1815.

War, as Clemenceau put it, is too serious a business to be left to the generals.

The writer has authored Rethinking the National Security of Pakistan.
AhmadFaruqui***********

http://www.dawn.com/wps/wcm/connect...awn/news/pakistan/16-the-guns-of-august-hs-06
 
Last edited:
Pakistan has fought through proxies:

saying India has also fought through proxies does not change the fact/myth. If A is a dud, then saying "B is dud too" does not make A any different. Its still a dud.

What the myth is, I believe, is that Pakistan had started the covert operations against India and since India could not resist that militarily, we "had to" resort to covert operations.

And thats the myth of "Pak fights through proxies and hence we should fight with proxies too" NOT "Pak fights through proxies but we do not"
 
Last edited:
Millitary of only two months put indain plans back & get kashmir.This millitary was poor,unarmed,no food defeated indian well equiped arm.So by the grace of Allah our believes are on our selves & Allah. We fight with respect to Ghzwa-e-Badr. History knows well as at the time of partition Pakistan was given as 10 percent or even less than 10% of anything inspite of dead bodies..
 
Pakistan has fought through proxies:

saying India has also fought through proxies does not change the fact/myth. If A is a dud, then saying "B is dud too" does not make A any different. Its still a dud.

What the myth is, I believe, is that Pakistan had started the covert operations against India and since India could not resist that militarily, we "had to" resort to covert operations.

And thats the myth of "Pak fights through proxies and hence we should fight with proxies too" NOT "Pak fights through proxies but we do not"

Please read my post again - I did not suggest that the fact that India fights through proxies makes Paksitan's use of proxies untrue or irrelevant.

I merely pointed out that the context in which that accusation is hurled at Pakistan often ignores the fact that India has had its hands in the proxy war jar just as much as Pakistan, and then the whole bit about 'pot calling the kettle black' comes into play.

What purpose is served with Indians accusing Pakistan of using proxies when India has done the same?

Better to let that particular allegation alone then - but it is not left alone specifically because Indians wish to whitewash their own sins and hope no one calls them out on it.
 
Please read my post again - I did not suggest that the fact that India fights through proxies makes Paksitan's use of proxies untrue or irrelevant.

I merely pointed out that the context in which that accusation is hurled at Pakistan often ignores the fact that India has had its hands in the proxy war jar just as much as Pakistan, and then the whole bit about 'pot calling the kettle black' comes into play.

What purpose is served with Indians accusing Pakistan of using proxies when India has done the same?

Better to let that particular allegation alone then - but it is not left alone specifically because Indians wish to whitewash their own sins and hope no one calls them out on it.


Sir kindly first make it clear what is the point of discussion. Is it the myth you want to debunk or you want to prove "Hamam mein dono nange hain"

Whatever India does (I am not implying whatever you believe is what India does) has no bearing to the MYTH you want to debunk (If it is a myth at all)

Your reasoning on this particular point implies you believe Pakistan do this (So not a myth) because India also do this.
Please explain
 
Back
Top Bottom