India’s Two-Front Trap: Is It Turning Into A Reality? | The News9 Plus Show

[DedBot]

Given the poor economic state of Pakistan, it is not much of a 2nd front right now as it cannot sustain any war beyond several days anyway. The threat is overblown right now.

And when could we sustain war beyond several days with the disparity in conventional strength?

Economy is not a major factor for a prolonged war between India and Pakistan.

 

[Pataliputra]

And when could we sustain war beyond several days with the disparity in conventional strength?

Economy is not a major factor for a prolonged war between India and Pakistan.

In 1971, India was a financially bankrupt country, while Pakistan had one of the fastest-growing and strongest economies in Asia. Despite this, it took India only 12 days to invade East Pakistan, force Pakistan to sign surrender documents, and declare East Pakistan an independent country.

 

[Thinking]

In 1971, India was a financially bankrupt country, while Pakistan had one of the fastest-growing and strongest economies in Asia. Despite this, it took India only 12 days to invade East Pakistan, force Pakistan to sign surrender documents, and declare East Pakistan an independent country.

More manpower and East Pakistan was far away, facing insurgency.

Lets not have war in first place.

 

[Barcid]

Pakistan should focus on taking back Swat instead of dreaming about fighting india

 

[arjunk]

it is not much of a 2nd front right now as it cannot sustain any war beyond several days anyway.

No matter the economic conditions, Pakistan is not expected to sustain and win a war beyond a week or two in any case; India being the quantitatively larger country gains an advantage in a long war.

Any conflict that exhausts Pakistan's resources will result in TNWs being dropped on any Indian formation that happens to manage a break through.

 

[arjunk]

In 1971, India was a financially bankrupt country, while Pakistan had one of the fastest-growing and strongest economies in Asia. Despite this, it took India only 12 days to invade East Pakistan, force Pakistan to sign surrender documents, and declare East Pakistan an independent country

Is such amusing revisionism prevalent among all Indian educational institutions?

You forgot to mention that for 9 months prior Bengali locals had already captured most of the country for you, and that India had a 50:1 numerical advantage and total logistical and air supremacy against East Pakistan. IAF had 160+ jets, PAF had barely 16.

Still, India managed to lose some battles like at Kamalpur, where a brigade (2,000-4,000 soldiers) of Indian Army could not dislodge 40 Pakistani soldiers. By the end of the war Pakistan still controlled much of the cities it started with.

In 1947, Pakistan was actually bankrupt to the point it could not afford chairs and desks in govt offices.

Still, Pakistan swiftly invaded Kashmir with pathans and gilgitis wearing chappals, and forced India to surrender an area the size of Austria to Pakistan. This was despite India having an air force, armour, and outnumbering Pakistan.

Every war has ended with India permanently giving up territory to Pakistan:

1947: 86,000sq km of Kashmir (India surrendered whole Gilgit-Baltistan)
1965: 900 sq miles of Gujarat (Indian invasions of Pakistan failed)
1971: 120sq km of Kashmir (despite so called decisive Indian victory)
1999: Multiple peaks in Kargil (India begged the US to pressure Musharraf to withdraw)

I don't know where Indians get their undue overconfidence from - but I'm happy to get a good laugh out of it.

 

[Thinking]

Is such amusing revisionism prevalent among all Indian educational institutions?

You forgot to mention that for 9 months prior Bengali locals had already captured most of the country for you, and that India had a 50:1 numerical advantage and total logistical and air supremacy against East Pakistan. IAF had 160+ jets, PAF had barely 16.

Still, India managed to lose some battles like at Kamalpur, where a brigade (2,000-4,000 soldiers) of Indian Army could not dislodge 40 Pakistani soldiers. By the end of the war Pakistan still controlled much of the cities it started with.

In 1947, Pakistan was actually bankrupt to the point it could not afford chairs and desks in govt offices.

Still, Pakistan swiftly invaded Kashmir with pathans and gilgitis wearing chappals, and forced India to surrender an area the size of Austria to Pakistan. This was despite India having an air force, armour, and outnumbering Pakistan.

Every war has ended with India permanently giving up territory to Pakistan:

1947: 86,000sq km of Kashmir (India surrendered whole Gilgit-Baltistan)
1965: 900 sq miles of Gujarat (Indian invasions of Pakistan failed)
1971: 120sq km of Kashmir (despite so called decisive Indian victory)
1999: Multiple peaks in Kargil (India begged the US to pressure Musharraf to withdraw)

I don't know where Indians get their undue overconfidence from - but I'm happy to get a good laugh out of it.

You sounds like a wise knowledgeable person. Good for you!

 

[Guru Dutt]

500 years which didn't include majority of India before arrival of mughals. I don't know how this "story" of 1000 year of rule came to be? Perhaps Pakistan is counted as India?

well even with lands that are in Pakistan today Bin Quasim inavded sindh and parts of multan in 712 AD but in few years he was dreagged back till Iran by BAPPA RAWAL and had only a couple of towns in costal sindh while indian kings got back and kept fighting muslim invaders and gave them such a thrashing that niether central asians or arbas dared to attack till 996 AD when ghaznavid empire finally capured Afghanistan and started expanding into western punjab and it tool almost 25 years for Mamhmood Ghaznavi to get to the main riches of Somnath but was also mercilessy trempelled in battle of Bharaich by sohaildev so much that he and turcks and afghans did not dare to look towards india for more than 150 years

 

[DDG-80]

Is such amusing revisionism prevalent among all Indian educational institutions?

You forgot to mention that for 9 months prior Bengali locals had already captured most of the country for you, and that India had a 50:1 numerical advantage and total logistical and air supremacy against East Pakistan. IAF had 160+ jets, PAF had barely 16.

Still, India managed to lose some battles like at Kamalpur, where a brigade (2,000-4,000 soldiers) of Indian Army could not dislodge 40 Pakistani soldiers. By the end of the war Pakistan still controlled much of the cities it started with.

In 1947, Pakistan was actually bankrupt to the point it could not afford chairs and desks in govt offices.

Still, Pakistan swiftly invaded Kashmir with pathans and gilgitis wearing chappals, and forced India to surrender an area the size of Austria to Pakistan. This was despite India having an air force, armour, and outnumbering Pakistan.

Every war has ended with India permanently giving up territory to Pakistan:

1947: 86,000sq km of Kashmir (India surrendered whole Gilgit-Baltistan)
1965: 900 sq miles of Gujarat (Indian invasions of Pakistan failed)
1971: 120sq km of Kashmir (despite so called decisive Indian victory)
1999: Multiple peaks in Kargil (India begged the US to pressure Musharraf to withdraw)

I don't know where Indians get their undue overconfidence from - but I'm happy to get a good laugh out of it.

Throughout history, Indian forces have penetrated deep inside Pakistan, including taking over Lahore, which was later returned at the request of the international community. In 1971 war, India captured the entire Shakargarh tehsil in Punjab and several other strategic areas. Additionally, Pakistan lost control of Turtuk and three other villages in Gilgit-Baltistan in 1971, the Haji Pir Pass in the 1965 war, and the strategic Siachen Glacier region. India liberated East Pakistan, destroyed and burned Karachi port for seven days, and captured 15,000 square kilometers on Pakistan's western front. Overall, Pakistan has lost far more soldiers, land, and assets, and is now becoming a colony of China. We control 100% of the Kashmir Valley, where the majority of rivers essential for Pakistan's agriculture flow from our territory. We are constructing dams to deplete your resources and leave you high and dry. In any future conflict, Pakistan would be devastated, and the retribution would be severe. So, remain aware of your true place. We are prepared for a war of attrition with Pakistan.

Historian and political economist Dr S. Akbar Zaidi dispelled ‘the victory myth’, saying that there can be no a bigger lie, as Pakistan lost terribly.

'History in Pakistan has been badly treated'

People are unaware of this fact because the history that is taught in Pakistan is from an ideological viewpoint.

www.dawn.com

 

[Thinking]

Well I have been told that India lost portion of J&K to Pakistan. It made me wonder, just how? Afterall, before "surprise uprising by ordinary everyday people", India was not even present in that princely state. So whatever territory India holds today is what it won either because it was unoccupied or taken back. No Indian military ever reached or fought in say gilgit. So how did Pakistan manage to snatch it from India? Perhaps they mean on paper. Afterall, Nehru, instead of pressing forward with war as advised by others, went to UN resulting in ceasefire leading to current lines of control. So how did Pakistan manage to win anything from India?

 

[Thinking]

well even with lands that are in Pakistan today Bin Quasim inavded sindh and parts of multan in 712 AD but in few years he was dreagged back till Iran by BAPPA RAWAL and had only a couple of towns in costal sindh while indian kings got back and kept fighting muslim invaders and gave them such a thrashing that niether central asians or arbas dared to attack till 996 AD when ghaznavid empire finally capured Afghanistan and started expanding into western punjab and it tool almost 25 years for Mamhmood Ghaznavi to get to the main riches of Somnath but was also mercilessy trempelled in battle of Bharaich by sohaildev so much that he and turcks and afghans did not dare to look towards india for more than 150 years

1000 years of rule is repeated so often, it has become a fact. It doesn't require any historical fact. I wonder who coined this idea in first place and why..

 

[Guru Dutt]

1000 years of rule is repeated so often, it has become a fact. It doesn't require any historical fact. I wonder who coined this idea in first place and why..

same people who inveted so called TWO NATION THEORY and propogated then ZUBAN E URDU as URDU LANGUAGE which until mid 1920s was called HINDUSTANI to Language of mohmdenns

they did it to create false sense of racial superiority & bravado and elhilation in minds of feudal minded muslim masses so they could be steared away from nationalist movement and then raging poorna swaraj demands

when shriff of mecca was fighting against Turks to free all arabia and defeted Usmania kheliphet muslims in India agetated and rioted across india killed tens of thousands of hindus in mopalla/malabar - kerala (Khilafat movement)

after that british divided the trio of LAL BAL PAL where bal ganghadar tilak swami aurobindo and M A jinnah were close friends and british divided them too by sendiing Tilak to adamans , Swami Aurobindo to calcutta jail and send Jinnah to London where he was groomed for years to be used as educated muslim voice and used him in 1940s

 

[Pataliputra]

1000 years of rule is repeated so often, it has become a fact. It doesn't require any historical fact. I wonder who coined this idea in first place and why..

Only Pakistani and Indian Muslims claim they ruled over India for 1000 years. You won't find a single Turk, Arab, or Afghan making this claim. In fact, they often troll Pakistanis for being a converted Muslim race and consider them inferior.

 

[Guru Dutt]

Only Pakistani and Indian Muslims claim they ruled over India for 1000 years. You won't find a single Turk, Arab, or Afghan making this claim. In fact, they often troll Pakistanis for being a converted Muslim race and consider them inferior.

and just look how for that matter Turks or Arabs or Afghans treat so called Pakistanies in there nation and how they treat indians in there own nation in contrast

 

[Oscar]

It's a weird theory by Pakistanis, Pakistanis say that Mughals, Afghans, and Arabs attacked India, despite knowing that the part of India they attacked and looted the most is present-day Pakistan. The people they enslaved, tortured, and forced to accept Islam are the present-day Pakistani Muslims, not the Indian Hindus. I don't understand why Pakistanis don't recognize this obvious and simple historical fact.

I did not know Somnath was in Pakistan. Nor Dehli
Nor were Mughals and Afghans different - there was a turkik and Caucasian stock involved.
Arabs only “attacked” Sindh and then did not go beyond that - any further “Arab” influence was preachers.

Nobody was enslaved, torture was common to everyone - ask what the Brits did to Indians from all walks of life - forceful conversions was limited to early Arab and some turkic invaders - the rest employed everyone as mercenaries. Preachers did most of the conversions.

The area that is Pakistan was rarely a source of resistance - historically the resistance to invasions came from deeper into India - most of what is Pakistan either never bothered invaders or joined their armies as long as they were allowed to keep their resources intact.

Any fact you are stating is a falsified Islamophobic lie to help you feel victimized and agree to persecution and genocide today for Indian muslims.