Friday, September 4, 2020

Defense of Pakistan Day: Has Pakistan Lost All Wars to India?

As the South Asian nation of 220 million celebrates Defense of Pakistan Day, it is a good time to ask: Has Pakistan lost all wars to India? Indian defense analyst Pravin Sawhney says NO! In fact, Sawhney argues that Pakistan has never lost to India. Not in 1965, nor in 1971 nor Kargil!! Who is Pravin Sawhney? What makes him an authority on such matters?

Pakistan JF-17s Flying National Colors on Defense of Pakistan Day
Who is Pravin Sawhney?

Pravin Sawhney is a retired Indian Army officer who currently publishes "FORCE" magazine, along with Ghazala Wahab. Both deal with defense matters. Here's how FORCE introduces Pravin Sawhney:

"An author of two books, The Defence Makeover: Ten Myths That Shape India’s Image and Operation Parakram: The War Unfinished, a widely circulated monograph, Ballistic Missile Imperatives Between India And Pakistan, which he co-authored with Pakistani scholar Nazir Kamal at Sandia National Laboratories, Albuquerque, US, Pravin writes on strategic, defence and foreign policy issues. He also writes a monthly column, Bottomline in FORCE.  Before starting FORCE, Pravin was the South Asia correspondent based in New Delhi with Jane’s International Defence Review, Jane’s Information Group, Surrey (UK) for six years. Taking premature retirement from the Indian Army (artillery), Pravin started his journalistic career with Business and Political Observer newspaper from where he moved on to the Times of India and Indian Express newspapers, finally leaving defence reporting in 1996 as defence editor, The Asian Age. He has also been a visiting fellow at the Royal United Services Institute, Whitehall, London, UK and a visiting scholar at Sandia National Laboratories, Albuquerque, US."


What Does Sawhney Say About India-Pakistan Conflict:

In an interview with Pakistani journalist Israr Kasana that was published on YouTube on June 3, 2020, Pravin asserted that "Pakistan has never lost (to India) in any war, be it 1965 or 1971 or any other." "If Pakistan had lost, there would be no line-of-control or ceasefire line on the ground," he added.  Here's more from that interview:

"If Pakistan had lost we (India) would have erased the LOC...why do I say that? I have explained it in my book. Pakistan has been strong in the western sector. It's a myth that Pakistan is weak, a myth that Pakistan itself perpetrates...India says we (India) are strong when in fact it is not.....CPEC is extremely important...China will share a lot of military capability with Pakistan....China shares platforms and assures unlimited supply of spare parts which is crucial in war...China and Pakistan do frequent joint military exercises...to assure interoperability.

Pakistan Air Force fleet : JF-17 (Dragon) top, F-16 (Aggressor) middle and Mirage 3 (Sky Bolt) bottom.



What Has Sawhney Said About Balakot?

After the February 2019 conflict triggered by India's bombing in Balakot in Pakistan, Sawhney argued that India’s conventional deterrence has been compromised. India's war-fighting capabilities – pivoted on air power – have been blunted without a fight.  Meanwhile, Pakistan maintained credibility of both its first combined civil-military government and its air power.

Sawhney said, "Pakistan was faced with the dilemma of how to avenge India’s unprecedented action: to use or not to use the PAF. It was decided that the PAF too would breach Indian airspace while calling it a non-military strike. Unlike the IAF, the PAF strike would be done with menacing force in broad daylight ensuring that Indian military installations close to the Line of Control were not damaged enough to compel India to raise the ante."

Here's Pravin Sawhney talking about February 2019 action:'
'
https://youtu.be/YX4qXrR34PI




Related Links:

Haq's Musings

South Asia Investor Review

Is India a Paper Elephant?

CPEC & Digital BRI

Pakistan's National Resilience, Success Against COVID19

China-Pakistan Defense Production Collaboration Irks West

Balakot and Kashmir: Fact Checkers Expose Indian Lies

Is Pakistan Ready for War with India?

Pakistan-Made Airplanes Lead Nation's Defense Exports

Modi's Blunders and Delusions 

India's Israel Envy: What If Modi Attacks Pakistan?

Project Azm: Pakistan to Develop 5th Generation Fighter Jet

Pakistan Navy Modernization

Pakistan's Sea-Based Second Strike Capability

Who Won the 1965 War? India or Pakistan?

22 comments:

Signa said...

War That Never Was: The Story Of India's Strategic Failures
by
Ravi Rikhye

In the Chapter 4- How India Lost All Its Wars of the book, the author gives analysis of the proposition that war of 1947-48 and 1965 were a favorable stalemate and that of 1971 was an outright victory has been carried out in this chapter. Here the author comments that in all security crises, there have been very serious misperceptions of adversary behavior and that India repeatedly commits same mistake.

https://booksynopsis16.blogspot.com/2016/04/the-war-that-never-was-ravi-rikhye.html

Riaz Haq said...

Defence expert Ravi Rikhye on India-Pakistan war scenario


https://www.indiatoday.in/magazine/cover-story/story/19870215-defence-expert-ravi-rikhye-on-india-pakistan-war-scenario-798551-1987-02-15


And if war comes, it may proceed somewhat thus: India's vast military superiority cannot be translated into victory until four to six weeks of attrition have been imposed on Pakistan. Currently, Pakistan has a true reserve of five divisions (leaving three against Afghanistan) to India's 14 plus two more available from the North-east. A realistic exchange ratio might be five Pakistani divisions for eight Indian divisions over a four-week period. That leaves Pakistan without reserves, but India with another eight divisions. Within four weeks more, Pakistan will be defeated.

Because of this four-week lead time, battle results will initially prove elusive, putting the Indian military and political high command under severe pressure.

At sea, Pakistan will seek to deny us its coastal waters and impose losses with its submarines. India will try and control the north Arabian Sea, a harder proposition. Attrition of Pakistani submarines and coastal defence forces will become effective only after four weeks.
In the air, Pakistan will first score visible victories because its pilot training and air doctrine are superior and because India will attack aggressively and give extensive support to ground troops, entailing heavy losses in the skies. The IAF will be under pressure, but after two weeks, will start asserting superiority and after four, supremacy over a declining PAF. The Pakistan Army will be quickly left on its own as the PAF concentrates on defending its air bases and conserving its strength for the final battles. The PAF will regularly launch daring deep strikes with but a single aircraft to keep India off balance. These will achieve precisely nothing.


The armies will see hot action from the Nubra Valley near Siachen glacier to the Rann of Kutch. Both sides will alternate offensives, which will be of three to seven days duration with about half that time spent in full-scale fighting. There will be 10 to 15 days between offensives in a particular sector, and each command and corps will tend to fight its own battle, despite efforts of both General Headquarters to coordinate the entire front.

No progress will be visible between the Nubra and Ferozepur in Punjab because the front is locked: both sides have heavy troop concentrations and fortifications. India, specially, will find the attacking tough because Pakistan has been working on fortifications for 35 years, some of which (as in the Sialkot sector) are mind-boggling.

The major battlefield will be from Suliemanki, south of Ferozepur, and Fort Abbas, in the Thar Desert. The numerous Indian troops now available will get in each other's way. Pakistan will give ground and make some offensives but try to conserve its strength. Despite recriminations in India at the initial lack of gains, after a month, results start showing and Indian morale will sky-rocket while Pakistan's plummets. Pakistan army's theories of mobile warfare and helicopters will flounder on the rock of desperate defence: it will be attrition warfare all the way.

China and the US will stay out unless the USSR intervenes, which won't unless either steps in. The Muslim world and virtually all the United Nations will be against India, clamouring for a cease-fire. The Soviets, as in 1965 and in 1971 in the western sector, will try to prevent spectacular Indian gains. Pakistan will be fighting for survival. India will be the one beset by existential doubts, as was Pakistan in 1971. Not having a clear-cut cause will hurt it.

The political leadership will give in under the lack of early progress and world pressure. It will, as always, seek the softest option and the earliest ceasefire, so that little but a favourable stalemate will have been achieved.


Iftekhar H. said...

Dear Riaz Saheb:
Asak. I totally agree with you. Pakistan is stronger than India and has not lost any war with India. But as time goes on. India has intelligence alliances & military support from USA and Israel. Russia is also with India.

Pakistan has only China and China is enough. Real victory for Pakistan will lie in the long term:

1) In Improving our economy
2) Providing jobs for our youth
3) Increasing Health Care benefits for all Pakistanis
4) In Building alliances with its neighbors like Iran, Arabs and also Turkey

THERE IS LONG TERM ECONOMIC WAR WITH INDIA THAT PAKISTAN MUST WIN.

Thank God we have a good leader in Imran Khan. We need more leaders like him to make sure corruption
is wiped off from Pakistan and a very good educational and economic hub is established in every major city
of Pakistan.

Riaz Haq said...

Iftekhar: " Pakistan will lie in the long term: 1) In Improving our economy 2) Providing jobs for our youth 3) Increasing Health Care benefits for all Pakistanis
4) In Building alliances with its neighbors like Iran, Arabs and also Turkey"



Iftekhar Bhai,
I agree with you, especially the part about strengthening Pakistan's economy. 

Riaz Haq said...

#Coronavirus Crisis Shatters #India’s Big Dreams of middle-class lifestyle for its people, powerful military and global superpower status that could someday rival #China. #Modi's #lockdown-and-scatter policy being blamed for it. #BJP #COVID19 #economy https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/05/world/asia/india-economy-coronavirus.html?smid=tw-share

A sense of malaise is creeping over the nation. Its economic growth was slowing even before the pandemic. Social divisions are widening. Anti-Muslim feelings are on the rise, partly because of a malicious social media campaign that falsely blamed Muslims for spreading the virus. China is increasingly muscling into Indian territory.

Scholars use many of the same words when contemplating India today: Lost. Listless. Wounded. Rudderless. Unjust.

“The engine has been smashed,” said Arundhati Roy, one of India’s pre-eminent writers. “The ability to survive has been smashed. And the pieces are all up in the air. You don’t know where they are going to fall or how they are going to fall.”

In a recent episode of his weekly radio show, Mr. Modi acknowledged that India was “fighting on many fronts.” He urged Indians to maintain social distancing, wear masks and keep “hale and hearty.”

India still has strengths. It has a huge, young work force and oodles of tech geniuses. It represents a possible alternative to China at a time when the United States and much of the rest of the world is realigning itself away from Beijing.

But its stature in the world is slipping. Last quarter the Indian economy shrank by 24 percent, while China’s is growing again. Economists say India risks losing its place as the world’s fifth largest economy, behind the United States, China, Japan and Germany.

“This is probably the worst situation India has been in since independence,” said Jayati Ghosh, a development economist at Jawaharlal Nehru University in New Delhi. “People have no money. Investors aren’t going to invest if there is no market. And the costs have gone up for most production.”

Many neighborhoods in the capital of New Delhi where low-paid workers used to live are deserted, shell-like, a hot wind blowing through empty, tin-walled shacks. A few years ago, when the economy was expanding at a 9 percent clip, it was difficult to find a place here to rent.

When Mr. Modi was swept to power in 2014 on a tide of Hindu nationalism, many Indians felt their nation had finally found the forceful leader to match their aspirations.

But Mr. Modi has concentrated his energies on divisive ideological projects, like a new citizenship law that blatantly discriminates against Muslims or tightening the government’s grip over the mostly Muslim region of Kashmir.

Quarter by quarter, India’s economic growth rate has been dropping, from 8 percent in 2016 to 4 percent right before the pandemic. Four percent would be respectable for a developed country like the United States. But in India, that level is no match for the millions of young people streaming into the work force each year, hungry for their first job.

Many of the complaints that investors make about India — the cumbersome land policies, the restrictive labor laws, the red tape — predate Mr. Modi. But his confidence and absolutism, the same qualities that appealed to many voters, may have added to the problems.

Four years ago he suddenly wiped out nearly 90 percent of India’s paper currency to tamp down corruption and encourage digital payments. While economists cheered both goals, they say the way Mr. Modi sprang this move on India did long-lasting damage to the economy.

That impulsiveness emerged again when the coronavirus struck. On March 24, at 8 p.m., after ordering all Indians to stay indoors, Mr. Modi shut down the economy — offices, factories, roads, trains, borders between states, just about everything — with four hours’ notice.

Tens of millions of Indians lost their jobs instantly. Many worked in factories or on construction sites or in urban homes, but they were migrants from rural India.

Mantou said...

"China is increasingly muscling into Indian territory."

The truth is India is occupying a piece of Chinese territory as we speak.

In 1951, three and a half years after the British has left the subcontinent, India invaded and annexed Tawang, South Tibet and occupy it to this day. Tawang is the birthplace of the Sixth Dalai Lama and home to a four hundred years old Tibetan monastery. South Tibet and the northeast in general has never been part of the cultural sphere of any South Asian kingdoms. No Chinese government, whether the People's Republic of China (mainland China) or the Republic of China (Taiwan) has ever recognized this land grab. In fact Taiwan has been protesting India's land grab even before Tawang was annexed.

In 1987 India renamed South Tibet to the so called Arunachal Pradesh. Since 2009 South Tibet is recognized by the United Nation as a disputed territory, making India the only country occupying two UN recognized disputed territories. The first one of course is Kashmir.

Ahmad F. said...

The 6th of September is glorified as the Defense of Pakistan Day. The official histories paint it as a day in which the Pakistan army defeated India’s attempts to take Lahore. Yes, India did not take Lahore. But did Pakistan wrest Kashmir from India, which was the goal of the covert operations launched in August 1965? No. In fact, after that failure, Pakistan came close to losing Lahore. The war ended when Pakistan ran out of ammunition to fire artillery shells or start its fighter jets.This conclusion is not mine alone. It is that of many military historians. The war was President Ayub’s blunder. He was deposed by his army chief four years later after the people rose against Ayub, calling him a dog and much else. I quote from their histories in this article. This article is the first in a series which I will post in the days to come.

I am citing the work of scholars and analysts who are respected not only throughout the globe but also in Pakistan. Kashmir remains part of India despite repeated efforts by the Pakistani army to wrest it. East Pakistan with more than half the population was lost in 1971. The whole world witnessed the surrender. The Pakistani flag has not flown there since December 16, 1971. To say Pakistan did not lose that war is about as credible as saying that Japan did not lose the Second World War.


https://dailytimes.com.pk/118022/did-pakistan-win-the-war-of-1965-i/?fbclid=IwAR3laI_Bn8pPrLsFtbhlP_6YxRAr73p_Lo8VVuuNzvtrcnoMN3w3mPtNLA0

Riaz Haq said...

Ahmad: "I am citing the work of scholars and analysts who are respected not only throughout the globe but also in Pakistan"

Our Indian “friend” and “scholar” Pravin Sawhney says Pakistan has never lost to India. He too is a serious scholar, teacher and published author who has also worn the Indian Army uniform.

Ahmad F. said...

There is no doubt that the guerrilla operations misfired in Kashmir. There’s little doubt that when the war ended Kashmir still was in Indian hands. Or is there some doubt? Lives and treasure were lost for no gain. The war was a disaster for Pakistan. It laid the seeds for the much bigger disaster that would come just six years later. Or was that not a disaster? There are no limits to the imagination of some people. They see victory when the world sees defeat. They refuse to learn their lessons and make the same mistakes over and over again. They are condemned by providence to repeat history.

Riaz Haq said...

Ahmad: "There is no doubt that the guerrilla operations misfired in Kashmir."

It didn't happen in 1960s but India's military occupation and oppression in Kashmir has ignited a home-grown insurgency starting in 1980s and there is no end in sight. Young Kashmiri stone pelters are fast turning into armed militants. https://scroll.in/article/951098/de-radicalisation-india-s-kashmir-policy-pushed-stone-pelters-to-become-militants-say-families

Ahmad F. said...

What India is doing in Kashmir deserves strong international condemnation that's its somehow not getting. I agree with you. India has lost the struggle for the minds and hearts of the Kashmiri people. It's holding them hostage in the worst way possible. Pakistan should not send in armed intruders. It should try to escalate the issue up to the UNSC and work with other countries to get a resolution passed and enforced. Unfortunately, it's trying to do that but there are no tangible results thus far. The world has no empathy for the plight of Kashmiris (or Palestinians). Having said all of that, I still think the decision to attack Kargil in 1999 was taken in haste and was a blunder. It failed to change the situation on the ground and cost Pakistan many points in the international arena. Even China did not come to Pakistan's side, as Air Marshal Asghar Khan wrote in Dawn.

Riaz Haq said...

Ahmad:"What India is doing in Kashmir deserves strong international condemnation that's its somehow not getting. I agree with you. India has lost the struggle for the minds and hearts of the Kashmiri people......I still think the decision to attack Kargil in 1999 was taken in haste and was a blunder. It failed to change the situation on the ground and cost Pakistan many points in the international arena"

Don't count on the international community to do anything...the same community that has silently watched Israeli atrocities in Palestine.

Kargil was a victory, thought it came at great cost due to Nawaz Sharif's cowardice. Pakistan still holds Point 5353, the highest peak which has a domineering view of the national highway between Srinagar and Leh. It has never been occupied by Indian forces since the war. It's insurance against any Indian mischief in Gilgit-Baltistan against CPEC. https://theprint.in/defence/why-point-5353-in-kargil-continues-to-be-occupied-by-pakistan/87213/

Riaz Haq said...

An official US report indicates that China has deep strategic interests in Pakistan, which will persuade both countries to stay engaged despite possible irritants.


https://www.dawn.com/news/1578159

https://media.defense.gov/2020/Sep/01/2002488689/-1/-1/1/2020-DOD-CHINA-MILITARY-POWER-REPORT-FINAL.PDF

In its 2020 report to Congress on “Military and Security Develop­ments” in China,” the US Department of Defence suggests that Pakistan is among a handful of countries where Beijing seeks to enhance both “bilateral and multilateral” engagements.

The report — published earlier this week — notes that Pakistan is among the countries where China “has likely considered locations for military logistics facilities,” a claim both Beijing and Islamabad reject as speculative.

The Pentagon states that Pakistan is also among the countries where Beijing has developed a series of “campaigns,” outlining operational military activities to achieve its strategic objectives.


As part of these campaigns, China is seeking “an increase in bilateral and multilateral engagement” with nations like Russia, Pakistan, and the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (Asean) that “can improve its ability to organise and manage combined operations that integrate foreign forces,” the report adds.

The report also claims that China’s Strategic Support Force (SSF) “runs tracking, telemetry, and command stations in Namibia, Pakistan, and Argentina”.

The Pentagon notes that China’s One Belt, One Road (OBOR) projects in Pakistan are associated with pipelines and port construction that intend to decrease China’s reliance on transporting energy resources through strategic choke points, such as the Strait of Malacca.

In 2019, the Chinese military participated in Russia’s national-level exercise TSENTR-19 along with forces from Pakistan and India, the report adds.

The Pentagon reports to Congress that China’s counter-terrorism cooperation with Tajikistan is likely tied to the August 2016 creation of a quadrilateral counterterrorism coordination mechanism between Afghanistan, China, Pakistan and Tajikistan. Under this arrangement, all four countries agreed to jointly strengthen border security against China’s defined “three evils,” terrorism, separatism, and religious extremism.

A recent report in the Forbes magazine says that China has commercial and political interests in developing Gwadar but there is no evidence to suggest that it is building military installations in the port city.

Like the Pentagon report, the author of the Forbes report, H. I. Sutton, argues that Gwadar has strategic importance for Beijing because it will provide “a port facility connected to China by road and rail that bypasses the Strait of Malacca.”

Riaz Haq said...

Military and Security Developments Involving the People’s Republic of China 2020 Annual Report to Congress A Report to Congress Pursuant to the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000, as Amended



https://media.defense.gov/2020/Sep/01/2002488689/-1/-1/1/2020-DOD-CHINA-MILITARY-POWER-REPORT-FINAL.PDF



PLA Overseas Basing and Access > The PRC is seeking to establish a more robust overseas logistics and basing infrastructure to allow the PLA to project and sustain military power at greater distances. > Beyond its current base in Djibouti, the PRC is very likely already considering and planning for additional overseas military logistics facilities to support naval, air, and ground forces. The PRC has likely considered locations for PLA military logistics facilities in Myanmar, Thailand, Singapore, Indonesia, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, United Arab Emirates, Kenya, Seychelles, Tanzania, Angola, and Tajikistan. The PRC and Cambodia have publicly denied having signed an agreement to provide the PLAN with access to Cambodia’s Ream Naval Base.



------------



Space Systems Department. The SSF Space Systems Department is responsible for nearly all PLA space operations, including: space launch and support; space surveillance; space information support; space telemetry, tracking, and control; and space warfare. The Space Systems Department seeks to resolve the bureaucratic struggles that existed over the PLA space mission, as elements of the mission were previously dispersed across several national and service-subordinate organizations. The PRC officially designated space as a new domain of warfare in its 2015 defense white paper, and expects space to play an important role in future conflicts by enabling long-range precision strikes and in denying other militaries the use of overhead command, control, communications, computers, intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (C4ISR) systems. The Space System Department operates at least eight bases, including those whose core missions are the launch, tracking R&D, and operation of the satellites vital to China’s overhead C4ISR architecture. The SSF runs tracking, telemetry, and command stations in Namibia, Pakistan, and Argentina. The SSF also has a handful of Yuan Wang space support ships to track satellite and intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) launches.



-----------------

In support of its national strategy, the PRC pursues a range of goals through OBOR to include strengthening its territorial integrity, increasing its energy security, and expanding its international influence. Given the Party views the PRC’s security and development interests as complementary, the PRC leverages OBOR to invest in projects along China’s western and southern periphery to improve stability and diminish threats along its borders. Similarly, OBOR projects associated with pipelines and port construction in Pakistan intend to decrease China’s reliance on transporting energy resources through strategic choke points, such as the Strait of Malacca.

-------------------



Beyond its current base in Djibouti, the PRC is very likely already considering and planning for additional overseas military logistics facilities to support naval, air, and ground forces. The PRC has likely considered locations for PLA military logistics facilities in Myanmar, Thailand, Singapore, Indonesia, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, United Arab Emirates, Kenya, Seychelles, Tanzania, Angola, and Tajikistan. The PRC and Cambodia have publicly denied having signed an agreement to provide the PLAN with access to Cambodia’s Ream Naval Base.



Ahmed said...

Sir

Thank you for highlighting all these facts about wars between India and Pakistan .

Indian trolls come to newspages of Pakistan on Facebook and on youtube channels of Pakistan and they use very offensive and bad language against Pakistanis especially against civil government of Pakistan and also against Pak army and ISI.

They even claim that PAKISTAN never won any wars against India .

I haven't read these books which you have mentioned in this post especially in comment section about war between India and Pakistan .

Sir I just wanted to confirm ,are these books latest ? I mean these authors who have written these books are new ?



Thanks

samir sardana said...

Sharmila Bose exposed the worth of the Hindoos,a long time ago.They are a race of cowards, weasels and Impotenticas.There is no need to read Indo-Pak Military History as that history, to the exteht created by the Hindoos,is a lie.

Hindoos are the lowest of the low - the kind of vermin who poison the food,fed to people.The world must note that the Hindoo DNA,is a permanent resident in all the Hindu converts also.dindooohindoo

Pakistan and the Mongols,have been presented with a golden opportunity - and they need to strike hard and decisively.It is their duty to humanity

1st some perspective for the Pakistanis. Y are the Indians a race of cowards,weasels and Impotenticas.It is simple ! They eat rats,lizards and pigs - just the antithesis of Islam. This was tbe PRESCRIBED diet,for Brahmins and Kshatriyas - and this explains the debauched Hindoo History.

Book IV : Kishkindha Kanda - Chapter 17

पंच पंच नखा भक्ष्या ब्रह्म क्षत्रेण राघव |
शल्यकः श्वाविधो गोधा शशः कूर्मः च पंचमः || १-१७-३९

"Raghava, five kinds of five-nailed animals, viz., a kind of wild rodent, a kind of wild-boar, a kind of lizard, a hare and fifthly the turtle are edible for Brahmans and Kshatriya-s. [4-17-39]

Next is the lesson to never trust an Indian and understand the DNA of an Indian - which is foremost,that of a coward and a weasel.This was espoused about by Rama,by Vali,who was murdered by Rama,by shooting Vali IN THE BACK,with an ARROW,when Vali was NOT facing Rama. Rama shot the arrow - HIDING behind a tree.

Rama - The Snake

Vali was a fool in Trusting Rama,the weasel and a coward - which he realised,AFTER he was shot IN THE BACK (like Bhutto in 1971).Vali calls Rama a Snake (which the PLA and Pakistanis should note)

त्वया अदृश्येन तु रणे निहतो अहम् दुरासदः |
प्रसुप्तः पन्नगेन इव नरः पाप वशम् गतः || १-१७-४८

"An unassailable one, such as I am, I am killed by you while you remained invisible on the field of fight, as with a sinner bitten by a snake while he is asleep. [4-17-48]

Rama - The Weasel

Vali also says that had Rama fought with him face to face - Vali would have killed him ! (like what Pakistanis say about the Indians)

दृश्यमानः तु युध्येथा मया युधि नृपात्मज |
अद्य वैवस्वतम् देवम् पश्येः त्वम् निहतो मया || १-१७-४७

"Had you been in combat with me en face oh, prince, you would have been killed by me and by now you would have seen the death-god Yama. [4-17-47]

Rama - The Impotent Coward

Vali also said that he would have brought Ravana by the scruff of his neck - which Rama could not do for 2 decades (akin to ISI picking up Jadhav from Iran)

"For which purpose I am killed, intending to do good to Sugreeva is incidental to it, you should have assigned me for that purpose in the first instance itself, and I would have brought that evil-minded demon Ravana, the abductor of your wife in one day, that too without killing him in any fight, but by fastening him by neck,and I would have presented Maithili to you. [3-17-49, 50]

THE PAKISTANIS and THE PLA have to note the ABOVE,as the TRUE WORRTH of the INDIANS.Lying, Cheating, Treachery and Cowardice is in the DNA of the Indians - irrespective of their religion.

If the Pakistanis had struck in 1962,there would have been no 1971.Only Fools show Chivalry and Character to weasels,liars and cowards.

Ahmed said...

Sir

I am sorry I don't agree with you ,now things have changed to great extent . Majority of the members of EU and UN don't support Isreal and it's settlement policies in Palestine.

Their are very few countries which support Isreal eg. America ,Australia ,India and one more country .

samir sardana said...

There is something that the Pakistanis and the PLA, need to note about the Indians and the Hindoos.dindooohindoo

Pakistan

A long time ago the Sakas (from Pakistan) attacked an Indian Weasel called Rama Gupta.What did this rat,Rama Gupta do ? The limpet bania went to war,with the Sakas - and they trapped him,and captured the limpet.Then what did the bania do ? The Sakas asked for the bania's wife,as security - and the bania,sent his wife,to the Sakas (just like Lord Rama,told Sita,to prostitute herself).

Rana Gupta did the same as "Rama" did,1000 years before him - in pimping his wife,Seeta to apes, DEMONS and his OWN BROTHERS !

Yuddha Kandam

Chapter [Sarga] 115

तदद्य व्याहृतं भद्रे मयैतत् कृतबुद्धिना |
लक्ष्मणे वाथ भरते कुरु बुद्धिं यथासुखम् || ६-११५-२२

“O gracious lady! Therefore, this has been spoken by me today, with a resolved mind. Set you mind on Lakshmana or Bharata, as per your ease.”

įatrughne vätha sugréve räkņase vä vibhéņaëe |
niveįaya manaų séte yathä vä sukhamätmanaų || 6-115-23

“O Seetha! Otherwise, set your mind either on Shatrughna or on Sugreeva or on Vibhishana the demon; or according to your own comfort.”

Then the historians make us believe,that the brother of the bania,went dressed as the wife of Ramagupta, went to the Sakas,and rescued the wife of Ramagupta, and killed the Saka king !? A similar story happened with Padmini.

And then what could be the next step ?

Then the brother of the limpet Ramagupta,killed Ramagupta and married the wife of Ramagupta ! It is said that the wife,of Ramagupta,was earlier,meant to marry the other brother !

This is the saga of the Indian Martial History,and it is these banias,who are ruling India today.How can Pakistan lose to these weasels ? Selling wives and daughters, to save the lives and kingdoms of Hindu Kings,is an ancient Indian Tradition.

PLA

This is 2020

This is not the time of Ranjit Singh,who used foreign mercenaries (French and Americans) in his army

Or the Nandas who had EU and Persian Mercenaries,in their army

A pitiable nation like Hindoosthan uses Nepali and Tibetan midgets,in their army,to fight the PLA Mongols !

What must be the pathetic state of the Hindoo Martial Ethos ?

I will explain.The pathetos is that the Hindu King of Kashmir BESEECHED the Tang Dynasty, and stated that he was a vassal of the Chinese,and implored the Chinese to assist him to FIGHT the Arabs and the Tibetan Kings.This is recorded in the Book of Tang,Xing Tang Shu.It is due to the Tangs,that the Arabs were repulsed,and the Tibetan kings were forced to flee Ladakh,and other parts of North India.

And today,the Indian Army is using the Tibetan REFUGEES,to fight the PLA !

Y did the Tangs support the Hindu King ? The Arabs and the Tibetans were no threat to the Tangs ? Net Result - The Tangs were also destroyed a few decades later. The Tangs supported a culture,which XTERMINATED Buddhists and Buddhism - and hence,deserved divine redress.

If the Tangs had abstained,there would have been no India today and Kashmir would not have been under the sadistic rule of despotic Hindu Rulers.

And then,let us come to the Goo-r-khas !

The word Goo-r-kha,comes from a Himalayan field mouse (Apodemus gurkha)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Himalayan_field_mouse

I rest my case

samir sardana said...

Some opine that I misquote,or quote out of context.Pakistani and Chinese diplomats are aware of the Gospels of the Wise - but the hoi polloi,are not.

Allow me to present the words of the epitome of intellectual genius,within the American Presidency - His Excellency,Richard Nixon.dindooohindoo

Gospel of Nixon - Chapter 1 Verse 1

Nixon also calls Indians “most sexless”, “nothing” and “pathetic”, according to the newly declassified White House tapes

Nixon says to Kissinger “To me, they turn me off. How the hell do they turn other people on, Henry? Tell me.”

May I present the words of Babar the Great in Babarnama "Hindustan is a place of little charm. There is no beauty in its people, no graceful social intercourse, no poetic talent or understanding, no etiquette, nobility or manliness"

I would request the reader to note the similarity between Babar and Nixon !

Gospel of Nixon - Chapter 1 Verse 2

In November 1971, in the middle of a discussion about India-Pakistan tensions with Kissinger and Secretary of State William Rogers, after Rogers mentioned reprimanding Gandhi, the president blurted, “I don’t know how they reproduce!”

Nixon was right.This is Hanooman describing the UNDERSIZED VIRILE MEMBRANE OF RAMA !

Book V : Sundara Kanda –Chapter 35 of the Valmiki Ramayana,Verse 18

“He is undersized at four places (viz. the neck, membran virile, the back and the shanks)"

Seeta Maiya also doubted Rama's virility and sexuality !

Book II : Ayodhya Kanda – Book Of Ayodhya - Chapter 30

किम् त्वा अमन्यत वैदेहः पिता मे मिथिला अधिपः | राम जामातरम् प्राप्य स्त्रियम् पुरुष विग्रहम् || २-३०-३

“What my father, the king of Mithila belonging to the country of Videha, think of himself having got as so-in-law you, a woman having the form of a man?”

The Concluding Pincer

May I conclude by quoting the Great Henry Kissinger,as under:

Kissinger had said Indians are “superb flatterers” and “are masters at flattery. They are masters at subtle flattery. That’s how they survived 600 years. They suck up — their great skill is to suck up to people in key positions.”

Rama said the same about the Brahmins who were the Diplomats who were dealing with Kissinger and Nixon !

कच्चिन् न लोकायतिकान् ब्राह्मणामः तात सेवसे |
अनर्थ कुशला ह्य् एते बालाः पण्डित मानिनः || २-१००-३८

38. I hope are not honouring the materialistic brahmins, My dear brother! These men are skilled in perverting the mind, ignorant as they are and thinking themselves to be learned."

धर्म शास्त्रेषु मुख्येषु विद्यमानेषु दुर्बुधाः |
बुद्धिमान् वीक्षिकीम् प्राप्य निरर्थम् प्रवदन्ति ते || २-१००-३९

39. "Reaching to their logical acumen, these men of perverted intellect preach meaninglessly, in the presence of eminent books on righteousness."




Riaz Haq said...

Retired PAF Air Commodore Kaiser Tufail:


http://pakistanpolitico.com/rafales-impact-on-iafs-air-power-capabilities/

Mr. Modi has apparently not yet been briefed by his Air Staff about the JF-17’s upcoming PL-15 BVR missile guided by the new AESA radar, which beats the Rafale’s ramjet-powered Meteor by several tens of kilometers. It is manifest that long range BVR combat will take precedence over close combat in any future conflict, and enemy aircraft will be shot out of the skies while remaining well inside their own territory.

While we are at it, it may be worthwhile to have a cursory line comparison of the Rafale, F-16A and JF-17 in one-on-one visual air combat.

All three aircraft have a ‘clean’ configuration Thrust-to-Weight Ratio of 1:1 and can climb and accelerate equally well. In a turning fight, Aspect Ratio and Wing Loading are critical parameters. The JF-17 and F-16A enjoy better Aspect Ratios of 3.7 each, compared to the Rafale which stands at 2.6. A better Aspect Ratio (square of wing span to wing area) implies better aerodynamic efficiency due to less induced drag during turning. As for Wing Loading, or the weight of the aircraft per unit area, the lesser the better. The Rafale has a slight edge, having 68 lbs/sq ft compared to the JF-17 and F-16A, both of which have Wing Loadings of 77 lbs/sq ft. A lightly loaded wing helps in a tighter turn, though in case of the Rafale, this advantage is overcome by greater induced drag due its lower Aspect Ratio. In sum, all three fighters are at par, more or less, in a turning fight.

Induction of the Rafale in IAF has created considerable media interest, and the impression has been created that with immediate effect, IAF will rule the Indian skies. It must, however, be remembered that it will be at least two years before the Rafale achieves anything close to Full Operational Capability. PAF, on the other hand, has been flying F-16s for 37 years, including hot scenarios during the Afghan War, in local counter-insurgency operations, and the latest Operation ‘Swift Retort,’ downing half a dozen enemy fighters in these operations. The JF-17 has been fully operational for over a decade, and is expected to replace the legacy fighters over the next five years. These combat-proven PAF fighters are fully integrated with the air defence system, and are mutually data-linked, alongside all AEW and ground sensors. Such capabilities are not achieved overnight, and it will be several years before the Rafales can be considered a threat in any real sense.

Any immediate impact of the Rafale on IAF’s air power capabilities is, thus, simply over-hyped. This inference, however, must not be dealt with lightly, as there is a distinct possibility of the Indian Prime Minister using the Rafale for a false-flag operation in a surreptitious manner, to prove his point that, “with the Rafale, the results would have been different,” from those of 27 February 2019.

Anonymous said...

gotta say Indians' obsession with '71 & mil 'victories' manifests a deep-seated defeatism over a millennia. i do understand it, even commiserate with it. in fact, there wasn't any 'India' until the Sultanate/Mughals & then the Brits.



https://twitter.com/ejazhaider/status/1319369034887028738?s=21

Riaz Haq said...

People in #Bangladesh didn’t exactly welcome #Indian Army with open arms either. Pro India Mujib was soon killed in a coup. Bangladesh was ruled by strong anti #India rulers. Even today, there’s little love in Bangladesh for India.

Here's a #Bangladeshi's view of #India from back in 2007: "We cannot love India. The relationship is too unequal for romance, and our neighbour is too aggressively self-interested to be embraced as a generous parent" https://www.theguardian.com/world/2007/aug/14/india.features115

The troubles began almost from the start. After intervening in the war, the Indian army did what armies do - they behaved like victorious soldiers. Pakistan did not surrender to Bangladesh - the treaty signed on December 16 1971 was between an Indian general and a Pakistani general. Suddenly the war that Bangladeshi freedom fighters had been waging became yet another skirmish between the two elder children of partition. And those same freedom fighters were forced to surrender their arms to the Indian troops. It was a symbolic wound that would fester. The bear-hug began to feel like a stranglehold.

Relations between India and Bangladesh were soon further strained: in 1975, the Indian government built the Farakka Barrage 10 miles from the Bangladesh border; it diverted Ganges water to the Hoogli river basin, raising salinity levels, contaminating fisheries, hindering navigation, and posing a threat to public health. Many Bangladeshi villages were plunged into drought, which kickstarted a sentiment of anti-Indianism that has gripped the popular imagination in Bangladesh ever since. None of these issues stop Bangladeshis from embracing our neighbour's prolific cultural exports. We buy Indian cars, Indian saris, and most importantly, we adore Bollywood.

--------------

We cannot love India. The relationship is too unequal for romance, and our neighbour is too aggressively self-interested to be embraced as a generous parent. We must either live with what we have, or take the initiative. For instance, we can wield our geographic advantage by negotiating between the two nuclear powers in the subcontinent, India and Pakistan. If we cannot have our own romance, at least we can become matchmakers. And instead of decrying the way India treats its minority Muslim population, we can be an example of a pluralistic society ourselves. But the uncomfortable truth is that our anxieties are displayed and articulated through the lens of religious prejudice. Since 1971, the Hindu population in Bangladesh has been steadily dwindling, as Hindus are systematically and institutionally discriminated against. Bullied, we bully in return.

Finally, instead of bemoaning our fate, we can strengthen our democracy, rid the political landscape of corruption, and capitalise on our economic growth - which, despite disasters both natural and self-inflicted, stands at a healthy 5%. By doing a better job of levelling the playing field, we may still never have a chance at romance with India, but we can at least work towards a relationship of mutual respect.