India Historical Indian War History Thread

[Nilgiri]

It is not.

It is highly presumptuous of you to think that is a flawed opinion.

Bangladesh's media suffers deeply from lack of freedom.

It is a flawed opinion (though I guess every opinion is intrinsically flawed in the end, the scale and severity is up for debate).

Why? Because its obvious you haven't studied or read up on Bangladesh to the detail needed.

Thus you dismiss someone out of hand by Bangladesh media "press freedom".

Rather than dismiss specific things he brings up and says.

There is a big difference between the two.

If you can do the latter, then lets hear it.

Irrelevant.

As explained above.

Very relevant.

As explained above.

Irrelevant.

As explained above.

Again, the same could be said of Russian media interviewing Assad regime members or Chinese media interviewing Kim Jong Un or his assistants.

Personal experience or knowledge of ground realities are meaningless when media freedom is lacking in those territories.

Very relevant.

As explained above.

Trying to cram everything into some black and white picture with whatever asserted "media freedom" you assert is frankly ridiculous.

Who is even measuring the media freedom you are referencing?

Where did they stand on media coverage/freedom regarding Iraqi WMD?...as just one example to posit if we are to consider some absolute on this for staunch credibility.

This is really not something you can use to dismiss someone or something out of hand, unless you provide the specifics of what they are saying as being wrong and provide your sources for doing so.

Is that a threat from you? On your role as a moderator or a regular member?

Could admin @Webslave or moderators @Test7 @Cabatli_53 @Sinan help me understand this?

Is that a threat from a moderator to fall in line?

I eagerly await your response.

Uh, I said your dismissing of someone (out of hand) will not be tolerated to stand (without a response to it).

Did I delete your post or something? Did I issue any warning?

What is the context of what you did and what I was responding to?

Why are you making this into some "threat"? I don't issue "threats", either the post has broken the rules (which it didnt) and it gets deleted or reported (which it didn't).

Going forward, you dismiss anything else out of hand without providing specifics as to why and use some more vague "media freedom" nonsense in doing so, that also wont be tolerated and wont go unanswered.

Is that a better way to phrase it to your specific sensitivity?

Anybody is free to dismiss the holocaust as a figment of somebody's imagination. I do not see any problems. Others might see serious problems. That's just difference in opinions. It's okay.

Sure free speech right? But it speaks to crediblity if you dismiss it out of hand...an equivalent instance of say a jewish survivor of the Holocaust or a member of a resistance group in WW2....simply for them being on whichever side and whichever "media freedom" metric you personally assign as be-all end-all to dismissing it.

If you want to rubbish what someone says, you first point out what they are saying that's rubbish.

Especially if they fought for their country and saw things firsthand, and you are sitting somewhere else in different time and space dismissing them out of hand because of "media freedom".

Or is everyone in the entire world to be dismissed out of hand on everything simply by saying "media freedom"?..since its nowhere near perfect anywhere....not even close. Compare that to analysing what they are saying piece by piece and saying this stands true, this is grey and this is clearly false. At least we will see your work in dismissing them then.

Such a glaring void of credibility will not be tolerated and left unanswered, once again.

I would argue the author of the article here is more qualified than you on the topic. He presents convincing evidence based on facts that my statement is correct. You are however free to contest it but to do so, you should introduce evidence and facts.

Skipping past the fact suddenly the media freedom argument doesnt apply anymore here (conveniently and of course totally credibly).

Nowhere does it say anything about there being a US - India cabal working together against the BNP (in "2006") to help the BAL (as you originally insinuated with Delhi - Wash DC) here:

I believe the current PM was brought to power thanks to American-Indian machinations sometime in 2006.

Which I was objecting to....as to your clear credibility on the matter to dismiss a Bangladeshi freedom fighter totally.

This just shows again a deep lack of awareness or understanding on your part in BD politics at even a basic cursory level, sorry to say.

BNP (which traces back to Ziaur Rahman) was always heavily pro - US (and pro-KSA) in foreign policy, seeing it as huge counterweight to use against Indian influence.

BAL has always been traditionally aligned with India (and the USSR while it existed).

If these are the two largest political forces in BD, why would there be a US-India cabal all on one side overnight?

Where has even the BNP even said such?...they have always blamed only one foreign party for helping BAL: India (and not without reason)

You can read up BD political history if you are so inclined and come back to me where any of this has not been the case.

This comes about due to all manner of things regarding BD formation (what its own internal politics can and cannot overlook). The atrocities and genocide it saw.

Or are we to say the US-India cabal today invented a top-secret time machine to deliver a fake blood-telegram to the Nixon administration who ignored it anyway?

This is like basic 101 stuff for any BD watcher...especially one that would know enough to dismiss what a freedomfighter is saying (regarding basic national formation war which BOTH BAL and BNP are united on for most part) out of hand.

That is not off topic. Media freedom is the foundation upon which any independent enquiry can be carried out and hopefully, justice meted out to the perpetrators of injustice.

When media freedom is lacking in those territories, there is only one version of events that is going to emerge.

OK but you would need to tell me who measures media freedom, who are you referencing here?

Then you would have to extrapolate that to being fair to dismiss everything out of hand.

If a North Korean political hack being interviewed by Chinese media says "the Sun rises in the East" or gives clear scientific facts on something, we are to dismiss them out of hand on that too? ...because of total lack of "media freedom"?

Just taking it to the conclusion of extrapolation.

If not you will have to show what is the fact, opinion and fiction in what someone says and why....and then you can say the opinion is biased due to so and so.

Dismissing out of hand means you dismiss the facts too. That is wrong.

You don't know if I have done so. You should have been less presumptuous.

Anyone that doesn't know the basics of the BNP vis a vis BAL hasn't talked to enough Bangladeshis clearly...to dismiss whichever ones of them selectively out of hand by "media freedom".

 

[Nilgiri]

Now in regards to what Nilgiri said, I don't think it's a threat. Though it is quite hard to decipher, so I can understand if you consider it a threat to fall in line. I can not definitively say that it breaks any rules. Maybe I am wrong, we'll see what the other moderators/admins think.

I think I have explained myself (as to what I mean by "tolerate"). I will word myself better next time.

To me "a threat" doesnt exist from mod.

They can give warnings (which wasn't even the case here) and delete posts (again not the case here)....if done unfairly those can be seen as threats.

But this is all reviewed as hopefully it is clearer now to people reading this.

Members are certainly within their rights to report mod posts too for review. Or tag them like this member has done.

 

[Nilgiri]

Where Paras Dare: The untold story of Operation Cactus

Commandos from Indian Parachute Regiment during a Republic Day parade. Not so long ago, we, as Indians, were sure about our

www.indiasentinels.com

According to Brig Dhillon, the success of Operation Cactus owes itself to four people:

1. Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi for “having the vision and political will” to give the operation go-ahead.
2. Brigadier Bulsara.
3. Colonel Joshi for “keeping away all the background clutter and allowing the assault companies to do their job”.
4. Brigade Major Vinod Bhatia, who knew that the C Coy had was fully trained to be deployed from the IL-76. Therefore, he designated this company as the pathfinders and spearhead, from the very beginning.

Brigadier Dhillon repeats his appreciation of the PM’s role and his grace. The PM had personally thanked him for the success of the mission and asked him to convey his appreciation for the role of the Indian Army.

This then is the story of one of the greatest chapters in India’s military history and geostrategic victories. This story has been told many times, by many people. There are subsequent developments that followed the action of November 3, 1988.

The mercenaries were later intercepted by the Indian Navy. Some troops from 6 Para stayed back at Maldives for security, at the president’s request. But those tales have been told in detail elsewhere.

In the entire operation, there was not even a single Indian casualty.

(More at link)

 

[Nilgiri]

Sapper’s Day Out: An untold tale of casual heroism of a combat engineer in 1971 Bangladesh Liberation War

As an otherwise dull and drab November rolls on in 2020 and the memories of India’s latest victim of anti-personnel mine,

www.indiasentinels.com

@Paro @Jackdaws @Joe Shearer et al.

 

[Joe Shearer]

This is precisely why we have moderators which are in control of their own nation's section. Particularly when it comes to Bangladesh, India and Pakistan's complicated relations. As an international forum we cannot pick sides, even if we wish to. You can think of each nation's section as its safe zone. For instance if Indian's, Pakistani's an Bangladeshi's all opened up a thread about the same topic, but in their own sections, naturally each thread will be biased in favour of the nation who's section it is featured on. This is not only because of the users, but also because it is moderated by someone who is from that nation.

Now in regards to what Nilgiri said, I don't think it's a threat. Though it is quite hard to decipher, so I can understand if you consider it a threat to fall in line. I can not definitively say that it breaks any rules. Maybe I am wrong, we'll see what the other moderators/admins think.

Again, this brings me back to the topic of nation mods. This is why it is such an important aspect of Defence Hub. As stated earlier, we cannot pick sides. As a Turk I cannot side with a brotherly nation like Bangladesh, even if I wanted to. Instead, we give each nation the power to control its own section. It's not perfect, but it as close to perfect as it can get. Of course this all needs to be within reason and in accordance with the forum's rules. We cannot allow moderators to abuse their power and bully members of other nations.

I think as a whole Nilgiri has been fair. For such a heated topic, he has handled it quite well. You are free to express yourself here as you like, as Test7 stated you can write your opinions freely as long as you follow the forum rules.

I just to see this and read it, and it embodies the most clear-headed, rational and FAIR articulation of this forum's policy. It is hugely comforting to read this in its present form; however much we may consider that we have thoroughly understood the policy of the administration, getting to see it in this carefully-crafted form is very reassuring.

 

[Joe Shearer]

Interesting perspectives.

East Pakistan was no more after 1971. Therefore, it is fair to say "Pakistan fighting so far away from home" was meaningless. In retrospect, of course.

At that time, their political and military leaders and elites certainly did not think so. After their loss, there really has been no other way of comforting themselves.

It would be interesting to read the Indian perspective of British rule and how the British essentially created modern day India. I am certain there are plenty of Indians who can do a good job with that.

Tempting!

Oh, so tempting!!

 

[Joe Shearer]

It is not.

It is highly presumptuous of you to think that is a flawed opinion.

Bangladesh's media suffers deeply from lack of freedom.

Therefore, the comparisons with the Russian media in Assad regime controlled territory, Chinese media interviewing Kim Jong Un and such remains valid.



Irrelevant.

As explained above.



Irrelevant.

As explained above.

Again, the same could be said of Russian media interviewing Assad regime members or Chinese media interviewing Kim Jong Un or his assistants.

Personal experience or knowledge of ground realities are meaningless when media freedom is lacking in those territories.



Is that a threat from you? On your role as a moderator or a regular member?

Could admin @Webslave or moderators @Test7 @Cabatli_53 @Sinan help me understand this?

Is that a threat from a moderator to fall in line?

I eagerly await your response.




Anybody is free to dismiss the holocaust as a figment of somebody's imagination. I do not see any problems. Others might see serious problems. That's just difference in opinions. It's okay.




I would argue the author of the article here is more qualified than you on the topic. He presents convincing evidence based on facts that my statement is correct. You are however free to contest it but to do so, you should introduce evidence and facts.




That is not off topic. Media freedom is the foundation upon which any independent enquiry can be carried out and hopefully, justice meted out to the perpetrators of injustice.

When media freedom is lacking in those territories, there is only one version of events that is going to emerge.




You can create that thread if you wish. That is off topic, though.



You don't know if I have done so. You should have been less presumptuous.



Certainly, no non Europeans created England or Scotland.

However, we can not say the same for India. It was essentially created by the Brits. If you are happy to discuss those events, that is also your prerogative.



They were all Europeans.


Japanese were probably an offshoot of the Chinese civilization, hence they could not have essentially or otherwise, created China.







Why blabber so much on a topic if you did recognize its a tangent off the original discussion?

Are you not derailing it incessantly?

A fascinating post.

Unfortunately, it is very often - most often - in the clash of different views that much of the obscuring supposition is rubbed off, and the bare facts stand out in their most undisturbed forms.

 

[Joe Shearer]

I think there should be a separate one for each war/conflict. 1948, 1965, 1971, Kargil and one umbrella one for minor skirmishes like Siachen, Atlantique Incident, Feb 2019 etc. What say @Nilgiri ?

Ultimately, yes. Until there is a critical mass, splitting the broad theme into these sub-topics is a diminution of each component separately.

 

[Joe Shearer]

Meaningless talking to those journalists or politicians.

It's a bit like Russian media interviewing Assad, Chinese media interviewing Kim Jong Un, Turkmen, Azeri, Saudi, Emirati or Sisi media interviewing their ministers or such.

There is little to no media freedom in those countries and Bangladesh military and its politicians take orders from New Delhi and Washington D.C.

Fair criticism. These journalists are by and large worthless. Their interviews are exercises in sycophancy, their conclusions carefully tailored to the sensitivities of their own contemporary government, their interest in leaching out the patriot element and determination of as many facts or even differentiated points of view of credibility unique and without match.

 

[Joe Shearer]

I believe the current PM was brought to power thanks to American-Indian machinations sometime in 2006.

This represents a dangerous and undesirable freedom of speculation. The remark makes little difference, and does not particularly benefit the people of Bangladesh, the examination of Bangladesh history, and the military historian.

 

[Joe Shearer]

This is not too different from how the French created Lebanon or helped the minority Allawis gain prominence in politics in Syria.

Not too different from how Republic of India was essentially created by the Brits or how most Arab countries are a creation of imperial powers such as France and the UK. Sykes-Picot.

Clearly, we are privileged to read the views of a diligent student of geo-politics. While the broad conclusions are interesting, some of the discussion is deeply tinted.

 

[Joe Shearer]

It is better to let profesional do their job, and layman to sit down and read more before typing a comment

Heh, heh, heh......I think it is better let go and allow mistakes to be made.

 

[Joe Shearer]

Yeah one of my Uncles was a POW there had to escape from there and broke ouT from a POW camp we still dont know how he came back he wasnt army but a Govt official posted there

LOLOL.

All he had to do was to change into fresh clothes, buy a cheap suitcase and further changes, a toothbrush and a tube of toothpaste, and catch the right trains.

I was gobsmacked to read this post.

 

[Joe Shearer]

I suspect the population was not very supportive of the Pakistani military.

<gasp!>

Oh, really?

Why on earth would that have happened?

Sorry, but this was the most entertaining throw-away line of all.

 

[Joe Shearer]

I thought so.

Just like most Armenians, most Pakistanis are probably bitter because they were kept in the dark by their governments for very long.

No. From an outsiders' point of view, it was much more than that.

 

[jimmyjones56]

I do not know much about this war but I know something about different wars. Wars usually happen because of some serious issues. It normally happens because we want that to happen.

Just think about what we cannot resolve with the discussion?

It’s you and me who make the situation worse and unbearable, then, at last, we face war as a result. We should do everything to stop war because the more time war happens we will damage half of the world. If you want to read more about some politics that are traits and wanted to demolish us then read them here indexblogger

 

[Nilgiri]

I do not know much about this war but I know something about different wars. Wars usually happen because of some serious issues. It normally happens because we want that to happen.

Just think about what we cannot resolve with the discussion?

It’s you and me who make the situation worse and unbearable, then, at last, we face war as a result. We should do everything to stop war because the more time war happens we will damage half of the world. If you want to read more about some politics that are traits and wanted to demolish us then read them here indexblogger

Welcome to forum. I agree war should never happen and have happened very unnecessarily in the past....and exactly to breakdown in peaceful reasoning, logic and discussion.

 

[Paro]

I do not know much about this war but I know something about different wars. Wars usually happen because of some serious issues. It normally happens because we want that to happen.

Just think about what we cannot resolve with the discussion?

It’s you and me who make the situation worse and unbearable, then, at last, we face war as a result. We should do everything to stop war because the more time war happens we will damage half of the world. If you want to read more about some politics that are traits and wanted to demolish us then read them here indexblogger

Wars are crucial for Human Evolution. Every major revolution started because of conflict between two parties. Fire, stone tools, farming, nuclear technology, Rockets, Internet, GPS are some I can think of right away. Wars were good in a way for mankind until now, can't guarantee the same for the future with the employment of Robots or if ko & Skynet take over.

 

[Jackdaws]

For all history lovers

 

[Jackdaws]

Full Interview