Muloghonto Posted February 25, 2018 Share Posted February 25, 2018 9 minutes ago, BeardedAladdin said: I agree. But that's what we want, isn't it? Security has to be guaranteed by the government, and when it's guaranteed, its taken for granted. It's because we take our security for granted, that we're able to worry about Sridevi's death. This is the way its supposed to be. Otherwise, we'd be living in a state of perpetual fear. very well said. We all would rather live in a country where we don't hear about the military deaths and fret over it, but fret over some celebrity breaking their nail, than living in iraq where military/militia deaths are every-day news and there is no place for the finer things in life. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FischerTal Posted February 25, 2018 Share Posted February 25, 2018 11 minutes ago, BeardedAladdin said: I agree. But that's what we want, isn't it? Security has to be guaranteed by the government, and when it's guaranteed, its taken for granted. It's because we take our security for granted, that we're able to worry about Sridevi's death. This is the way its supposed to be. Otherwise, we'd be living in a state of perpetual fear. exactly. i dont want india to be a military state like its next-door neighbor. no one knows this more than the army itself. If General Manekshaw wanted, he could have easily overthrown Indira after the 1971 victory. his popularity was sky-high nationwide and he was a legend amongst the army personnel. however, he resisted the temptation and duly followed the orders of the civilian government. Another example of this respect for civilian leadership was shown during the Kargil War. India would have lost much less soldiers if the Army was allowed to cross the LoC. However, then PM Vajpayee gave strict orders not to cross LoC for diplomatic reasons. General Malik obliged and put his men to the task despite knowing that they would be fighting an uphill battle against the enemy in the mountains, where they were sitting with a clear line of sight at a higher altitude. In fact, he mentioned that Indian Army would lose 10 soldiers for 1 of the enemies due to this, but never did he disobey the orders of the civilian leadership. This is the difference between Indian Army and Pakistani Army and it will always remain this way. sandeep 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muloghonto Posted February 25, 2018 Share Posted February 25, 2018 15 minutes ago, FischerTal said: exactly. i dont want india to be a military state like its next-door neighbor. no one knows this more than the army itself. If General Manekshaw wanted, he could have easily overthrown Indira after the 1971 victory. his popularity was sky-high nationwide and he was a legend amongst the army personnel. however, he resisted the temptation and duly followed the orders of the civilian government. Another example of this respect for civilian leadership was shown during the Kargil War. India would have lost much less soldiers if the Army was allowed to cross the LoC. However, then PM Vajpayee gave strict orders not to cross LoC for diplomatic reasons. General Malik obliged and put his men to the task despite knowing that they would be fighting an uphill battle against the enemy in the mountains, where they were sitting with a clear line of sight at a higher altitude. In fact, he mentioned that Indian Army would lose 10 soldiers for 1 of the enemies due to this, but never did he disobey the orders of the civilian leadership. This is the difference between Indian Army and Pakistani Army and it will always remain this way. Not to nit-pick, but Manekshaw couldn't have done it after 1971. He was only CoAS during 71 and became Field Marshall in 73. Even then, his position got him power in the Army- the Air force and Navy were not loyal to him or under his command. The main reason why our next door islamic-cess-pit has struggled with military dictatorships, is because they were silly enough to have a chairman of join-chiefs-of-staff position, in copy-cat imitation of the US, without its checks and balances. Ie, when Musharraf becam Chairman of JCS of Pakistan, he was the overall supreme military commander of ALL branches of the military - Air force, Army, Navy and the ISI. When you concentrate all the military power under the hand of ONE general, thats when you set the stage for a military take-over. because now, there is nobody left in the military that would oppose him. The US realizes this, which is why their chairman of JCS position is STRICTLY advisory only - ie, the US Chairman of Joint Chiefs of Staff are legally prohibited from weilding operational command. Why ? Because without operational command, the Chairman cannot actually control the military and thus, all the branches of the military are not united under ONE general's operational command, so the military HAS to stay loyal to the government. hence, the government would take down the 'renegade' general by using the other branches of the army : if the Army Chief tried to pull a Musharraf, the Air force/Navy/marines would be used against him, etc. Our stupid neighbors allow their Chaiman of JCS full operational control. Ie, one general who commands the entire military. As in Hindi we say ' jiski laathi, uski bhaains'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stradlater Posted February 26, 2018 Share Posted February 26, 2018 8 hours ago, Singh bling said: What I am saying is you need torch to find people that are willing to serve in poor areas whether as teacher or doctor etc but plenty want to join army and many call it desh sewa. The fact is plenty of ex officers of army say that quality of life they got in army was best .So people are ready to sacrifice money if they can make decent amount for the sake of quality of life No doubt some amount patriotism was also involved in that. Also I want to ask you that How you see those who joined British Indian army?? Because all those who fought in 1948 war actually joined British Indian army . Also all those senior officers who scripted 1971 war Victory actually joined British indian army .They could had joined Gandhi's movement , could had been like Bhagat Singh or could rebel like INA but they choose a career in army which was under Britishers. So How much patriotism is involved in joining army we dont know You seemed to have misinterpreted my earlier statement. Show me the post where I claimed Joining Army = Being More Patriotic. It's just simply one of the many ways of serving the nation. For me both Kailash Satyarthi and Gen Manekshaw are heroes and true Patriots. While many these days might join army because of the quality of life and perks it has to offer , it's also true that many enroll in it to serve their motherland. If only money was the sole reason behind joining the forces , we would have seen or heard of many cases of desertion in the face of enemy fire by the soldiers. It takes balls to command your post while anticipating heavy firing which could arrive at any point. I'm extremely thankful to those Stupid poor people who guard our borders day night so that we could sleep in peace. BeardedAladdin 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Singh bling Posted February 26, 2018 Share Posted February 26, 2018 3 hours ago, Stradlater said: If only money was the sole reason behind joining the forces , we would have seen or heard of many cases of desertion in the face of enemy fire by the soldiers. It takes balls to command your post while anticipating heavy firing which could arrive at any point. Not true Britishers took Indian army all around the world and hardly soldiers deserted them.What was their motivation for fighting and giving their life? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sandeep Posted February 26, 2018 Share Posted February 26, 2018 On 2/19/2018 at 12:35 PM, PBN said: Morever, the army and the government destroyed the Sikh Reference library at the Golden Temple in 1984. It contained rare Sikh manuscripts and other literature. The army, CBI took the material from the library, took it elsewhere and destroyed it. Got any proof for your malicious rumor mongering? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Number Posted February 28, 2018 Share Posted February 28, 2018 For all those who believe Indian Judicial System is biased towards majority 17 years back this day 59 Hindus including 25 women and 15 kids were burnt alive. There has not been a single death sentence in this case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mariyam Posted February 28, 2018 Share Posted February 28, 2018 13 hours ago, Number said: For all those who believe Indian Judicial System is biased towards majority 17 years back this day 59 Hindus including 25 women and 15 kids were burnt alive. There has not been a single death sentence in this case. Initially, 31 were convicted. 11 were awarded the death penalty and 20 life imprisonment. Later the death sentences given to the 11 convicts were commuted to life imprisonment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Number Posted February 28, 2018 Share Posted February 28, 2018 12 minutes ago, Mariyam said: Initially, 31 were convicted. 11 were awarded the death penalty and 20 life imprisonment. Later the death sentences given to the 11 convicts were commuted to life imprisonment. Yeah I know. Still not a single death sentence for this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
surajmal Posted February 28, 2018 Share Posted February 28, 2018 On 2/24/2018 at 12:30 PM, Ranvir said: It’s probably a good thing, why be cannon fodder? Good for you. Enjoy your charas. Rest of the northern belt is more than happy to take these jobs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
surajmal Posted February 28, 2018 Share Posted February 28, 2018 On 2/26/2018 at 2:43 AM, Singh bling said: Not true Britishers took Indian army all around the world and hardly soldiers deserted them.What was their motivation for fighting and giving their life? Check the definition of Swadharma. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Singh bling Posted February 28, 2018 Share Posted February 28, 2018 1 hour ago, surajmal said: Check the definition of Swadharma. And because of Swadharma Britishers were able to rule India.the soldiers that were recruited by East India company. Helped them defeating kings after kings Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
surajmal Posted February 28, 2018 Share Posted February 28, 2018 3 minutes ago, Singh bling said: And because of Swadharma Britishers were able to rule India.the soldiers that were recruited by East India company. Helped them defeating kings after kings If Indian Kings had offered them similar salary, they would have fought for them. It's not rocket science. Subcontinent was war torn. There were no greater loyalties other than to one's stomach. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muloghonto Posted February 28, 2018 Share Posted February 28, 2018 Just now, surajmal said: If Indian Kings had offered them similar salary, they would have fought for them. It's not rocket science. Subcontinent was war torn. There were no greater loyalties other than to one's stomach. Indian kings did not provide the stability as the British or the superior governance of the British. Hence Indians were so loyal to the British. People dont care for what race/nationality their kings are, more than whether their society is stable or not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Singh bling Posted February 28, 2018 Share Posted February 28, 2018 2 minutes ago, surajmal said: If Indian Kings had offered them similar salary, they would have fought for them. It's not rocket science. Subcontinent was war torn. There were no greater loyalties other than to one's stomach. Thanks for confirming my point that pay pension perks are the biggest reason for joining army , other elements ate secondary Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Singh bling Posted February 28, 2018 Share Posted February 28, 2018 3 minutes ago, Muloghonto said: Indian kings did not provide the stability as the British or the superior governance of the British. Hence Indians were so loyal to the British. People dont care for what race/nationality their kings are, more than whether their society is stable or not. Indians were also quick to revolt against Britishers too .In 500 years of islamic invasions rule destruction of temples forced conversions , There was never united revolt against muslim rulers but in 50-100 years Indian soldiers mutined against Britishers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
surajmal Posted February 28, 2018 Share Posted February 28, 2018 1 minute ago, Singh bling said: Thanks for confirming my point that pay pension perks are the biggest reason for joining army , other elements ate secondary You are trying to extract electricity from water. Sustenance is essential of any living thing. Everything else will come secondary, naturally. Plenty of young folk who join army in this day and age can get better paying jobs in private sector but they chose the armed forces because it offers something more, abstract. FischerTal 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
surajmal Posted February 28, 2018 Share Posted February 28, 2018 2 minutes ago, Singh bling said: Indians were also quick to revolt against Britishers too .In 500 years of islamic invasions rule destruction of temples forced conversions , There was never united revolt against muslim rulers but in 50-100 years Indian soldiers mutined against Britishers Thats because the numbers of brits at any given time was an order of magnitude less than numbers of ROPer invaders. Besides, it is not as if all of India had surrendered totally to ROPers. There was a (or several) rebellion going on in some corner at any given time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muloghonto Posted February 28, 2018 Share Posted February 28, 2018 7 minutes ago, Singh bling said: Indians were also quick to revolt against Britishers too .In 500 years of islamic invasions rule destruction of temples forced conversions , There was never united revolt against muslim rulers but in 50-100 years Indian soldiers mutined against Britishers a tiny portion of them revolted. Which is why it was squashed so quickly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
asterix Posted February 28, 2018 Share Posted February 28, 2018 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts