Defence News and Updates

[Malcolm Merlyn]

Not true. Delhi sultaans after the khiljis were afghan families who'd settled in india for centuries. Jahangir was half desi because his mom was hindu. So was shah jehan. So aurangzeb was 3/4th desi Sent from my GT-S5830D using Tapatalk 2

Not true.Babur was king of Ferghana from where his uncles drove him out.He finally came to Kabul where one of his uncles was king and died without an heir.He fought of the other claimants and became king.From here he was invited by a consortium of Indian kings to fight Ibrahim Lodhi.He came fought Lodhi and then instead of going back founded the mughal empire. Jahangir ShahJahan all were Mughal who followed the Taimuri tradition at their court and conversed in Faarsi at home.Even the court language was faarsi.All their biographies and autobiographies were in Faarsi. They were anything but Indian.

[Muloghonto]

Not true.Babur was king of Ferghana from where his uncles drove him out.He finally came to Kabul where one of his uncles was king and died without an heir.He fought of the other claimants and became king.From here he was invited by a consortium of Indian kings to fight Ibrahim Lodhi.He came fought Lodhi and then instead of going back founded the mughal empire. Jahangir ShahJahan all were Mughal who followed the Taimuri tradition at their court and conversed in Faarsi at home.Even the court language was faarsi.All their biographies and autobiographies were in Faarsi. They were anything but Indian.

Their bloodline is indian through their mothers. Jahangir was 1/2 indian, shah jehan was 3/4 indian and aurangzeb was 3/8 indian, all through their mothers. Thats a fact. What they spoke or acted as is irrelevant, right now we r speaking english, a germainic language...doesnt make us less indian. Sent from my GT-S5830D using Tapatalk 2

[panther]

Their bloodline is indian through their mothers. Jahangir was 1/2 indian, shah jehan was 3/4 indian and aurangzeb was 5/8 indian, all through their mothers. Thats a fact. What they spoke or acted as is irrelevant, right now we r speaking english, a germainic language...doesnt make us less indian. Sent from my GT-S5830D using Tapatalk 2

But lineage comes from Fathers side not mothers.

[SELVAM]

Muslim is propably youngest religion. So almost all muslims r converts.

[Muloghonto]

But lineage comes from Fathers side not mothers.

We are talking science here. Not hocus pocus fairy tale beleifs. You can believe your lineage is from God himself. Doesn't change the fact that it's 50% your father and 50% your mother.

[Malcolm Merlyn]

We are talking science here. Not hocus pocus fairy tale beleifs. You can believe your lineage is from God himself. Doesn't change the fact that it's 50% your father and 50% your mother.

The royal families follow male side blood line.Mughals called themselves decendents of Taimur even though Baburs mothers side was from the lineage of Genghis Khan himself.They never followed any Rajput traditions and continued to follow the central asian traditions.

[Muloghonto]

The royal families follow male side blood line.Mughals called themselves decendents of Taimur even though Baburs mothers side was from the lineage of Genghis Khan himself.They never followed any Rajput traditions and continued to follow the central asian traditions.

Royal families may follow male bloodlines, but history follows ALL bloodlines. It doesn't matter if YOU think its only the dad or the mom that matters, fact is, histography records all bloodlines and talks of them equally. The reason is simple- if rulers follow a native custom and are married to the native bloodlines, it is unquestionably native. What culture they followed is ambiguous benchmark because absolute rulers are prone to 'creating their own culture' and the lines between individual, local and foreign elements begin to blur. In anycase, there is NO QUESTION that the Mughals, like a few noted Indian dynasties that had their roots in outside India ( most notably the Kushan dynasties and the Kashaharta dynasty) but became thoroughly Indian. Consider this: by the time Jahangir was born, he was already 50% Indian by blood, ate Indian food, spoke a language that had millions of speakers in India for centuries and followed a religion that had 10-15% following all over India for centuries. That he spoke a minority elitist language ( Farsi, spoken by the Turkic/Persian/Afghan rulers in North-west and Northern India) does not make a difference. You asked for noted Indian muslim rulers. I named a few. Akbar is practically Indian himself too- man's never been outside India in his whole life, spoke a language present in India (with its own Indic mutations that lead to the rise of Urdu), married a full-blooded Indian, ate Indian food, ruled Indian people and fought Indian rulers- just like 99.99% of Indian rulers in history! Jahangir on top was 50% genetically Indian too. Shah Jahan was 75% Indian! They qualify and they are the 'native Indian muslim monarchs' you speak of, of note. Mind you, i am not even including the Lodhi dynasty. You should remember that though now and in the last few centuries we've viewed Afghanistan as 'foreigners', they were NOT considered foreigners in historic India but just as much part of Indian culture as any. The Kabul-Qandahar axis is where India starts. Even the Sassanids, who'd ruled the area for 200 years straight called it 'Koochak-e-Hind'. That means 'little India/lesser (geographically) India'. For the last 2500 years, Afghanistan from Kabul-Qandahar eastwards was in political union with Indian kingdoms and empires for almost a 1000 years period of it: remarkable, as this area has been one of the most politically volatile areas in history of mankind and has been under all its neighbors at some point as well as independent, powerful and conversely, fractured and fighting each other. Culturally too, it is unquestionable that eastern Afghanistan is in Indo-sphere for almost all of its history. Cultural 'break' between the Zoroastrian Persians and predominantly Buddhist but significant shamanist, hindu and Zoroastrian minorities in Greco-Bactrian Afghanistan has been present from pretty much before the Achaemenid Empire (550BC) right down to the Arab invasions of 750 CE. You may not think it, but in the context of 1300/1400 India, being ruled by the Afghan Lodhis was no different than being ruled by Hindus of Benaras or Tamil Nadu, the only difference was religion (which was different for the Bengal region too, with the Palas being religiously different as well).

[Malcolm Merlyn]

Royal families may follow male bloodlines, but history follows ALL bloodlines. It doesn't matter if YOU think its only the dad or the mom that matters, fact is, histography records all bloodlines and talks of them equally.

Mughals are called Timurids.They are Barlas by race,not indigenous to the subcontinent.

The reason is simple- if rulers follow a native custom and are married to the native bloodlines, it is unquestionably native. What culture they followed is ambiguous benchmark because absolute rulers are prone to 'creating their own culture' and the lines between individual, local and foreign elements begin to blur.

They followed their Timurid/Barlas customs.They never followed the native custom in their courts.They didnt even accept the native language but continued to use Faarsi.

In anycase, there is NO QUESTION that the Mughals, like a few noted Indian dynasties that had their roots in outside India ( most notably the Kushan dynasties and the Kashaharta dynasty) but became thoroughly Indian.

Not a single SC muslim dynasty in history of SC,thats why Pakistanis have to import the names of their missiles.

Consider this: by the time Jahangir was born, he was already 50% Indian by blood, ate Indian food, spoke a language that had millions of speakers in India for centuries and followed a religion that had 10-15% following all over India for centuries.

They considered themselves Timurids till the last.The marriage with Indians was a strategic pact.They never followed the Indian culture at their courts or their home.

That he spoke a minority elitist language ( Farsi, spoken by the Turkic/Persian/Afghan rulers in North-west and Northern India) does not make a difference.

This only proves that till the last they followed their Timurid/Barlas culture.

You asked for noted Indian muslim rulers. I named a few. Akbar is practically Indian himself too- man's never been outside India in his whole life, spoke a language present in India (with its own Indic mutations that lead to the rise of Urdu), married a full-blooded Indian, ate Indian food, ruled Indian people and fought Indian rulers- just like 99.99% of Indian rulers in history! Jahangir on top was 50% genetically Indian too. Shah Jahan was 75% Indian! They qualify and they are the 'native Indian muslim monarchs' you speak of, of note. Mind you, i am not even including the Lodhi dynasty.

All of them were Timurids. Lodis were a Pashtun tribe. None of these muslim dynasties were Indian.They were from outside the SC,non indigenous people who conquered Indian SC and ruled here.They were foreigners.

You should remember that though now and in the last few centuries we've viewed Afghanistan as 'foreigners', they were NOT considered foreigners in historic India but just as much part of Indian culture as any.

Afghanistan was never considered a part of Indian Subcontinent not then not now.

The Kabul-Qandahar axis is where India starts. Even the Sassanids, who'd ruled the area for 200 years straight called it 'Koochak-e-Hind'. That means 'little India/lesser (geographically) India'.

Yes Lesser India.The real India started from areas around Indus.Thats why the name India.

For the last 2500 years, Afghanistan from Kabul-Qandahar eastwards was in political union with Indian kingdoms and empires for almost a 1000 years period of it: remarkable, as this area has been one of the most politically volatile areas in history of mankind and has been under all its neighbors at some point as well as independent, powerful and conversely, fractured and fighting each other.

The rest of the subcontinent has little genetic connection with the Pashtuns.Yes we ruled the area for a long time.The Pashtuns change with time.They were animal worshipers at the time of Alexander the Buddhists at the time of Kushans then Hindus during Kabul Shahis and now Muslims.They mould with their conquerors.

Culturally too, it is unquestionable that eastern Afghanistan is in Indo-sphere for almost all of its history. Cultural 'break' between the Zoroastrian Persians and predominantly Buddhist but significant shamanist, hindu and Zoroastrian minorities in Greco-Bactrian Afghanistan has been present from pretty much before the Achaemenid Empire (550BC) right down to the Arab invasions of 750 CE.

Can you explain this.

You may not think it, but in the context of 1300/1400 India, being ruled by the Afghan Lodhis was no different than being ruled by Hindus of Benaras or Tamil Nadu, the only difference was religion (which was different for the Bengal region too, with the Palas being religiously different as well).

Palas were buddhists.Their roots belong to India.They were not any foreign conqueror.Every muslim dynasty has come as a conqueror to rule India and loot its treasures.They were not Indigenous Indians.

[Muloghonto]

Mughals are called Timurids.They are Barlas by race' date='not indigenous to the subcontinent. [/quote'] You don't have to be indegenous from ANYWHERE to be considered native. The Achaemenids are as Persian as it gets and they were not even from Parsa! The English monarchy is as English as it gets and they are mostly Danes and Germans! The point is, if you are native to a place for several generations, then you most definitely are native and NOT a foreigner. Plenty of local customs were adopted, especially in governorship. The timurid custom was to divide provinces by cities and put a relative on top on each and every city they conquered. The mughals quickly abandoned that and went with a mix of royal clan and local rulers to hold the empire together. False. The mughals were a SC muslim dynasty after Humayun. The bahmani kingdom was a native muslim dynasty through and through, founded by a hindu convert. Same with the Lodhis, the Nizams, etc Doesn't matter. It still makes them local in eyes of history. What culture you follow doesn't make or unmake you indian or american. Shah Jehan was more Indian by blood than Timurid. Yes, but back when the pashtuns were just another tribes from the westernmost parts of India, they were considered Indian. You have to read any and all literature from the 13th/14th century to realize that even hindu poets and fakirs considered afghans to be indians and so did they. If tomorrow UP becomes a different country, it doesn't mean that Vajpayee all of a sudden stops being Indian because in HIS LIFETIME, UP was considered part of India and therefore, HE was Indian, even if in future, a separate UP nation would lead to a distinction between Indians and UP-ites. Get it ? Founders were, the descendants were local. If you carry local genes, have been there your whole life, you are a local. If your children continue to live in America and 3 generations later, your descendants are Americans, not Indians. That is the historical perspective and no amount of 'personal opinion' changes that orthodoxy. False. It was named lesser India because it was separated from rest of India by suleiman mountain ranges. Calling Turkey 'Asia Minor' does not make it any less or more Asian, its just a geographical term. But it still is part of ancient India and was according to everyone else of that time. False. Pashtuns to this day are closer in blood to north Indians than they are to the 'Sarts' which is what eastern Iranians, aka Tajiks are known as. Explain afghan history pre-achaemenid and during achaemenid times ? sorry, but thats a long topic. I can't explain 1000 years of history of a place in one post, i suggest you read up yourself. Not true. As i mentioned, the Bahamani sultans were quite categorically local. So were the Lodhis. Mughals too, after Humayun were an Indian dynasty of Timurid origin.

[SELVAM]

This thread is derailing, why people discuss about 16th century barbarians in defence news update thread:facepalm:

[Cricket_Hacker]

back on topic poyz INS Vikramaditya to get its own missile shield soon http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/INS-Vikramaditya-to-get-its-own-missile-shield-soon/articleshow/46952999.cms

[Cricket_Hacker]

INS Vikrant set to undock next month

India is working on two separate projects to ramp up sea-borne aircraft carriers capability. The under construction indigenous 40,000 tonne INS Vikrant is slated to ‘undock’ from its building pontoon at Kochi next month, while India’s biggest naval warship and aircraft carrier, the INS Vikramaditya, is under a minor ‘re-fit’ to complete its Close-In Warfare System (CIWS), a protection from incoming enemy missiles. Vice Admiral Ashok Subedar, Controller, Warship Production and Acquisition, told the media today, “In May this we will undock the INS Vikrant. As much as 95 per cent of its hull is complete as is 22,000 tonnes of steel structure. The shafting and propeller work is in last stages”. Despite challenges, all efforts are being made to meet the December 2018 deadline set by the Cabinet Committee on Security for commission of the INS Vikrant. After the undocking it will undergo harbour trials, sea trials followed by on-deck flight trials, Vice Admiral Subedar said. He was speaking to the media to announce the sea launch of the first of the set-of-four new warships. It is targeted for induction in 2018 and the remaining three ships shall follow at the intervals of two years each. Talking about INS Vikramaditya, inducted in November 2013, the Vice Admiral said Israeli Barak missile is being installed on the ship at its home base Karwar, south of Goa. Navy was originally looking at two options, either the Israeli Barak or the Russian Shitil missiles. A Barak-missile launch will be taken from one of warships that is being decommissioned. Sources said the INS Godavari, which had been given a Barak launch system some 10 years ago, has a fully functional system that is being put on the aircraft carrier. The Godavari is 32 years old and is set for decommissioning. “Fitting the Barak is a complex procedure which entails cutting through the deck. A period of some four months has been factored in for this”, sources said. The warship could carry up to 32 or 48 LR-SAMs. A CIWS is needed as the last protection layer against incoming missiles as well as an aircraft. It is ship’s own air defence system. When deployed, a carrier does not float alone but moves around with a small flotilla of warships. The LR-SAMs is one part of the CIWS and it includes other guns on the deck and an electronic warfare suite. On being asked about the next aircraft carrier, dubbed as the indigenous aircraft carrier-2 (IAC-2), Vice Admiral Subedar said the Naval design bureau would consider both the Electromagnetic Aircraft Launch System (EMALS) which enables a fighter jet to take-off from the deck of the carrier and the Advanced Arresting Gear (AAG) which enables its landing. India is trying to get the technology from the US.

http://www.tribuneindia.com/news/nation/ins-vikrant-set-to-undock-next-month/68458.html

[Malcolm Merlyn]

You don't have to be indegenous from ANYWHERE to be considered native. The Achaemenids are as Persian as it gets and they were not even from Parsa! The English monarchy is as English as it gets and they are mostly Danes and Germans! The point is, if you are native to a place for several generations, then you most definitely are native and NOT a foreigner.

Cyrus the Great the first Achaemenids emperor was the founder of Persia,so ofcourse his dynasty was Persian.His roots belong to Fars province in present day Iran. Do you know the present House of Windsor name was proclaimed to remove any connection to their German roots.They denounced their German roots to accept England.Which Muslim conqueror did this?The Mughals followed their Timurid/Barlas traditions to the core.

Plenty of local customs were adopted, especially in governorship. The timurid custom was to divide provinces by cities and put a relative on top on each and every city they conquered. The mughals quickly abandoned that and went with a mix of royal clan and local rulers to hold the empire together.

All major provinces like Bengal/Deccan/Kandhar/Sind etc were given to relatives.For the others they followed a system called Mansabdaari.The rest followed a system of Subsidary alliance,where local rulers accepted the Mughals as overlords in return for protection and paid them tribute.Saved the Mughals the need to militarily conquer them but got their loyalty anyhow.

False. The mughals were a SC muslim dynasty after Humayun. The bahmani kingdom was a native muslim dynasty through and through, founded by a hindu convert. Same with the Lodhis, the Nizams, etc

Mughals were a Timurid dynasty who ruled India,They followed their customs.The Bahmani Ala-ud-Din Bahman Shah the founder of Bahmani Kingdom was either a Persian or an Afghan.There is no clarity on his origin.

Doesn't matter. It still makes them local in eyes of histor

y. LOL.They are seen as a Timurid dynasty.

What culture you follow doesn't make or unmake you indian or american.

It does.Mughals always called themselves Taimuri and their royal names contained the word Ghazi at the end.

Shah Jehan was more Indian by blood than Timurid.

He was a Timurid as thats what he identified himself as.Their house is known as the House of Timur.They followed not the Indian custom or Language but the Timurid one.

Yes, but back when the pashtuns were just another tribes from the westernmost parts of India, they were considered Indian. You have to read any and all literature from the 13th/14th century to realize that even hindu poets and fakirs considered afghans to be indians and so did they. If tomorrow UP becomes a different country, it doesn't mean that Vajpayee all of a sudden stops being Indian because in HIS LIFETIME, UP was considered part of India and therefore, HE was Indian, even if in future, a separate UP nation would lead to a distinction between Indians and UP-ites. Get it ?

Afghanistan was always considered to be a foreign land ruled by Indians.The people were called Yavanas and Mlechhas.Remember that the original Pashtuns lived further north and they only spread to areas south of Kandhar post the fall of Kabulshahis.So dont mistake them with Indians who used to live in areas that make Southern Afghanistan and FATA/KP province of Pakistan today.Post the defeat of the Kabul Shahis that area had gone to the conquerors and out them arose the Lodis.

Founders were, the descendants were local. If you carry local genes, have been there your whole life, you are a local. If your children continue to live in America and 3 generations later, your descendants are Americans, not Indians. That is the historical perspective and no amount of 'personal opinion' changes that orthodoxy.

Wrong.They are still called Indian origin people.

False.

True.Only Southern Afghanistan was considered uptil Kandahar had any direct historical connect with India.

It was named lesser India because it was separated from rest of India by suleiman mountain ranges. Calling Turkey 'Asia Minor' does not make it any less or more Asian, its just a geographical term. But it still is part of ancient India and was according to everyone else of that time.

It was called lesser India as Indian influence was very limited beyond Kandahar and the northern areas were under various influences.

False. Pashtuns to this day are closer in blood to north Indians than they are to the 'Sarts' which is what eastern Iranians, aka Tajiks are known as.

Nopes.Pashtuns have not been found to be very deeply related to North Indians.

Explain afghan history pre-achaemenid and during achaemenid times ? sorry, but thats a long topic. I can't explain 1000 years of history of a place in one post, i suggest you read up yourself.

I have.

Not true. As i mentioned, the Bahamani sultans were quite categorically local. So were the Lodhis. Mughals too, after Humayun were an Indian dynasty of Timurid origin.

Bahmanis point is explained above. Lodis were a Pashtun tribe from Afghanistan. Mughals were a Timurid dynasty who ruled India.

[SELVAM]

In defence, time for tough decisions Apr 30, 2015 03:29 AM , By Shashank Joshi | 28 comments “As India’s higher defence management is unfit to meet for the needs of an ambitious power in the top tier of Asian military forces, its three services must be stitched together with a Chief of Defence Staff.” File photo shows combat demonstration during the Army Day Parade in New Delhi. Opting to drastically downsize 17 Corps and buy Rafale fighters were two bold, but not necessarily good, moves. Now, it’s time for the Defence Minister to create a unified services chief. Arun Jaitley and Manohar Parrikar, the government’s first and incumbent Defence Ministers, respectively, perhaps hoped that the pitiful record of their predecessor A.K. Antony, India’s longest continuously serving Defence Minister, would make their task easier. Instead, it’s been quite the opposite. Mr. Parrikar seems to have spent the last several months cleaning up what he insists is a fiscal and policy mess bequeathed to the government and overlooked by Mr. Jaitley, who was, for a brief period, wearing two hats as Finance and Defence Minister. But is Mr. Parrikar leaving the place tidier than he found it, or laying down an unhelpful legacy of his own? Three areas are worth looking at more closely: the slashing of the much advertised 17 Corps, the country’s first mountain strike force; the sudden re-jigging of a deal to purchase France’s Rafale fighter aircraft; and, most importantly, the vexed question of reforming India’s military command. Two years ago, the previous Congress-led government announced the raising of 17 Corps, which, unlike 1, 2, and 21, would be directed at China rather than Pakistan, and therefore configured for mountain warfare. It would consist of two infantry divisions, three artillery brigades, three armoured brigades, and a host of supporting land and air units. Mountain units aren’t as mobile as those that fight in the plains, and so require plentiful airlift, particularly helicopters and light artillery. The 17 Corps would be large, with around 80,000 men, and expensive, costing well over $10 billion, $1.2 billion of which would have to be spent annually till the early 2020s. To put that in perspective, the Indian Army’s entire allocation for 2015-16 is $16 billion. As Mr. Parrikar asked, “Where is the money?” Two out of three Mr. Parrikar’s response has been to more than halve the size of 17 Corps to just 35,000 men, and to propose that the Army take a long, hard look at its current strike corps and other Pakistan-facing units. This will have mixed results. On the one hand, loudly raising new units on paper and then quietly slashing them sends a signal of weakness, even fecklessness, to your adversaries. Critics will accuse Mr. Parrikar of gutting India’s modest offensive capability against China even before it got off the ground. On the other hand, downsizing creates an opportunity to ensure that the pruned 17 Corps can now actually afford the equipment and supporting platforms it needs if it is to be combat-effective. It is better to have a smaller and more potent force than a large and flabby one. Mr. Parrikar can turn this decision into an opportunity, but only if he focusses on explaining his intentions rather than on blaming previous governments. The second choice, one in which Mr. Parrikar seems to have been largely uninvolved, is India’s decision this month to purchase 36 French Rafale fighters, multirole aircraft that can defend the skies and strike targets on the ground, in so-called “flyaway” condition. The catch is that India originally wanted to buy 126 aircraft, and was using the leverage of such a large order to negotiate a substantial transfer of technology to India. Although the idea goes back years, it dovetailed perfectly with Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s ‘Make in India’ initiative. It now seems that India effectively blinked. Nothing is to be made in India and everything will be imported. In the last three year

[Cricket_Hacker]

Defence procurements worth Rs 1,10,000 crore cleared; 90% under 'Make in India': Manohar Parrikar

NEW DELHI: In a push to PM Narendra Modi's dream campaign, Defence Minister Manohar Parrikar on Monday said that the ministry has cleared procurements worth Rs 1,10,000 crore, of which 90% are under 'Make in India'. With reference to procurement, Parrikar sought to assure that the finalistion of defence procurement procedures will be completed in the next 2-3 months. Ahead of French defence minister Jean-Yves Le Drian's visit, Parrikar said that negotiations for procurement of ..

Read more at: http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/articleshow/47146659.cms?utm_source=contentofinterest&utm_medium=text&utm_campaign=cppst

[SELVAM]

Another blunder from modi government. Now they r planning to downsize china specific 17th mountain corps strength from 80000 soldiers to 35000. :facepalm:. Already they reduced mmrca fighter jet deals from 120 to Only 36 expensive rafale jets :facepalm::facepalm:

[Cricket_Hacker]

Another blunder from modi government. Now they r planning to downsize china specific 17th mountain corps strength from 80000 soldiers to 35000. :facepalm:. Already they reduced mmrca fighter jet deals from 120 to Only 36 expensive rafale jets :facepalm::facepalm:

with ToT?

[SELVAM]

with ToT?

No, they will buy 36 rafale jets in flyaway conditions, no tot. Even for services and spares we have to wait for french government approval

[Cricket_Hacker]

No' date=' they will buy 36 rafale jets in flyaway conditions, no tot. Even for services and spares we have to wait for french government approval[/quote'] :fail:

[Sachin=GOD]

Excellent source for defense news - http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/defence