indian army

[samir]

http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/LAND-FORCES/Army/Images2/0549.jpg


suited for NBC warfare

[samir]

http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/LAND-FORCES/Army/Images/0317.jpg


paratroopers in national colors

[samir]

http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/LAND-FORCES/Army/Images/0058.jpg

sikh light infantry

[samir]

http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/LAND-FORCES/Army/Images2/0543.jpg


dogras

[samir]

http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/LAND-FORCES/Army/Images/0057.jpg
assasm regiment

[samir]

http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/LAND-FORCES/Army/Images/0139.jpg

sam's in position

[samir]

http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/MONITOR/ISSUE3-2/RR28_dras.jpg


rajputs celebrating after success in the dras sector

[samir]

http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/NAVY/Images/Marines1.jpg


commando training

[samir]

http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/NAVY/Images/Marines3.jpg


MARCOS training

[Hindu_Nutcase]

very nice thread!

[adren@line]

I always found it odd that the Indian Government divided the regiments by ethnicity and not skill and rank.

[methodman535]

Is there a "mughal regiment" or a "muslim regiment" in the army? How about "portugese men-o-war" or parsee regiment. :lol:

[NumbaOneStunna]

I always found it odd that the Indian Government divided the regiments by ethnicity and not skill and rank.
Its a leftover from the British army of India where the brits used to divide up military units based on ethnicity.

There used to be a pathan regiment but it stayed in Pakistan after the partition.

[Hindu_Nutcase]

Is there a "mughal regiment" or a "muslim regiment" in the army? How about "portugese men-o-war" or parsee regiment. :lol:

no there are no regiments corresponding to the groups you have mentioned.

[methodman535]

I have heard someone say on these forums that the indian army is 97% non-muslim. Thats interesting considering the population of muslims is about what....15% in india?

[paulie walnuts]

I have heard someone say on these forums that the indian army is 97% non-muslim. Thats interesting considering the population of muslims is about what....15% in india?

simple, their loyalties do not lie with their nation.

although i admit i am skeptical about that 3% figure, i think it must be higher.

[Hindu_Nutcase]

I have heard someone say on these forums that the indian army is 97% non-muslim. Thats interesting considering the population of muslims is about what....15% in india?

simple, their loyalties do not lie with their nation.

although i admit i am skeptical about that 3% figure, i think it must be higher.

No it is correct - 3%.

That is why India is still safe. In Indian history there are umpteen occasions where Muslims fighting in a majority Hindu army have mutinied. (eg the fall of the Vajaynagar empire).

However I'm not sure that the low figure is due to any purposeful effort to keep Muslims out of army - I think it is at least partly due to the general Muslim disdain to fight in what they consider an "Hindu/Sikh" army, which is most likely to fight an "Islamic" army. Probably a bit of both.

Vande Mataram

[kawiboy]

I have heard someone say on these forums that the indian army is 97% non-muslim. Thats interesting considering the population of muslims is about what....15% in india?


i'd imagine that'd be true for all professions, not just the armed forces?

[Hindu_Nutcase]

I have heard someone say on these forums that the indian army is 97% non-muslim. Thats interesting considering the population of muslims is about what....15% in india?


i'd imagine that'd be true for all professions, not just the armed forces?


muslims r behind in professions. The GOI needs to stop funding their madrassas that make them unemployable, and get them into mainstream education.

[NumbaOneStunna]

I have heard someone say on these forums that the indian army is 97% non-muslim. Thats interesting considering the population of muslims is about what....15% in india?

simple, their loyalties do not lie with their nation.

although i admit i am skeptical about that 3% figure, i think it must be higher.

No it is correct - 3%.

That is why India is still safe. In Indian history there are umpteen occasions where Muslims fighting in a majority Hindu army have mutinied. (eg the fall of the Vajaynagar empire).

However I'm not sure that the low figure is due to any purposeful effort to keep Muslims out of army - I think it is at least partly due to the general Muslim disdain to fight in what they consider an "Hindu/Sikh" army, which is most likely to fight an "Islamic" army. Probably a bit of both.

Vande Mataram
Oh what a load of crap.

How did the Britishers manage to get a toehold onto the Indian subcontinent? Thats right by defeating Shuja-ud-Daulah in Bengal whose hindu army mutinied against him.

Who fought the Britishers the hardest? Tipu Sultan :roll:

And the reason muslims arent in the army that much is because of widespread bias against them. Its evident not only in the army but in most professions. Thats the agenda of the hindutva pricks which the BJP is an offshoot of.

[angrynacho]

http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/NAVY/Images/Marines1.jpg


commando training

HAHAHHAA, why the fuck didn't anyone else find that funny?

[Hindu_Nutcase]

I'm talking about when the Hindu majority army was fighting Muslims. I thought that would be self-evident, you moron. Many times when Hindus were fighting Muslims, Muslims under Hindu pay mutineed. It is logival, because Islam says that bonds of faith are greater than bonds of nationality. I can give you dozens of examples if you want to deny it. And after all - India's army is most likely to have to fight another "Islamic" army is it not? (Pakistan) SO logically it is in India's best interest to have a low number of Muslims in Indian army. What part of that do you not understand?

As for "who faught hardest". Tipu Sultan is a myth. The Sikhs and Marathas and Gurkhas fought hardest. I'd rather not get into a debate about that. And Tipu Sultan was a str8 up savage against his Hindu subjects, so I don't respect him despite his brave stand against the Brits.

I have heard someone say on these forums that the indian army is 97% non-muslim. Thats interesting considering the population of muslims is about what....15% in india?

simple, their loyalties do not lie with their nation.

although i admit i am skeptical about that 3% figure, i think it must be higher.

No it is correct - 3%.

That is why India is still safe. In Indian history there are umpteen occasions where Muslims fighting in a majority Hindu army have mutinied. (eg the fall of the Vajaynagar empire).

However I'm not sure that the low figure is due to any purposeful effort to keep Muslims out of army - I think it is at least partly due to the general Muslim disdain to fight in what they consider an "Hindu/Sikh" army, which is most likely to fight an "Islamic" army. Probably a bit of both.

Vande Mataram
Oh what a load of crap.

How did the Britishers manage to get a toehold onto the Indian subcontinent? Thats right by defeating Shuja-ud-Daulah in Bengal whose hindu army mutinied against him.

Who fought the Britishers the hardest? Tipu Sultan :roll:

And the reason muslims arent in the army that much is because of widespread bias against them. Its evident not only in the army but in most professions. Thats the agenda of the hindutva pricks which the BJP is an offshoot of.

[adren@line]

I have heard someone say on these forums that the indian army is 97% non-muslim. Thats interesting considering the population of muslims is about what....15% in india?

simple, their loyalties do not lie with their nation.

although i admit i am skeptical about that 3% figure, i think it must be higher.

No it is correct - 3%.

That is why India is still safe. In Indian history there are umpteen occasions where Muslims fighting in a majority Hindu army have mutinied. (eg the fall of the Vajaynagar empire).

However I'm not sure that the low figure is due to any purposeful effort to keep Muslims out of army - I think it is at least partly due to the general Muslim disdain to fight in what they consider an "Hindu/Sikh" army, which is most likely to fight an "Islamic" army. Probably a bit of both.

Vande Mataram
Oh what a load of crap.

How did the Britishers manage to get a toehold onto the Indian subcontinent? Thats right by defeating Shuja-ud-Daulah in Bengal whose hindu army mutinied against him.

Who fought the Britishers the hardest? Tipu Sultan :roll:

And the reason muslims arent in the army that much is because of widespread bias against them. Its evident not only in the army but in most professions. Thats the agenda of the hindutva pricks which the BJP is an offshoot of.

ehh how many Hindus are in the Pak Army?

[Hindu_Nutcase]

^^ Good point , how many Hindus in the Pakistan army. For that matter, how many Hindus in Pakistan? Pakistanis like banging on about rights of Muslims in India (who are doing OK anyway), yet always overlook the fact that Hindus have been totally decimated in Pakistan.

Solution - no Muslims in indian army, no Hindus in Pakistani army.

[Hindu_Nutcase]

Regarding the wonderful "hero" Tipu Sultan: (please Hindus, do NOT internalise any respect for him despite the pathetic Indian serial made about him)

So what do the original sources tell us about Tipu? The anthology includes excerpts from Tipu's letters as researched by the distinguished Kerala historian K. M. Panicker, which he reviewed in the Bhasha Poshini magazine, August 1923:

1. Letter dated March 22, 1788, to Abdul Kadir: "Over 12,000 Hindus were honoured with Islam. There were many Namboodri Brahmins among them. This achievement should be widely publicised among the Hindus. Then the local Hindus should be brought before you and converted to Islam. No Namboodri Brahmin should be spared. "

2. Letter dated December 14, 1988, to his army chief in Calicut: " I am sending two of my followers with Mir Hussain Ali. With their assistance, you should capture and kill all Hindus. Those below 20 may be kept in prison and 5000 from the rest should be killed from the tree-tops. These are my orders."

3. Letter dated January 18, 1790, to Syed Abdul Dulai: " ...almost all Hindus in Calicut are converted to Islam. I consider this as Jehad."


The anthology also quotes from A Voyage to the East Indies by Fra Barthoelomeo, a renowned Portuguese traveller and historian, who was present in Tipu's war zone in early 1790:

"First a corps of 30,000 barbarians who butchered everybody on the way ... followed by the field gun unit under the French commander, M. Lally. Tipu was riding on an elephant behind which another army of 30,000 soldiers followed. Most of the men and women were hanged in Calicut, first mothers were hanged with their children tied to necks of mothers. That barbarian Tipu Sultan tied the naked Christian and Hindus to the legs of elephants and made the elephants to move around till the bodies of the helpless victims were torn to pieces. Temples and churches were ordered to be burned down, desecrated, and destroyed. ... Those Christians who refused to be honoured with Islam were ordered to be killed by hanging immediately. These atrocities were told to me by the victims of Tipu Sultan who escaped from the clutches of his army and reached Varapphuza, which is the centre of Carmichael Christian Mission. I myself helped many victims to cross the Varapphuza river by boats."


Moreover, evidence of Tipu's atrocities abounds in many contemporary church records in Mangalore, Calicut, and Varapphuza.

[NumbaOneStunna]

I'm talking about when the Hindu majority army was fighting Muslims. I thought that would be self-evident, you moron. Many times when Hindus were fighting Muslims, Muslims under Hindu pay mutineed. It is logival, because Islam says that bonds of faith are greater than bonds of nationality. I can give you dozens of examples if you want to deny it. And after all - India's army is most likely to have to fight another "Islamic" army is it not? (Pakistan) SO logically it is in India's best interest to have a low number of Muslims in Indian army. What part of that do you not understand?

As for "who faught hardest". Tipu Sultan is a myth. The Sikhs and Marathas and Gurkhas fought hardest. I'd rather not get into a debate about that. And Tipu Sultan was a str8 up savage against his Hindu subjects, so I don't respect him despite his brave stand against the Brits.


What a load of crap. The very reason that India's defence forces are so strong is because of APJ Abul Kalam. Why do you think he built all those missiles and stuff for India when he is a muslim and muslims would rather help Pakistan than India. You need to grow up and get rid of this hatred of yours you derive from useless sites like hindutva.com. I can provide hundreds of examples of muslims in the indian army laying down their lives fighting Pakistan. The bottom line is muslims are discriminated against in the indian army and pretty much every indian institution not because of their "doubtful" allegiance ( a myth perpertrated by hindutva pricks) to India but because of their faith and their religious beliefs.

As for Tipu Sultan and his atrocities against hindus please provide some LINKS and by that i mean links from legitimate sources not hinduunity.org or some biased site like that.

[Hindu_Nutcase]

Abdul Kalam is a Hindu in all but name. He reads the Bhagavad Gita everyday (not gr8 for a Muslim), he's celibate (not good in Islam), and he is vegetarian (not gr8 for a Muslim).

Either way, Kalam is a gr8 man, BUT he's just ONE face in India's missile research story. It is a JOKE to attribute everything to him as you are trying to do.

Oh come on don't insult my intelligence and tell me that it is not Haram for Muslim soldiers to fight other Muslims on behalf of idolatrous India.

[Hindu_Nutcase]

funny how you always over look the fate of Hindus in Pakistan and Bangladesh. They were initially a bigger proportion of these countries than Muslims were of India, and they have been decimated totally, and have NO presence in police and army in these countries. They do not even have a voice.

Stop complaining when things are worse in your own.

[NumbaOneStunna]

Abdul Kalam is a Hindu in all but name. He reads the Bhagavad Gita everyday (not gr8 for a Muslim), he's celibate (not good in Islam), and he is vegetarian (not gr8 for a Muslim).

Either way, Kalam is a gr8 man, BUT he's just ONE face in India's missile research story. It is a JOKE to attribute everything to him as you are trying to do.

Oh come on don't insult my intelligence and tell me that it is not Haram for Muslim soldiers to fight other Muslims on behalf of idolatrous India.
Huh? A muslim can read the bhagvad gita, a muslim can be celibate and a muslim can be a vegetarian. Nowhere in Islam does it say that if you do any of those things you are not a muslim or are in any way a lesser muslim than others who do those things.

Insult your intelligence? I doubt you have any if you really think that muslims in India are bound by religion to help the Pakistanis in an event of war. I suggest you go do some reading about Islam from neutral sites and not hindutva.org

[NumbaOneStunna]

funny how you always over look the fate of Hindus in Pakistan and Bangladesh. They were initially a bigger proportion of these countries than Muslims were of India, and they have been decimated totally, and have NO presence in police and army in these countries. They do not even have a voice.

Stop complaining when things are worse in your own.
I doubt that.
Secondly, most of them moved because Pakistan is a small country and the indian borders are closer than say pakistani borders were for a muslim family in Kerela.

Thirdly, i am not pakistani DOH

[Hindu_Nutcase]

Hindus were 30% of East Bengal and 25% of West Pakistan. They were quickly finished of in Pakistan, but in E.Bengal things were slower. It is negationism to say that the reason why Muslims are still in India is ONLY because of distance. It is just as much due to the conscious effort of Indian leaders of the time to give them security. You know, the bomber jets were once used to stop Hindu rioting. As well as Gandhi's calming presence in India.

There is an act called the "VESTED PROPERTY ACT" in Bangladesh, whereby if a Hindu leaves the country theior property can be confiscated by the state. It was initially a Pakistani Law called the "ENEMY PROPERTY ACT". In Bangladesh it was expected the law would be repealed, but in 1976 (I think) all that happened was that the name changed. As a result of this act, it is simple for local politicians and goons to cause a bit of trouble. The Hindus move out, and the property in confiscated. Just type in Vested Property Act Hindus into a search engine and you'll see what I mean.

Sorry about the mistake re: u being a Pakistani.

It annoys me when sub-continental Muslims can't face the simple fact that by and large, Hindus have been fairly tolerant by comparison. I don't want to keep harping on about it, but at least it would be a starting point to here that simple truth rather than twist facts around. With that starting point we could at least go somewhere.

[NumbaOneStunna]

I guess you are not aware of similar laws in India. Lots of muslims moved out of India during the partition and the indian government seized their property.

Also there is a law in India which goes under the name " Land to the tiller". According to this law whoever is tilling the land gets ownership of it. This law was in many ways designed to marginalise the land owners who were generally muslims. My own family lost ownership of 13 villages because of this law. But i dont complain about it because thats the nature of the beast.

You keep bringing up the fact that hindus were gotten rid of in Pakistan. According to UN reports the number of muslims and hindus dying during the partition were roughly the same. You can read the book "Freedom At Midnight" written by a frenchman and an englishman to ascertain these facts. Now i know hindutva.org might not agree with the figures but thats just the way it is.

"It annoys me when sub-continental Muslims can't face the simple fact that by and large, Hindus have been fairly tolerant by comparison. I don't want to keep harping on about it, but at least it would be a starting point to here that simple truth rather than twist facts around. With that starting point we could at least go somewhere."
First of all that is highly debatable.
Secondly what do you mean then we can atleast go somewhere? Its useles to force your own version of events on the minority and warn them that we cant go any further unless they agree with so and so.

And well we can debate history as much as we want but the fact is that at this point of time muslims are being mistreated all over india, there places of worship are being demolished in full view of the authorities and police, they are being murdered with connivance of the government. Scenes like ayodhya and gujarat seem to repeated every few years yet nothing really changes.

[Hindu_Nutcase]

but in Bangladesh property confiscation still goes on NOW. The law is STILL there and is used regularly.

Suffering during partition is one thing, but what happened after partition is totally another. After partition things settled down in India. There were many safeguards. Muslims even have the Hajj funded by authorities, and get grants to support their places or worship. But in Pakistan things never settled. After partition, Hindus became 15% population of west pakistan. Today they are less than 2%. That figure speaks for itself.

You talk about Gujarat - but what sparked it off. If Hindus carried out such an audacious attack on Muslims in Pakistan or Bangladesh, what would happen - it would probably be worse. You talk about Ayodhya, but after the Babri Masjid was demolished (which had been peacefully sold over to Hindus in 1949), several hundred Hindu temples were destroyed in Bangladesh, and dozens in Pakistan.And how do you think Hindus are treated in Pakistan and Bangladesh.

But bringing it back to the point about the Indian army: it makes sense, for security reasons, not to have Muslims in the Indian army. That does not mean Muslims should be treated badly or be denied the right to a livelihood (which is not the case anyway). And regarding general discrimination against Muslims - one of the largest problems is that many of them study in madrassas. The syllabus which is taught does not make them employable. Scrap madrassas, everybody studies at the same schools, things would change.

[Hindu_Nutcase]

Regarding that Muslims are ill treated and have less religious rights, read the following:

(extract from interview with Sri Sri Ravi Shankar, founder of the "Art of Living Foundation", the fastest growing New Age movement and advisor to the UN)

In the Indian context, we have respect for all religions. Privilege for one religion above the other is not right. In our country the majority religion does not get facilities. Minority religions have become a vote-bank for politicians. That is the problem. Those people who go to the kumbh mela have to pay taxes whereas people are given a grant to go to Haj. These are disparities. That's why there is a sense of resentment in the majority community. The minority community institutions are fully exempted from taxes whereas majority community institutions are not. In Karnataka, we have 40,000 temples. The income from these temples is Rs 40 crore. Only Rs 50 lakh is spent on the temples, the rest goes to the government. Whereas grants are given to the minority communities (to an extent of Rs 8 crore) while their income is only Rs 50 lakh. These disparities should go. Everybody should be treated equally.

This just illustrates that in some ways, Muslims are treated better by the state.

[Hindu_Nutcase]

And finally, regarding the links about Tipu Sultan you requested:

http://www.indiastar.com/wallia7.htm

Sure you will probably dismiss it as right-wing propaganda, but here it is none the less.

PS - Its juvenile you keep referring to Hindutva.org. 1st of all i do not visit that site. Secondly its like me keep on accusing you of being an Islamist or something - it has nothing to do with the debate at hand.

[Irreligious Left]

funny how you always over look the fate of Hindus in Pakistan and Bangladesh. They were initially a bigger proportion of these countries than Muslims were of India, and they have been decimated totally, and have NO presence in police and army in these countries. They do not even have a voice.

Stop complaining when things are worse in your own.
I doubt that.
Secondly, most of them moved because Pakistan is a small country and the indian borders are closer than say pakistani borders were for a muslim family in Kerela.

Thirdly, i am not pakistani DOH

I know you're speaking in examples, but do you really think one the reasons South Indian Muslims, by in large, stayed in India during and after the partition was because of the distance from Pakistan?

[ThreeFiddy]

Irreligious Left - you have the best signature in all of ratedesi. LMFAO. Good stuff

[Irreligious Left]

^^^Thanks! I'm glad someone liked it. Sigs usually don't get that much attention around here unless they have funky graphics and pics.

People like me who aren't versed in photoshop have to actually resort to filling our signature lines with words.

[angrynacho]

Irreligious Left - you have the best signature in all of ratedesi. LMFAO. Good stuff

Yeah, that is a pretty slick sig. I gotta admit.

[Reaper]

simple, their loyalties do not lie with their nation.

True, muslims are traitors.

[dopekhor]

True, muslims are traitors.
is that the best u could come up with?

[Wes]

is that the best u could come up with?

it's the truth.

[dopekhor]

it's the truth.
oh really?

[Reaper]

oh really?

Yes. :Owned: