really hope they could see past the religious differences, develope secular values and unite under one Indian country again, division is a western way of control.
@@youssefhany546 well it is not realistic i wish they would get along too as I am part Pakistani. But it's been so long and even India has many separatist movements ect it would be like asking Romania and Moldova to unite (not a great comparison but best i can think of) . They were the same country similar people (I'm aware Pakistanis and Indians have thier own ethnic groups like balochis and punjabis) and were separated by a foreign power (USSR) now they have been led to believe they are totally different and both countries have taken a wildy different route and aren't similar. But most Pakistanis want peace with Indians and I'm sure its the same vice versa
@@indianmappingeditzbsop6834 I know right she was killed by her own guards after General zia ul haq (pakistan martial law administrator at the time) said on TV it was better for one person to die than millions when indo-pak war 5 was about to break out
@@naveedali1406 lets start one now, KASHMIR WAS INDEPENDENT FOR HALF THE 1947 WAR AND THE PEOPLE WANTED TO JOIN PAKISTAN BUT THE KIND WANTED TO JOIN INDIA AND SO ITS INDIAN I started a war, happy?
The quality of this video is great but... 1) Jinnah was in controll of Pakistan in 47 2) India never occupied that much terretories in East Pakistan. The Bengalis had already occupied most of East Pakistan. India joined in the last moments when the Pakistanis were retreating towards Dhaka. 3) Parvez Musharraf was in power during the Kargil war
And why was your PAF not attacking the Bengalis? Why was your Navy unable to help your troops evacuate? Indian army gave a proper hiding to the Pakistani army, Airforce and Navy. If it wasn't for the incompetency of yet another Nehru descendant, Pakistan would have ceased to exist today. The name is of Pakistani president, Musharaf wasn't a President during Kargil.
Yeh pakka koi kayar Pakistani hoga jiske dada ji un 1971 war ke 98000 POW's mein se honge, jinko hum Indians ne rehem khakar poore izzad ke saath Pakistan rawana kiya tha
@@nitinsguru Do you see how far the places are separated? Pakistan navy had to go ALL the way around just to get the troops and fight while at it and where would PAF come from crossing all of India? Space?
1.) Maharaj was a nemesis of India coz he was an arch rival of Shiekh Abdullah, and shiekh abdullah was one of biggest ally of Nehru, this is the reason why initially he wasn't acceding Kashmir to India 2.) Gilgit rebels had attavked the vale even before when Indian forces had airlifted to Kashmir, this itself proove that Gilgit rebels had defeated the forces of Maharaja but not the Indian forces, India had finally invaded Kashmir from the south by 26th of oct, and Pakistan had already invaded Kashmir by 22nd of october, this proove that it was India, which had defeated Gilgit rebels and Pakitani forces and had moved them out of the vale, 3.) I agree India took the matter to UN, coz A.) India had the support of Shikh abdullah B.) Case of Junagarh was still pending C.) India was always the biggest regional power D.) India was overconfident about her position in Kashmir, India was already defeating Pakistan, it was a diplomatic failure of India, if India had not took this matter to the UN, then it was just the matter of time, and whole Kahsmir would had been a part of India, your histrory lessons needs to be checked, Jinnah had stooped at unimaginable levels , he had wanted to to establish the illegal state of Pakistan quite entirely over the Hindu India , his ill intentions were not just limited to the the 6 states, case of Junagarh and Hyderabad prooves that, and also if Pakistan could had the audacity of claiming Hindu majority Hyderabad and Hindu majority Junagrah on the basis of so-called IOA ,then why not India?India is way more powerfull and influentiol than Pakistan, if Pakistan can dare to provoke India, then the regional superpower India would surely retaliate and also the people of Kashmir had never wanted to join Pakistan, they just had wanted to get rid of the Dogra ruler, and for that they had been supporting Shiekh abdullah, shiekh abdullah was pro-India, coz of that jinnah had even referred Abdullah as a traitor, which had offended the Kashmiri people, and also we are talking about the 1940' sat that time, Hindus of kashmir used to make about 30 percent of the population( before the forcefull exodus of Hindus by the Muslims of Kashmir), and the Hindus of Kashmir(including Bhuddists and Sikhs)were and are still highly pro-India, so your arguments are quite baseless And for the record, Pakistan wasn't really supporting a plebscide in Kashmir initially coz it knew that the peope would vote for Shiekj abdullah and he was sponsoring the legallity of the Instrument of Accession of Kashmir with India ,coz of this Pakistan voilated the UN resolution and din't vacate the occupied terretories,Dogra ruler was Hindu, but still his ties with the Indian government were quite bad(that's the reason why din't signed the IOA with the Indian government initially, but only after the Pakistani invasion of Kashmir) The misleading info which is being spread by the Pakistani media has deeply infiltrated into the minds of Pakistanis! Pakistan is purely at the fault, it's Pakistan, which is instigating this issue even after losing all the wars and conflicts against India, India is, was, will always be on the morally right side,
Hi I don’t know if you do requests but here I go, could you please try a scenario being that Japan never bombed pearl harbour, Germany never was at war with USA and instead declared war on Russia to aid the axis of Europe. Thanks 🙂 I believe it would be a very interesting war
In 1965 war: * India captured 1800 sq km land till ceasefire * Pak captured 540 sq km till ceasefire But these are not properly visible in your map as it is too big , you should have focused only on Kashmir and Punjab
In 1947 Kashmir was independent kingdom nither India's nor pakistan after pakistan invaded Kashmir the king of Kashmir asked help from India the government told if u join us we will help you the king agreed and India won that war as they got more land 70% was with India and 30% was with pakistan
The Biggest mistake of all is that when Pakistan attacked Kashmir in 1947, Kashmir was NOT a part of India. When Pakistan has already captured the part of Kashmir today known as Pakistani controlled Kashmir, Hari Singh, the ruler of Kashmir declared Kashmir as a part of India.
@@arnavranka4510 I’m not even related to Pakistan/bangladesh. I’m just saying that you’re a brainwashed person, who has no knowledge of religious populations.
Mistakes: 1. India didn't completely won 1999 War, Pakistani Army announced to withdraw due to US intervention and Threats of Sanctions 2. 1965 War actually started in around May, over a place called Rann of Kutch (Sindh-Gujarat Border), India quickly occupied it but was forced to retreat after heavy resistance from locals and Pakistani Army, Overall,... Pakistan is seen as having upper hand because it held heavy advantage in Sindh/Rajasthan, Naval and Aerial fronts, Parts of Kashmir and Punjab but failed in Assal Uttar and parachute missions over some air bases Officially, UN intervened in end-Sep and called for Tashkent Conference ( why i have a feeling that someone may call me a propaganda or a bias :/.....) Tip: Saffron is the traditional colour of India (in maps too) while green for Pakistan Btw...... Nice work!
@sailing smooth15 India took about 1-10% of the territory it lost in 1999, and that too when only the Pakistan army was involved. India's air force, army and navy were all involved in the war.
@sailing smooth15 at that time... the government had an issue with the Army chief... so soon the government was toppled and the Army chief came to power in October 1999, Pakistani troops faced heavy shelling from Indian positions (when in Kargil). Finally on the announcement of Pakistani govt. (due to US pressure), Pakistani forces withdrew..... Its result is stated as Status quo ante bellum
@sailing smooth15 as a pakistani, i agree. Pakistan did face more casualties than india, but you also have to admit the fact that on ur side the airforce was involved too, while on our side, only the army was involved. Although many pakistanis disagree at the withdrawl of troops i am really glad that happened bcoz i heard the army chief really wanted to nuke india lol
@@EdgyMemer_ noone can say who will win, but in feb 2019, india was not even near to preparation of war against pakistan, Pakistan displayed electronic warfare capabilities which jammed radios and stunned iaf. India was not able to retaliate.
Actually in 1947 Muhammad Ali jinnah was ruling pakistan Liaqat Ali became the prime minister of pakistan after the death of Muhammad Ali jinnah in 1948
Pakistan took 1/3rd of Kashmir in the 1947 war, and you call that a victory? The Tashkent Declaration in 1966 declared the 1965 war was a stalemate. Bangladesh was obviously hard to defend in 1971 since it was more than 800 km away. That only leaves 1 war India truly won with their better military.
@@ThuglackMan-lp8xceven in those stalemate wars Pakistan took much more casualties and didn't succeed in what they were trying to Achieve so pakistan took their comman L And expect 1971 Pakistan also lost the 1999 war and couldn't protect Siachen which both shared a border with pakistan lmfaooo
@@Fantastycustom Ok and? Still to this day, Indians claim Kashmir as part of their own country, yet they let Pakistan snatch 1/3 of it away from them in 1947, then they go and complain on the internet. And I never said anything about Pakistan not having a border with the war area in the 199 war.
@@ThuglackMan-lp8xc "ye let pakistan snatch it" that's just because our leaders wanted a good relationship with your country 🤣🤣 that's why Shimla agreement was signed
1. India din't lost Kashmir but Pakistan did, the Hindu Mahraja of Kashmir remained neutral but It rattled Pakistan, Pakistan armed the gilgit scouts and they occupied the gilgit baltistan, mirpur and neelum valley and muzafarrabd from the state of Kashmir and not from India,this all happened on 22 oct 1947,Hindus were being persecuted in mirpur thus this forced India to interverne, IOA was signed with India on 26OCT1947 and Kashmir officially accedes towards India, war continued and Pakistan officially joined this war but was defeated in Kashmir valley,Jammu and Ladakh, more than half of Kashmir falls under the Indian controll,India took the matter to the UN, because firstly India had the IOA as well as the support of Shiekh Abdullah and also India was and is way more influential and powerful than Pakistan however instead of sponsoring Indian claims UN ended the war with ceasefire and Kashmir became a disputed, however since India controll more than half of Kashmir,waterways and all the crucial strategic positions and made Pakistan vulnerable thus India was termed as the victor 2. In 1965,Pakistan launched an operation gibraltar, assisted by Indian arch rival China, agaibst India, this operation sparked a war in kashmir and there were strong pobabilities of China joining this war along with Pakistan against India and India launched a counter offence by invading Lahore,Pakistan as a result was confused ,entire phase of the war was shifted, Pakistan lost more men and tank in Kashmir, and large chunks of land in Lahore, invading Indian forces destroyed Lahore,however,coz of the pressure from both US and USSR India had to withdraw and sign the tashkant agreement,thus even after winnig this war against Pakistan and the tactics of China,India had to withdraw by accepting the ceasefire as India wasn't capable enoigh of offending both US amd USSR 3. Azerbaijaan is also separted by the Armenian land,Russia is also separated by lithanuia and finland still they are defending thier integrity, just accept that Pakistan wasn't capable enough of defeating India, India started this war by assiting mukti bahini, and finally invading both west amd east Pakistan after Hindus were persecuted in Pakistan and made it surrender, and finally liberated Bangladesh and for the recordw,Pakistan was also defeated and invaded by India on the western front, 4. Kargil war wasn't a war but an armed conflict,Pakistan(a newly nuclear power nation) proved itself as an irresposible power by igniting this conflict by assisting taliban by letting them encroach over the Indian land, Talibs and mujahuddins were overconfident after war with USSR thus they provoked India but it backfired,India not only gained control over the kargil but exposed Pakistan globally aswell, 5. You missed 1984,in which Indian operation meghdoot was success agaibst Pakistan, and made Pakistan lose enitre siachin glacier,this is another victory of India over Pakistan
@@SaadAhmadSMMA The Pakistani government was accused of spreading misinformation about the consequences of the war among its citizens.[205] In his book Mainsprings of Indian and Pakistani foreign policies, S.M. Burke writes[142] - After the Indo-Pakistani war of 1965, the balance of military power had decisively shifted in favor of India. Pakistan had found it difficult to replace the heavy equipment lost during that conflict while her adversary, despite her economic and political problems, had been determinedly building up her strength. Air Marshal (retired) Nur Khan, who headed the Pakistan Air Force in 1965, said in an interview with Dawn newspaper[206] - The army “misled the nation with a big lie” - that India rather than Pakistan provoked the war - and that Pakistan won a “great victory”. And since the “lie” was never rectified, the Pakistani “army came to believe its fiction, (and) has continued to fight unwanted wars,” Pakistani commentator Haidar Imtiaz remarked:[207] The myth of ‘victory’ was created after the war had ended, to counter Indian claims of victory on the one hand and to shield the Ayub regime and the army from criticism on the other. A book titled Indo-Pakistan War of 1965: A Flashback,[208] produced by the Inter-Services Public Relations of Pakistan, is used as the official history of the war, which omits any mention of the operations Gibraltar and Grand Slam, and begins with the Indian counter-offensive on the Lahore front.
@@SaadAhmadSMMA There have been several neutral assessments of the losses incurred by both India and Pakistan during the war. Most of these assessments agree that India had the upper hand over Pakistan when the ceasefire was declared. Some neutral assessments are mentioned below - According to the Library of Congress Country Studies conducted by the Federal Research Division of the United States[24] - The war was militarily inconclusive; each side held prisoners and some territory belonging to the other. Losses were relatively heavy-on the Pakistani side, twenty aircraft, 200 tanks, and 3,800 troops. Pakistan's army had been able to withstand Indian pressure, but a continuation of the fighting would only have led to further losses and ultimate defeat for Pakistan. Most Pakistanis, schooled in the belief of their own martial prowess, refused to accept the possibility of their country's military defeat by “Hindu India” and were, instead, quick to blame their failure to attain their military aims on what they considered to be the ineptitude of Ayub Khan and his government. Former New York Times reporter Arif Jamal wrote in his book Shadow War[9] - This time, India's victory was nearly total: India accepted a cease-fire only after it had occupied 740 square miles [1,900 km2], though Pakistan had made marginal gains of 210 square miles [540 km2] of territory. Despite the obvious strength of the Indian win, both countries claim to have been victorious. Devin T. Hagerty wrote in his book South Asia in world politics[142] - The invading Indian forces outfought their Pakistani counterparts and halted their attack on the outskirts of Lahore, Pakistan's second-largest city. By the time the United Nations intervened on September 22, Pakistan had suffered a clear defeat. In his book National identity and geopolitical visions,[143] Gertjan Dijkink writes - The superior Indian forces, however, won a decisive victory and the army could have even marched on into Pakistani territory had external pressure not forced both combatants to cease their war efforts. An excerpt from Stanley Wolpert's India,[144] summarizing the Indo-Pakistani War of 1965, In three weeks, the second Indo-Pak War ended in what appeared to be a draw when the embargo placed by Washington on U.S. ammunition and replacements for both armies forced the cessation of conflict before either side won a clear victory. India, however, was in a position to inflict grave damage to, if not capture, Pakistan's capital of the Punjab when the cease-fire was called, and controlled Kashmir's strategic Uri-Poonch bulge, much to Ayub's chagrin. In his book titled The greater game: India's race with destiny and China, David Van Praagh wrote[8] - India won the war. It held on to the Vale of Kashmir, the prize Pakistan vainly sought. It gained 1,840 km2 [710 sq mi] of Pakistani territory: 640 km2 [250 sq mi] in Azad Kashmir, Pakistan's portion of the state; 460 km2 [180 sq mi] of the Sailkot sector; 380 km2 [150 sq mi] far to the south of Sindh; and most critical, 360 km2 [140 sq mi] on the Lahore front. Pakistan took 540 km2 [210 sq mi] of Indian territory: 490 km2 [190 sq mi] in the Chhamb sector and 50 km2 [19 sq mi] around Khem Karan. Dennis Kux's India and the United States estranged democracies also provides a summary of the war,[145] Although both sides lost heavily in men and material, and neither gained a decisive military advantage, India had the best of the war. New Delhi achieved its basic goal of thwarting Pakistan's attempt to seize Kashmir by force. Pakistan gained nothing from a conflict which it had instigated. A region in turmoil: South Asian conflicts since 1947 by Robert Johnson mentions[146] - India's strategic aims were modest - it aimed to deny the Pakistani Army victory, although it ended up in possession of 720 square miles [1,900 km2] of Pakistani territory for the loss of just 220 square miles [570 km2] of its own. An excerpt from William M. Carpenter and David G. Wiencek's Asian security handbook: terrorism and the new security environment[147] - A brief, but furious 1965 war with India began with a covert Pakistani thrust across the Kashmiri cease-fire line and ended up with the city of Lahore threatened with encirclement by the Indian Army. Another UN-sponsored cease-fire left borders unchanged, but Pakistan's vulnerability had again been exposed. English historian John Keay's India: A History provides a summary of the 1965 war[148] - The 1965 Indo-Pak war lasted barely a month. Pakistan made gains in the Rajasthan desert, but its main push against India's Jammu-Srinagar road link was repulsed, and Indian tanks advanced to within a sight of Lahore. Both sides claimed victory, but India had most to celebrate. Uk Heo and Shale Asher Horowitz write in their book Conflict in Asia: Korea, China-Taiwan, and India-Pakistan[149] - Again, India appeared, logistically at least, to be in a superior position, but neither side was able to mobilize enough strength to gain a decisive victory. According to the Office of the Historian within the U.S. Department of State:[150] Conflict resumed again in early 1965, when Pakistani and Indian forces clashed over disputed territory along the border between the two nations. Hostilities intensified that August when the Pakistani army attempted to take Kashmir by force. The attempt to seize the state was unsuccessful, and the second India-Pakistan War reached a stalemate.
@@SaadAhmadSMMA Maharaj was a nemesis of India coz he was an arch rival of Shiekh Abdullah, and shiekh abdullah was one of biggest ally of Nehru, this is the reason why initially he wasn't acceding Kashmir to India 2.) Gilgit rebels had attavked the vale even before when Indian forces had airlifted to Kashmir, this itself proove that Gilgit rebels had defeated the forces of Maharaja but not the Indian forces, India had finally invaded Kashmir from the south by 26th of oct, and Pakistan had already invaded Kashmir by 22nd of october, this proove that it was India, which had defeated Gilgit rebels and Pakitani forces and had moved them out of the vale, 3.) I agree India took the matter to UN, coz A.) India had the support of Shikh abdullah B.) Case of Junagarh was still pending C.) India was always the biggest regional power D.) India was overconfident about her position in Kashmir, India was already defeating Pakistan, it was a diplomatic failure of India, if India had not took this matter to the UN, then it was just the matter of time, and whole Kahsmir would had been a part of India, your histrory lessons needs to be checked, Jinnah had stooped at unimaginable levels , he had wanted to to establish the illegal state of Pakistan quite entirely over the Hindu India , his ill intentions were not just limited to the the 6 states, case of Junagarh and Hyderabad prooves that, and also if Pakistan could had the audacity of claiming Hindu majority Hyderabad and Hindu majority Junagrah on the basis of so-called IOA ,then why not India?India is way more powerfull and influentiol than Pakistan, if Pakistan can dare to provoke India, then the regional superpower India would surely retaliate and also the people of Kashmir had never wanted to join Pakistan, they just had wanted to get rid of the Dogra ruler, and for that they had been supporting Shiekh abdullah, shiekh abdullah was pro-India, coz of that jinnah had even referred Abdullah as a traitor, which had offended the Kashmiri people, and also we are talking about the 1940' sat that time, Hindus of kashmir used to make about 30 percent of the population( before the forcefull exodus of Hindus by the Muslims of Kashmir), and the Hindus of Kashmir(including Bhuddists and Sikhs)were and are still highly pro-India, so your arguments are quite baseless And for the record, Pakistan wasn't really supporting a plebscide in Kashmir initially coz it knew that the peope would vote for Shiekj abdullah and he was sponsoring the legallity of the Instrument of Accession of Kashmir with India ,coz of this Pakistan voilated the UN resolution and din't vacate the occupied terretories,Dogra ruler was Hindu, but still his ties with the Indian government were quite bad(that's the reason why din't signed the IOA with the Indian government initially, but only after the Pakistani invasion of Kashmir) The misleading info which is being spread by the Pakistani media has deeply infiltrated into the minds of Pakistanis! Pakistan is purely at the fault, it's Pakistan, which is instigating this issue even after losing all the wars and conflicts against India, India is, was, will always be on the morally right side,
In This war Pakistan takes more than Half of Kashmir But India Helped Kashmir in this war and Take back many part of Kashmir from Pakistan Jai Hind 🇮🇳🇮🇳🇮🇳🇮🇳 India's Unofficial Victory (because no one was won this war) if UN not intrupt in this war then POK would be the Part of India ❤️❤️❤️
@Karin Baloch 😂😂😂😂 Pakistan Capture Kashmir when it was Independent Country But when Kashmir become part of India, Our Army take back most of Kashmir but Because of UN the 1/3 Part is goes to Pakistan Read some History kid Go to Schools not Madarsa 😂😂😂😂😂😂
@@kordfishan1051 But at that time Kashmir was a Independent State not the part of India And when Kashmir become the part of India we took most of land from Pakistan back but UN Declares Cease Fire otherwise whole POK was the Part of India
Nehru is the incompetent man who was accepted as a leader even though he wasn't elected due to interference and biais from someone called Gandhi. We Indians are at fault because we accepted this self glorified overhyped personality's biaised choice. Even Dr Ambedkar questioned his Mahatma status. This desicion has cost India not only a part of its surface area but also the festering wound of Kashmir and Pakistan loving Muslims who don't want to migrate to their beloved country.
Nehru wasn't a bad leader due to him only India is democratic today and India is for all religions so please don't call the Indian Muslims pakistanis elections couldn't be held at the time as there wasn't much awareness among the voters yes he wasn't the best militarily and.committed numerous mistakes but don't blame him for everything
@@Avicerox typical Pakistani ... always begging ... since the Balochis love Balochistan, why don't you also give them the land surface ??? lets hear what is your logic for not giving them that part of Pakistan. India didn't take over any body's land the land that Kashmir situates is Indian... Just because half of them converted to Islam doesn't mean it is their land .... for that matter even Pakistan wasn't your land until two idiots presumably supposed to be 'freedom fighters' decided to donate Indian land surface ... before you raise another question , let me know what is the History of Pakistan?
@@nitinsguru Typical Indian media watcher, Balochistan belongs to Balochis, nobody denies that, if you are talking about BLA then even Wikileaks state that they have no support in Balochistan, meanwhile, Kashmir is a different situation because nearly every poll declares a strong Pakistani support of the locals, and no, Kashmir still belongs to Kashmiris, the fact that they changed their religion doesn't matter. And Pakistan wasn't formed in one day either, there was a whole movement, the fact that you underestimate Pakistani role just further proves that you are deeply soaked with Indian media propaganda.
Therapist: Why do you cry and be depressed all the time? Me: 1:40 For those who don't know I am actually distantly related to the Nizam of Hyderabad (If that wasn't obvious enough)
No that's the reality, Indian troops captured over 18,000 sqkm of land in the western pakistan in 1971 war. Also to mention the failure of your military leadership at battle of longewala where you sent a force of 2700 mechnized infantry troops along with the support of 40 tanks against just a 120 indian soldiers and still managed to lose the battle and suffering the deaths of 200 pakistani soldiers and losing of 37 tanks in that battle alone, while dealing only two deaths against India. We actually raided karachi twice in the same war leaving it to burn for 6 consecutive days, if you ask anyone who was alive during that period in karachi he will tell you how the skies were ablaze during the night when indian missile boast attacked
@@danydash316 thats an on argument lol , im not denying india might have made gains but he's show narrowal and mirpur khas as indian which never happened.
Correction: The war lasted for 9 months which started from 26th march but Indian Forces started fighting from 2nd December and as a result the war Ended Quickly on 16th December.Most importantly it was not a war of 12 days and Indian Forces fought for 13 days.
@@sagniksarkar9660 Lmao, Bangladeshi fighting spirit had been witnessed by the Global plateforms during the operation searchlight, even Beatles had to came forward in order to assist you by making songs dedicated to Bangladesh, if it wasn't for India, Bangladesh would had witness another operation that would had tormented it for years to come, India fought Pakistan on both the fronta, India invaded Pakistan in both fronts, India was just assisted by the Soviets , not by providing arms or men,period,but by voting for India at the UN, This attitute of Bangladeshis makes them the most despised nationality in the Indian suncontinent,
@Vishal Autade yes, 80,000 with terrible equipments attacking a defensive position proves that you guys didnt prepare well enough which shows nehru incompetent leadership
Nope, other than Indo-Sino war of 1962 India hadn't lost any, For instance Indo-Pakistani war of 1947 and the Goa liberation war of 1961, both were Indian victories
1948 India Annexation 2/3 Rd Kashmir Instrument of Accession 1965 Statement 1971 Major War Indian Victory 1999 Indian Victory India Regains Kargil 1984 India Annexation Entire 2500sqkm Siachen Glacier
If that would have happened, Ussr would have broke it's alliance with India and USA would overthrow the Indian Government. Because they didn't support imperialism. Worldwide sanctions and stopped trade means India will be completely destroyed due to unrest and civil wars. Do some research kid.
@@AlexKarston Nah Pakistan conducted Genocide at that time,If India had a little bit of nicer relations with US at that time maybe it could have been possible plus Soviet would have even supported India for it 😂😂.
@@mauritiusboy7952 The thing is my friend if the USSR supports India, then USA will not and if USA supports India, USSR will not. This would lead to a proxy war which would destroy our nation anyways. Also it is not good to betray the rebels that were fighting for independence and just annex their country. Maybe India could have annexed territories in West Pakistan and that may have been fine like it mostly happened in other proxy wars.
@@chandramoulichattopadhay8987 Bangladeshis were Indians,There would have been a little bit protests and rebels but in the end they had accepted to be Indians because of bloody consequences they had faced when they were part of Pakistan so it's not a betrayal.
