Indians are proud of their victories over pak.
The 47, 65 ,71 , kargil were victories of india over pak.
But India always had numerical superiority over pak in these encounters....also technological superiority in some.
If pak had a numerical parity with India ,would India have been able to hold out ?
Or is what pak claims , that its soldiers are better than indian soldiers , true ?
Let us assume for a moment that both had equal number of troops , equipment ,aircraft ,tanks etc.......also similar in quality.
Would India be able to hold out against pak ??
I think you've been swayed into some
bullshit notions of 'martial prowess' based on some weird premise of ethnic superiority.
The fact is, genes alone will play a minute part in getting you through a fight. Training and discipline do.
By that token, for example India's forces were 'superior' to that of China's, because even though it lost the border skirmish against it, Indian troops held out against numerically superior Chinese forces in several incidents inflicting 2:1 or 3:1 casualty ratios on their foes, and subsequently also in the Nathula and Ussuri incidents of 1967.
Ethnic-based martial prowess is a rigorous simplicity, a garb and propaganda tool designed to cover failures in discipline, leadership, numbers, technology or doctrine, particularly in the aftermath of a military defeat or a stalemate that has cost you significantly more in terms of land, soldiers or debilitating economics than your nemesis. For it suggests, that the military defeat
must have been due to other factors in your opponents' favor: political expediency, technological advantage, numerical superiority, etc. when in fact it remains that any moderately protracted war, that lasts longer than a skirmish, will see fairly equal numbers of troops deployed in theatres. That is evident in everything from the Kargil war to the wars in 1965 and 1947. The only exception was 1971.
That martial prowess is based on 'ethnic superiority' is a load of garbage, has nothing to do with facts, empirical or contemporary or otherwise, military doctrine or strategy is evident in that 97,000 prisoners of war (80,000 of them uniformed) were captured by Indian forces in the war of East Pakistan. Sure, military supporters claim that Pakistani forces were outnumbered by Indian soldiers, that they were surrounded and pinned to an area by a large coterie of Indian forces, that they were outgunned and out-ammo'd, but if the doctrine of 10:1 held true, Pakistani soldiers should have held out against much smaller odds.