被遺忘的戰爭：印度人高呼1967年勝利，各國網友開懟了！_風聞

眾所周知，在1962年時中印之間曾爆發過一場圍繞領土爭端而展開的邊境戰爭，對此次以中國方面宣告勝利而終結的戰爭，中國方面稱之為“對印自衞反擊戰”，印度方面稱之為“瓦弄之戰”。

但是鮮為人知的是，僅僅就在1962年中印戰爭之後的僅僅5年，中印之間又爆發過一次規模中等，卻幾乎快要被世界遺忘，卻被印度時刻強調勝利的邊境戰爭….

近日，針對這場“被世人遺忘的戰爭”，印度網友發出了疑問：1967年，印度有沒有打敗中國？

1、Chaitanya Belwal

India China did have a war in 1967, which was fought in 2 locations. The war composed of two battles, in Nathu La and Cho La both in the eastern theater. Unlike 1962, the Chinese did not open a front in the Northern area (Ladakh/Aksai Chin). This was mainly because in the 1962 war the PLA did not make any major advances in the North like they did in the Eastern theater.

印度和中國在1967年確實發生過戰爭，戰爭發生在兩個地方。這場戰爭由兩場戰役組成，分別發生那都拉和秋拉，兩地都位於東部地區。與1962年不同，中國沒有在北部地區(拉達克/阿克賽欽)開闢戰線。這主要是因為在1962年的戰爭中，解放軍沒有像在東部戰區那樣在北方取得任何重大進展。

The two incidents were at Nathu La and Cho La and stemmed from Chinese maneuvers to take control of Sikkim. Thinking that the defenses India had were as weak as they were in 1962, the Chinese mobilized forces. However, the Indian forces took preemptive action and started to demark the boundary using barbed wire. This was stopped by the Chinese, and after some time they started a full surprise assault backed by MMG and artillery fire.

兩次戰鬥分別發生在那都拉和秋拉，原因是中國人認為印度的防禦像1962年一樣虛弱，然而，印度軍隊採取了先發制人的行動，開始用帶刺的鐵絲網標明邊界。這一行動被中國人阻止了，一段時間後，他們在中型機槍和炮火的支持下發動了全面突襲。

However, since the Indians occupied the heights, The 1967 war was a decisive Indian victory, and was the catalyst of Sikkim merging with India in 1975.

然而，由於印度佔領了高地，1967年的戰爭是印度決定性的勝利，也是1975年錫金與印度合併的催化劑。

More Details:

更多細節：

Nathu La and Cho La clashes - Wikipedia

那都拉和秋拉衝突——維基百科。

2、Kevin

China have a different version which have more acculate records, acculated to minutes even the quantity of bullets used.Forget the Wikipedit, Chinese do not use and edit them, it is not so reliable if it is edit by indians or others who did not know Chinese words, and just take the opinion of indians.

中國有不同的描述，記錄的更加準確，而且精確到了分鐘甚至子彈的使用量。忘記維基百科吧，中國人不使用和編輯它們，如果它是由印度人或其他不懂中文的人編輯，只是採納印度人的意見，就不那麼可靠了。

3、 Yankai

I don’t assume Indian friends’ claims are wrong.I will only provide PLA’s records of that skirmish so you can obtain information from both sides.All the information of wikipedia term—Nathu La and Cho La clashes - Wikipedia comes from Indian side.

我不認為印度朋友的説法是錯誤的。我只會提供解放軍關於那次衝突的記錄，這樣你就可以從雙方獲得信息。維基百科術語“內蘇拉”和“周拉衝突”的所有信息——維基百科都來自印度方面。

Sep 11, 7:30 India approach to the chinese sentry post. China stick the discipline of not to shoot first. And request india soliders to step back.

9月11日7:30印度接近中國哨所。中國堅持不先開槍的紀律。並要求印度士兵退後。

Sep11, 8:05 India solider shoot first with grenade. Killed a company commender named Li Yancheng who is speaking and request india soliders to step back. Another 5 chinese soliders wounded.

9月11日8:05印度士兵首先用手榴彈射擊。殺死了一個叫李彥成的連級指導員，他正在講話並要求印度士兵退後。另有5名中國士兵受傷。

Then chinese soliders shoot back, finished the conflict in 7 minutes, killed 67 india soliders, destroyed 7 india fortification with model 40 rocket launcher.

隨後，中國士兵進行還擊，在7分鐘內完成衝突，打死67名印度士兵，用40型火箭發射器摧毀了7座印度防禦工事。

8:15 India solider run out of china controled area.Chinese solider didn’t chase into the india controled area. (Many india soliders’ dead bodies left in china, when the conflict finished, the india soliders take a white flag into china to get these bodies back.)

8:15印度士兵逃出中國控制區，中國士兵沒有衝進印度控制區。（許多印度士兵的屍體留在中國，衝突結束後，印度士兵拿着白旗進入中國，把這些屍體運回中國。）

Then india artillery No.17 brigade started fire. Then chinese artillery No. 380 regiment fire back with their 82 and 120 mortars.

隨後，印度炮兵17旅開火。然後中國380炮兵團用82和120迫擊炮還擊。

During the 4 days and 3 nights artillery conflict, Chinese artillery destroyed 8 artillery positons, 2 command post, 2 sentry post, 23 fortifications and 2 trucks. Killed and wounded 540 india soliders. Finally, india artillery stop fire at Sep 13, 22:00, then china stopped at Sep 14, midday after the indicate of premier Zhou Enlai. (If india stopped fire, we stop as well).

在4天3夜的炮戰中，中國炮兵摧毀了8個炮位、2個指揮所、2個哨所、23個工事和2輛卡車。540名印度士兵傷亡。最後，印度炮兵在9月13日22:00停止射擊，中國在周恩來總理指示下於9月14日中午停止射擊。（如果印度停止了射擊，我們也會停止）。

In Oct 1th, 11:20, total 7 india soliders crossed the border and try to kidnap a chinese solider back to india, but failed and then they were pushed back to the india border. As usual, india solider shoot first killed 1 and wounded 1 chinese solider. Then chinese soliders fire back, killed all 7 india soliders who cross the border.

10月1日11時20分，共有7名印度士兵越境試圖讓一名中國士兵叛逃印度，但隨後他們又回到了印度邊境。印度士兵首先開槍打死打傷了中國士兵。隨後，中國士兵回擊，擊斃了所有7名越境的印度士兵。

The india artillery start fire use the 51mm and 81mm mortars.and chinese artillery fire back at 12:00, killed and wounded half of the two india companies total 195 india soliders. And destroyed 29 fortifications.

印度炮兵使用51毫米和81毫米迫擊炮開火，中國大炮在12:00回擊，造成兩個印度連的一半傷亡，共有195名印度士兵。摧毀了29個防禦工事。

India artillery stopped fire at 19:55, then china stopped.The result of this conflict:China killed 607 india soliders, capture 1 light machine guns, 9 submachine guns and 16 rifles.There are 6 chinese soliders killed or wounded.At last, india solider waves a white flag into china to get their dead bodies and weapon back. and signed in the accaptance document.

印度炮兵在19:55停止射擊，然後中國停止射擊。衝突的結果是：中國擊斃607名印度士兵，繳獲1支輕機槍、9支衝鋒槍和16支步槍。有6名中國士兵傷亡。最後，印度士兵揮舞白旗進入中國，把他們的屍體和武器拿回來。並在驗收文件上簽字。

This is the whole process of the war. Or it should be compared with China’s。

這就是戰爭的全過程，或者應該與中國的進行一下比較。

4、AI Bo Shang

The result of the war was clear: Indian artillery stopped firing at 19:55 and the PLA stopped firing. In the end, 607 Indian soldiers were killed and 6 Chinese soldiers were killed. The Indian government never officially declared victory in the 1967 small-scale conflict. So basically, if your own government doesn’t think it’s a victory, what’s the basis of that claim? Indian netizens have edited 67 terms of little conflict in Wikipedia according to their wishes. Look at the references below. You will understand. In fact, Indian officials demanded on September 16 that the PLA return 14 bodies, 24 seized guns and other items. I don’t know where they got that number - “340 casualties.”.

戰爭的結果是顯而易見的：印度大炮在19:55停止射擊，解放軍也停止射擊。最終，607名印度士兵傷亡、6名中國士兵傷亡，印度政府官方從未正式宣佈1967年那場小規模衝突取得勝利。因此，基本上，如果你自己的政府不認為這是一場勝利，那麼這個主張的依據是什麼？印度網民根據自己的意願編輯了維基百科中67個小衝突的術語。看看下面的參考文獻。你會明白的。事實上，印度官員在9月16日要求解放軍歸還14具屍體、24支繳獲的槍支和其他物品。我不知道他們從哪裏得到這個數字-“340人傷亡”。

5、Harsh Patel

In Indian perspective it was considered an unofficial victory because it prevented a repeat of 1962 war. ( Sort of ‘we repelled another invasion’).But frankly, Truth is first casualty in a war, maybe India was the aggressor, unfortunately this is something only few in government know.

在印度看來，這是一場非官方的勝利，因為它避免了1962年戰爭的重演。(類似於‘我們擊退了另一次入侵’)。但坦率地説，真相是戰爭的第一個受害者，也許印度才是侵略者，不幸的是，只有少數政府官員知道這一點。

As they say in Geopolitics, truth is always twisted to fit one’’s narrative. This is true for every interaction between any two states.

正如人們所説，在地緣政治方面，真相總是以符合自己的敍述遭到扭曲。對於任意兩個國家之間的每一次互動，這句話都適用。

6、Dev K Dutta

We have a fair idea of PLA claims and we don’t mind what the PLA likes to believe or not believe. We have our numbers and we have our figures in the right places. You have the freedom to be happy with your “overwhelming victory” in that war.

我們對PLA的主張有一個公平的想法，我們不介意PLA喜歡相信什麼或不相信什麼。我們有我們的數據，我們的數據有正確的來源。你有自由對你在那場戰爭中的“壓倒性勝利”感到高興。

However, we’re quite sure about the message we have been able to convey to your PLA. They know their place and our guys know their place. Till that status quo is maintained all will be fine. You cross the line…all hell will break loose.

然而，我們非常確定我們能夠向你們的PLA傳達信息。他們知道自己的位置，我們的人也知道自己的位置。只要維持現狀，一切都沒問題。如果你們越線了……你們就會大禍臨頭。

7、Chen Yankai

First, I never claimed it is an “overwhelming victory”. I even didn’t say PLA won in my answer.

首先，我從未宣稱這是一場“壓倒性的勝利”。我的回答中甚至沒有説PLA贏了。

Second, according to the old records from Indian side in the bottom of my answer, I think PLA’s record, at least, is not totally wrong.

第二，根據我的答案底部的印度方面的舊記錄，我認為解放軍的記錄至少不是完全錯誤的。

If PLA crossed the line and attacked, losing hundreds men and retreated, where were the bodies? Indian army absolutely could make these bodies as bargain chips.

如果解放軍越線併發起進攻，損失了數百人並且撤退，那麼屍體在哪裏？印度軍隊絕對可以把這些屍體做成討價還價的籌碼。

Like I mentioned before, the opposite thing is: It’s Indian official went into China territory to get back bodies and weapons captured by PLA. These were recorded by both Chinese side and Indian side at that time. How to explain that?

就像我之前提到的，情況恰恰相反：印度官員進入中國領土拿回被PLA繳獲的屍體和武器。當時中國和印度方面都對此進行了記錄。這一點怎麼解釋

8、Dev K Dutta

This entire discourse is about implications and so when you claimed that 600+ Indian soldiers were killed by your PLA in the 1967 war you wanted to imply that China had won that war. You’re at liberty to believe whatever you like but it won’t change the situation on the ground. India prevented Sikkim from going into Chinese hands and conveyed a strong message - 1962 is no longer a yardstick for intimidation. Don’t cross the line!

你的整個論述充滿了暗示，你説你們PLA在1967年傷亡了600多名印度士兵，就是想暗示中國贏得了那場戰爭。你喜歡相信什麼就相信什麼，這是你的自由，但這並不能改變當地的情況。印度阻止錫金落入中國之手，並傳達了一個強烈的信息——1962年不再是恫嚇的標準。不要越界！

As far as the bodies of the dead Chinese soldiers is concerned, you can rest assured that India has never and will never play dirty games with the dead bodies of enemy soldiers. Our culture and tradition forbids us to play dirty games with dead bodies. We don’t hide our casualties in wars and battles to influence historical records.

至於中國士兵的屍體，你可以放心，印度從來沒有，也永遠不會拿敵人士兵的屍體玩骯髒的遊戲。我們的文化和傳統禁止我們玩屍體遊戲。我們不會為了影響歷史記錄而隱瞞我們在戰爭和戰鬥中的傷亡。

For us, the sacrifice and martyrdom of our soldiers is a reflection of strength, not weakness. When any of our soldiers makes the supreme sacrifice, we make it a point to let the world know about his/her martyrdom. It’s a matter of pride and inspiration for us. We know that the Chinese casualties were close to 500 in that war and our troops didn’t stop your troops from carrying away the dead bodies of their comrades in arms. We call it Honor. The dead deserve a decent funeral even if they are enemy soldiers.

對我們來説，我們士兵的犧牲和殉難反映的是力量，而不是軟弱。如果我們的任何士兵做出了最高的犧牲，我們都會讓世界知道他/她的犧牲。這是我們的驕傲和鼓舞方式。我們知道，在那場戰爭中，中國在這場戰爭中的傷亡人數接近500人，我們的軍隊沒有阻止你們的軍隊帶走他們戰友的屍體。我們將這種做法稱之為榮譽。即使是敵軍士兵，他們也應該得到一個體面的葬禮。

FYI - captured dead bodies are usually returned by rival armies and ALWAYS returned by the Indian army. But captured weapons? Hell…No. Never. Indian, Chinese or any other army.

僅供參考：繳獲的死屍通常會歸還給敵軍，而且印度軍隊總是做到了這一點。但是繳獲武器？天……不，永遠不會。無論是印度人、中國人或者任何軍隊都不會。

9、Chen Yankai

Calm down my friend.“607 Indian soldiers were killed or wounded.”The record never say 607 were killed…10–20% of the total casualties are expected to be killed, generally.

冷靜一點，我的朋友。“607名印度士兵死亡或受傷。”一般來説，總傷亡人數的10-20%會死掉。

How many times do I need to illustrate: it’s just a record from one side. Don’t you think it’s unfair to watch information from only one side(India), especially like such things happening between two countries ?

需要我説明多少次？這只是一邊的記錄。難道你不認為只從一邊(印度)看信息是不公平的嗎？尤其是像這樣的發生在兩個國家之間的事情？

“We know that the Chinese casualties were close to 500 in that war and our troops didn’t stop your troops from carrying away the dead bodies of their comrades in arms.”—any records? Why was that moral action not recorded in both books written by Indians? Not 340? Now it becomes 500. You still didn’t explain why Indian bodies were in China territory.

“我們知道，在那場戰爭中，中國在這場戰爭中的傷亡人數接近500人，我們的軍隊沒有阻止你們的軍隊帶走他們戰友的屍體。”有任何記錄嗎？為什麼兩本印度人寫的書裏都沒有記錄這種高尚的行為？這次又不是340了？又變成了500？你還是沒有解釋為什麼印度人的屍體出現在中國的土地上。

PLA did return weapons in 62 and 67. It’s not difficult to google it.

PLA在62年和67年確實歸還了武器。隨便搜索一下，很容易搜到。

As for your saying that India could prevent China in 1950, honestly speaking, considering PVA’s performance in Korean War, it’s hard to say. Korean warBUT maybe you are quite right. Who knows.

至於你説印度原本可以在1950年阻止中國，老實説，考慮到印度軍隊在朝鮮戰爭中的表現，很難説。但是你説的沒準非常正確呢。誰知道呢。

10、Ibrahim

Ha ha ha ha, my Chinese brother, I think you will be angry with that rude Indian. I don’t think we should get too involved with a rude person!

哈哈哈，我的中國兄弟，我想你會生那個粗魯的印度人的氣的。我認為我們不應該和一個粗魯的人扯上太多關係！

A reminder from your sincerest Pakistani brother

你最真誠的巴基斯坦兄弟的提醒

11、Michael Luo

Yeah, India defeated China in 1962, 1967, and 1987. India will win over China forever!

是啊，印度在1962、1967和1987年都擊敗了中國。印度會永遠擊敗中國。

12、Jaskaran Singh

Yes, india pushed back chinese forces in 1967, but i wouldnt consider it a war. It was a skirmish between both nations with minimum casualties. Although, india is not the India of 1962 anymore so is not china. In a real war, china will easily defeat india in terms of military power and economy. It is best interests of india to not to engage in any military conflict for at least few decades

是的，印度在1967年擊退了中國軍隊。但我不覺得這是一場戰爭。這只是兩國之間的一場小衝突，而且傷亡有限。但是印度不再是1962年的印度，中國也一樣。在實際戰爭中，中國在軍事力量和經濟方面都會輕易擊敗印度。在至少幾十年內，印度挑起任何軍事衝突都不符合印度的最佳利益。

13、Benedicto Braz

India suffered casualties of 900, China only 6, and it was reported in Indian media in 1967.

印度的傷亡為900人，中國只有6人，這是印度媒體1967年的報道。

However, several year later, India paid Indian DNA writers to write in Wiki to make false claims in Wiki.

然而，幾年後，印度付錢給那些有印度血統的作者，去撰寫維基百科詞條，在維基百科上造假。

India lost heavily and then no more armed conflicts between India and China. until The year before last, June 26 2017.

印度輸得很慘，然後印度和中國之間就再也沒有發生武裝衝突了。直到前年，2017年6月26日。

14、Eld Sun

yes. badly.

是的，很慘。

all India army was protect by Shiva.

印度所有的軍隊都獲得了濕婆的保護。

PLA just can not won. they just can not .

PLA無法獲勝，就是這樣。

China will never defeat India i believe.

我相信中國永遠無法打敗印度。

hope India stop invade us. because if they try, they can take Anywhere in the world easily.

希望印度不要再侵略我們，因為如果印度一出手，他們就能輕易攻佔世界任何地方。

For the Shiva~~~~~~~

為了濕婆~~~

15、Vishnu Kumar

all in ONE sentence:if they indians had won any war or conflict,they would not be so much more hating China than any other countries since that time till now,then all the time,all the way.

我只説一句：如果他們印度人真的打贏了任何戰爭或者衝突，那麼從那時起，他們對中國的話題就不會這麼多，多到超過任何其他國家，然後一直一直持續到現在。

no one who got victory would hate the ONE who got lose.spiritual victory cannot make u stronger.

任何獲得勝利的人都不會銘記輸掉的人。精神勝利法不會讓你變強大。

keep in peace.

保持平和吧。

16、Hampton William

Indian Media report in 1967: There was a conflict in 1967: PLA wound: 6.

印度媒體1967年的報道：1967年發生了一場衝突，6名PLA受傷；

Indian Media report in 1970s: There was a conflict in 1967: PLA wound: 12.

印度媒體70年代的報道：1967年發生了一場衝突，12名PLA受傷；

Indian Media report in 1980s: There was a conflict in 1967: PLA wound: 120.

印度媒體80年代的報道：1967年發生了一場衝突，120名PLA受傷；

Indian Media report in 1990s: There was a conflict in 1967: PLA wound: 220.

印度媒體90年代的報道：1967年發生了一場衝突，220名PLA受傷；

Indian Media report in 2000s: There was a conflict in 1967: PLA wound: 300.

印度媒體00年代的報道：1967年發生了一場衝突，300名PLA受傷；

Indian Media report in 2010ss: There was a conflict in 1967: PLA wound: 400.

印度媒體2010年代的報道：1967年發生了一場衝突，100名PLA受傷；

….

Prediction:

預測：

Indian Media report in 2020s: There was a conflict in 1967: PLA wound: 4,000.

印度媒體2020年代的報道：1967年發生了一場衝突，4000名PLA受傷；

Because India lost heavily again in 1967.

因為印度在1967年損失慘重。

India army: death over 200, wound: over 600.

印軍：死亡超過200人，受傷超過600人；

PLA death: 0, Wound: 6.

PLA：死亡0，受傷6人。

The US general comments:

美國將軍的評論：

Indian army is just like a butter, PLA is just like a hot knife.

印度軍隊就像一塊黃油，PLA就像一把滾燙的刀子。

If PLA did not capture all Indian soldiers and weapons, and then returned to India in 1962 war, India would then claim India achieved a great victory against China in PLA in 1962.

如果在1962年戰爭中，PLA沒有繳獲所有的印度士兵和武器，然後再歸還給印度，印度肯定會説印度在1962年打敗中國，取得了一場偉大的勝利。

Similarly India would then post a question like：

印度人還會發出這樣的一個問題：

“Why does China deny the fact that they lost the war against India in 1962”.

“中國在1962年戰爭中輸給了印度，為什麼中國否認這個事實？”

That’’s why India has been good at nothing, but false claiming for the past 70 years in the world.

這就是印度為什麼在過去70年一事無成，卻一直在全世界面前大吹法螺的原因。

17、California beast

Just reveal a small secret with you:In later Korean war, it was position to positional fight between the US soldiers and PLA.

告訴大家一個小秘密：在朝鮮戰爭後期，美國士兵和PLA之間進行着陣地對陣地的戰爭。

For one example:

舉個例子：

PLA was defending its position from the US’’ attack from air, ground troops with over 500 soldiers.PLA was defending with 8 PLA soldiers (well prepared as it was mountains areas).

PLA防守一個陣地，面對美國來自空中的攻擊，還有超過500名的地面部隊。而PLA的防守兵力只有8個PLA士兵（因為是山區，所以準備的很好）。

After 12 hours fights:All PLA dead: 8US casualties: death 200, wound over 300.

經過12小時的戰鬥：PLA的陣亡人數8人，美軍的傷亡則是死200，傷員超300。

PLA finally lost its position to US, and the survived US surprised that there were only 8 PLA in defending their position. In 1990s, the survived US soldiers went to China and ask PLA to explain what happened in that conflict as US still did not believe that there were only 8 PLA in the conflict.

PLA的這個陣地終於輸給了美國，而倖存下來的美軍驚訝的發現只有8個人防守這個陣地。90年代，倖存的美軍士兵前往中國，要求PLA解釋為什麼會發生那樣的戰鬥，因為美國人依舊不相信戰鬥中只有8個PLA戰士。

Now come back to 1967 conflicts.

我們再説1967年衝突吧。

PLA knew that Indian army would attack PLA position one way or another (small war), as Indian government wanted to give moral to Indians, remember Indian army were scared to death to PLA.

PLA知道印度軍隊會時不時的攻擊PLA的陣地（小型戰爭），因為印度政府想給印度人漲漲士氣，因為印度軍隊對PLA怕得要死。

So you then know what happened. Indian casualties: Death 200, Wound 540 PLA casualties: Death: 0, wound 6.

所以大家都知道接下來會發生什麼。印度傷亡：死200，傷員540。PLA傷亡：死0，傷員6人。

Indian army never experienced any serious and tough combats fights, as one US general said: Indian army is just like a butter and PLA is just like a hot knife.Do not boast how hard the butter is, it is just a butter.

印度軍隊從來沒有經歷過任何嚴肅和艱苦的作戰，就像一名美國將軍所説：印度軍隊就像一塊黃油，而PLA就像一把燒熱的刀子。不要吹噓黃油有多硬，黃油就是黃油。

18、Thames flood

Love to see Indian media to fool Indians for decades.India tried the only revenge on PLA position, but suffered heavy loss. And then India had given up and surrendered since 1967.However, India made up so called victory against PLA in 1967.

我很喜歡看印度媒體幾十年來愚弄印度人的做法。印度只想對PLA的哨所進行報復，卻遭受了慘重的損失。然後從1967年以來，印度就放棄並投降了。然而，印度編造了所謂的1967年打敗PLA取得勝利的故事。

If you look at Indian media in 1967, it stated that PLA wound 6.Then slowing Indian media as always exaggerated the figure: 6, then 12Recently, 200 and even 300.By year 2025, the Indian media would say that PLA casualties, 3000 Poor India.

看看印度媒體1967年的報道，它説的是PLA受傷6人。然後印度媒體就一如既往的誇大這個數字，從6變成12，最近是200，甚至300。等到2025年，印度媒體會説PLA的傷亡達到3000人。可憐的印度。

19、Like doughnuts

In 1962, India knew clearly who were commanders and leaders of PLA in the conflict.

1962年，印度清楚地知道誰是衝突中解放軍的指揮官和領導人。

In 1967, the writers even did not know who were the field commanders and leaders of the PLA for the 1967 conflict. Thus just simply put Mao Zedong. Low IQ Indians and the writers even did not know how to lie.

1967年，記者們甚至不知道誰是1967年衝突的戰地指揮官和解放軍領導人。就這樣簡單地説是“毛澤東”。低智商的印度記者甚至不知道如何撒謊。

(for example, there is a border shooting between Pakistan and India army now, Pakistan field commander are “Mosign”, however, Indian border field commander is unknown, thus it is Modi!)

（就好比，現在巴基斯坦和印度軍隊之間發生了一場邊境開火事件，巴基斯坦的戰地指揮官是Mosign，而印度的戰地指揮官不知道名字，所以就是莫迪！）

India took five years to attack PLA position, but even today still do not know who were the commander and leaders of PLA whom they fought with in 1967!!!

印度花了5年時間進攻PLA的哨所，但是直到今天依然不知道1967年與他們作戰的PLA是誰指揮和領導的！

毫不諱言，針對印度網友的提問，各國網友一邊倒的態度讓老鐵一度產生了一種“促不及防”的感覺….

不過在老鐵看來：

無論過去那場戰爭結果如何，和平才是當今世界發展的主旋律，作為當年衝突雙方的後代，我們能做的更應該是放下一切，心平氣和的謀求更高程度的發展。