I looked at the source. Where are the numbers for Indian losses? Who wrote it? What did they base their guesstimates on? This is no better than a blog entry by a school boy. Sources and numbers - that is what matters. What you have given is some opinion by someone who pulled these numbers from who knows where. I would term it a pretty desperate reference.
I addressed @
Ajatashatru. Let him defend his contention. You tried and failed. Better butt out now troll.
Perhaps Pakistan lost some soldiers. What did India loose. Ever wonder?
A claim, no doubt, assiduously gleaned from highly myopic accounts of Indian nationalists.
For starters, lets have the numbers and sources upon which the said numbers are based. I could say that India lost more men than Pakistan, lost more territory, and that Kashmir was not an objective of open warfare. But then I should be ready to substantiate these claims. Can you provide credible references?
There have been several neutral assessments of the losses incurred by both India and Pakistan during the war. Most agree that India won, some say it was a draw but none say that Pak won-
Here from MSN -
WebCite query result
And read the following books -
The greater game: India's race with destiny and China by David Praagh
A region in turmoil: South Asian conflicts since 1947 by Robert Johnson
This is an excerpt from
Tanks: An Illustrated History of Their Impact edited by Spencer Tucker - Tanks: An Illustrated History of Their Impact - Google Books
- According to the Library of Congress Country Studies conducted by the Federal Research Division of the United States[
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.
- TIME magazine reported that India held 690 mi2 of Pakistan territory while Pakistan held 250 mi2 of Indian territory in Kashmir and Rajasthan. Additionally, Pakistan had lost almost half its armour temporarily. The article further elaborates,
Severely mauled by the larger Indian armed forces, Pakistan could continue the fight only by teaming up with Red China and turning its back on the U.N.
- Devin T. Hagerty wrote in his book "South Asia in world politics"–
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 United Nations intervened on September 22, Pakistan had suffered a clear defeat.
- In his book "National identity and geopolitical visions",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, 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 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 –
India won the war. 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,
Although both sides lost heavily in men and material, and neither gained a decisive military advantage, India had the better 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.
- BBC reported that the war served game changer in Pakistani politics,
The defeat in the 1965 war led to the army's invincibility being challenged by an increasingly vocal opposition. This became a surge after his protege, Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, deserted him and established the Pakistan People's Party.
- "A region in turmoil: South Asian conflicts since 1947" by Robert Johnson mentions –
India's strategic aims were modest – it aimed to deny 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" –
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 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 –
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.
This topic is about 1965 and war of 1971 was a political failure, not military and in both wars US and Israel came to your rescue.
Both 1965 war and 1971 war were complete miltary failures for Pak. Even in 1971 war, multiple Pakistani thrusts were defeated by India in the western sector and in eastern sector, well your army didn't even last a fortnight.
And where are you suggesting US and Israel came to our rescue? US was allied to Pak in both wars. They were even planning a naval invasion of India with UK in 1971 but were deterred by the Russians and the short span of war didn't give them time for proper planning. In fact, Pak received substantial help from Iran, Indonesia and People's Republic of China.
...
