What's new

How Indian Insiders Saw 1965 War?

RiazHaq

SENIOR MEMBER
Joined
Oct 31, 2009
Messages
6,611
Reaction score
70
Country
Pakistan
Location
United States
"...a major battle the west of the Beas would end in the destruction of the Indian Army and thereafter allow the enemy (Pakistani) forces to push to the gates of Delhi without much resistance." 1965 WAR-The Inside Story by R.D. Pradhan

As Pakistanis honor the memory of their 1965 war heroes on Defense of Pakistan Day today, let us review some snippets of how the war looked from the other side. R.D. Pradhan and Harbakhsh Singh were both insiders who participated in the 1965 India-Pakistan war. While Pradhan was a civilian working for Indian Defense Minister Y.B. Chavan, General Harbakhash Singh was commanding Indian troops on the front-lines. Both have written books drawing upon their first-hand knowledge of how the war started, unfolded and ended in September, 1965.

In Chapter 8 titled "Of Cowardice and Panic" of his book "1965 War-The Inside Story", R.D. Pradhan describes the cowardice of Maj. Gen. Niranjan Prasad, the Indian general commanding officer in Lahore sector. When Pakistan Defense Forces counter-attacked the intruding Indian military and the general was fired upon on Sept 6, 1965, he "ran away". Here's an excerpt:


"On learning that, Lt. Gen. Harbakash Singh and the corps commander drove in a Jonga to the battlefront. Army commander found that the enemy (PAF) air attack had created a havoc on G.T. Road. (Indian) Vehicles were burning and several vehicles of 15 Division abandoned on the road, the drivers having run away, leaving some of the engines still running. Maj. Gen. Niranjan Prasad was hiding in a recently irrigated sugar cane field. As described by Harabakash Singh: "He (Prasad) came out to receive us, with his boots covered with wet mud. He had no head cover, nor was he wearing any badges of his rank. He had stubble on his face, not having shaved." Seeing him in such a stage, Harbakhash Singh asked him: "Whether he was the General Officer commanding a division or a coolie? Why had he removed badges of rank and not shaved? Niranjan Prasad had no answer."

Chapter 12 of Pradhan's book is titled "Retreat to Beas" in which there is detailed discussion of Indian COAS's proposal for the Indian Army to retreat behind Beas in the face of Pakistan's fierce counter-attacks in response to India's attempted incursion in Lahore. Pradhan argues in this chapter that during the 1965 war with Pakistan, Indian COAS General Chaudhuri felt that "a major battle the west of the Beas would end in the destruction of the Indian Army and thereafter allow the enemy (Pakistani) forces to push to the gates of Delhi without much resistance".

Pradhan's book contains many different entries by Indian Defense Minister Y.B. Chavan. A Sept 9, 1965 entry reads:

Had a very hard day on all fronts. Very fierce counter-attacks mounted and we are required to withdraw in Kasur area. COAS was somewhat uncertain of himself. I suggested to him that he should go in forward areas so that he will be in touch of realities. He said he would go next day.

In Line of Duty: A Soldier Remembers, according to Shekhar Gupta, the editor of Indian Express, Lt Gen Harbakhsh Singh reveals that not only "not only did Gen Chowdhury play a very small role in the entire campaign, he was so nervous as to be on the verge of losing half of Punjab to Pakistan, including the city of Amritsar. Harbakhsh describes, in clinical detail, how our own offensive in the Lahore sector had come unhinged. The general commanding the division on Ichchogil canal fled in panic, leaving his jeep, its wireless running and the briefcase containing sensitive documents that were then routinely read on Radio Pakistan during the war. Singh wanted to court martial him, Chowdhury let him get away with resignation".

According to Shekhar Gupta, Harbkhash Singh recounts that a bigger disaster struck a bit to the south where the other division cracked up in assault, just as it encountered a bit of resistance. Several infantry battalions, short on battle inoculation, deserted and Singh gives a hair-raising account – and confirmation of a long-debated rumor – that Chowdhury panicked so badly he ordered him to withdraw to a new defensive line behind the Beas, thereby conceding half of Punjab to Pakistan. Singh describes the conversation with Chowdhury at Ambala where he refused to carry out the order, asking his chief to either put it down in writing or visit the front and take charge of the battle.

Beyond the Indian insiders quoted above, here is how several non-Pakistani journalists have covered the war:


The London Daily Mirror reported in 1965:

"There is a smell of death in the burning Pakistan sun. For it was here that India's attacking forces came to a dead stop.

"During the night they threw in every reinforcement they could find. But wave after wave of attacks were repulsed by the Pakistanis"


"India", said the London Daily Times, "is being soundly beaten by a nation which is outnumbered by four and a half to one in population and three to one in size of armed forces."

In Times reporter Louis Karrar wrote:

"Who can defeat a nation which knows how to play hide and seek with death".

USA - Aviation week - December 1968 issue:

"For the PAF, the 1965 war was as climatic as the Israeli victory over the Arabs in 1967. A further similarity was that Indian air power had an approximately 5:1 numerical superiority at the start of the conflict. Unlike the Middle East conflict, the Pakistani air victory was achieved to a large degree by air-to-air combat rather than on ground. But it was as absolute as that attained by Israel.

India was the first to accept UN sponsored ceasefire followed by Pakistan which brought the 1965 war to an end on Sept 22, 1965. As the ceasefire took effect, Indian Defense Y.B. Chavan wrote in his diary as follows:

"The ball is now in the political court again--where it should be--and not in the military one. I hope we have the vision and courage to (our) political leadership."

Alas, the core issue of Kashmir still remains unresolved 47 years since Mr. Chavan wrote his words of wisdom.

Haq's Musings: Indian Insiders' View of 1965 War
 
.
Beyond the Indian insiders quoted above, here is how several non-Pakistani journalists have covered the war:


The London Daily Mirror reported in 1965:

"There is a smell of death in the burning Pakistan sun. For it was here that India's attacking forces came to a dead stop.

"During the night they threw in every reinforcement they could find. But wave after wave of attacks were repulsed by the Pakistanis"


"India", said the London Daily Times, "is being soundly beaten by a nation which is outnumbered by four and a half to one in population and three to one in size of armed forces."

In Times reporter Louis Karrar wrote:

"Who can defeat a nation which knows how to play hide and seek with death".

USA - Aviation week - December 1968 issue:

"For the PAF, the 1965 war was as climatic as the Israeli victory over the Arabs in 1967. A further similarity was that Indian air power had an approximately 5:1 numerical superiority at the start of the conflict. Unlike the Middle East conflict, the Pakistani air victory was achieved to a large degree by air-to-air combat rather than on ground. But it was as absolute as that attained by Israel.

India was the first to accept UN sponsored ceasefire followed by Pakistan which brought the 1965 war to an end on Sept 22, 1965. As the ceasefire took effect, Indian Defense Y.B. Chavan wrote in his diary as follows:

"The ball is now in the political court again--where it should be--and not in the military one. I hope we have the vision and courage to (our) political leadership."

Alas, the core issue of Kashmir still remains unresolved 47 years since Mr. Chavan wrote his words of wisdom.

Haq's Musings: Indian Insiders' View of 1965 War


You are so biased with your BS :blah:, if you are going to post quotes from neutral sources, how about actually show some neutrality. How about these non-Indian journalists on 1965 war (not to mention the fact that you has Iran and China supporting you):

Neutral assessments

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 ceasefire was declared. Some of the neutral assessments are mentioned below —

According to the Library of Congress Country Studies conducted by the Federal Research Division of the United States[77] –

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.[78] 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"[79] –
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",[80] 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,[81] 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[8] –
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,[82]
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,[83]
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[9] –
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"[84] –
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[85] –
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"[86] –

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.
 
. .
You are so biased with your BS :blah:, if you are going to post quotes from neutral sources, how about actually show some neutrality. How about these non-Indian journalists on 1965 war (not to mention the fact that you has Iran and China supporting you):

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.

If India was really in "a superior position", then why was India so eager to end it that it accepted the UN Ceasefire first, as Pradhan says on page 100 of his book?

http://books.google.com/books?id=ym...ved=0CEoQ6AEwBg#v=onepage&q=Ceasefire&f=false
 
.
If India was really in "a superior position", then why was India so eager to end it that it accepted the UN Ceasefire first as Pradhan says in his book?

Because neither country would be able to hold on to any territory they "conquered". Even if we conquered Lahore, it would be no use to us and we would eventually have to return it to Pakistani because most people in Lahore would be anti-Indian and pro-Pak and they would revolt/riot, etc. Same with any territory Pak gained in Rajasthan or Indian Punjab. However, the same cannot be said of Kashmir, if Pak indeed had conquered Kashmir which it set out to do in 1965, we might have never gotten Kashmir back after. Hence, we met our war objectives of defending Kashmir, as that was all that mattered to us.

The fact that Pakistan went from conquering Kashmir to defending Lahore by the tooth should tell you how the war in 1965 exactly shaped out. Thereis a reason that you celebrate "Defence (of Lahore) Day" rather than "Invasion (of Kashmir) Day".

No matter how much you try to twist history (which happens to be quite the rage in Pakistan), you will forever have to live with the fact that despite help from Iran and China, you barely defended Lahore (and in no certain means, definitely lost the war).
 
.
If India was really in "a superior position", then why was India so eager to end it that it accepted the UN Ceasefire first, as Pradhan says on page 100 of his book?

1965 War, the Inside Story: Defence Minister Y.B. Chavan's Diary of India ... - R. D. Pradhan, Yashwantrao Balwantrao Chavan - Google Books

Guess why? 'Cause India doesn't give a **** about capturing territory. Pakistan wanted Kashmir, India repelled the attack, and reached Lahore. They suffered heavy casualties, but make no mistake. India had the numbers and resources to sustain itself, while the smaller Pakistani army, whose supplies were completely American (and USA had declared an embargo on both India and Pakistan), would not be able to fight attrition. The reason we accepted the ceasefire was, because capturing Pakistani territory would invite US hostility, and put 160 million more people for India to feed, (and this would be an angry bunch of people, who wanted to kick India out).
 
.
Because neither country would be able to hold on to any territory they "conquered". Even if we conquered Lahore, it would be no use to us and we would eventually have to return it to Pakistani because most people in Lahore would be anti-Indian and pro-Pak and they would revolt/riot, etc. Same with any territory Pak gained in Rajasthan or Indian Punjab. However, the same cannot be said of Kashmir, if Pak indeed had conquered Kashmir which it set out to do in 1965, we might have never gotten Kashmir back after. Hence, we met our war objectives of defending Kashmir, as that was all that mattered to us.

The fact that Pakistan went from conquering Kashmir to defending Lahore by the tooth should tell you how the war in 1965 exactly shaped out. Thereis a reason that you celebrate "Defence (of Lahore) Day" rather than "Invasion (of Kashmir) Day"

You don't understand how the game is played. India would have taken Lahore if it could to dictate terms to Pakistan but it couldn't. In fact, the Indian COAS Gen Chaudhry was so demoralized by the fierce counter-attack by Pakistanis that he proposed withdrawing behind Beas...leaving half of Indian Punjab, including Amritsar, to Pakistan.

Read the books by Pradhan and Harbakhsh Singh to get a sense of how panicked the Indian military was.
 
.
You don't understand how the game is played. India would have taken Lahore if it could to dictate terms to Pakistan but it couldn't. In fact, the Indian COAS Gen Chaudhry was so demoralized by the fierce counter-attack by Pakistanis that he proposed withdrawing behind Beas...leaving half of Indian Punjab, including Amritsar, to Pakistan.

Read the books by Pradhan and Harbakhsh Singh to get a sense of how panicked the Indian military was.

Perhaps you could provide links to this BS?

If India had left it's territory to Pakistan, then why did Pakistan accept the ceasefire? Pakistan was the aggressor, it's objective was to capture territory, yet it didn't capture? :what:

You guys really must have had an indecisive military leadership.
 
.
You don't understand how the game is played. India would have taken Lahore if it could to dictate terms to Pakistan but it couldn't. In fact, the Indian COAS Gen Chaudhry was so demoralized by the fierce counter-attack by Pakistanis that he proposed withdrawing behind Beas...leaving half of Indian Punjab, including Amritsar, to Pakistan.

Read the books by Pradhan and Harbakhsh Singh to get a sense of how panicked the Indian military was.

A lot of people say a lot of controversial things to sell books. At the end of the day the ground realities and facts are there for everyone to judge:

India 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.

Source: http://www.defence.pk/forums/curren...dian-insiders-saw-1965-war.html#ixzz25kF9xiz0
 
.
A lot of people say a lot of controversial things to sell books. At the end of the day the ground realities and facts are there for everyone to judge:

India 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.

Source: http://www.defence.pk/forums/curren...dian-insiders-saw-1965-war.html#ixzz25kF9xiz0

Before some trolls jump at the word Khem Karan and say that Asal Uttar is a fake battle, and Pakistan actually captured Khem karan, I'd like to point out that they captured territory AROUND Khem karan, not in it.
 
.
. .

*Facepalm*

Pakistan had sufficient geographical and technological advantage to defend against an India attack.

The General's suggested a retreat to Beas, hold up there, decimate the incoming Pakistani attack, then counter-attack against a crippled force.
 
.
EzioAltaïr;3381079 said:
Perhaps you could provide links to this BS?

If India had left it's territory to Pakistan, then why did Pakistan accept the ceasefire? Pakistan was the aggressor, it's objective was to capture territory, yet it didn't capture? :what:

You guys really must have had an indecisive military leadership.


My dear poster. Read some history please.

Prior to the September attack by India, Pakistan army did not cross "international border" from Punjab, or from Sindh.

Pakistan's only desire (and rather foolish one) was to gain in Kashmir the "disputed" territory. They wanted to continue low level insurgency going in Kashmir until the December at least, when many parts of Kashmir would be cut off from India due to heavy snow.


In all honesty, I blame Pakistani generals for ignoring international borders, and especially Lahore, thinking and perhaps assuming that Indians would not dare attack Pakistan's soft belly. This is even when Indians were openly threatening to expand the war beyond Kashmir.

To a neutral observer, Pak military's posture was clearly defensive (a weak defense dare I say) in Punjab, Sindh, and Bengal.

And Pakistan paid dearly for this bad planning. Lahore is practically at the border, and so many jawans and officers died defending and retaking the areas close to Lahore

Our saving grace was the collection of latest fighter bombers F-86, (and rumored spy planes) and superior training of pilots that stopped Indian army in its tracks.

So the bottom line:

Pakistanis never wanted to capture Indian areas across internationally recognized border. Read up a bit and you will find that there were no troop movements, no major deployments in Punjab, Sindh etc. beyond the basic and usual cantonments.

I urge both Paks and Indis to read a bit more on this. Mad jingoism won't help anyone.


peace
 
.
My dear poster. Read some history please.

Prior to the September attack by India, Pakistan army did not cross "international border" from Punjab, or from Sindh.

Pakistan's only desire (and rather foolish one) was to gain in Kashmir the "disputed" territory. They wanted to continue low level insurgency going in Kashmir until the December at least, when many parts of Kashmir would be cut off from India due to heavy snow.


In all honesty, I blame Pakistani generals for ignoring international borders, and especially Lahore, thinking and perhaps assuming that Indians would not dare attack Pakistan's soft belly. This is even when Indians were openly threatening to expand the war beyond Kashmir.

To a neutral observer, Pak military's posture was clearly defensive (a weak defense dare I say) in Punjab, Sindh, and Bengal.

And Pakistan paid dearly for this bad planning. Lahore is practically at the border, and so many jawans and officers died defending and retaking the areas close to Lahore

Our saving grace was the latest fighter bombers F-86, (and rumored spy planes) and superior training of pilots that stopped Indian army in its tracks.

So the bottom line:

Pakistanis never wanted to capture Indian areas across internationally recognized border. Read up a bit and you will find that there were no troop movements, no major deployments in Punjab, Sindh etc. beyond the basic and usual cantonments.

I urge both Paks and Indis to read a bit more on this. Mad jingoism won't help anyone.


peace

Exactly, they didn't attack across the IB, nor were they planning to. So India scrapped the idea of a retreat to Amritsar.

I bow to you sir, you've vindicated my point.
 
.
Back
Top Bottom