What's new

Kashmir is not India’s internal matter: Pakistan

In 65 Pakistan launched offensive against trouble makers from IOK who were raiding Azad Kashmir on daily or weekly basis. It was India who violate & cross the international borders in 65. In 71 India again violated Pakistan's eastern wing borders & sponsor, trained & funded a terrorist movement.

wow, new story cooked up now...

"Pakistani Air Marshal and Commander-in-Chief of PAF during the war, Nur Khan, later said that the Pakistan Army, and not India, should be blamed for starting the war."

I guess you know more than AM/ CiC Nur Khan then


It says India has to keep minimal presence & that also according to the troops present in 48 not in 88 when India send 7 lakh troops & heavy war equipments.

You do realise you are defense in this argument is futile...
 
.
How you will achieve it since I believe you aren't going to get an inch of it. :omghaha:

Again smilies & were giving me lecture? Shows one's clownishness.

You can believe whatever your clown bharati verma feed your brain no body gives a flyin fcuk.:omghaha:
 
.
Again smilies & were giving me lecture? Shows one's clownishness.

You can believe whatever your clown bharati verma feed your brain no body gives a flyin fcuk.:omghaha:

I was asking about your strategy to force us to accept the garbage called Chenab formula, leave Bharat Verma for now. :laugh:

In 65 Pakistan launched offensive against trouble makers from IOK who were raiding Azad Kashmir on daily or weekly basis. It was India who violate & cross the international borders in 65. In 71 India again violated Pakistan's eastern wing borders & sponsor, trained & funded a terrorist movement.

Can you provide me a reference for that.
 
.
wow, new story cooked up now...

"Pakistani Air Marshal and Commander-in-Chief of PAF during the war, Nur Khan, later said that the Pakistan Army, and not India, should be blamed for starting the war."
I guess you know more than AM/ CiC Nur Khan then

He can say whatever he want to say for publicity. It was India who cross the International borders but were thrashed back.
]
 
.
wow, new story cooked up now...

"Pakistani Air Marshal and Commander-in-Chief of PAF during the war, Nur Khan, later said that the Pakistan Army, and not India, should be blamed for starting the war."
I guess you know more than AM/ CiC Nur Khan then




You do realise you are defense in this argument is futile...

It was the Rann of Kutch crisis that made Ayub Khan to dream about it and Bhutto incited him a lot. But the same Bhutto later on used it against the downfall of Ayub Khan. :laugh:
 
.
I was asking about your strategy to force us to accept the garbage called Chenab formula, leave Bharat Verma for now. :laugh:

The strategists are doing their job so that is not my job but what i know is that no govt of Pakistan will back an inch off from it's stance on IOK/Maqbooza Kashmir. Now go and learn some more propaganda from that bharati verma clown.

Can you provide me a reference for that.

Search on the internet, i' am not your p@ p@ who will spoon feed everything.
 
. .
The strategists are doing their job so that is not my job but what i know is that no govt of Pakistan will back an inch off from it's stance on IOK/Maqbooza Kashmir. Now go and learn some more propaganda from that bharati verma clown.



Search on the internet, i' am not your p@ p@ who will spoon feed everything.

Your strategy had been a big flop ,infact Srinagar is more safe and less violent than Karachi or Peshswar. That's why I said getting an inch of Kashmir is impossible for you. ;)
 
.
Your strategy had been a big flop ,infact Srinagar is more safe and less violent than Karachi or Peshswar. That's why I said getting an inch of Kashmir is impossible for you.

Chichu ki Malyan is more safe for women then Indian capital Delhi:crazy:...whats your point?;)

Why would your Air Marshal and CiC lie about a war?

Personal hatred perhaps.
 
.
He can say whatever he want to say for publicity. It was India who cross the International borders but were thrashed back.
]
Are you sure about that....

From Wiki

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 —

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.[74] 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"[75]
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",[76] 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.

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[7]
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,[78]
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,[79]
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[8]
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"[80]
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[81]
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"[82]
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.

  • Newsweek magazine, however, praised the Pakistani military's ability to hold off the much larger Indian Army.[83]
By just the end of the week, in fact, it was clear that the Pakistanis were more than holding their own.

Personal hatred perhaps.
Towards the Nation??
 
.
He can say whatever he want to say for publicity. It was India who cross the International borders but were thrashed back.
]

So even after winning that war you cant not try for kashmir?? :lol:

Ye jhooti kahaniya sirf Pakistan me hi chalti hai ... world knows the fact
 
. .
Are you sure about that....

From Wiki

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 —

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.[74] 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"[75]
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",[76] 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.

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[7]
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,[78]
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,[79]
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[8]
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"[80]
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[81]
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"[82]
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.

  • Newsweek magazine, however, praised the Pakistani military's ability to hold off the much larger Indian Army.[83]
By just the end of the week, in fact, it was clear that the Pakistanis were more than holding their own.


Towards the Nation??

Remember how PAF literally r@p3d IAF? Not only that Chawinda was made graveyard of Indian tanks & Indians who attack Lahore like cowards were kicked out when Pakistan Army launched its offensive.

So even after winning that war you cant not try for kashmir??

Ye jhooti kahaniya sirf Pakistan me hi chalti hai ... world knows the fact

lol @"jhooti kahaniya" we all know about "jhooti kahaniya" such as India won all wars, India is SUPA PAWA, India will have white servants in 2018, etc etc. Kindly ask your army & bharati verma clown to stop telling propaganda tales...now even your president & govt officials believe India has become SUPA PAWA.:lol:

we are talking about Kashmir.

So why did you drag Karachi & Peshawar?:crazy:
 
.
lol @"jhooti kahaniya" we all know about "jhooti kahaniya" such as India won all wars, India is SUPA PAWA, India will have white servants in 2018, etc etc. Kindly ask your army & bharati verma clown to stop telling propaganda tales...now even your president & govt officials believe India has become SUPA PAWA.:lol:

I dnt need to ask any one only facts tell the truth....

You loose more in 65 as compare to India but still your history books glorify your false history :lol:
Worlds biggest humiliation in 71 :lol: :lol:
Siachin :lol:
Kargil :lol:
 
.
I dnt need to ask any one only facts tell the truth....

You loose more in 65 as compare to India but still your history books glorify your false history
Worlds biggest humiliation in 71
Siachin :lol:
Kargil :lol:

65 you thought of capturing Lahore but were kicked out...our PAF literally r@p3d & g@p3d IAF:lol:
Yes 71 was defeat as Indian meddled in Pakistan's internal affairs & send terrorists.
Pakistan was never on Siachin, when India occupied Siachin it didn't fight Pakistan.
Kargil was Pakistan's victory militarily but a defeat diplomatically, still Pakistan actually gain some useful peaks after ceasefire.:lol::lol:
 
.
Back
Top Bottom