kashmir is unfinished agenda of Partition #COAS

[SarthakGanguly]

No it wasn't, it was a stalemate. That's is the verdict by historians.

After the ceasefire it was a stalemate. Just before that India undoubtedly was in a better situation - except that we had just received a Chinese ultimatum.
In spite of being hit hard, and suffering greater casualties, Indians held their ground. In fact they held more than Pakistan did including very important strategic sectors. But SU also intended to pull out their support if we rejected their call for a ceasefire. So we did what we had to do. Militarily, overall - India was in a better position. Only the PAF outperformed the IAF on the whole. But we quickly learned our lessons in that as well.

 

[Sipahi]

I am confused.

Why would we not deploy in strength in a strategically vital part of our own country, coveted by the enemy?

You may dislike us, even hate, but surely you would not do us the disservice of thinking us stupid?

I am not against the deployment, its your army you can do anything with your forces.

What they are doing in Kashmir is insane. The peoples of other side claimed that Pakistan has *Occupied* Kashmir so why are you acting in your side as oppressor ??? Your occupied the land but failed to keep Kashmiris.

 

[vsdoc]

Your occupied the land but failed to keep Kashmiris.

Please understand the hard truth.

The Kashmiris do not matter.

Have never mattered.

You mentioned my state Maharashtra?

Tomorrow if the populace in Maharashtra rises against the union, Maharashtrians will not matter.

No one people are bigger than the union. The whole is always going to be larger than the sum of the constituent parts.

 

[SarthakGanguly]

Recall defeat in battle of chowinda, largest tank battle after world war II
It is part of military history now

Re-read Battle of Asal Uttar. Chawinda was not the largest tank battle after WWII. But yes, the 1st Indian Arm. force lost about 40 tanks there (permanent), putting the division out of action. But there is a vital difference between Chawinda and Asal Uttar. Guess what?

Chawinda
1. Indian forces lose about 120 tanks.
2. Indian forces hold on to the terrain for 1 day, retrieving a vast majority of damaged tanks.
3. Only about 30 (officially 29) tanks were too destroyed. They were abandoned and mostly blown up before evacuating.

Asal Uttar
1. Pakistan (1st Armored also ironically) lose about 120 tanks.
2. Pakistani engineers could recover only about 20 tanks.
3. Indian forces capture about 97 tanks in serviceable condition.
4. International media was invited to witness the tanks lined up.

 

[aamerjamal]

..when U will grow balls to repeat grandslam....
Musharaff , balls dropped at Kargil....and U are still searching for them in Rahel...


..U nailed it...
pakistan may have won few Battles...but WAR was won by INDIA..

We atleast have balls to attack a five time bigger country, but what about your balls with reference to mombay and parliament attacks.

 

[aakash_2410]

Recall defeat in battle of chowinda, largest tank battle after world war II
It is part of military history now

Battle of Chawinda = India lost 120 tanks, Pakistan lost 44 tanks. Impressive indeed.

But, you should also recall Battle of Longewala. Where,

Pakistani losses:
200 soldiers killed
34 tanks destroyed
500+ tanks destroyed or abandoned

Indian losses:
2 soldiers killed
1 anti-tank destroyed

According to your own Hamoodur Rahman Commision they called it ' the largest disproportionate tank casualties for one side in a single battle after World War II.'. I'm sorry if I've misspelled any of their names.

If you really think you lot won the war. Read the report. It's available at: http://www.pppusa.org/Acrobat/Hamoodur Rahman Commission Report.pdf

As @SarthakGanguly rightly pointed out that was a different war and the one you clearly lost. Let me give you another example from the same war.

Battle of Asal Uttar:

Pakistani losses:
100 tanks destroyed

Indian losses:
10 tanks destroyed. I definitely think is more impressive.

 

[gau8av]

We all know the real reason, do we not?

what is it, more religious conquest of pagan lands ? is that what collectively drives them ?

We atleast have balls to attack a five time bigger country, but what about your balls with reference to mombay and parliament attacks.

we'll make gurde kapoorey of your balls

punishment for attacking India is death, mister.

 

[SarthakGanguly]

Battle of Chawinda = India lost 120 tanks, Pakistan lost 44 tanks. Impressive indeed.

But, you should also recall Battle of Longewala. Where,

Pakistani losses:
200 soldiers killed
34 tanks destroyed
500+ tanks destroyed or abandoned

Indian losses:
2 soldiers killed
1 anti-tank destroyed

According to your own Hamoodur Rahman Commision they called it ' the largest disproportionate tank casualties for one side in a single battle after World War II.'. I'm sorry if I've misspelled any of their names.

If you really think you lot won the war. Read the report. It's available at: http://www.pppusa.org/Acrobat/Hamoodur Rahman Commission Report.pdf

No need to go forward to 1971. Longewala was in 1971.

Pakistan has every right to celebrate the defense of Lahore. They have every right to call it a Victory Day.

But it was not Victory in the War of 1965, but a tactical victory of a successful defence that was of little decisive value for so short a war anyway from the Indian POV.

 

[waz]

After the ceasefire it was a stalemate. Just before that India undoubtedly was in a better situation - except that we had just received a Chinese ultimatum.
In spite of being hit hard, and suffering greater casualties, Indians held their ground. In fact they held more than Pakistan did including very important strategic sectors. But SU also intended to pull out their support if we rejected their call for a ceasefire. So we did what we had to do. Militarily, overall - India was in a better position. Only the PAF outperformed the IAF on the whole. But we quickly learned our lessons in that as well.

Eric Margolis has written an excellent account of the war that does away with all the rubbish put forward. He states that neither army was in a position to do anything, and the elite armoured divisions of both sides, the spearheads if you like, had effectively been knocked out. Both countries held land (Kashmir, Punjab, Rajasthan) , although the figures flying around can be disputed, as there was no third party determination of gains. Pakistan did lose more men and materials though.

Here is a good Indian source, battle by battle.

Who Really Won the India-Pakistan 1965 War? -

 

[vsdoc]

what is it, more religious conquest of pagan lands ? is that what collectively drives them ?

This is an unfinished fight.

This is an old fight.

This fight is not going to go away by talking.

Or by "solving" Kashmir.

This fight will be fought. And peace will come when one side can fight no more.

Because neither side will not want to fight no more.

Hard truths.

 

[SarthakGanguly]

Eric Margolis has written an excellent account of the war that does away with all the rubbish put forward. He states that neither army was in a position to do anything, and the elite armoured divisions of both sides, the spearheads if you like, had effectively been knocked out. Both countries held land (Kashmir, Punjab, Rajasthan) , although the figures flying around can be disputed, as there was no third party determination of gains. Pakistan did lose more men and materials though.

Here is a good Indian source, battle by battle.

Who Really Won the India-Pakistan 1965 War? -

The Tank destroyed figures are not correct. It says Pak lost 300 tanks while India lost 128. The numbers would be closer to 250 or 220 to 130. The imbalance was due to the failed recovery of damaged tanks in Phillora and Asal Uttar. PAF showed great initiative. Captured flight manuals and orders were taught to Indian pilots henceforth. Pakistani counterattacks against the Lahore front was also taught. Don't know if Indian battleplans were/are taught in PMA etc...

Otherwise quite a balanced article.

Let me give you another example from the same war.

 

[aakash_2410]

Eric Margolis has written an excellent account of the war that does away with all the rubbish put forward. He states that neither army was in a position to do anything, and the elite armoured divisions of both sides, the spearheads if you like, had effectively been knocked out. Both countries held land (Kashmir, Punjab, Rajasthan) , although the figures flying around can be disputed, as there was no third party determination of gains. Pakistan did lose more men and materials though.

Here is a good Indian source, battle by battle.

Who Really Won the India-Pakistan 1965 War? -

Exactly bud. Although PAF had a clear upper hand over IAF. On land, things couldn't have been more different.

Pakistan lost slightly more tanks and soldiers and failed to achieve it's primary goal of creating an uprising in Kashmir or liberate it.

 

[Capt.Popeye]

Eric Margolis has written an excellent account of the war that does away with all the rubbish put forward. He states that neither army was in a position to do anything, and the elite armoured divisions of both sides, the spearheads if you like, had effectively been knocked out. Both countries held land (Kashmir, Punjab, Rajasthan) , although the figures flying around can be disputed, as there was no third party determination of gains. Pakistan did lose more men and materials though.

Here is a good Indian source, battle by battle.

Who Really Won the India-Pakistan 1965 War? -

That pretty much sums it up.
One side wanted to take away a Province from the other, failed.
The other wanted to emasculate the other's Army, failed.

Enuff said..... about the Military operations, many analytical accounts are there. On the Pakistani side, Maj. A.H.Agha PA is a credible commentator. But it was more or less a conflict fought by mainly brave rank and file men led by largely bungling Generals..... like the Good Ol' Duke of York.

 

[gau8av]

This is an unfinished fight.

This is an old fight.

This fight is not going to go away by talking.

Or by "solving" Kashmir.

This fight will be fought. And peace will come when one side can fight no more.

Because neither side will not want to fight no more.

Hard truths.

a most disconcerting thought, spl in this age of weapons of mass destruction, but increasingly feels like it.

conventionally they're no match, lets hope they sincerely believe that suicide is haram.

 

[vsdoc]

That pretty much sums it up.
One side wanted to take away a Province from the other, failed.
The other wanted to emasculate the other's Army, failed.

Enuff said..... about the Military operations, many analytical accounts are there. On the Pakistani side, Maj. A.H.Agha PA is a credible commentator. But it was more or less a conflict fought by mainly brave rank and file men led by largely bungling Generals..... like the Good Ol' Duke of York.

That was a tough decade for India.

3 wars.

As a nation we lost Tibet but avenged '47.

And recovered economically only 20 years later.

Things could so easily have gone so very wrong .....