Myth shatterd "india won 65 war?"

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

What about a mutual agreement? Pehle aap

A mutual agreement about what?

 

[ironman]

A mutual agreement about what?

The theory that you made up about operation gibraltar. The 5000 to 7000 (Pakistan's official claim) armed infiltrators to ''only'' spark an insurgency.

 

[DeathGod]

Tell that to the thousands of Indians claiming that India won all three wars against Pakistan in articles, blogs, forums and comments across the web.

I think all of us should start a new thread :

"Myths shattered , India won the 65 , 71 , Siachen & Kargil "

and provide literature to support it.

However what really matters is the position on the ground and according to that the Indian victories of 65,71 , Siachen & Kargil are not a myth but a reality. More specifically on the 65 war:

1. Pakistan wasnt able to cause insurgency in Kashmir.

2. At ceasefire more Pakistani land was in India's control then what Pakistan controlled of India. ( India controlled the fertile tracts )

3. Pakistan lost more in terms of military equipment (tanks etc).

4. India had just fought a devastating war in 1962 and yet gave a fitting reply in 65 , even though Pakistan was equipped with the latest armaments from U.S .

@history in CBSE:

I think quite a lot of Indian members here would have read the CBSE books . I certainly cant remember any texts that say MK Gandhi was the most educated man in India , the emphasis was rather on the practice of non-voilence and his acts like Dandi march etc. We also get to read a great deal about other great leaders of that time. Furthermore the henious acts that took place after partition are not discussed at all. When I was a student the history books only taught till 1950 ( If my memory serves right) & there was never any mention of any war.

@Emotional Atyachar

The sad part is that even today we are debating about 65,71 or Kargil. If we wont forget wars then how will we move ahead and change. They say time is the greatest healer but for it to work we shouldnt remember the wars that we fought . How can realtions between two nations be normal when people talk about breaking another's house little realising that their own home is made of glass.

The biggest lesson to be learnt from War is that There Shouldnt Be Any War. Period.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

The theory that you made up about operation gibraltar. The 5000 to 7000 (Pakistan's official claim) armed infiltrators to ''only'' spark an insurgency.

So your theory is that 5000 to 7000 infiltrators were alone going to wrest J&K away from the entire Indian Army deployed in J&K?

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

I think all of us should start a new thread :

"Myths shattered , India won the 65 , 71 , Siachen & Kargil "

and provide literature to support it.

The question here is focused on the article on the 65 war - stick to that.

Very few Pakistanis would argue that Pakistan lost the 1971 war, though the details of the events around 71 continue to be argued.
More specifically on the 65 war:

1. Pakistan wasnt able to cause insurgency in Kashmir.

That would mean Operation Gibralter failed, but the conventional war itself was initiated by India after Op. Gibralter was found out, so at that point the question is what were Indian reasons behind starting a war across the ceasefire line and IB, what were its goals and whether it achieved them.

Since Operation Gibralter had already been stymied, the only rational reason for India to attack across the ceasefire line would be to take territory, specifically to militarily wrest Pakistan Administered Kashmir away, and it did not do that.

Therefore that points to an Indian failure, not victory.

2. At ceasefire more Pakistani land was in India's control then what Pakistan controlled of India. ( India controlled the fertile tracts )

By a few hundred square miles, not enough to put pressure on any side.

3. Pakistan lost more in terms of military equipment (tanks etc).

That depends on whose version you believe.

4. India had just fought a devastating war in 1962 and yet gave a fitting reply in 65 , even though Pakistan was equipped with the latest armaments from U.S .

Irrelevant and a poor excuse for a poor performance.

 

[ironman]

So your theory is that 5000 to 7000 infiltrators were alone going to wrest J&K away from the entire Indian Army deployed in J&K?

Oh no.. they were on a preaching mission to aware Kashmiri's a better heaven.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Oh no.. they were on a preaching mission to aware Kashmiri's a better heaven.

No need to act like an idiot and hijack the thread - you can do that on other fora if you really feel compelled to do so.

The aim was to send in a few thousand infiltrators to spark a rebellion in J&K, and force the GoI back to the negotiating table, not an armed military invasion to conquer the territory.

 

[ironman]

No need to act like an idiot and hijack the thread - you can do that on other fora if you really feel compelled to do so.

The aim was to send in a few thousand infiltrators to spark a rebellion in J&K, and force the GoI back to the negotiating table, not an armed military invasion to conquer the territory.

There is no need to act like smart when you are not listening to the opposition. The matter which you played down under is a very serious issue, to challenge the soverignity of a country. An act like this will not tolerate by any country and they will protect its dignity at any cost.

 

[karan.1970]

I thought Operation Gibraltar was a covert operation to spark an insurgency/rebellion in Kashmir, and not a conventional military assault to militarily take Kashmir.

If the former, then 'taking Kashmir' militarily was not the initial Pakistani objective. AFAIK, it was India that launched the first overt conventional military assaults across the ceasefire line in Kashmir, and then later opened another front on the International border when it came under severe pressure in Kashmir because of the Pakistani counterattack.

Given the above, your reasoning of why it was Pakistan that lost the war does not add up.

Your comment is with the benefit of hindsight.. However how was India to have confidence that the stream of Pakistani special forces in civvies will not be followed by a conventional forces. We wont know what would have happened if India had not hit back. Op Gibralter was an attack and India counter attacked. And as it has been mentioned on this forum multiple times, the attacker does not decide the magnitude and the nature of the counter attack.

You cant disassociate op gibralter from the rest of the activity in 1965. The mess started with Op Gibralter. Pakistan had an objective to annex Kashmir. It failed. India had an objective to relieve pressure from Kashmir and prevent a full scale attack in that area. It succeeded.

 

[karan.1970]

Admit it already, like the author suggests, you were getting spanked in Kashmir despite being the initiators of the conventional war there, you then got your ***** spanked across the IB and barely managed to claw your way back, and you really got your ***** spanked in the air war.

The interesting thing is how Indian authors and media suddenly becomes credible the moment they write something against India.

Overall a disaster in terms of a conventional military campaign that you yourselves initiated, and yet you feed 'nonsense to your kids' that India won all three wars.

May be the 3 wars won refer to 1971, Siachen and Kargil??

but on victory refer to my earlier note on strategic objectives...

 

[toxic_pus]

I thought Operation Gibraltar was a covert operation to spark an insurgency/rebellion in Kashmir, and not a conventional military assault to militarily take Kashmir.

If the former, then 'taking Kashmir' militarily was not the initial Pakistani objective. AFAIK, it was India that launched the first overt conventional military assaults across the ceasefire line in Kashmir, and then later opened another front on the International border when it came under severe pressure in Kashmir because of the Pakistani counterattack.

Given the above, your reasoning of why it was Pakistan that lost the war does not add up.

The sequence of 1965 war was like this: Pakistan initiates guerrilla war in Kashmir, while trying to incite a rebellion, to which India responds by decimating Hajipir pass and Neelam Valley - the logistic base of the infiltrating SSGs and Army regulars. Pakistan gets scared that India will now be extending this conflict to take over Muzaffarabad. So to dilute Indian pressure Pakistan launches Operation Grand Slam, attacking the Chamb-Akhnur region in Jammu. India finally responds by crossing international border threatening to take over Lahore.

Grand Slam - A Battle of Lost Opportunities

Some excerpts from the above link.

'Operation Gibraltar envisaged guerrilla operations inside Indian Occupied Kashmir by a number of guerrilla groups of roughly a battalion strength comprising of Kashmiri Volunteers trained by Pakistan Army, Pakistan Army Special Services Group (SSG) Commando personnel and some regular infantry troops. The total strength of the “Gibraltar Force” was not more than 5,000 to 7,000 men subdivided into five forces i.e (1) “Salahuddin Force” operating in Srinagar Valley, (2) “Ghaznavi Force “ in Mendhar-Rajauri area, (3) “Tariq Force” in Dras-Kargil area, (4) “Babar Force “in Nowshera Sundarbani area, (5) “Qasim Force” in Bandipura-Sonarwain area, (6) “Khalid Force” in Qazinag-Naugam area, (7) “Nusrat Force” in Tithwal-Tangdhar area, (8) “Sikandar Force” in Gurais area and (9) “Khilji Force” in Kel-Minimarg area. The mission assigned to the various Gibraltar forces was warfare in the enemy’s rear including harassing enemy communications, destruction of bridges, logistic installations, headquarters with a view to create conditions of an “armed insurrection” in Kashmir finally leading to a national uprising against Indian rule leading to liberation of Kashmir or at least parts of it.'

The infiltration operation of the Gibraltar Force commenced from first week of August 1965.

The author explains why and how Operation Grad Slam came into being.

'The local population of Indian Held Kashmir did not co-operate with the Gibraltar Force and by 18th August the operations of the Gibraltar Force were considerably reduced. The Indians brought in additional troops and the infiltration operation was checked by 20th August. As discussed earlier the Indian 15 Corps Commander was unnerved, however, the C in C Western Command Harbaksh Singh exhibited greater resolution and spurred the 15 Indian Corps into launching two major counter infiltration attacks inside Pakistan Held Kashmir to destroy the logistic bases in Hajipir Bulge and Neelam Valley areas. Both these attacks succeeded since the 12 Division was already over stretched with single infantry battalions holding frontages varying from 10 to 20 miles. There is absolutely no doubt that Gibraltar was an undoubted failure! The loss of Hajipir Pass, the principal logistic base of the infiltrators on 28th August and Indian successes in the Neelam Valley and opposite Uri on 29-31st August 1965 unnerved the Pakistani GHQ who assumed that Muzaffarabad was about to be attacked! The supposed liberators of Indian Held Kashmir were more worried now about what they had held before commencement of hostilities! It was under these circumstances that the Pakistani GHQ ordered execution of Grand Slam with the aim of relieving Indian pressure against Muzaffarabad! Shaukat Riza the official historian of the 1965 War admitted that by 31 August the Indians had ruptured 12 Division’s defences and this was the main reason why the GHQ decided to attack Chamb “to ease pressure on 12 Division”. Shaukat also quoted Musa and the Chief of General Staff Sher Bahadur in stating that the main reason why Grand Slam was launched was that “there was danger of Indians capturing Muzaffarabad”. Musa in his roundabout way of saying things did not mention Muzaffarabad but merely stated that the main object of launching “Grand Slam” was “reducing pressure in the north by capturing Chamb and threatening Akhnur”.'

[...]

The Pakistani attack commenced at 0500 hours 1st September 1965 supported by a terrific pre-H-Hour artillery bombardment executed in the words of the Pakistani official historian by “nine field, seven medium and two heavy batteries” which had commenced belching fire at 0330 hours. The artillery was deployed so boldly that medium and 8 inch howitzers were deployed ahead of field guns thus increasing their range and ability to support operations for a longer duration without redeployment....

Finally India responds and ends Operation Grand Slam.

'The whole situation changed on 6th September once India attacked all along the international border opposite Sialkot, Lahore and Kasur. The 7th Division was ordered to transfer 11 Cavalry, HQ 4 Corps Artillery Brigade and 39 Field Regiment to 1 Corps in Ravi-Chenab Corridor. Grand Slam was over! '

If victory is defined in terms of objective achieved, then indeed, India did win 1965 war. 1st India successfully thwarted Pakistan's attempt at quick and dirty land grab and then successfully finished off Pakistani counter attack.

Not a decisive victory. A victory nevertheless.

 

[DeathGod]

Therefore that points to an Indian failure, not victory.

As I said , we can debate all that we want , the reality is what is there on the ground and all of us know it very well that what today's ground reality is.

Kashmir is still a state of India. That is all that matters.

Mere arguments & statistics wont provide anything other than ointment to soothe some wounds that were left by a war in which Pakistan failed to acheive its objectives.

 

[Ingis]

The question here is focused on the article on the 65 war - stick to that.

Very few Pakistanis would argue that Pakistan lost the 1971 war, though the details of the events around 71 continue to be argued.
More specifically on the 65 war:

That would mean Operation Gibralter failed, but the conventional war itself was initiated by India after Op. Gibralter was found out, so at that point the question is what were Indian reasons behind starting a war across the ceasefire line and IB, what were its goals and whether it achieved them.

Since Operation Gibralter had already been stymied, the only rational reason for India to attack across the ceasefire line would be to take territory, specifically to militarily wrest Pakistan Administered Kashmir away, and it did not do that.

Therefore that points to an Indian failure, not victory.


By a few hundred square miles, not enough to put pressure on any side.

That depends on whose version you believe.

Irrelevant and a poor excuse for a poor performance.

I just have a few things to say ---

1) Several Indian military analysts have agreed that PAF did perform better than IAF in 1965.

2) On the ground, both Indian Army and Pakistani Army were not able to accomplish several of their goals. So, the war was tactically and strategically a stalemate.

3) However, there is an overwhelming consensus among several international military historians that Pakistan lost more troops than India, it lost more territory than India and had the war continued, Pakistan would have found itself in much deeper trouble.

Keeping the last point in mind, India had the upper hand at the end of the war despite carrying out several tactical mistakes. India learned from those mistakes and results of the war six years later are for everyone to see.

Cheers.

 

[Yusuf]

Well India accepts we lost the 65,71 and the Kargil war. India accepts we were the initiators of all conflicts. Now that we have made that official, lets move on.

This topic is a dead horse that has been flogged a million times. Why does it matter who won or who lost? What matters is strategic objectives and who believe they achieved theirs. If there was any short coming in that, then what lessons were learnt from it and that matters the most, both for India and Pakistan. If any side says they fought a spotless war, then they are obviously deluding themselves and will harm them more than anything else. Many IA officers have told about shortcomings. I am sure they learnt from it. I dont know whats the case with PA and what is available in the open, but PA is a professional outfit and they too would have pondered on what they did right and what they did wrong.

 

[Bang Galore]

The fact that you lot are teaching nonsense to your kids is pretty obvious with the poisoned and distorted views about Pakistan and history many of you display on this forum and across the web

Admit it already, like the author suggests, you were getting spanked in Kashmir despite being the initiators of the conventional war there, you then got your ***** spanked across the IB and barely managed to claw your way back, and you really got your ***** spanked in the air war.

Overall a disaster in terms of a conventional military campaign that you yourselves initiated, and yet you feed 'nonsense to your kids' that India won all three wars.

There's a very simple way of judging who did better in the 1965 war. Just look at how the leaders of India & Pakistan at that time are remembered. Lal Bahadur Shastri is remembered with fondness and widely regarded as one of India's finest sons. You know better than us how Ayub Khan is remembered in Pakistan. Certainly not with the same fondness.Here are some excerpts of what your commentators say about him.

"The promotion from colonel to general in less than four years for Ayub Khan had strategic consequences for Pakistan, as Ayub Khan had neither attained the experience or the gravitas needed to do justice to the office of the Commander-in-Chief of Pakistan Army. His shortcomings became apparent during the 1965 War into which he had led the country, thanks to the ill thought and badly executed ‘Operation Gibraltar’."

"..........The fact that Pakistan got a person to lead its army who had no experience of commanding division level operations and had not participated in the Kashmir war ensured that during an actual battle, Pakistan Army’s performance would be below the optimum and that operations in the Kashmir sector would be badly botched up. And that is exactly what happened during the 1965 War."

Daily Times - Leading News Resource of Pakistan

"..........The 1965 war had done irreparable damage to Ayub Khan’s regime;"

Daily Times - Leading News Resource of Pakistan

My point here is simple. If Pakistan won the war, then why did it do so much damage to Ayub Khan's reputation and thereby to his regime.

That would mean Operation Gibralter failed, but the conventional war itself was initiated by India after Op. Gibralter was found out, so at that point the question is what were Indian reasons behind starting a war across the ceasefire line and IB, what were its goals and whether it achieved them.

Since Operation Gibralter had already been stymied, the only rational reason for India to attack across the ceasefire line would be to take territory, specifically to militarily wrest Pakistan Administered Kashmir away, and it did not do that.

Therefore that points to an Indian failure, not victory.
.

The initiator of the conflict through 'Operation Gibraltar' was Pakistan. If the aims of that operation were frustrated then that would be considered a defeat by most analysts. How individual battles were fought or how individual services performed would be of interest only for the success or failure of the tactics employed and would have no bearing on the larger picture. The " initiator" has to be able to show something for all his troubles to claim victory, the defender just needs to hold his ground to do the same.