Myth shatterd "india won 65 war?"

[Windjammer]

Here is something from US Department of State, showing which side excepted ceasefire first, as you can see Pakistan was in no hurry.



After Pakistani troops invaded Kashmir, India moved quickly to internationalize the regional dispute. It asked the United Nations to reprise its role in the First India-Pakistan War and end the current conflict. The Security Council passed Resolution 211 on September 20 calling for an end to the fighting and negotiations on the settlement of the Kashmir problem, and the United States and the United Kingdom supported the UN decision by cutting off arms supplies to both belligerents. This ban affected both belligerents, but Pakistan felt the effects more keenly since it had a much weaker military in comparison to India. The UN resolution and the halting of arms sales had an immediate impact. India accepted the ceasefire on September 21 and Pakistan on September 22.

 

[hero]

Here is something from US Department of State, showing which side excepted ceasefire first, as you can see Pakistan was in no hurry.



After Pakistani troops invaded Kashmir, India moved quickly to internationalize the regional dispute. It asked the United Nations to reprise its role in the First India-Pakistan War and end the current conflict. The Security Council passed Resolution 211 on September 20 calling for an end to the fighting and negotiations on the settlement of the Kashmir problem, and the United States and the United Kingdom supported the UN decision by cutting off arms supplies to both belligerents. This ban affected both belligerents, but Pakistan felt the effects more keenly since it had a much weaker military in comparison to India. The UN resolution and the halting of arms sales had an immediate impact. India accepted the ceasefire on September 21 and Pakistan on September 22.

link please??

 

[Windjammer]

link please??

The India-Pakistan War of 1965

 

[hero]

The India-Pakistan War of 1965

I would suggest you send all your supporting material to wiki and edit the page if you believe strongly.

Anyone who wants to know what happened 65 war they just go to wiki. they don't cherry pick all the different source that suites them and conclude the result.

 

[BlackenTheSky]

Simple question:If india won 65 war then why pakistan celebrates it on september 6 and india dont even talk about that day?

 

[DeathGod]

Simple question:If india won 65 war then why pakistan celebrates it on september 6 and india dont even talk about that day?

I have only one word for you: "PROPAGANDA"

That is all Pakistan's history books teach and the indoctrination has been part of Pakistan for decades now.

Go on around the world and ask people , majority of them will tell how if the war would have gone on then India would have thrashed Pakistan , how disappointed the majority of Indians were when cease-fire was announced. But anyhow we learned our lessons that if we want to defeat Pakistan then it should be swift and decicive and delivered the goods in 1971.

 

[hero]

Simple question:If india won 65 war then why pakistan celebrates it on september 6 and india dont even talk about that day?

Thats defence day not a victory day. I guess you know the deference.

 

[paritosh]

Here is something from US Department of State, showing which side excepted ceasefire first, as you can see Pakistan was in no hurry.



After Pakistani troops invaded Kashmir, India moved quickly to internationalize the regional dispute. It asked the United Nations to reprise its role in the First India-Pakistan War and end the current conflict. The Security Council passed Resolution 211 on September 20 calling for an end to the fighting and negotiations on the settlement of the Kashmir problem, and the United States and the United Kingdom supported the UN decision by cutting off arms supplies to both belligerents. This ban affected both belligerents, but Pakistan felt the effects more keenly since it had a much weaker military in comparison to India. The UN resolution and the halting of arms sales had an immediate impact. India accepted the ceasefire on September 21 and Pakistan on September 22.

two reasons...

a)the world saw the Kashmir dispute through the Pakistani eyes..prior to this blunder of '65...
we were committed to holding a free fair plebiscite as Nehru had promised the UN...we were bidding our time...had Pakistan used better diplomacy abnd shown patience...the world community would have forced a then non-aligned India into conducting the plebiscite...
the '65 war painted Pakistan as the belligerent and us as the the victim...truthful or not...the world acknowledged the role PA played in sending the tribals mixed with PA commandos across the LOC into Kashmir...so we got the much needed moral support....which hasn't wavered ever since...

b)read...

The Security Council passed Resolution 211 on September 20 calling for an end to the fighting and negotiations on the settlement of the Kashmir problem, and the United States and the United Kingdom supported the UN decision by cutting off arms supplies to both belligerents. This ban affected both belligerents, but Pakistan felt the effects more keenly since it had a much weaker military in comparison to India.

 

[paritosh]

Simple question:If india won 65 war then why pakistan celebrates it on september 6 and india dont even talk about that day?

every country that has fought a war...celebrates some day as the day of victory....
history be damned.
People need hope.

 

[toxic_pus]

Here is something from US Department of State, showing which side excepted ceasefire first, as you can see Pakistan was in no hurry.



After Pakistani troops invaded Kashmir, India moved quickly to internationalize the regional dispute. It asked the United Nations to reprise its role in the First India-Pakistan War and end the current conflict. The Security Council passed Resolution 211 on September 20 calling for an end to the fighting and negotiations on the settlement of the Kashmir problem, and the United States and the United Kingdom supported the UN decision by cutting off arms supplies to both belligerents. This ban affected both belligerents, but Pakistan felt the effects more keenly since it had a much weaker military in comparison to India. The UN resolution and the halting of arms sales had an immediate impact. India accepted the ceasefire on September 21 and Pakistan on September 22.

If Pakistan was in no hurry, then neither was India. Memorandum to US President Johnson, on 22nd September, 1965 illustrates Pakistan's position.

'Pakistan announced acceptance of the UN cease-fire proposal at a dramatic last-minute Security Council meeting last night. Pakistan Foreign Minister Bhutto announced Pakistani acceptance as the 3:00 AM UN deadline was reached. India had already accepted the UN proposal, but the Indian delegate to the UN asked that a new time be set for the cease-fire to become effective in the light of Pakistan's delay in announcing its position. The Security Council later announced that the deadline was extended 15 hours until 6:00 PM today.

USUN reported on this meeting in telegram 861, September 22. Bhutto said Pakistan was giving the UN a "last chance" to settle the Kashmir question and stated that Pakistan would withdraw from the organization if it does not do so.

Prior to Bhutto's announcement, the US Embassy in Karachi reported that Ayub would have trouble with Pakistani public opinion if a cease-fire was announced. The Embassy noted that to some extent Ayub is a prisoner of the propaganda carried in the controlled Pakistani press in the past several days, but added that public opinion in Pakistan is subject to rapid shifts in sentiment. President Ayub will address his nation sometime this morning.' [FRUS 1964-68, Vol. XXV, South Asia]​

Ayub was scared that accepting a cease fire without any definitive solution to Kashmir or at least a pretense of reaching a solution, would result in a severe domestic backlash. In Ayub's own words:

'How can I survive an action which will look to the people as if we are giving up on Kashmir, just to help the Indians, with justice for the Kashmiris within our grasp? After all the sacrifices that have been made, how can I explain a decision to throw it all away with nothing but another UN resolution to show them? The people would not understand.' [FRUS 1964-68, Vol. XXV, South Asia]​

India on the other hand was negotiating from a position of strength, with absolutely nothing to loose. Agreeing to cease fire with almost no demands, except of course that Pakistan must stop shooting, India was able to put the focus almost entirely on Pakistan.

The argument that the fact that India had accepted cease fire earlier than Pakistan is evidence of India's defeat is complete nonsense. By that logic India would be victorious in 1962, simply because the Chinese declared cease fire unilaterally, packed their bags and went back home.

 

[s6demon]

Here is the link for wiki
Indo-Pakistani War of 1965 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wiki is not a novel or imaginary story. It has links for the source from where it got. On any day I will take wiki then your words.

first of all, wrong person genius. its windjammer who you are trying to reply to.

secondly, i have updated wiki numerous times with correct information and indians have edited the page so much that hardly anything left on that page is the truth.

as i told your fellow contributors earlier. just search the page on wikiscanner and you will see that indians have changed the facts on that page constantly to make it fit their view of reality.

 

[s6demon]

Here is something from US Department of State, showing which side excepted ceasefire first, as you can see Pakistan was in no hurry.



After Pakistani troops invaded Kashmir, India moved quickly to internationalize the regional dispute. It asked the United Nations to reprise its role in the First India-Pakistan War and end the current conflict. The Security Council passed Resolution 211 on September 20 calling for an end to the fighting and negotiations on the settlement of the Kashmir problem, and the United States and the United Kingdom supported the UN decision by cutting off arms supplies to both belligerents. This ban affected both belligerents, but Pakistan felt the effects more keenly since it had a much weaker military in comparison to India. The UN resolution and the halting of arms sales had an immediate impact. India accepted the ceasefire on September 21 and Pakistan on September 22.

lol this will not fit with the distorted version of reality our Indian fellows believe in. prepare for some delta level whining.

 

[Windjammer]

lol this will not fit with the distorted version of reality our Indian fellows believe in. prepare for some delta level whining.

Victims of their own so called progressive and liberal media.
Then they have Bollywood churning out all mish mash to keep them amused.

 

[k_n]

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.

Neither the Pakistanis managed to flame a rebellion inside J & K nor the espionage operations by the 'mujahids' were anywhere near being destructive . Local support , was minimal and too scattered .

Indian response was to capture strategically important features , valleys/gullies and passes that will sever the lines of communications and seal the infiltration routes , A task IA accomplished putting the PA division deployed along the LOC under severe pressure that led to OP Grandslam .

How you manipulate the Pakistani objective of militarily wresting kashmir from India ( flaming rebellion leading to massive espionage that was suppose to lead to severing of communication links between the state of J & K and rest of India ) with the use of terms 'Covert' and 'Overt' is intriguing indeed . The 'Indian assaults' across were nothing but a well calculated and executed move to close the tap trickling the intruders inside J & K and ensuring the ones stuck inside are wiped off .

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

The critic above doesnt mention goof ups or myth creation with respect to operations in J & K . If you agree with him and with the Indian Official History , you'll accept the motive behind carrying out OP Grandslam and India's response as you agree with what these sources have to say about the Lahore and Sialkot front .

 

[k_n]

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.

Here , by putting a question and giving its answer yourself , you have given the Indian members interested in serious discussions on 65 war an insight into what most Pakistanis perceive as the Indian motive behind capture of territory across LOC .
You can clear the air by going through the Official History . Claim of WRESTING Pakistan Administered Kashmir is no where mentioned as IA's motive and is not backed up by the scale and type of operations taken up by IA across LOC .