What's new

Pakistan Army's Resistance in 1965 - Psychological Impact on IA brass.

oh dear lord, you attacked Lahore, an international boundary, while we attacked Kashmir which was LOC, now please i have no intention of getting into an argument, so you can have another defense day

Oh lord, how you mold the words. So, what do Pak excepts, that we sit back, and watch the Kashmir going in hand of Pak.

There is totally BS argument, that Pak didnt attack as it was Ceasefire Line. Dont expect from us that we dont cross international border if K attacked. K belongs to India, if that attacked, means it attack on India. Pak forced us to do that. Dont expect miracles.
 
.
Oh lord, how you mold the words. So, what do Pak excepts, that we sit back, and watch the Kashmir going in hand of Pak.

There is totally BS argument, that Pak didnt attack as it was Ceasefire Line. Dont expect from us that we dont cross international border if K attacked. K belongs to India, if that attacked, means it attack on India. Pak forced us to do that. Dont expect miracles.
Kashmir is a disputed territory it is not India's or never can be.... please don't exaggerate

I think what actually ended up happening in 1965 was the exact opposite in terms of psychology for IA than what is stated in this article.

These Pakistanis used to talk tough a lot, but IA realized in 1965 that Pakistani Army is all talk and no bite, and it gave them confidence to go ahead for an easy invasion of Pakistan to break them into 2 pieces.
IA realized there's no way to attack west Pakistan lets go to the weaker side.... and it was not IA it was Pakistan's political crises led it into division... please stop molding facts
 
Last edited:
.
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 –

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. 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" –

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", 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, 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 –

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,

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,

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 –

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 –

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" –

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.

  • In its October 1965 issue, the TIME magazine quoted a Western official assessing the consequences of the war —

Now it's apparent to everybody that India is going to emerge as an Asian power in its own right.

  • In his book "War in the modern world since 1815", noted war historian Jeremy Black said that —

though Pakistan "lost heavily" during the 1965 war, India's hasty decision to call for negotiations prevented further considerable damage to the Pakistan Armed Forces. He elaborates India's chief of army staff urged negotiations on the ground that they were running out ammunition and their number of tanks had become seriously depleted. In fact, the army had used less than 15% of its ammunition compared to Pakistan, which had consumed closer to 80 percent and India had double the number of serviceable tanks.

  • In his book "Mainsprings of Indian and Pakistani foreign policies", S.M. Burke writes —

After the Indo-Pakistani war of 1965 the balance of military power had decisively shifted in favor of India. Pakistan had found it difficult to replace the heavy equipment lost during that conflict while her adversary, despite her economic and political problems, had been determinedly building up her strength.

  • Rasul Bux Rais, a Pakistani political analyst wrote –

The 1965 war with India proved that Pakistan could neither break the formidable Indian defenses in a blitzkrieg fashion nor could she sustain an all-out conflict for long.
 
.
.

Open fact is that we still own J&K, people of J&K using Passport of "Republic of India", every time you tried to capture it just faced humiliation nothing else, undisputed victory is something like Naval war of 71 where we destroyed you entire Naval installation in Karachi and you watched is as a sitting duck. Not when you attack cowardly Indian air fields without declaration of war in 65.




So just by converting your religion from Hinduism you became mard e memon ???
why should we bother capturing kashmir when you guys are doing a fine job of developing it for us and preventing non muslims from settling there


you guys are doing what we would have done if kashmir became part of us


:haha::laugh::dance3:
 
.
Kashmir is a disputed territory it is not India's or never can be.... please don't exaggerate


IA realized there's no way to attack west Pakistan lets go to the weaker side.... and it was not IA it was Pakistan's political crises led it into division... please stop molding facts
its your thinking. And you can think what ever you want.
 
.
Sometime i feel very sorry for indians when they want to justify there failure in 65 for 71.

The Part is that Delhi is far deeper into india than Lahore within the border with India.India might have reached parts of lahore as lahore along with the border with india.
 
.
Thread title changed. Please avoid misleading and sensational titles. Thanks.

People better refrain from trolling. I shall be watching this thread.

There's nothing misleading in the title. Please read it to see it's a direct quote from an Indian's insider account of what was going on from the Indian Defense Minister's perspective.
 
.
Sometime i feel very sorry for indians when they want to justify there failure in 65 for 71.

The Part is that Delhi is far deeper into india than Lahore within the border with India.India might have reached parts of lahore as lahore along with the border with india.
I want to ask a question, For reaching delhi, One need to conquer Punjab and then Haryana or other solution is first Rajasthan and then Haryana, Your army didnt even able to conquer Amritsar. and you talking about Delhi.
 
.
There's nothing misleading in the title. Please read it to see it's a direct quote from an Indian's insider account of what was going on from the Indian Defense Minister's perspective.

I am sorry sir, I just have to disagree with you here. Even if an Indian Defense Minister said that Pakistanis could have traveled to Delhi, if they had broken through Indian defenses on banks of River Beas, that was still a speculation about a hypothetical scenario. We can not make thread titles about speculations on top of hypothetical scenarios especially when the body of the text is vastly different. Such Titles make for massive trolling and headaches.
 
.
It was an epic defeat of IA. An Army which was 4 times larger than Pakistan Army - Better fed, better equipment , larger navy and larger Air Force and yet they had to sign a cease fire as they were getting their A$$ kicked by a much smaller Army.
 
.
There's nothing misleading in the title. Please read it to see it's a direct quote from an Indian's insider account of what was going on from the Indian Defense Minister's perspective.

Chak Bamu here is a PML-N apologist , they all have a very identifiable diseased mindset
 
.
Oh lord, how you mold the words. So, what do Pak excepts, that we sit back, and watch the Kashmir going in hand of Pak.

There is totally BS argument, that Pak didnt attack as it was Ceasefire Line. Dont expect from us that we dont cross international border if K attacked. K belongs to India, if that attacked, means it attack on India. Pak forced us to do that. Dont expect miracles.
dude attacking LOC is different than attacking an International border, in LOC when u grab land, its yours to keep, but at international borders, you have to most probably give it back, so dont start your excuses we attacked LOC, you attacked International border in hope that there will be no one there and you would capture an important city, but unfortunately you were sent hurling back, and we are where we were 68 years before, and so are you, so thats why it was a successful defense by our side, and you can celebrate your day some other day, you can celebrate it for 1971 k?
 
.
We adapted a superior civilizational existence...a superior ideology...and left our barbarian ways behind.


" Aap ki sari tarikh dekho, Eak dusro khi gardhano kaatne per mushtamil hai." This is what your own Hassan Nisar sir has said about your tarikh.
 
.
It was an epic defeat of IA. An Army which was 4 times larger than Pakistan Army - Better fed, better equipment , larger navy and larger Air Force and yet they had to sign a cease fire as they were getting their A$$ kicked by a much smaller Army.
 
.
Wonderful post on Pakistan's proud victory supported by citations, by both eye witnesses of opponent & neutral sources. I appreciate hard work in organizing and presenting this account as it's very useful for naive people (in terms of military knowledge) eager to know about 1965. It was no doubt a shameful defeat to Indian Army which largely underestimated power of Pakistan's forces - as evident from famous saying "We will be having our tea in Lahore tomorrow morning". In fact, Pakistan's military, intelligence agencies and Nuclear power are such strengths that our enemies, specially India, can never digest. I believe that for a country like Pakistan having these powers are miraculous signs that Allah will always guard this country and nation from all evils.

Indian desperation about their defeat is clear from the posts digressing discussion to Kashmir, can any superseding event match or undo such an ignominious defeat? No.

However, besides signifying the glory of past we Pakistanis, specially youth like me, must work hard and build this Nation to the dream of Jinnah.

Long live Pakistan.
 
.
Back
Top Bottom