The 1965 Indo-Pak war

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Off topic posts deleted - thread is about 1965 war.

 

[paritosh]

well..i'd say we'd won cus it was a planned invasion by the pakistani army...and it ended in a stale-mate...it would have been called if paksitan would have achieved the goal of freeing kashmir or annexing some significant area...
we won cus we repulsed the attack...it depends upon how you want to define 'victory'...

 

[Cockpuncher]

Here it says "After Pakistan's loss in the 1965 war against India"
Pakistan (03/09)

It also seems that Pak tried to hide something
Gulfnews: Army attemps to prevent book sales

 

[Hellfire]

Sir Creek is another disputed territory between Pakistan and India and still hasn't been resolved for about 62 years now.

OP Grandslam was used on another disputed territory Kashmir again hasn't been resolved for about 62 years now.

Are Lahore and Sialkot disputed territories that where invaded by Indians in 1965 by crossing INTERNATIONAL BORDERS.

Everyone in the world agrees, including India, that Lahore and Sialkot are part of Pakistan and still India decided to invade these areas in 1965.

Everyone in the world recognizes Sir Creek and Kashmir as disputed territories between Pakistan and India that hasn't been resolved for 62 years now.

Omar

Point was - you got kicked ... irrespective of what you claim

ANY NATION THAT POLITICALLY CONCEEDS DEFEAT IS DEFEATED

Irrespective of militarily you may hold territory but if you fail to achieve your political objectives (a necessary instrument deciding military usage) you have lost. So you lost.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Omar

Point was - you got kicked ... irrespective of what you claim

ANY NATION THAT POLITICALLY CONCEEDS DEFEAT IS DEFEATED

Irrespective of militarily you may hold territory but if you fail to achieve your political objectives (a necessary instrument deciding military usage) you have lost. So you lost.

Your objective was to gain control of all of J&K in 1948, and you failed.

Your objective against Op. Grandslam was achieved when the infiltrators were found out - India then launched a full fledged conventional war.

What were its objectives in launching that war? Have breakfast in Lahore? Well that didn't happen either, so you lost there as well.

Of course one could argue that in 1948 Pakistan's objective was to capture all of J&K, but that is not borne out by orders given to the PA that it had to fight defensively (see Shuja Nawaz's book - Crossed Swords).

That is why I see both wars as stalemates - there is no way to argue Indian victory in them without distorting events and taking a very pro-Indian subjective view. 1971 is the only war in which decisive victory was achieved by one side, and we know the exceptional circumstances in East Pakistan that allowed that to happen.

 

[Hellfire]

AgNoStIc MuSliM

Your objective was to gain control of all of J&K in 1948, and you failed.

Thanks due to Nehru's approach of legalising everything in UN. Something for you to read:

Wapedia - Wiki: Indo-Pakistani War of 1947

the then British born Chief of Independent Pakistan Forces refused direct orders of MA Jinnah to send troops across .... anyways we have had this topic across multiple threads .....


Your objective against Op. Grandslam was achieved when the infiltrators were found out - India then launched a full fledged conventional war.

The fight was limited to Kashmir (India just did not have the resources still due to lack of a military policy for over a decade under Nehru as proved by 1962 confrontation). It were the Pakistani forces which crossed into Akhnoor first spreading the conflict to Hindu-Sikh dominated Jammu region (instead of limiting as per their logic to the "legitimate demands" of muslim majority Kashmir valley) so the reply

Indo-Pakistan War of 1965

What were its objectives in launching that war? Have breakfast in Lahore? Well that didn't happen either, so you lost there as well.

Objective was to ease pressure on Indian forces in that area "chicken neck" of India ....... it was achieved remarkably ......

Of course one could argue that in 1948 Pakistan's objective was to capture all of J&K, but that is not borne out by orders given to the PA that it had to fight defensively (see Shuja Nawaz's book - Crossed Swords).

Quote an independent author please. I can quote many Indian authors who can argue that Indian position is justified .... against Pakistan but not China (that Chinese indeed have legitimate claims over Aksai Chin and Tawang) ...... infact if you want, can give you the whole history of inception of J&K and the problem b/w Pakistan and India and India and China .......!!!!


That is why I see both wars as stalemates - there is no way to argue Indian victory in them without distorting events and taking a very pro-Indian subjective view. 1971 is the only war in which decisive victory was achieved by one side, and we know the exceptional circumstances in East Pakistan that allowed that to happen

You can not deny that victory is determined by the political advantage gained. War afterall is an extension of state policy ...... while Russians suffered proportionally high casualties in their recent war in Georgia (in terms of ratio of standing armies), there is no denying the fact that Georgia lost the war ....... even though they withstood Russian pressure for a couple of days ......

Same ways multiple friends from Pakistan have championed their cause by saying this is a victory. It is not ..... am not claiming an Indian victory, but instead a Pakistani defeat as national/political objectives were not realised ......

In addition, while 1971 is defined as "cowardly act" by Indian Army deploying 10 divisions (how there were 10 divisions in that theater only those who claim it can tell I dont know of any such deployment) overwhelming the PA garrison for the country there .... they call it bravado ... dressing up as civillians to infilterate and fight as Kashmiris in J&K in 1965 Really not understood.

 

[Zob]

Secondly, PA has always miscalculated. When you start a mis adventure why lament on being an under dog ? Gibraltar was a mis calculated move akin to Kargil, did not cater for the reaction... No change in the approach of PA between ' 65 &'99.

lol well what can we do if we got a big bal*s

Capturing real estate in Raj is of no consequence as the land was defended thinly - of lack of hi value objectives to defend. In any case capturing anything across an IB has little relevance less in Punjab as they have to be returned.


Ok let me get this straight if we capture RAJHISTAN it is insignificant....but when you capture PUNJAB it is significant....?? my friend we entered KASHMIR your forces were reeling to release the pressure you openeed the PUNJAB front....inorder to counter attack we opened the RAJHISTAN sector along with naval bombardment of DWARKA!!


What matters is that were the objectives of going to war realised ?

my friend we wished to capture KASHMIR you wished to capture LAHORE....so now none of the aims were realized hence a stalemate....and given your sheer size that is poor showing for you my friend...its like GEORGIA defeating the RUSSIANS or the TAIWANIESE defeating the CHINESE!!

 

[third eye]

Secondly, PA has always miscalculated. When you start a mis adventure why lament on being an under dog ? Gibraltar was a mis calculated move akin to Kargil, did not cater for the reaction... No change in the approach of PA between ' 65 &'99.

lol well what can we do if we got a big bal*s

Thats the reason.. one cannot perform with hernia / hydocele !!

Capturing real estate in Raj is of no consequence as the land was defended thinly - of lack of hi value objectives to defend. In any case capturing anything across an IB has little relevance less in Punjab as they have to be returned.


Ok let me get this straight if we capture RAJHISTAN it is insignificant....but when you capture PUNJAB it is significant....?? my friend we entered KASHMIR your forces were reeling to release the pressure you openeed the PUNJAB front....inorder to counter attack we opened the RAJHISTAN sector along with naval bombardment of DWARKA!!

Punjab is Hi value while raj in '65 was not. In fact Raj only strains the attacker further due to increased logistics. Remember Longewalla - failed in '71 due to logistics & lack of air cover .

Attacking Raj did not necessitate diversion of Indian troops from anywhere as threatening Lahore did,

What matters is that were the objectives of going to war realised ?

my friend we wished to capture KASHMIR you wished to capture LAHORE....so now none of the aims were realized hence a stalemate....and given your sheer size that is poor showing for you my friend...its like GEORGIA defeating the RUSSIANS or the TAIWANIESE defeating the CHINESE!!

If we wished to capture Lahore, we would have attacked it ab initio as Pk did to J&K.

In any case what are we achieving TODAY by discussing what happened in 1965 ???

 

[Kasrkin]

It were the Pakistani forces which crossed into Akhnoor first spreading the conflict to Hindu-Sikh dominated Jammu region (instead of limiting as per their logic to the "legitimate demands" of muslim majority Kashmir valley) so the reply

Actually, there was much more to that invasion of Pakistani territory without a formal declaration of war. The Indian Army was ordered to eliminate the Pakistan Army as a threat once and for all, which is exactly what the Indian Army, armed with their new western weapons, intended to do after their humiliating defeats in the Rann of Kutch and 1962. Despite the initial surprise, the resistance mounted by Pakistani forces was beyond the expectations of all Indian and impartial observers. Outnumbered and outgunned, taken by surprise (Bhutto was ‘assuring’ the nation that India would not invade just a couple of days before the attack) the Pakistani garrisons had only started mustering when Indian tanks were crossing the border. Pakistan then went on not only to stall all Indian thrusts, inflicted heavily casualties on the attackers but also launched bold counterattacks deep into enemy territory. So no, you can’t refer to the Indian Army’s plans for Pakistan in 1965 to have been fruitful. Pakistan was not able to reclaim all of Kashmir, so we’re not claiming victory. But India wasn’t able to come anywhere near destroying Pakistan, so the more ambitious your plan, the greater your failure. You can’t use the failure of Op Grand Slam as ‘proof’ of victory for your severely thrashed and failed invasion groups down south against Pakistan proper. It was a draw, and that’s the honorable way of seeing it. If we have the decency to acknowledge your fighting ability and our own failures, then why can’t you?

Pakistanis have every reason to be proud of their fighting prowess. Indian forces were well trained, well equipped, well lead and extremely motivated (smarting from previous defeats) in the beginning of the war. Furthermore they had the element of surprise and an over-whelming numerical advantage. If that wasn’t enough, Pakistan was in for a rude awakening finding that its lifeline of military equipment and munitions was completely blocked by a trusted ally, while India’s supplies from the USSR were wide open. The fact that Pakistan survived at all, let alone fought such a powerful nation to strategic standstill is remarkable and speaks about the qualitative edge of our soldiery. And the contrast between our and the Arab performance in the 1967 War against a much lesser enemy two years later was shocking. It is not without reason that the Pakistanis are proud of their army; the fact that everything went wrong in 65 and we still endured is all the more proof of what Pakistan can achieve if its people are united.

The Pakistani heart land as never since been endangered like it had been in 1965. From then on every menacing Indian deployment along our border was met with equally forceful deterring maneuvers from our side. This has deterred many Indian invasion prospects in the past and reportedly deterred India from deploying its cumbersome formations after the Mumbai attacks.

Also Hellfire, you’re quoting Wikipedia which doesn’t speak highly of the sources you have to credit your opinion. No one posts hotly contested Wikipedia articles as ‘proof’ in an argument, that’s a basic online rule. Also, you’re asking for ‘independent sources’ when you haven’t even read the source AM referred to. Crossed Swords has been endorsed by renowned observers like Stephen P. Cohen, Owen Bennett-Jones and Barbara Crossette to name a few. So it’s much more authoritative than your ‘counter-proof’ Wikipedia articles to say the least.

You can not deny that victory is determined by the political advantage gained.

May I ask, to what ‘political advantage gained’ are you referring?

 

[Zob]

well we were sitting in AKHNUR....and in RAJHISTAN....now they are not strategically important for you...lol good one....and punjab is cuz that is the only place the indian army entered....and we shelled DWARKA and that i guess is also not strategically important....

if that is the case then i don't mind you believing you won....and as for LAHORE buddy we stopped you dead in your tracks in CHAWINDA....don't worry INDIA won WHATEVER makes you sleep at night....

 

[third eye]

well we were sitting in AKHNUR....and in RAJHISTAN....now they are not strategically important for you...lol good one....and punjab is cuz that is the only place the indian army entered....and we shelled DWARKA and that i guess is also not strategically important....

if that is the case then i don't mind you believing you won....and as for LAHORE buddy we stopped you dead in your tracks in CHAWINDA....don't worry INDIA won WHATEVER makes you sleep at night....

won't give up eh ?

This is 2009 & we are going into raptures discussing 1965 ???

 

[le_souriceau]

As neutral side I can say next:

Indo-Pakistani War of 1965 ended without a convincing victory for any side. But in India, and Pakistan government propaganda reported on the successful conclusion of war...

 

[Zob]

well friends i never started this debate so their is no question about me giving up.....you stop i stop simple....

 

[third eye]

well friends i never started this debate so their is no question about me giving up.....you stop i stop simple....

This is the root of the Indo - Pak problem.

... no one started it but every one wants to end it.

 

[Zob]

the root cause is that the BIGGER country wants to compete with the smaller one....why do you waste so much time trying to fight us spend it competing with CHINA.....but forget it let's not get into it...