The 1965 Indo-Pak war

[third eye]

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...

I don't think u have noticed..none of India's actions are Pak centric. They are focused on a " larger' pic.

Pk likes to feel it is otherwise. As rgds competing..where is the competition ?

 

[Zob]

I don't think u have noticed..none of India's actions are Pak centric. They are focused on a " larger' pic.

Pk likes to feel it is otherwise. As rgds competing..where is the competition ?

yes like i said all indian forward airforce bases are located towards pakistan even your ARMY CHIEF came on tv and said we know about PAKISTAN's capabilites we have no idea about CHINESE...

all your wars except 62 have been with us....how can you possibly say your aims are not pakistan centric....

 

[Hellfire]

Kasrkin


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.

Totally far from truth. IA was in no shape to fight as the 50s neglect (due to Nehru's belief that India only needed police) saw India ill prepared on Chinese border as also to fight Pakistan till finish (which was incidentally receiving tremendous equipment supply as part of CENTO from US, CENTO members & Co.) So your contention does not hold. Yes Rann of Kucch was humiliation .... the Sikh troops deployed were shitting en-masse (thinking there are no Pakistani forces in region) when the PA and Rangers took them on at 4 am .... who the hell sleeps at that time? Bloody humiliation I agree!!!! and Hilarious!


Despite the initial surprise, the resistance mounted by Pakistani forces was beyond the expectations of all Indian and impartial observers.

You have thoroughly managed to change and modify history here sir. Pakistan launched Op. Grandslam thinking there shall be a mass insurrection in Kashmir and infact it were the Kashmiris who gave away their presence in the valley to Indian army. So any general is not naive enough to plan such a large scale operation without expecting an attack.

Points to note:

1. Pakistani assesment was that post-1962 debacle India was in no position to match the better equipped and prepared troops of PA which were high on moral vis-a-vis Indian troops who had suffered a humiliation in Sino-Indian war.

2. Lal Bahadur Shastri was taken to be weakling in shadow of Nehru, and as such was not expected to be able to command the respect of world leaders, as such Pakistan with its CENTO membership had excellent relations with US and Co. So diplomatically Pakistan could get enough time to wrest Kashmir.

3. PA Generals and Bhutto forced Ayub Khan to toe their line literally calling him a chicken out to save his new found power and riches. He never wanted to engage in a conflict.

4. India was in dire straits. And it was on the imminent positioning of 3 JAT across Icchogil Canal (irrespective of what you all might denounce) and troops from IA getting a stronger hold for second time to build a bridgehead across icchogil to eventually take on Lahore, that forced Pakistan to use its excellent relationship with US to force a peace (the famous incident where the PM of India was reportedly threatened by US and USSR both) ....

So it was infact a military plan that backfired on you.


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.

Told you, PA never expected India to be able to fight back post-1962 debacle. A gross miscalculation by military commanders. Its not because India was attacker here, but you never expected a response in first place!



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.

I never did say IA plans were successful, did I? Please do quote me where such insinuation has been done, I shall gladly clarify and rectify the same. I maintain you lost the war, not India won it! And your capital was threatened imminently, timely diplomatic intervention saved you .....!!!


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.

Can you give me any official directive given to IA to "destroy Pakistan"? My grandfather was commanding an infantry batallion and their mandate was to defend and hold ground. They simply didnt have resources to do even that had PA attacked en-force across LC in Poonch sector (instead of making meek attempts aimed to probe the defenses) also. So your contention is not true.


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?

For heavens sake I siad you lost the war, not we won it ... there is a difference .....

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.

all false .... rebutted earlier



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.


distorted history. USSR had mistrust of India (due to help given by US and Britain in '62) and thought NAM leanings were infact a guise for pro-west approach. In addition china was an ally till then and India was seen as fighting an ally. So you have grossly distorted history here ...... you actually have no idea of the situation faced by india that time.


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.

Pep talk I am sure meant to give succour to your troops who were promised breakfast at ramparts of red fort famously by Ayub Khan!!!!
what a rude awakening from the delusions given out by foolish generals to a proud army of professional soldiers ......!!!


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.

A tad too much here mate!!!

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.

I give easily accessible proofs. shall indeed read the book referred to .... i dont ever not read something that can be read sir ....... rest some contents i post can not and will not have any public domain proofs .... so cant help it .....!!!


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

Political advantage .... getting Kashmir ..... you failed in your basic objective ... so you lost ........ simple .... we didnt win ... but you sure lost ...

Indo-Pakistani War of 1965 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

again wiki ... but you can cross refer from the sources you have there listed ..... please

thanks

 

[third eye]

yes like i said all indian forward airforce bases are located towards pakistan even your ARMY CHIEF came on tv and said we know about PAKISTAN's capabilites we have no idea about CHINESE...

all your wars except 62 have been with us....how can you possibly say your aims are not pakistan centric....

There has been an unfortunate air crash of the IAF today, was it from an air base facing Pk ?

If you plan for the larger contender, the lesser ones get automatically caterd for...

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

There has been an unfortunate air crash of the IAF today, was it from an air base facing Pk ?

If you plan for the larger contender, the lesser ones get automatically caterd for...

Yes, but your 'planning for the larger contender' is rather ridiculous given that the larger proportion of your military resources are directed at Pakistan.

Its more a case of planning for the larger and smaller contender, but primarily deploying against the smaller contender.

Actions speak louder than words - so long as most of India's military resources are deployed against Pakistan, the reality remains that Pakistan is your largest concern and against which you constantly plan and evaluate.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Hellfire:

Your arguments are getting convoluted to the point where you are contradicting yourself:

"So any general is not naive enough to plan such a large scale operation without expecting an attack."

and later:

"Its not because India was attacker here, but you never expected a response in first place!"

You argue that Pakistan 'lost the 65 war' because it did not achieve its political objectives. The same argument could be made about India in the 1948 war, given that Pakistani operations were defensive. India did not brandish the Instrument of accession indicating ownership and put its forces in just so it could control two thirds of kashmir - it went in planning to occupy and control all of it.

As such India failed in its 'political objective' - so while Pakistan did not win the war in 1948, India 'sure as hell lost it'.

"The fight was limited to Kashmir"

How on earth was the fight limited to Kashmir when your general's were planning on having "breakfast in Lahore"?

The resulting defeat of that particular plan was, as you said, 'what a rude awakening from the delusions given out by foolish generals to a proud army of professional soldiers'

How is that not indicative of an offensive directive rather than defensive?

The problem with your posts is as Kasrskin correctly observed, a tendency to constantly disparage Pakistan and its armed forces, while coming up with every excuse in the book to explain away Indian failures. The Sikhs were 'shitting' and taken by surprise, it wasn't that the Pakistanis just fought better.

The IA was let down by Nehru in the UN, despite the fact that they had several months in which to overwhelm Pakistani defenses in 1948, and failed because of how the PA fought.

The IA was inadequately prepared and equipped in 1965, and not that the PA (depsite being taken by surprise) fought valiantly and defended its territory, despite being outnumbered.

Your disparaging remarks are not limited to historical discussions - you did much the same when talking about Pakistan's COIN efforts in Swat for example, and automatically assumed that the PA was blowing up towns and cities willy nilly.

I think there is a need on your part to recognize that the Pakistani Military, its generals, officers and soldiers, are a professional and competent institution who have largely done the best that could be done under the circumstances and limitations they have faced, as is the case with the Indian military.

 

[Kasrkin]

Sorry AM, I wrote this before you posted. I’d hate to delete it, but if hellfire continues then we’ll take it to another thread.

Totally far from truth. IA was in no shape to fight as the 50s neglect (due to Nehru's belief that India only needed police) saw India ill prepared on Chinese border as also to fight Pakistan till finish (which was incidentally receiving tremendous equipment supply as part of CENTO from US, CENTO members & Co.) So your contention does not hold. Yes Rann of Kucch was humiliation .... the Sikh troops deployed were shitting en-masse (thinking there are no Pakistani forces in region) when the PA and Rangers took them on at 4 am .... who the hell sleeps at that time? Bloody humiliation I agree!!!! and Hilarious!

That’s fairly odd, you start off your reply with 'totally far from the truth' but then what follows, your own words, don't disagree or clash with my words that you’re supposedly refuting. Yes those wars were humiliating, which was what I said. I wouldn't say that India was 'in no shape' to fight a war because India had been modernizing military at a faster rate than Pakistan in the 50s, but obviously there were significant shortcomings that were remedied by the time India tried to invade in 1965. The point is the Indian military was in a much better shape, which is something you obviously agree with.

You have thoroughly managed to change and modify history here sir. Pakistan launched Op. Grandslam thinking there shall be a mass insurrection in Kashmir and infact it were the Kashmiris who gave away their presence in the valley to Indian army. So any general is not naive enough to plan such a large scale operation without expecting an attack.

Again, my words and your contentions do not clash. It was indeed Pakistan's mistake in thinking that the Kashmiris were ready for liberation. It would take decades of Indian suppression and neglect before they would turn to Pakistan in the hopes of intervention. Yes, it was the Kashmiris themselves who failed act as hoped by Pakistan and identified the infiltrators themselves.

Was the political and military leadership naïve in not informing the formation commanders of the situation? Yes I believe so. This was an inexcusable mistake that cost Pakistan dearly, but without the benefit of hindsight it is understandable to an extent. GHQ did not appreciate the extent to which the Indians were itching to have a go at the PA, and thus expected that the Indians would prefer to keep the conflict localized. Kashmir was (and is) Disputed Territory and not a sovereign part of India or Pakistan, thus it was supposed that skirmishes in Kashmir would not immediately result it hostilities across the international border (it didn’t happen during the First Kashmir War). Secondly, it was also expected that an escalation that might lead to full scale conflict would take time to development, with clear diplomatic signals emulating from Delhi giving the Pakistani Army plenty of time to deploy. This obviously did not happen, and without a formal declaration of war or fair warning tens of thousands of Indian troops and armor launched themselves at Pakistan. Thirdly, Pakistan’s foreign minister at the time, Z.A. Bhutto was blustering hawk who proved utterly incapable of managing or monitoring the political situation next door. He did everything in his power to convince important figures and the nation at large that there was no danger. Lastly, the very nature of operation Grand Slam required a level of confidentiality which meant that the formation commanders, the military at large and civil population could not be told of the course being pursued and the risks (no matter how remote at first) involved.

A lot of mistakes and miscalculations all round, and ultimately the responsibility lay with Ayub Khan (who hired advisors like Bhutto). But these were the facts and Pakistan was unprepared. Even the Lahore Garrison commander was caught completely off guard.

4. India was in dire straits. And it was on the imminent positioning of 3 JAT across Icchogil Canal (irrespective of what you all might denounce) and troops from IA getting a stronger hold for second time to build a bridgehead across icchogil to eventually take on Lahore, that forced Pakistan to use its excellent relationship with US to force a peace (the famous incident where the PM of India was reportedly threatened by US and USSR both) ....

That is nonsensical BS. The Indian Army Chief recommended the cease fire, the ceasefire was not ‘imposed’ on India. You’re not Israel, let’s stick to fact not fiction here shall we. By this time all Indian attempts at Lahore (and elsewhere) were exhausted. Now instead of going into a long description, I’ll save us all the time and ask you to demonstrate some credible proof regarding your imaginary claims. A lot of Pakistanis feel we could’ve taken on India too, and numerous Pakistani offensives were canceled as a direct result of American pressure. But since you’re so sure let’s see some impartial evidence…

I never did say IA plans were successful, did I? Please do quote me where such insinuation has been done, I shall gladly clarify and rectify the same. I maintain you lost the war, not India won it! And your capital was threatened imminently, timely diplomatic intervention saved you .....!!!

You’re arguing over lame semantics and I don’t see the point of your arguments. Fine, we both lost the war. Happy? Call it whatever you want, but the most impartial way to put it is to call it a draw.

Can you give me any official directive given to IA to "destroy Pakistan"? My grandfather was commanding an infantry batallion and their mandate was to defend and hold ground. They simply didnt have resources to do even that had PA attacked en-force across LC in Poonch sector (instead of making meek attempts aimed to probe the defenses) also. So your contention is not true.

I can’t give you an official directive, but I can quote to you Brian Cloughley’s book History of the Pakistan Army which has been endorsed by an Indian Army chief. Destroying the Pakistan Army as a fighting force was the plan at the onset of the attack, as was the invasion of Lahore. As the fighting dragged on and hastily build Pakistani defenses didn’t give way, soaking up India resources and men, I’d presume Indian war-aims became considerably more modest. Cloughley clearly states “Although India’s immediate concern was to prevent Pakistan severing the link with the north, the aim of the their advance into ‘West’ Punjab was clear: to defeat the Pakistani Army”. There is more, but I don’t feel like quoting it. You best read the book.

distorted history. USSR had mistrust of India (due to help given by US and Britain in '62) and thought NAM leanings were infact a guise for pro-west approach.

Actually, the NAM has historically been considered pro-Soviet as opposed to pro-western. Their 'anti-Imperialism' leanings were routinely exploited by the USSR in the UN. So no, the Soviet supplies and spares were wide open to India.

Political advantage .... getting Kashmir ..... you failed in your basic objective ... so you lost ........ simple .... we didnt win ... but you sure lost ...

No we didn’t get Kashmir, but you didn’t get Punjab either. Punjab is larger and you expended more lives and resources in the hopes of battering the Pakistan Army into submission there and acquiring the latter. So yup it was a draw. But you can go ahead and believe what you want…

P.S. Impartial commentators observe that the reason Pakistan won the Rann of Kutch was because of superior tactics, and little else. You can believe it was because of 'bad luck', etc but then dont pretend you're not looking at things in a biased way.

 

[chindit]

lol quoting zaid hamid to prove pakistan won 65. ha ha ha ha ha

i can quote a dozen pakistani generals and air marshals to prove you guys were so close to disaster

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

lol quoting zaid hamid to prove pakistan won 65. ha ha ha ha ha

i can quote a dozen pakistani generals and air marshals to prove you guys were so close to disaster

Lets move away from feeding trolls on either side chest thumping about 'victory'.

And 'close' does not cut it - either we met disaster or didn't. We didn't, and neither did you.

 

[typewriter]

Lets move away from feeding trolls on either side chest thumping about 'victory'.

And 'close' does not cut it - either we met disaster or didn't. We didn't, and neither did you.

True, but I did read that if the stalemate had continued, then in the war of attrition India would have won because they had more munition & supplies (being larger of course), but their intelligence goofed up & reported that Pakistan had the longer fuse.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

True, but I did read that if the stalemate had continued, then in the war of attrition India would have won because they had more munition & supplies (being larger of course), but their intelligence goofed up & reported that Pakistan had the longer fuse.

Doesn't matter - the fact remains that 'close' is the same as 'did not happen'.

Bluffing the other side into blinking is also part of war.

You shouldn't have blinked - that's your failure, not ours.

 

[typewriter]

Doesn't matter - the fact remains that 'close' is the same as 'did not happen'.

Bluffing the other side into blinking is also part of war.

You shouldn't have blinked - that's your failure, not ours.

Yes, our intelligence is quite frankly, pathetic.

And the leadership at that time was nothing to write home about. Had it been Indira Gandhi, maybe it would have been better.

 

[third eye]

Yes, but your 'planning for the larger contender' is rather ridiculous given that the larger proportion of your military resources are directed at Pakistan.

Its more a case of planning for the larger and smaller contender, but primarily deploying against the smaller contender.

Actions speak louder than words - so long as most of India's military resources are deployed against Pakistan, the reality remains that Pakistan is your largest concern and against which you constantly plan and evaluate.

Logistics today allows rapid shifting from W to E & vice versa.

Pk's actions ( or lack of them) are the immediate threat. On the E, whats happens is only a talking war ( sometimes).

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

And the leadership at that time was nothing to write home about. Had it been Indira Gandhi, maybe it would have been better.

Its like saying I wish I could go to war with an Army that had Alexander the great, Genghis Khan, Sun Tzu, Julius Caesar, Salahadin as generals and leaders (all trained in modern warfare of course).

You fight with whatever you have and whomever you have.

Hindsight is 20/20 - there is a lot for Pakistanis to crib about as well, in terms of decision making by the political leadership, going all the way back to the 1948 war.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Pk's actions ( or lack of them) are the immediate threat.

In other words Pakistan is your largest concern at the moment, and therefore the concern that you plan for primarily, since you would be foolish planning for the 'smaller' and 'non-immediate threat' - hence all the rest of it about China being the primary concern is nothing but rhetoric.