Top Indian Myths about Pakistan!

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Your entire story is that "I said they are all myths" and you now have to prove that they are true. Any evidence that anyone else gives is "tangential" and then you go about delete posts by posters calling them "off topic" as you did to Fatehs posts.

You provided no links, no studies - nothing except your views. Great argument that!!! Your claims are NOT evidence unless you are god. Neither is threads on PDF evidence - they do not represent anything except claims by random posters who claim to be Indian or Pakistani. The least you can consider evidence is a survey result or a study (both of which I have provided).

There is no point to this thread anymore.

Oh no - these Myth's are assertions by Indians, I am merely pointing out that they are incorrect assertions with examples. It is the job of the individual making those original assertions (Myths) to validate their position, and one way to do that would be to debunk the examples/arguments I presented to debunk them.

For example you could argue that India did not support insurgents in East Pakistan, or did not invade Siachen, or did not support the LTTE, or did not support the Baluch insurgency. I argued with PI on those issues after all.

You are choosing to focus on the last issue, and I have no qualms about discussing that either.

But if you wish to walk away with your prejudices and Myths intact, that is your choice.

 

[Lockheed F-16]

Those myths have been claimed by Indians who don't have any proof either and just gave their opinion! Your state always pointed finger on us without any proof. And AM is just answering ur claims and ur asking for proof?! That is pathetic and low life. In fact India is conducting undercover missions in PAK and there is proof. You don't even get proof and blame!

 

[Skeptic]

Myth 1.
Pakistan lost all 3 wars with India.

Pakistan and India have fought 3 wars - 1948, 1965 and 1971.

Barring 1971 (which occurred while a civil war, assisted by India, was raging in East Pakistan), no war has resulted in a decisive 'victory' for either side.

Myth 2.
Pakistan fights through proxies

Well, this is true. Pakistan has supported Kashmiri Freedom fighters in Indian Occupied Kashmir, and did support the Mujahideen (with US and Saudi support) and later the Taliban.

However, this allegation by Indians completely overlooks India's own long association with proxy groups.

1. Supported proxies that destabilized East Pakistan for many years leading into 1971
2. Supported the LTTE (Tamil Tigers) - a terrorist organization in Sri Lanka
3. Supported the Northern Alliance - a group of warlords and criminals in Afghanistan
4. Supported Baluch insurgents in Pakistan

Myth 3.
India has never committed aggression against Pakistan, or any other country.
This is clearly not the case as seen below

1. Support for insurgents in East Pakistan leding into 1971 and the ensuing war
2. Support for the LTTE (a terrorist organization in Sri Lanka) against the Sri Lankan State
3. The invasion of Siachen in 1984 in clear violation of the Simla Accord
4. Support for the Baluch insurgency

Myth 4.
Pakistan spends 70% (or more, depending upon the Indian) of its budget on Defense.

Pakistan's defence budget for 2009 was about 4.4 billion USD. With a GDP of about 160 billion USD and a budget of 33 billion USD, that works out to be about 2.75% of GDP and 13.3% of the total budget.
PAKISTAN'S TOTAL OUTLAY IN 2007-08 BUDGET TO BE ABOUT US$33 BLN. | Goliath Business News

This compares with an Indian defence budget of about 26 billion that is 14.4% of the total budget and about 2.3% - so what's the big deal with Pakistan's defence budget?

Myth 5.
Pakistani politics is dominated by Kashmir

This argument goes along the lines of 'the Army/leadership makes sure that the only thing Pakistanis are aware of is Kashmir, and in this way distracts them from socio-economic issues and avoids investing in development'.

No doubt most Pakistanis are aware of Kashmir, but the fact that we have cutthroat national politics, with political parties that have significant ideological differences, it is absurd to suggest that the only issue mentioned during stump speeches is 'Kashmir'.

Most of the PR and advertisements run by Pakistani political parties in fact focus on providing development and bringing about prosperity, not Kashmir. Most politicians talk about providing, jobs, investment etc. and most Pakistanis vote on that basis - even when voting on biraadri lines since they believe 'their guy' will provide them with economic opportunity/favors.

The political process in Pakistan remains largely driven by issues that are important to most people elsewhere in the world - jobs, inflation, development etc.

----------------------

Feel free to offer suggestions on changes, additions, improvements and I'll incorporate them if I think they are appropriate.

First of all I do not think you really have any intentions of changing any of these and as depicted, and while it is your call to call that a myth id "Debunked" or not, I don't think it provides a level playing field. This is my take on AM idividually as a poster and not as a moderator.

My second issue is with the language used to describe the (so called) myths which appears to be rather vague. Like "Decisive Victory" in the first point and "committing aggression" in the third point.

Here is my take on these issues:

1. If Pakistan was the aggressor and India was able to ward off the aggressor I do think it counts as a victory. If Kargil can be considered as victory by India, where again all they did was to ward off the aggressor of their previously owned territory. Wit same logic applied India was the victorious party in 965 when India foiled "Operation Grand Slam" of Pakistan and in 1947, Pakistan had control of a major portion of Kashmir before India started its operation. End result India had a larger portion of the valley under its control than Pakistan so that would be a victory.
So all in all 1947 - Partial victory (Capturing larger area)
1965 - Victory -Pakistan could not gain any territory in the end.
Supporting link for 1965: PAKISTAN'S ASSERTIVE REGIONAL STRATEGY -- [FROM THE TASK FORCE ON TERRORISM AND UNCONVENTIONAL WARFARE, HOUSE REPUBLICAN RESEARCH COMMITTEE, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, WASHINGTON, DC, AUG. 24, 1994] (Extension of Remarks - September 12, 1994)
Pakistan (03/09)
Pakistan Link - Letter & Opinion
All are Neutral Links.

2. Pakistan does get involved in war through proxy. Kargil will forever remain as one of the the best example of the same. Accepted by AM that it does.

3. Again this is a very vague term used. It does not differentiate between retaliation of aggression and being instigator of aggression. Also does not differentiate between launching an armed military offensive and supporting a group of insurgents. The common view in India is that India is not Instigator of aggression.

a) 1971 was again a retaliation based upon millions of refugees in India which was a kind of economic and social attack on India and only way to prevent that was by the action of Indian Army in 1971

b) LTTE can not be part of Indian Myth about Pakistan anyways. So out of the scope of Topic.

c) Siachin was not a "Clear Violation" of Simla accord. At the most you can say it was twisting the terms of Simla accord in a favorable manner. At the most you can call it unethical but not capturing enemy territory.

d) No concrete support for Baluch insurgents have been established and even if they are it can again be termed as retaliatory rather than instigation.

4. Atleast I dont think so. Yes it is perceived that Pakistan has focused more on Army's development rather than economic. Apperantly, there are no world renouned Pakistani company of International stature (Public or Private) whereas Army would probably be in the top ten list of the world.

5. Whether Pakistani politics revolves around Kashmir or not can be hard to determine. Yes the perception is that Kashmir issue is more central to Pakistani Politics compared to Indian Politics.

Sorry for being late to join. I hope you will honour the comments with an answer / Rebuttal.

PS. I have no intention of doubting your credibility but its just Human to give more weightage to your personal argument. These will best be judged by a neutral party whether the claims are debunked or not. In the end I would say that you have not achieved a decisive victory" in this debate.

 

[Skeptic]

This is How I would list the MYTHS in Indian minds:

1. India has never lost a War with Pakistan

2. Pakistan fights through proxies

3. India has not launched a Milletary offencive unless provoked.

4. Pakistan focuses more on the development of Army than of Civic aminities

5. Kashmir issue is more central to Pakistani Politics than India.

Debunk these Myths if you really want to be a myth buster and they actually are Myths. Myths about Pakistan are anyways better quoted by an Indian than a Pakistani.

 

[wtf]

Oh no - these Myth's are assertions by Indians, I am merely pointing out that they are incorrect assertions with examples. It is the job of the individual making those original assertions (Myths) to validate their position, and one way to do that would be to debunk the examples/arguments I presented to debunk them.

For example you could argue that India did not support insurgents in East Pakistan, or did not invade Siachen, or did not support the LTTE, or did not support the Baluch insurgency. I argued with PI on those issues after all.

You are choosing to focus on the last issue, and I have no qualms about discussing that either.

But if you wish to walk away with your prejudices and Myths intact, that is your choice.

At this point we (at least I) should end the main discussion.

Let's move on to the meta discussion. The claims about Myths in India are not really true. Since I do not agree with all of what you called "Indian" beliefs, there is no point arguing. My views are closer to what Skeptic posted.

What you are doing is also pretty close to a straw-man argument. You set up some claims and call it the "Indian" myth. We could have avoided this whole thread if you had just said "some things that I have heard some Indians say" or "things I think are Indian myths" and then said why those posters are wrong.

You'll need to track down the original posters and ask them to demolish your claims. Most likely they are genuine haters who are posting only for the fun of riling others up and they are unlikely to spend time researching anything, let alone prove anything by providing links or data.

Another reason I have to stop arguing is the effort it takes to search up published papers or old news articles. I have access to a pretty good online library, but it takes hours to get at a study on Indo-Pak issues. If all that effort is being responded with more assertions ( not even newspaper links) what is the point? Where do I have the opportunity to learn anything from the discussion? And seems like most others don't care either.

Since you are also a moderator for the forum, one thing you might want to remember is the trade-off between popularity and influence.A borderline troll (like whoever made these assertions ) might very well get people to respond and make the forum more lively. But on the other hand if you respond to such provocation in kind (by making further assertions without data), the whole forum deteriorates into a social discussion forum with posters arguing endlessly. It does not make sense (in my opinion) for a defence forum to do that. Maybe a forum called "Indo-Pak Argument Forum".

 

[wtf]

Those myths have been claimed by Indians who don't have any proof either and just gave their opinion! Your state always pointed finger on us without any proof. And AM is just answering ur claims and ur asking for proof?! That is pathetic and low life. In fact India is conducting undercover missions in PAK and there is proof. You don't even get proof and blame!

Maaf karna bhai. Jisne bhi aap ko itna gussa kia, uske lie main aapse maafi mangta hun. Agar mujhse koi gustakhi hui, to maaf ho.

 

[Khajur]

This is How I would list the MYTHS in Indian minds:

1. India has never lost a War with Pakistan

2. Pakistan fights through proxies

3. India has not launched a Milletary offencive unless provoked.

4. Pakistan focuses more on the development of Army than of Civic aminities

5. Kashmir issue is more central to Pakistani Politics than India.

Debunk these Myths if you really want to be a myth buster and they actually are Myths. Myths about Pakistan are anyways better quoted by an Indian than a Pakistani.

or we can say the the facts in indian minds.

 

[Khajur]

"Myth 1.
Pakistan lost all 3 wars with India.

Pakistan and India have fought 3 wars - 1948, 1965 and 1971.

Barring 1971 (which occurred while a civil war, assisted by India, was raging in East Pakistan), no war has resulted in a decisive 'victory' for either side."



In all wars of 47,65,99 we had been able to defend kashmir by thwarting pakistani aggression which were waged with the purpose of annexing kashmir militarily from india.

If they weren't victories and had india not been able defend itself,Kashmir would have been part of Pakistan by now.so indian victories of 47, arent any myths.They are as real as it could get.

Interestingly,the battle of lahore in 1965 where pakistan managed to block indian invasion of pakistani punjab is regarded as a military victory and even celebrating September 6 as Defence Day each year.

In the same logic,we too celebrate the defence of kashmir as battle victories, whose capture were main of objective of each pakistani aggressions.


Yes,71 war was different case.It was a civil war, assisted by India.But the fact remains that pakistan army in then east pakistan surrendered to indian army only after a fierce fight.And they laid down their arms in front of indian army not mukhti bahini rebels.Infact without direct indian military intervention,pakistan army would have been able to crush mukhti bahini rebels soon than later just like Srilankan army has defeated LTTE rebels after yrs of fightings.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

This is How I would list the MYTHS in Indian minds:

1. India has never lost a War with Pakistan

2. Pakistan fights through proxies

3. India has not launched a Milletary offencive unless provoked.

4. Pakistan focuses more on the development of Army than of Civic aminities

5. Kashmir issue is more central to Pakistani Politics than India.

Debunk these Myths if you really want to be a myth buster and they actually are Myths. Myths about Pakistan are anyways better quoted by an Indian than a Pakistani.

I can only narrate myths the way I have heard them, and that is how I have presented them and debunked them.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

First of all I do not think you really have any intentions of changing any of these and as depicted, and while it is your call to call that a myth id "Debunked" or not, I don't think it provides a level playing field. This is my take on AM idividually as a poster and not as a moderator.

My second issue is with the language used to describe the (so called) myths which appears to be rather vague. Like "Decisive Victory" in the first point and "committing aggression" in the third point.

Again, I can only describe Myths as I have heard them stated by Indians, that does not mean that all Indians would articulate them te same way, but the way I described them is pretty much exactly how I have come across them - so the 'language' of the myths is accurate. You may be among those who do not subscribe to the myths mentioned, and good for you.

1. If Pakistan was the aggressor and India was able to ward off the aggressor I do think it counts as a victory. If Kargil can be considered as victory by India, where again all they did was to ward off the aggressor of their previously owned territory. Wit same logic applied India was the victorious party in 965 when India foiled "Operation Grand Slam" of Pakistan and in 1947, Pakistan had control of a major portion of Kashmir before India started its operation. End result India had a larger portion of the valley under its control than Pakistan so that would be a victory.
So all in all 1947 - Partial victory (Capturing larger area)
1965 - Victory -Pakistan could not gain any territory in the end.
Supporting link for 1965: PAKISTAN'S ASSERTIVE REGIONAL STRATEGY -- [FROM THE TASK FORCE ON TERRORISM AND UNCONVENTIONAL WARFARE, HOUSE REPUBLICAN RESEARCH COMMITTEE, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, WASHINGTON, DC, AUG. 24, 1994] (Extension of Remarks - September 12, 1994)
Pakistan (03/09)
Pakistan Link - Letter & Opinion
All are Neutral Links.

Good try but no cigar - Sam Manekshaw and I Gandhi's quotes indicate that India was invovled in destabilizing Pakistan long before 1971 and the refugee crises - this issue is also discussed in Ashok Rainia's (name is possibly misspelled) book on RAW.

On 1965 I see that you continue to cling to the myth that India won. The sources you mentioned merely offer passing mention of the 1965 war. There is no argument given as to how that determination was arrived at. Given that neither India nor Pakistan were able to wrest large parts of territory from each other, I fail to see how any of those sites could argue victory in favor of India.

So there remains no evidence that India was able to achieve victory in 1948 or 1965.

2. Pakistan does get involved in war through proxy. Kargil will forever remain as one of the the best example of the same. Accepted by AM that it does.

So long as we also accept that India has acted through proxies several times as well - East Pakistan, Northern Alliance, LTTE, BLA

3. Again this is a very vague term used. It does not differentiate between retaliation of aggression and being instigator of aggression. Also does not differentiate between launching an armed military offensive and supporting a group of insurgents. The common view in India is that India is not Instigator of aggression.

a) 1971 was again a retaliation based upon millions of refugees in India which was a kind of economic and social attack on India and only way to prevent that was by the action of Indian Army in 1971

b) LTTE can not be part of Indian Myth about Pakistan anyways. So out of the scope of Topic.

c) Siachin was not a "Clear Violation" of Simla accord. At the most you can say it was twisting the terms of Simla accord in a favorable manner. At the most you can call it unethical but not capturing enemy territory.

d) No concrete support for Baluch insurgents have been established and even if they are it can again be termed as retaliatory rather than instigation.

The instances I mentioned are clearly unprovoked acts of aggression by India - though in India Pakistan discussions 'provocation' tends to become very subjective and prone to biased claims and distortions, such as yours about East Pakistan.

a) As I mentioned above, Indian support for insurgents in East Pakistan preceded the events of 1971 by quite a few years, so the refugee situation cannot be claimed as justification.

b) It is not technically a part of a 'Pakistani myth', but since the myth about 'peaceful India' goes hand in hand with the myth about 'no aggression against Pakistan', it is relevant in establishing that India has engaged in unprovoked aggression against Pakistan and other neighbors.

c) The Siachen invasion by India was a very clear violation of the Simla accord and an unprovoked act of aggression since it militarily altered the status quo and sought to gain a territorial advantage in disputed territory. You cannot justify the Siachen invasion as 'non-aggression' without also justifying any other conflict over Kashmir as 'non aggression', in which case Operation Gibraltar and Kargil were not acts of aggression either, and that leaves India as the sole 'aggressor' through its actions in 1971.

4) The argument of support for the Baluch insurgency as being 'retaliatory' is subject to debate, and would depend upon how far back in history you want to go and what counts as a 'provocation' for either side - given that Baluchistan is sovereign Pakistani territory, as was East Pakistan and as was Sindh, support for the Baluch insurgency (whether it exists now or not is another matter) is unprovoked aggression.

4. Atleast I dont think so. Yes it is perceived that Pakistan has focused more on Army's development rather than economic. Apperantly, there are no world renouned Pakistani company of International stature (Public or Private) whereas Army would probably be in the top ten list of the world.

There is only one myth here - that of Pakistan spending absurd amounts on its defence budget. Its not as frequently repeated as the other myths, but I do come across it quite often, sometimes even by ill informed anti-military Pakistanis!

If you don't think so, kudos to you again, you have broadened your horizons!

5. Whether Pakistani politics revolves around Kashmir or not can be hard to determine. Yes the perception is that Kashmir issue is more central to Pakistani Politics compared to Indian Politics.

The Kashmir issue is central to Pakistan's foreign policy and therefore does play an important role nationally in that it would be very hard for a political party to compromise on Kashmir - but how is that any different from India? A large part of the electorate in India won't allow any political party to compromise on the status quo Indian position either.

However, what I was getting at is this idea that Kashmir somehow prevents the Pakistani electorate from focusing on bread and butter issues - that is completely wrong, and as I mentioned, you just have to look at the manifestos and campaigns of the political parties to realize how heavily they focus on (largely empty) promises of development, accountability, jobs etc.

Were Kashmir to play the role that is suggested by some Indians, the only thing these parties would talk about is Kashmir!

 

[Skeptic]

Again, I can only describe Myths as I have heard them stated by Indians, that does not mean that all Indians would articulate them te same way, but the way I described them is pretty much exactly how I have come across them - so the 'language' of the myths is accurate. You may be among those who do not subscribe to the myths mentioned, and good for you.

What you have heard and exact terms were used can hardly be a topic of debate as it is your prerogative to describe what exactly have you heard. If its the feeling which guides these comments we are discussing then its a completely different issue. A twist of a few words can really change the orientation of point being mentioned. Maybe the posters were, a) ill informed b) feeling overwhelmingly patriotic talking to a Pakistani on Defence matters c) Both, to properly articulate their sentiments.

Good try but no cigar

I did not expect any. (already quoted the reason for same). Anyways, I dont smoke and my head is clear.

Sam Manekshaw and I Gandhi's quotes indicate that India was invovled in destabilizing Pakistan long before 1971 and the refugee crises - this issue is also discussed in Ashok Rainia's (name is possibly misspelled) book on RAW.

Hardly relevant for the first point of alleged myth. 1971 was an Indian Victory as you have already conceded.

On 1965 I see that you continue to cling to the myth that India won. The sources you mentioned merely offer passing mention of the 1965 war. There is no argument given as to how that determination was arrived at. Given that neither India nor Pakistan were able to wrest large parts of territory from each other, I fail to see how any of those sites could argue victory in favor of India.

So there remains no evidence that India was able to achieve victory in 1948 or 1965.

No Sir, that is exactly not the case. I am not cringing on to any myth, but basing the argument on reasoning clearly mentioned that Pakistan was aggressor in 1965 and India defended its territory. If you want to debate either of the two points, I am willing for a long argument.

Terming Pakistan's country Profile on US Dept. of State as a "passing comment" is hardly a healthy precedence you are setting for the junior members.

For 1947 War, Again Kashmir was not under undisputed control of India and neither of Pakistan. We fought a war and India held onto a larger portion of Kashmir than Pakistan. I will term that as a Partial Indian Victory. If you want to portray Pakistan winning the war, then you'll be authorizing the Instrument of Accession, hardly a price any Kashmir Loving Pakistani would pay to register a paper victory.

So long as we also accept that India has acted through proxies several times as well - East Pakistan, Northern Alliance, LTTE, BLA

Hardly the sound logic that you have resonated across this forum. Does Pakistan fight through Proxy?. Answer can be either Yes or No if you apply impartial and rational logic. Applying conditions is unnecessary.

in India Pakistan discussions 'provocation' tends to become very subjective and prone to biased claims and distortions

Thus your claim carry equal substance to the claim of any Indian poster on this issue. Hardly a strong "Debunk".

There is only one myth here - that of Pakistan spending absurd amounts on its defence budget. Its not as frequently repeated as the other myths, but I do come across it quite often, sometimes even by ill informed anti-military Pakistanis!

I don't think a developing nation of 170 Million can survive if such absurd amount (as mentioned in your first post) are being spent on defence. If this is what Indian's believe that such high percentages of budgets are devoted to Defence, then they have given up on their ability to reason.

The Kashmir issue is central to Pakistan's foreign policy and therefore does play an important role nationally in that it would be very hard for a political party to compromise on Kashmir - but how is that any different from India? A large part of the electorate in India won't allow any political party to compromise on the status quo Indian position either.

A very simple reply to this. I don't think Pakistani public is stupid.
They certainly have their priorities of regional and national issues and their is no denying the fact that elections are not won just over Kashmir.

The reason behind this perception can be the frequency of recital of Kashmir issue by Pakistani posters, although my logic says that it is simply because an Indian and a Pakistani are discussing defence related issues. If two Pakistanis were discussing politics among themselves I think Kashmir will certainly not be the first thing they would talk about.
It has also to do with the emphasis Pakistan gives to raising Kashmir on any international platform.

I hope I made the issues I had with the "articulation" or "Language" clear aplenty. If we are sticking to terms you mentioned this is my take on it.

 

[A1Kaid]

For 1947 War, Again Kashmir was not under undisputed control of India and neither of Pakistan. We fought a war and India held onto a larger portion of Kashmir than Pakistan. I will term that as a Partial Indian Victory. If you want to portray Pakistan winning the war, then you'll be authorizing the Instrument of Accession, hardly a price any Kashmir Loving Pakistani would pay to register a paper victory.

If you are open minded then I encourage you to look at the events of the 1947 War through this dimension.

When the Indian subcontinent was partitioned Pakistan was given fewer supplies and fighting men right from the beginning of the War. The Joint Defence Council formed by Lord. Mountbatten had formed an agreement to divide the British Raj or Indian subcontinent Armed forces. The agreement stated that the Indian armed forces and all military supplies and equipment will be divided with 64% of the portion given to India and 36% of the portion given to Pakistan. Also, Pakistan was given 9 "training establishments" and a few ordnance factories while India was given 17 training established and many more ordnance factories.

So when you analyze Pakistan's performance in the 1947 War take this unto consideration, because it is a critical part of the equation.



Please read below.

"On the eve of Partition in 1947, the figure had come down to about 11,800 officers, 450,000 other ranks plus about 50,000 of Indian Princely State Forces. It is noteworthy that at that time (as per policy of the British Raj since 1857) there were only two completely Muslim combat units (1/15 Punjab Regiment and 3/16 Punjab Regiment), although there were several completely Hindu and Sikh units and regiments of the combat arms. The original agreement called for the armed forces and other assets to be divided to the ration of 64% for India and 36% for Pakistan, but Pakistan was later forced to accept an 1/3 share of assets. Of the total 46 training establishments; only nine were located in Pakistan; all of the 17 Ordnance Depots were located in India, as were most of the Ordnance Depots and Engineer Store Depots. In addition to Pakistan receiving far less stores than originally stipulated, most of the stores received were of general nature, perishable, unwanted and obsolete."

Source: http://www.pakdef.info/pakmilitary/army/


If you want to limit your analysis to simple geography/ territory held/ and or captured then you may, but there are other complexities you ought to look at.

Also let's not forget this aspect. During the 1947 war, Pakistan gained Northern territories (Gilgit, Mirpur, Chitral and surrounding areas), what is now known as Azad Kashmir, and Aksai Chin which was ceded to China in 1963, the year after your humiliating defeat to China.

The total land mass that Pakistan possessed after 1947 by Pakistan according to my calculations & other sources is this.

Northern Areas = 72,496 km²

Azad Kashmir = 13,297 km²

Aksai Chin = 5,181 km²

72,496 km2 (N-Areas) + 13,297 km2 (A-Kashmir)+ 5,181 km2 (Aksai Chin)=

90,974 km2 (total Land mass held by Pakistan after 1947 War)

On the Indian side, the capture Jammu & Kashmir Valley and Eastern Portion of Kashmir, the total land mass of that equals roughly 101,387 km².

101,387 km2 - 90,974 km2= 10,413 km2


10,413 km2 is the territorial difference we are talking about, you had mentioned in your post that you consider this a "partial victory".

But when you had already been given 64% of the Armed force's soldiers', money, supplies, military resources--like ordnance factories, this marginal "victory" you claim is quite a disappointment.

Considering regular Pakistan Army soldiers were not so active in the initial phases of the War, and it was mostly local tribes (inc. Pakistani, Kashmiri, & Afghan Pathans) you were facing, and let's not forget the Gilgit Scouts. So earlier in the War IA was fighting unconventional fighting forces...


The fact that Pakistan managed to capture 90,974 km2 territory through the meager resources it had is an amazing victory.

 

[spsk]

If you are open minded then I encourage you to look at the events of the 1947 War through this dimension.

When the Indian subcontinent was partitioned Pakistan was given fewer supplies and fighting men right from the beginning of the War. The Joint Defence Council formed by Lord. Mountbatten had formed an agreement to divide the British Raj or Indian subcontinent Armed forces. The agreement stated that the Indian armed forces and all military supplies and equipment will be divided with 64% of the portion given to India and 36% of the portion given to Pakistan. Also, Pakistan was given 9 "training establishments" and a few ordnance factories while India was given 17 training established and many more ordnance factories.

So when you analyze Pakistan's performance in the 1947 War take this unto consideration, because it is a critical part of the equation.



Please read below.

"On the eve of Partition in 1947, the figure had come down to about 11,800 officers, 450,000 other ranks plus about 50,000 of Indian Princely State Forces. It is noteworthy that at that time (as per policy of the British Raj since 1857) there were only two completely Muslim combat units (1/15 Punjab Regiment and 3/16 Punjab Regiment), although there were several completely Hindu and Sikh units and regiments of the combat arms. The original agreement called for the armed forces and other assets to be divided to the ration of 64% for India and 36% for Pakistan, but Pakistan was later forced to accept an 1/3 share of assets. Of the total 46 training establishments; only nine were located in Pakistan; all of the 17 Ordnance Depots were located in India, as were most of the Ordnance Depots and Engineer Store Depots. In addition to Pakistan receiving far less stores than originally stipulated, most of the stores received were of general nature, perishable, unwanted and obsolete."

Source: Pakistan Military Consortium :: www.PakDef.info


If you want to limit your analysis to simple geography/ territory held/ and or captured then you may, but there are other complexities you ought to look at.

Also let's not forget this aspect. During the 1947 war, Pakistan gained Northern territories (Gilgit, Mirpur, Chitral and surrounding areas), what is now known as Azad Kashmir, and Aksai Chin which was ceded to China in 1963, the year after your humiliating defeat to China.

The total land mass that Pakistan possessed after 1947 by Pakistan according to my calculations & other sources is this.

Northern Areas = 72,496 km²

Azad Kashmir = 13,297 km²

Aksai Chin = 5,181 km²

72,496 km2 (N-Areas) + 13,297 km2 (A-Kashmir)+ 5,181 km2 (Aksai Chin)=

90,974 km2 (total Land mass held by Pakistan after 1947 War)

On the Indian side, the capture Jammu & Kashmir Valley and Eastern Portion of Kashmir, the total land mass of that equals roughly 101,387 km².

101,387 km2 - 90,974 km2= 10,413 km2


10,413 km2 is the territorial difference we are talking about, you had mentioned in your post that you consider this a "partial victory".

But when you had already been given 64% of the Armed force's soldiers', money, supplies, military resources--like ordnance factories, this marginal "victory" you claim is quite a disappointment.

Considering regular Pakistan Army soldiers were not so active in the initial phases of the War, and it was mostly local tribes (inc. Pakistani, Kashmiri, & Afghan Pathans) you were facing, and let's not forget the Gilgit Scouts. So earlier in the War IA was fighting unconventional fighting forces...


The fact that Pakistan managed to capture 90,974 km2 territory through the meager resources it had is an amazing victory.

Something missing!!!Let me add something to your post

India could have fought the rebels in the initial stage of war and annexed Kashmir , but India had to wait for Pakistan to threaten king and make him agree to sign the agreement to make Kashmir a "special state" in India, This was an excellent diplomacy played by Indian leaders , This is the first diplomatic victory for India (We cannot interfere otherwise ) and later military also gave a good success in chasing you back to LOC.

 

[Zob]

No Sir, that is exactly not the case. I am not cringing on to any myth, but basing the argument on reasoning clearly mentioned that Pakistan was aggressor in 1965 and India defended its territory.


For 1947 War, Again Kashmir was not under undisputed control of India and neither of Pakistan. We fought a war and India held onto a larger portion of Kashmir than Pakistan. I will term that as a Partial Indian Victory


Ok so then i guess being an agressor holding onto more territory is seen as a "PARTIAL" victory or not succes in your eyes.....

well given your logic then i guess PAKISTAN won in 2002 and DECEMBER 2008....."PARTIAL" victory because

A) we held onto "ALL or LARGE PART" of our territory...

B) Surgical strikes that india planned never materlized...

see guys...what AM is saying you are twisting it to make it sound better to your ears!!


LEts remove the word "MYTHS" and put in the word CLAIMS

1. India has never lost a War with Pakistan

Well based on your argument 2002 and 2008 were Indian defeats...and "PARTIAL" pakistani victories...

2. Pakistan fights through proxies

Agreed, however INDIA is not Saint either!!!!

3. India has not launched a Military offensive unless provoked.

Sorry but 1971 & 1984 makes this CLAIM of india incorrect...

4. Pakistan focuses more on the development of Army than of Civic aminities

Well i can say PAKISTAN focuses more on CORRUPTION than on civic aminities.....after all we are better than NORTH KOREA...for which this CLAIM can be stated as correct....

5. Kashmir issue is more central to Pakistani Politics than India.

NONE of the political parties ever got votes saying we will get KASHMIR FREEDOM....so this argument is also "DEBUNKED"

 

[Skeptic]

If you are open minded then I encourage you to look at the events of the 1947 War through this dimension.

When the Indian subcontinent was partitioned Pakistan was given fewer supplies and fighting men right from the beginning of the War. The Joint Defence Council formed by Lord. Mountbatten had formed an agreement to divide the British Raj or Indian subcontinent Armed forces. The agreement stated that the Indian armed forces and all military supplies and equipment will be divided with 64% of the portion given to India and 36% of the portion given to Pakistan. Also, Pakistan was given 9 "training establishments" and a few ordnance factories while India was given 17 training established and many more ordnance factories.

So when you analyze Pakistan's performance in the 1947 War take this unto consideration, because it is a critical part of the equation.

Ofcourse. Performance of Pakistan forces was anything but exemplary and no one can ever say that they were a walkover. No Sir, I have all the respect for Pakistani Army and I hold their abilities in high regard. If you want me to claim that Pakistan Army performed above its potential and beyond resources, I don't think I need to counter those claims.

I have always held spirit and motivational quotient of PA in high regards and soldiers who are willing to sacrifice his life for their motherland, have highest of regards from me.

Remaining points I'll try and address to at the earliest. A little short of time right now.